OCR Text |
Show 522 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT able for enlarged or grazing homesteads, and were being seriously overgrazed, and hundred and forty acres are reasonably required for the support of a family."61 In its bulletin "Farm Lands Available for Settlement" of October 1922, the Department of Agriculture made clear that the Act of 1916 was proving an outright snare to deluded people who hoped to make a living on the 640-acre homesteads. The climate of the area open to entry under the act, taken as a whole, was adverse to crop growing, much of the land classified as suitable for stock raising homesteads was "barely up to the requirements of the Land Classification Board" and trying to make a living on 640 acres in most case was "extremely hazardous."62 Quest for Solution By 1923 Henry Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture, was taking a strong line about the "reckless breakup of the range" by homesteaders who were encouraged to proceed upon the land without consideration of the economic and social waste they would cause. Sixty years of experience in the use of the public rangelands had shown that, except for such portions as could be irrigated, none were suitable for farming. The public lands had already lost a large part of their original forage producing value because of the destructive use to which they had been put, which added up to "an enormous loss" to the country. Wallace urged that the establishment of range control was vital to the welfare of the West and held that the livestock interests were ready for some such action. He thought rangelands near or adjacent to the national forests could be administered by the Forest Service but was not pushing strongly for the assignment of the lands to his Department.63 Secretary W. M. Jardine, Wallace's successor, took up the issue in 1925, stating bluntly that the Stock Raising Homestead Act had "added greatly to the unnecessary loss and misery attending the process of agricultural expansion." Jardine emphasized what was becoming increasingly clear; that homesteaders, lacking the capital with which to stock their land, plowed it and sowed wheat at a time when the country was troubled by overproduction and consequent low prices for the grain. The homesteaders had brought instability to the livestock industry, the open range continued to shrink in areas and to deteriorate through overgrazing; erosion and floods followed. The Secretary agreed with other critics that much of the homesteading was being done by people who planned to sell to ranchers, thus forcing the latter to increase their capital outlays unduly.64 By 1925 both the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture were advocating repeal of the Act of 1916 and the establishment of some form of regulation of the public rangelands. William Peterson, Director of the Utah Agricultural College at Logan, in an address to the American National Livestock Association perhaps best described the status of the public lands in 1927 and the advantages which might come to them and to the livestock men if they were placed under organized management. While the Enlarged Homestead Act had proved effective in certain cases, it had been "a tremendous failure in others," by encouraging people to plow up land only fit for grazing. The 640-acre act had been no better in its results. In Utah it took 70 to 75 acres for the support of a cow, hence a 640-acre unit could support at the most only nine cows. Since the remaining public lands were not suit- 6t Breeder's Gazette, 83 (March 22 and April 5, w Secretary of Agriculture, Annual Report, 1923, 1923) , 395, 466. pp. 72-77. 62"Farm Lands available for Settlement," Farm- "Secretary of Agriculture, Annual Report, 1925, ers' Bulletin No. 1271, p. 32. pp. 29-30, 87-89. |