History of public land law development

page 554

554 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT by sending agents to determine any violation of the instructions.65 The West had largely frustrated the reformers in the Interior Department by making constant appeals in behalf of the right of actual settlers commonly spoken of as "poor settlers," to take small amounts of timber for fuel or construction. Actually what they were defending was the "right" of the smelters, the larger mining companies, and loggers operating on a large scale to cut as they pleased or needed. Since no member of Congress wished to oppose any action of benefit to actual settlers, and since western members succeeded in keeping out of discussion most of the information concerning the large operations against which the Department had moved, the issues became confused. Members became so befuddled that, with three exceptions, they were either disinterested or antagonistic to Hayes, Schurz, and Williamson and supported actions opposed by the officials of the Department of the Interior. When one reflects that minerals could be freely mined and taken, it is easier to understand why the West resented the government's efforts to make commercial operations pay for timber.66 The heads of Schurz and Williamson were bloody but unbowed. With reduced powers and inadequate appropriations (increased somewhat in 1878), they continued to maintain agents in the field-16 KGLO Report, 1878, pp. 119-20. 89 Elmer Ellis, Henry Moore Teller, Defender of the West (Caldwell, Idaho, 1941) , pp. 97-99. Ellis correctly stresses that there was no legal way timber could be cut on public land except by preemp-tioners making homes but neglects the fact that the Timber Cutting Act sanctioned wholesale cutting by which public lands could be stripped of their value at no return to the government. He brings out an amusing bit that N. P. Hill, against whose smelter the $100,000 suit had been brought by Williamson's agents and who was defended by Teller, later became the Colorado leader of the half-breeds supporting Hayes and Garfield against the Conkling-Teller-Grant faction (p. 120) . in 1879-and kept the Attorney General's office busy prosecuting cases of trespass and collecting fines. Williamson's summary of the charges brought, the fines imposed, the stumpage paid for, and the extent of cutting all suggest that trespass was no longer a matter of small operations extending around a "big 40" but very large operations involving some of the big lumbermen and millmen. It must have been an inner urge that drove Williamson on when he had to admit that "The powers of the department are so enfeebled by the limited appropriations for detecting and punishing timber trespassers that but a tithe of the plunder and destruction of the timber on the public domain can be arrested." 67 Both Schur/ and Williamson were strengthened in their determination to protect the Nation's tim-berlands by their respect for the way forests were managed abroad and their belief that the government should benefit from European experience in developing a program of forest management. Schurz brought to the President's attention the waste and destruction being committed on the redwood and sequoia trees in California, which scientists were urging should be preserved as the "grandest of primeval forests," mentioning especially the Mariposa Grove which many years later was to be incorporated into Yosemite Park.68 Both Schurz's and Williamson's reports for 1880, their last, expressed confidence that the activities of the timber agents were having a salutary effect in deterring trespassing, but Williamson's detailed account of the extent of depredations on the public lands offers little support for his optimism. Schurz pointed to the $248,795 which had been recovered for depredations on the public lands in the first 39 months of his administration and a nearly equal amount 07 GLO Report, 1879, p. 187. 88 Secretary of the Interior, Annual Report, 1879, pp. 26-30.