OCR Text |
Show SUMMARY 771 Oregon, Colorado, and Nevada-did the farms average over 160 acres. Of these farms 1,381,406, 80 percent of the total, were owner operated. This is good evidence that the railroad grants, the land given to endow the states, and even the speculative purchases were being divided into single family farms. Except in Illinois and Iowa, tenancy seems to have been largely the result of ownership passing from one generation to another. By 1900 the public land states, still excluding the cotton South, boasted 2,404,968 farms, 70 percent of which were owner operated. It was still possible to say, as had been even more true in 1880, that the public domain had been so disposed of as to increase the class of small landowners, as Jefferson had desired. Before the close of the 19th century many thoughtful people became aware of the value and future significance of the natural resources still held by the Federal government and of the need for giving more attention to the methods of managing and disposing of them. This was reflected in the greater care given to the framing of new land legislation. Furthermore, although the surveyors general, registers and receivers of land offices were still a part of the patronage system as late as 1933, the emphasis upon civil service reform and the better salaries paid these employees assured a somewhat better type of official as is evidenced by the diminishing criticism of their activities. When scandals did occur they were the responsibility of men at the top, not in the lower echelons of office holders. Another result of the greater appreciation of the value, uniqueness and diminishing amount of the public domain with its forests, wildlife, white-water streams and scenic spots, was that some people began to question whether private ownership was superior to public ownership. The rapid depletion of the standing forests in the Lake States gave rise to the fear that in a generation or less, at the then rate of cutting, supplies would become so depleted as to compel reliance on other countries. Scientific forest management as practiced abroad attracted attention. Conservation was advocated both by preservationists who wanted to lock up certain resources such as Yosemite and Yellowstone so as to prevent any exploitation of their timber, minerals, or water power and to retain these great works of nature in public ownership for future generations, and by advocates of scientific management and use of the forests, minerals, and water power. The concept of permanent reservations was difficult for many to accept. Had not America's greatness rested upon the license to exploit without government interference? Yet a number of national parks were set aside and the Act of 1891, authorizing the President to establish forest reserves on the public domain, made possible considerable progress in developing a conservation program before the end of the century. Theodore Roosevelt brought to the conservation movement strong national leadership, a dramatic ability to interest the public, and an understanding of Presidential powers and how to use them to advance the ends he favored. Most of the western forests of today were set aside in his administration. It was Gifford Pinchot who constantly needled the President to withdraw lands for national forests, to protect the government's rights to rich coal deposits, and retain water power sites in public ownership. Roosevelt and Pinchot made a team unmatched in American history for what they preserved for future generations. Conservation became the fifth, and to many the overwhelming, objective of American land policy. A sixth objective has become in the 20th century quite basic in determining land policy. Instead of considering the economic value of land in terms of its best use either as rangeland or for forests, for watershed |