New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-06-07
Land Offices in Louisiana.

In the United States Senate on the TWEEN
ty sixth of May the deficiency appropria
| ton bill was under discussion. The ques
| ton turned upon the deficiency of $4,000 in
| the Louisiana land office, and the following
debate ensucd:
Mr.. West-Mr. President, the facts in con.
| rection with the land office business in my
State have scarcely been properly repre-
scented in the Senate. The Senator who
has just spoken said the principal business
there now was ia the survey of Spanish
land claims. The truth is that the princi
pal business is the adjustment as between
the United States and the State of Louis.
lana of the ownership OF swamp and over
flowed lands, and the surveyor general of
that State has already recommended such
an appropriation as would enable him to
Ose his bl ness, wi hin one year, amount
ing to some SIS, 900.
Mr.. Edmunds-Do the swamp lands have
to be surveyed at the expense Of the United
States!
Mr.. West-All the lands have to be sur.
veyed at the expense of the United States
government to determine which are the
swamp lands, and then they are to be coded
to the State; otherwise the United States
would want to reserve its ownership, and it
is interested in it. In this particular case
the estimate for the year was $780, and
Congress arbitrarily Cut it down to $500.
In lieu of the $1,000 he asked for lie comes
in with deficiency OF only $4,000. So much
for that State. Now, with reference to the
general principle that has been at issue
here between the Senator from Vermont on
the one side and the Senators from Cali
fOrnia and Maine on the other. think the
affirmative side has been sufficiently sup
ported by them in reference to the second
section.
Mr.. Edmunds-While We are on this sub
ject want to show You how much business
the land offices in Louisiana, of which there
are three it appears, did in the last fiscal
year. find by the Land Office report that
the quantity Of land sold for cash and
bounty land scrip at and above the mini
mum price of 81 % per acre, for the first
half Of OF, the fiscal year ending June 80, 1873,
was 492 to acres. That was at the whole
three land offices. AT the Natchitoches
land Office they sold II acres. The total
price was $i9i3 81, all of which was re-
ceived. Then of homestead entries there
were 81, 5lS acres, for which the fees were
$405S, and the registers and receivers fees
were $l4sl, making $500 The aggregate
disposed of for cash and bounty scrip and
homesteads was $4,000 acres, and the cash
received $74S3.
So you perceive, Mr.. President, that the
duOuut VI UuSlucsS OUuS ia tuo LDulsldua
land districts. for which we pay these
thousands of dollars per year, is not nearly
great enough to pay the expenses of the
offices. We do not nearly get cash enough
out of the public land system in Louisiana
according to the last report to pay the ex-
penses of running it. OF course, as to
homesteads, that ought not to be consider
ed. We have provided by law that tho
homestead settlers shall be entitled to locate,
q nd fhoro chol1 ho 1op1 off
can, and we ought to pay that expense.
That ought to be taken into consideration,
OF course; but when you come to the
business of disposing of the pubic lands
by sale in that State, as l supposed, prac-
tically is nothing at all. All that there
is left OF it is the homestead entries. What
is the quantity of public lands in Louisiana
do not know; perhaps the Senator from
Louisiana can tell me in round numbers!
Mr.. Sargent-I have been in favor for
several years of closing the business of our
Florida and Louisiana land offices. l agree
with the Senator that it is Improbable.
Mr.. West-The Senator from Vermont
has cited the meager business that is done
in the land offices in Louisiana as a reason
why appropriations in that direction should
cease, at the same time admitting that the
laws with reference to homesteads are of
that character to make it incum bent that
the government should be represented and
have land offices open to afford facilities to
settlers. Well, sir, might with the same
proprlety quote some one-horse postal road
in the State of Vermont, where we prob
ably pay SlOO0 year for contract to carry
the mails and do not get probably $3.50 in
return. Is not facility to the Senator and
his constituents effected! Is it not a facility
that the law accords! And that he should
rise here in his place and say there is no
necessity tor this thing is strange. Let
him carry out his doctrines through all the
service; let US abolish the post roads un-
less they pay; let US abolish all the service
OF the government unless there is some
equivalent return in dollars and cents. The
return ia in the general benefit that accrues
TO the community, and in my State, particu-
lariy there is division, as I stated before,
going on between the United States and
the State, and it is with that view that we
should have this money appropriated. A
year more, or two years more, will enable
US to conclude the business of the land
otnces there, and then you will be bothered
neither with appropriations nor defcien.
Mr.. Edmunds-One single word and
shall have done. will not speak OF the
public lands; l will only speak Of post-
offices and post roads. 1 should be yerv
glad to unite with, the Senator in an eco.
nomlc point OF view to provide for dim;n-
lsnng very largely that part Of the postal
service which il run at q great loss e. the
and if We did il, I would sug.
gest mat IN very large region OF. countrye
WI viii not state where 1t Ies-there would