New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-03-26
TIE NEW HOMESTEAD BILL.


OF PRESENT LAND QUEsTIoNs-THE INTERESTS
OF THE ACTUAL SETTLER SACRIFICED TO sPEcU-
LATORs AND MONOPoLIsTs.
To the Edftor Of TIE Tribune.
Sir: Allow me to say a word to the readers OF
The TRIBUNE respecting the amended Homestead
bill which recently passed the House OF Representa-
tives As a well-cOnsidered digest and reenactment
of the best features Of the old Presumption and
Homestead laws, the measure Is to be COM
mended; but it seems to me radically defective In
two OF three particulars to which invite the atten-
ton of those who desire O genuine and thorough
reform of our vicious land policy.
In the first place. the bill, az understand II, I'M
conditionally repeats the Southern Homestead law
of 1866. This enacted to save from the clutches
OF spectators and monopolsts over 100000 acres
of surveyed, unsold public lands in the States OF
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida. and
Arkansas These lands had once been offered. and
were liable to be gobbled up by the sharks, who
were known to be lying IN wait to pdnnee upon
them just as soon the machinery OF the Land
Department should be restored in those States
IL was to avert this great mischief and to save
these lands for actual homestead settlers only that
this most timely and beneficial act was passed. lie
has been fully indicated by time, and has proved
a continuing rock of Otfense to monopolists, VINO
have for years past been seeking its repeal In order
that they might buy up in large tracts for specuia-
five purposes the best of the lands and to this
tent hinder the development of these land
States. Now, the amended Homestead bill, If COM
prehend it's effect breaks down the wall which has
guarded these lands since the year 1865 1t true they
will be open to homestead entry and settlement Ike
other public lands but this right of homestead can
be s,lmmarily cut off at any moment by the specu-
lator through his right of private entry in large
IL hoa afa at
and not having been reserved by Congress for any
other PURPOSE Why repeal this act of 1866, which
is thus shown to have been necessary to meet the
exceptional condition of the lands to which it APP
plies Congress, for eight years past has refused
to do this Has the lobby which now demandsit, any
| better right to be heard than heretoforef
But aside from these Southern lands, and on gen
eral principles, the bill fails as measure OF reform
| 1t should have embodied express provision re-
curing all lands fit for cultivation to be disposed OF
according to it's terms and not otherwise. This
would have met the general if not universal popular
| demand. 1t would have cut up the evil OF land
speculation root aud branch. l believe Congress is
| ready for such sweeping measure More than four
years ago the House of Representatives. by vote OF
nearly two to one declared that of the pub
lie lands which are fit for agriculture shall be dis
posed of except to actual settlers in quantities not
| exceeding 1GO acres to one person. Why not make
this the lawf Ii was said the other day in the de-
bate ON this new Homestead bill in the House that
| such provision would not do, because there are
great quantities Of the public lands which are COM
paratively worthless and that nothing can be done
with them except to sell them in large tracts Tor
perhaus 10 cents per acre. The to this is that
| such lands could be excepted from the Homestead
requirement. being fit only for grazing, but that ms
to agricultural lands the bill should forbid any dis
position except for actual settlement and cultva-
| ton. The speculator should not be allowed to
touch them.
1t was further argued in defense of the bill that
no more lands can be sold to spectators unless the
President shall issue his proclamation of public sale.
| and that no such public sales have been proclaimed
for years past or are likely to be. This is begging
| the question We live under government OF law,
and not of grace discretion Its theory is that
our rulers are liable to abuse their power, and need
to be hedged about by restrictions and prohibitions
To say that the President having the legal power to
throw the public lands into the grasp OF Spectators
and mOnOpolists several of his predecessors have
DONE will not exercise that power is TO say that he
is proof against temptation and beyond the reach OF
Hobbies and rings - of all sorts submit that no
| man will say anything so extravagant who has paid
any attention to the civil service of the Govern
ment or the general course of the Administration for
the past four or five years. Congress, and Congress
alone has the power to define and establish the land
policy of the country, and its failure to enact the
vital provision suggest has shOTn the Homestead
act of 1862 of Onehaf its value. Let the defect be
supplied and the nations policy on this great ques-
ton be thus Enthusiastically fixed.
The bill fails TO embody another very important
and greatly needed provision. Under recent decis-
ions of the Supreme Court of the United States set
tiers the public lands under our preemptien laws
are mere tenants at WILL liable to be turned out of
their homes by the Government at any time prior to
their final payment. They may have resided on
their lands for years and made lasting and valuable
improvements in good faith, and desire to go for
ward in the performance of all the conditions on
which the Government has promised them title;
and yet their improvements may be coniiscated In
the interest of other persons who may acquire both
land and improvements through its violated faith to
the first settler. OF this ruling must apply to
the neutrality-suspicious. case Of settlers under the
Homestead law. In order to right the wrong done
by this bred Scott decision of the American pio-
neerD the new Homestead bill should provide that
when person shall seek title under its provisions his
bona tide settlement in all cases shall be deemed
to create a contract between the Government and
himself and vested right of property which shall
only be Invested by his failure to comply with the
conditions of title prescribed by thel law. This would
bind the Government to maintain its pighted faith,
and reafirm the principle which has been generally,
if not invariably, regarded as law till the decs-
ions referred to were made. The effect of these
decisions has been to deprive hundreds of honest
settlers of their homes and these mischefs will
tainly be repeated and multiplied if not prevented
by law. The amendment urge has several times
passed the House. and has had the pledge of the Hon.
d. d. Pratt and other prominent men in the Senate TO
labor for II in that body. In attempting reform Of
our land policy why not embody il
l have yentured TO invite attention TO these
amendments because the House bill has yet TO be
acted upon in the Senate and they may possibly vet
be attached to the bill through the awakened interest
in the subject of some members of that body. l
make no doubt that the House Committee the
Public Lands, and the House itself, intended to
cover the points criticise. i think they have not