The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1905-12-29

last year the repeal OF the assign
ment clause. This provision has
been made the convenient vehicle for
evading the spirit of the law and for
facilitating the acquisition of lands in
large holdings The faw limits the
amount which, one person or associa.
ton Of persons may hold, BY assign
ment or Otherwise. prior to patent to
800 acres, Of such arid or desert
lands, The most common form of at
tempted evasion OF this requirement
Is for two or three individuals to
form themselves into a corporation,
each individual member of the corpo-
ration securing, by entry or assign
ment, 800 acres of such lands and
the corporation as such $50 acres.
These same individuals then form an
other corporation under an entirely
different name and procure an as
signment Of another 800 acres. and
this process is continued indefinitely.
The General Land Office has within
the past year endeaYored to putt a
stop to this practice by holding that
a corporation or association of DeF-
sons is not qualified to receive a des-
ert-land entry by assignment where
its individual members either singly
or in the aggregate are holding 80
acres Of such arid or desert lands.
This ruling, il enforced VIII tend to
lessen the evils resulting from large
holdings prior to patent, but it is not
deemed possible to secure adequate
control Of this question unless the
law prohibits assignments OF desert
land entries. BY repeating that pro-
vision of the law and requiring the
claimant to show that he has made
the entry for his own use and benefit
and not for the benefit OF any other
person or corporation and that he
has made no agreement by which the
title shall inurc to any other person
or corporation the evils Incident to
large holdings of such lands under
the sanction of law will be materially
lessened.
1t is a striking fact that these large
holdings OF desert land are not re-
claimed and devoted to their best
use. Three hundred and twenty acres
of irrigable land is entirely too much
for economical handling by one per-
son. On the other hand inspection
shows that in the same locality and
homestead entries, where not COM
muted, are reclaimed arid utilized.
The desert-land act as it stands up
on the statute books appears to have
many features which commend IL,
ais before stated, the practices gov
erning it have largely nullified it's
good features, and the resulting
evils cannot be fully overcome with
out Legislation.
The area of the desert entry
should be cut down from 500 acres to
not exceeding 100 acres, and discre-
ton should be given to the Secretary
of the Interior to cut it down still
further where 1t is apparent that in
tensive cultivation Is practicable. A
farm of 800 acres, II irrigated, is en-
tirely too large for a single family, I
and Its possession simply prevents
other settlers from coming into the
country. Furthermore, 1t makes land
easy and induces specula-
ton.
Actual living at home on the land
For not less than two years should
be required before patent. Your
Commission can not understand why
my settler should be given both q
homestead ana q desert enLrys elLAer
If which without the other should suf-
flce, under the law, to furnish him q
home. The desertland law should
be a means of settlement, and actEal
bona fide residence should be rigidly
required.
the actual production OF valuable
coop should DC required on not less
than one-fourth the area of the en-
try. At present, as rule, the great
ar part Of the desert entries are
never actually watered, Hundreds
Df desert entries were examined by
members Of the Commission in the
last year. and the great majority Of
them were found to be uninhabited,
uncultiyated, and with
no improvements other than a fence.
This applies both to desert entries up
On which final proof Is now being@
offered and to other entries to which
title has been given.
Tt Id d fact that very small pro-
portion Of the land disposed Of under
the terms OF the law has actually
been reclaimed and irrigated, and
of many hundreds Of desert