New Mexico state record. (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1914-19??, 1919-07-11
A FORMER LAND
OFFICIAL DISCUS :
SES PUBLIC LAND
CALLS ATTENTION TO PLAN
OF DIVIDING LAND INTO
UNITS OF EQUAL PRoDUc-
TIvITY, MIGHT HELP TO
SOLVE PROBLEM

The question as to the best me
thods to handle the public lands il
New Mexico is of general interes
to the people of the state. The Stat,
Record believes that fair and al
sided discussion will be helpful. The
following letter from David l. Geyel
of Roswell gives the view of one
who has given the matter mucl
thought Mr.. Geyer was for a long
time receiver of the land office al
Roswell
Roswell. n NJ
July 8, 1919
Editor, State Record.
Santa Fe, n. M
Dear Sir:
have read with considerable in
terest your editorial entitled Man
aging the Public Domain publishei 4
in your issue of July a. 1910 and
while | agree in a large degree tc
what you have to say in regard %
the management OF the public land by
the Government, can not agree
with some other OF your views re.
lative to the disposition of federal
lands. | am opposed to turning over
the public domain to the public land
states, because from past experience
this would simply mean that the
rich man would get these lands while
the poor man would have very lit
tie show to secure a home on pub
lie lands. ! am not criticising the
state land officials, but the facts a,
they appear to the onlooker are. that
the poor man is not in it. These
lands when sold, are sold in large
blocks, beyond the reach OF the man
of ordinary financial means
The homesteader who wishes 10
add one or moEe sections to his
homestead, is unable to buy a large
block of land, and as these large
tracts are only offered in their en-
trety, the poor man has no chance
Again, the State has selected the
very best land that could be found
and If these can not be managed
profitably. the undesirable lands that
are left would not likely prove to
be very profitable undertaking for
the State. But the main question
is, where would the poor man come
in. The public lands of the United
States belong to the people who
want them for homes and not to
the public land states.
have been closely connected with
public land matter for more than
twenty years and have made this
matter a subject of much study.
My opinion is, that the way these
public lands are disposed of by the
federal government is all wrong. and
in place of being a benefit to the
they are in nne-tenths
of the cases a detriment and that
for the reason that the homesteader
is not allowed a sufficient amount
of land to enable him to obtain a
support for himself and family. At
most, he is confined to one section
of land that will support from five
to twenty head of cows, and since
he can produce no crops on these
lands, he is simply worse off than
if he had no land. President Roose-
velt's idea OF disposing of the public
lands as set forth by him in one
of his messages to the Congress
furnishes the ONLY fair solution of
this land question; that is, classify
the remaining public lands into
homestead units, allowing the pastur-
age value of the land to govern
its area, regardless of the number
of acres. In other words, give every
homesteader such an amount of pub
lie land as will enable him to OBJ
tain a living by stockraising.
II is useless to say in this con-
nection that the Stockraising home
stead law is simply huge joke. The
Land Department will allow an ap-
plicant to make entry of 100 acres
Of the sorriest public land in New
but when he applies for GAO
acres of the same kind of land the
Land Department says, mo" you can
not make a living on section of that
land, it is too sorry. Some years
ago | prepared a bill embracing my
dea Of this matter, and | take the
liberty to inclose a copy of it here
with.
I hope you will further agitate this
public land question.
The people living east of the MIS-
,issippi river need enlightening.
Vorrc vary trutr,