The Lawyer Who Sold Out the Settlers
A local editorial exposes future President James Garfield’s role as a corporate attorney for the Northern Pacific Railroad, accusing him of betraying Washington Territory homesteaders to protect railroad land holdings.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Garfielde and the Settlers.
We are reliably advised that in every speech which Mr. Garfielde made east of the mountains, in the present canvass, he made a point with the settlers, by denouncing the “soulless monopoly” which was reducing the tillers of the soil to “a condition of serfdom,” and advising all who had settled upon the odd-numbered sections with the expectation of acquiring title from the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, to get up and git— to use his own phrasing — if they would save themselves and their hard-earned possessions from the hungry maw of this grasping monster.
The sincerity of Mr. Garfielde in these professions of sympathy with the settlers may be judged by the following authentic record:
When the bill granting these lands to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company was before Congress, Mr. Hawley, of Illinois, offered the following amendment:
“And provided further, that all the lands granted to said railroad company shall be sold to actual settlers only, and in quantities not greater than one hundred and sixty acres to any one person, and for a price not exceeding $2.50 per acre.” — [See Congressional Globe, May 5, 1870, page 3264.]
Mr. Garfielde, then the subsidized Attorney for Jay Cooke Co., having received a retainer of $5,000 from Mr. Cooke to advocate the interests of that Company, represented his constituents, the settlers, by opposing this amendment by all the powers of his persuasive eloquence. In his speech upon this amendment he said:
“I speak of what I know, and I say that if you wish to throttle this bill, if you wish to destroy this enterprise, limit the control of these lands in the hands of the company and you will accomplish it.”
Mr. Garfielde was the official mouthpiece of a constituency more interested than any other in this matter, and his position entitled his objections to the amendment to such weight as thereby acquired the legal title to the lands, which they have an undoubted right to use in such manner as will best promote their own interests. If the settlers are left to their mercy, Mr. Garfielde is chiefly responsible for it, and his attempt to represent himself as the special friend of the settlers is but one of the false and shameless devices by which he has heretofore deceived and deluded the people.
This 1872 editorial highlights a classic conflict between corporate land grabs and individual homesteaders, a dynamic that echoes through Seattle’s history from the Great Northern Railway disputes to modern housing affordability crises. It illustrates how political figures can leverage legal influence to prioritize developer interests over the very constituents they claim to represent.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.