The Homestead Scam That Turned Public Land Into a Speculator’s Prize

As much attention is at this time being given by the government to her landed interest, and an effort is being made to prevent the wholesale fraudulent disposition of what remains of her desirable lands, although action at this late date may forcibly remind us of the man who shut and latched his barn door after his horse had been stolen, yet it may be well to consider how frauds are practiced in obtaining title to government lands and what may be done to prevent their continuance. I shall not at present consider the character of frauds practiced under the timber culture act, except to say that in most cases it is used to cover up and hold land until it can be taken under the homestead or pre-emption act, or the right of the claimant sold to some actual settler. The act is thus made a cloak for speculative purposes, and should be repealed at the earliest possible date.

Persons who do not acquire the land for the purpose of making a home, but for speculative purposes only, resort to many novel modes of farming. The following is a common method: A physician with a good practice in a town concludes that, as the public lands are becoming scarce and valuable, it would be a good thing to have a farm, and so sets about procuring one under the improved method. The doctor employs someone to build what is called a house, which is frequently 10x12 in size, built of rough lumber not perpendicular, without battening, and with a door, if they have one, of some rough material; the whole is surmounted with what they denominate a “shake roof.” Then, to make the proof convincing that he is a bona fide farmer and intends to occupy the land as a home, he hires from ten to twenty acres of land broken, and with this evidence of good faith on his part he is ready for occasional farming. He tells his good wife not that they must lease their pleasant home in town and go upon their future homestead, but that she must take the children and go over and remain upon the premises for a week or two; that he will be out on Monday to come home with them. The necessary arrangements are made, often friends are taken along, and a good time is had for a short period roosting—or “ranching,” as they call it—during the pleasant weather, for they seldom think of continuing their labors into the winter season. These excursions to their homestead are repeated at intervals of a month or two until the expiration of six months, which is the shortest period of residence allowed by law, when the homestead is commuted to a cash entry and the land purchased at $1.25 per acre. Then the would-be farmer at once removes to his more congenial quarters in town, whatever, if anything, of his household goods remained upon the premises, and thereafter the homestead remains unoccupied or is used as a tenant farm, or, as is frequently the case, held for sale while the doctor has no more idea of ever returning to and living upon the land than he has of going to the moon.

This species of practice is not only true of the doctor, but of the lawyer, merchant, editor, saloon keeper and barber as well. The same sharp practice is resorted to by parties living in town who make entry under the pre-emption act. In one instance a single man thought by this class of farmers to be a sufficient compliance with the law if they go upon the premises on an occasional Saturday or Sunday evening and stop over night, and on such nocturnal visitations they are usually accompanied by a friend (to be used as a witness), with guns, dogs, and escort—not to subdue the wild nature of the bunch grass ranch that they swear they have appropriated as a future home, but in the effort to dispose of the last refreshing cordial; and at the end of six months the claimant and two witnesses appear before the register and without the least hesitation swear that the claimant has continuously resided upon the land for the period required by law.

Thus the land passes into the possession of persons who are not entitled to it under the provisions of the law, and both they and their witnesses have testified to a state of facts which can only be reconciled with the truth by the fact that the affiants are the happy possessors of consciences capable of extreme elasticity. Not only has the law been thus violated, but the standard of veracity is lowered to such a degree as to seriously impair and lessen the binding obligation of an oath, the injurious effects of which will not likely end with the entry of the land.

In many instances it would seem that the parties do not realize that they are practicing a fraud upon the honest settler, or swearing to things entirely at variance with the truth. I wish not to be understood as saying that the foregoing state of facts can be universally applied to homestead and pre-emption entries, but what I do say is that they may be very generally applied to persons such as I have described who, on doing business in town, divide the time they claim to be living upon the land. I think it will be admitted that the only effective remedy for the evil referred to would be the repeal of the timber culture act and pre-emption laws and the amendment of the homestead act so as to leave out of its provisions the commutation clause, and thus remove the present inducement to fraud and perjury. But as this radical step cannot be effected before the next meeting of Congress, and will not probably then, it becomes necessary to suggest some other, though it must be a less radical, measure, which comes within the knowledge of the land officers, which the applicant and his witnesses are required to answer under oath.

The law does not require that the affidavit shall be prepared by the register or receiver, or in all cases sworn to before either of them, and even if it did, they are not authorized to cross-examine either the applicant or his witnesses to ascertain the truth or falsity of the statements contained in the affidavit, without which it is impossible to detect the fraud or false swearing. In my opinion there should be carefully prepared cross-questions attached to the affidavits now used, to be answered by both the claimant and his witnesses, and no entry should be allowed unless every question was fairly and truthfully answered. By such a course of examination, the facts, and not the conclusions of the affiants or the claimants’ consistency with the law, would be obtained, upon which the register and receiver could base a satisfactory opinion, and hundreds who are now in a general way swearing themselves and friends into the possession of land would, for fear of detection and prosecution for perjury, refuse to make the necessary affidavit, and much land that is now passing into the hands of the speculator would be retained for the actual settler.