Page:Oregon Historical Quarterly volume 11.djvu/144

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
134
F. G. Young

in the history of Oregon's land policy. 1887 marks the turning point from the earlier to the later. Again, we find as a subdivision in the earlier a decided balk in legislation and administration that was a fit precursor of the great slump that the second on the whole exhibits. In the later, if it is taken to come down to the present, there has come a decidedly reassuring turn of events, first a temporary recovery and then a lasting one of a much higher plane. In the earlier it was the swamp land act of 1870 with the pusillanimous recognition of claims under it by administrations in the eighties that makes a dark blot upon an otherwise fairly creditable handling of the states resources down to 1887. In the later the state's retrieval of itself was temporary from 1895 to 1899, mainly the work of a worthy state land agent, and permanently since 1903.

As already intimated, it has been Oregon's unwavering aim to get its state lands as rapidly as possible into private hands and under cultivation. Every acre as soon as the state had title, and quite too frequently even when it had only slight basis for expecting to secure it, was on the market. During the earlier decades the price on all except the swamp lands was quite commonly determined by appraisal; later the rule was to sell at a nominal figure (1887 to 1895) ; and more recently, from 1903 on, at a fixed price approximating actual value.

Features of the early laws that indicated an aim to keep the holdings of the individual restricted to areas he could actually cultivate and to bar purchase of lands for speculation were as follows: —

(1) Preference was given to the "actual settler" in reserving lands for his purchase alone for six months, and in giving him the privilege of securing 320 acres while other purchasers could get only 160 acres.

(2) Purchase indirectly by the speculator through a "dummy" was weakly discouraged in the requirement of an affidavit that the purchase was made only for the benefit of