THE "TRAIL OF THE SERPENT" IN THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT.
We have attempted to show the controlling influence of railroad
corporations over the legislative department of the government, and its
effect upon the people, without following it through all its various
forms, our object being to present what we deemed sufficient evidence to
direct the public mind to the great and growing evils resulting from
this influence. We now desire to refer to the influence of these
corporations over the executive department of the government.
The administration of the laws being confided to the executive
department of the government, their impartial and honest administration
is of the greatest importance to the people. Congress, without the
constitutional right, having granted charters and made large grants of
lands and bonds to railroad companies, it became necessary that the
executive department should have some kind of supervision over the
companies. In the issuing of bonds and certificates for land grants; the
transportation of mails, troops, etc.; the appointment of government
directors, inspectors, and engineers; the transmission of telegraphic
dispatches, and respecting many other matters connected with these
corporations, special duties were imposed upon the president and members
of his cabinet. The government directors, under the statute, had a place
on all business committees of the Union Pacific railroad company. They
were government officers, appointed by the president, and were to
report, from time to time, upon the progress of the work, and condition
of the roads. They were prohibited from owning stock, or being
personally interested in the roads. Their reports were to be made to the
secretary of the interior. If these government directors had faithfully
performed the duties laid upon them by the law, the contract of the
directors of the railroad company with the Credit Mobilier company could
not have taken place without their knowledge, which fact should at once
have been communicated to the secretary of the interior. Nor could the
directors of the railroad have organized themselves into a Credit
Mobilier company and contracted with themselves to rob the government
and defraud the people, without the knowledge of the government
directors. And, unless we concede that they were totally unfit for the
discharge of the duties imposed upon them by statute--"more sinned
against than sinning"--we must conclude that they had full knowledge of
all the abuses being practiced by the railroad companies, and failed to
discharge their official duties. The national reputation these
government directors had achieved in the halls of congress, and
elsewhere, precludes the idea of their being ignorant of what they
should have known, and we are forced to conclude that they had this
guilty knowledge of the frauds being perpetrated upon the government and
the people. Their action in the premises can only be explained on the
ground that they were subject to the same railroad influences which have
controlled congress and state legislatures. If their action was not
governed by corrupt motives and pecuniary considerations, that
persuasive influence which emanates from these corporations, blinded
their minds and warped their judgments to such an extent as to induce
them to wink at the frauds of the companies in the construction of their
roads and the prosecution of the business connected therewith. Recent
investigations show that some of those directors were controlled in
their actions by pecuniary considerations; that these corporations have
been able to purchase the influence of the men selected by the president
to protect the public interest, and that, by reason of such purchase,
the sum of $16,000 per mile, in government bonds, has been duplicated on
fifty-eight miles of the Pacific road. Other abuses, such as the
defective construction of the roads, unlawful payment by the government
of engineering expenses, dishonest returns of the cost of the roads, and
other minor but important abuses of the privileges granted to these
companies, were permitted by these government directors without
objection, showing, beyond all reasonable doubt, that their duties,
prescribed by acts of congress, were of secondary importance when the
interests of the corporations or of these government directors were to
be considered.
While the reckless and dishonest transactions of the company directors
were such as to call out a protest from an honest engineer employed on
the road, prompting him to resign his position as chief engineer rather
than be a party to fraud and scandal, these government directors seem to
have remained silent and inactive. A contract had been entered into with
a man by the name of Hoxie, who had neither personal means, nor position
to command any considerable amount of capital, for the construction of a
portion of the Union Pacific road. While this contract did not possess
all the peculiarities of the contract with the Credit Mobilier, it was
such an outrage upon right and justice, as to elicit from the chief
engineer, Peter A. Dey, the following letter, addressed to General John
A. Dix, after having tendered his resignation as chief engineer of the
Union Pacific road, to General Dix, who was then president of the
company. Mr. Dey says:--
"My views of the Pacific railroad are peculiar. I look upon its managers
as trustees of the bounty of congress. I cannot willingly see them take
a step in the incipiency of the project, that will, I believe, if
followed out, swell the cost of construction so much that by the time
the work reaches the mountains the representative capital will be
accumulated so much that, at the very time when the company will have
need for all its resources, of capital as well as of credit, its
securities will not be negotiable in the market. From my very boyhood I
have associated Mr. Cisco and yourself with Mr. Bronson and Mr. Flagg,
men whose integrity, purity, and singleness of purpose have made them
marked men in the generation in which they lived. Of course, my opinion
remains unchanged. You are, doubtless, uninformed how disproportionate
the amount to be paid is to the work contracted for. I need not
expatiate upon the sincerity of my course, when you reflect upon the
fact that I have resigned the best position in my profession this
country has ever offered to any man.
"With respect.
"PETER A. DEY."
Mr. Dey protested against the extravagant amount agreed to be paid
Hoxie. The cost of the sections of the road contracted to Hoxie was
$7,806,181. The amount agreed to be paid Hoxie for the work was
$12,974,416. Mr. Dey saw that this man Hoxie was a _straw man_, and that
near $5,000,000 were to be divided among the directors as the profit on
this contract, and, as engineer, he protested against it. Yet these
government directors, whose sole duty it was to look after and protect
the interests of the government and the people, failed to discover and
report these abuses to the secretary of the interior; or, if the same
and the Credit Mobilier transactions were so reported, then the
influence of these corporations controlled the department of the
secretary. The truth is, the position of these government directors was
such that, without a total disregard of the statutes, and their duties
under it, it was not possible to keep all knowledge of these gross
abuses from the department. But one conclusion can be drawn from the
facts, which is, that the government directors, influenced by these
powerful monopolies, were unfaithful to the trust confided to them by
the president.
Under the statute, the secretary of the interior has the general control
of the issue of bonds, certificates for lands, rights of way, &c. The
government directors were bound to report to him. If the duties imposed
under the law had been faithfully discharged by him, the great abuses
practiced by the Pacific railroad companies would have been prevented.
The Hoxie contract, the Ames Credit Mobilier contract, and the Davis
contract, were all made for about double the cost of building the
respective sections of the road covered by these contracts, the actual
cost of these respective sections being $50,720,957, and the amounts
allowed the contractors being $93,546,387. In this amount is concluded
$1,104,000, which was a duplicate payment allowed Ames for work done,
and once paid for, under the Hoxie contract. These three jobs put into
the pocket of the Credit Mobilier company a net profit of $43,929,337,
a large part of which was in subsidy bonds issued by government. These
bonds could only issue after the approval, by the secretary of the
interior, of the report of the government directors. If the secretary
had discharged his duty, or if the interest of the people, which he was
supposed to be protecting, and not the interest of these companies, had
controlled his action, _duplicate bonds_ would not have been issued at
the rate of $16,000 per mile, for more than fifty miles of the road. Nor
would certificates for land have issued to the companies while they were
openly cheating, defrauding, and robbing the government and people. Let
the reader look at the laws of congress chartering the roads, with the
different amendments, and learn the duties of the secretary of the
interior respecting their construction and the issuing of bonds and land
certificates, and he will conclude that the secretary was ignorant of
what the law made it his duty to know--that he was inexcusably negligent
in the discharge of his duty, or what is most probable, that the same
potent influences that controlled congress in aiding these companies,
found their way successfully to the chief parlor of the interior
department. Without the secretary's approval of the companies' work and
accounts, they could not possibly have committed such gross frauds upon
the government.
If additional proof of the fact that the secretary of the interior was
influenced by, and used his official position to assist the railroad
corporations, in the raids upon the treasury, was needed, we have it in
his action relative to the homestead and pre-emption rights of settlers
upon the public lands, within the limits fixed by congress for the
selection of lands by the different railroad companies. In all cases
where lands have been granted to railroad companies, lands to which
pre-emption rights attached at the time the line of the road was fixed
have been saved to the pre-emption and homestead claimants. In many
instances the railroad companies have not been able to find, within the
limits fixed, the amount of lands granted to them belonging to the
government. This has caused them to make war upon pre-emption and
homestead claimants. If these claimants could be forced from their
lands, some millions of acres would be thus seized by, and allowed to,
the railroad companies. The practice of going upon the public land
under the pre-emption and homestead acts had become so common, that
these claims had been recognized by the public and the government as
vesting in the claimant a title, which could only be defeated by his
failure to comply with the provisions of the law respecting the
perfection of his title. No one, save where two or more pre-emption
claimants were contending for the same tract, could interfere; nor is
there any provision of statute by which railroad companies can call in
question the pre-emption or homestead right. In the absence of any
contest between pre-emptors, the claimant has only to show a substantial
compliance with the law, pay the required amount, and obtain his title.
So, also, in regard to homestead rights. Nor did any difficulty arise
until railroad companies began to interfere. The acts granting lands to
railroad companies made no provision for the selection by them of lands
held by pre-emption or homestead claimants at the time the lines of
their roads were fixed, and subsequently abandoned. The companies
applied to the secretary of the interior, and procured from him a
construction of the statutes, giving them the right to select as
railroad lands all such so abandoned. This was the first decision in
their favor, and committed the secretary to their interest.
A war upon pre-emption and homestead claimants was begun, and the
representation to the department that a claimant had abandoned his claim
was sure to pass the title to one hundred and sixty acres to the
company. But something more must be done to get hold of the claimed
land. The question as to the regularity and validity of the settler's
claim is raised by the companies, and then they apply again to the
secretary of the interior. While the statute respects and protects the
occupancy and rights of the claimant, the secretary, to aid the railroad
companies, interpolates the word, "valid," and holds that if the claim
is invalid, the railroad companies can drive off the claimant and take
his land. The action of the department gave the companies an advantage
over the claimant which was almost equivalent to the destruction of his
claim. Many claimants became alarmed, and did just what the companies
desired,--they abandoned their claims to their oppressors, and the
companies made large gains. But the claimants were not yet entirely in
the power of their oppressors, and resort is again had to the
department, and the settlers are placed entirely at the mercy of these
monopolies. The interior department issued an order under date of June
22, 1872, allowing railroad companies to contest the right of
pre-emption and homestead claimants to their quarter-sections. While the
act of congress absolutely prohibited railroad companies from
interfering with the rights of these claimants, the interior department,
in the interest of these giant monopolies, in violation of the statute,
by interpolation and a forced construction of the law, allowed these
corporations to appear and dispute the claim of the poor pioneer who had
gone in advance of railroads, and pre-empted a small tract of land for a
home for his family, before the company disputing his right was
organized, or had thought of locating a railroad in his vicinity. The
pre-emption and homestead laws were passed for the benefit of the actual
settlers of the country. If they get their lands, they pay the
government the price fixed by law; but if the railroad companies get
these lands, they aid in building up and strengthening a monopoly
already too great for the welfare of the country. The department having
lent its powerful aid to this monopoly, and, by unjust rulings,
interpolations, and decisions, assisted in turning these poor men adrift
and depriving them of their lands and years of toil, already more than
one million of acres that of right, and under the law, properly
interpreted and administered, would have belonged to actual settlers,
have become the property of these railroad companies. Claimants are
becoming alarmed at the action of the department, and are leaving their
lands, choosing to lose their claims and the years of toil expended upon
them, rather than defend against these companies, backed by the
department.
To still further show the _quasi_ collusion between the department and
these great corporations, let us look at the circular issued to the
different land offices from the department in June, 1872. The circular
says:--
"A pre-emption or homestead claim of record is of course _prima facie_
evidence of a valid right; yet it may occur that such a claim has a
fraudulent inception. When such is the case, the claim is of course
void _ab initio_, and does not defeat the right of the railroad. In view
of these rulings the following is communicated for your information and
government, to the end that the rights of all parties may be protected,
and the spirit of the _grants_ fully complied with:--
"1st. In relation to pre-emption claims, the pre-emption law requires
that a person must be over the age of twenty-one years, or the head of a
family, a citizen of the United States, or a person who has filed a
declaration to become such, and also that a person may file a
pre-emption claim for such land as he may have settled upon, thus
imposing conditions as pre-requisite to the initiation of a claim.
"2d. In relation to homestead claims, the law requires that a person
must be over twenty-one years of age, or the head of a family, a citizen
of the United States, or one who has declared his intention to become
such, and under the first and third sections of the amendatory act of
March 21, 1864, the persons claiming the benefit of said sections must
make settlement upon the tracts before they can obtain the benefit of
said sections. Therefore, as the fraudulent character of the pre-emption
or homestead claim in its inception may be brought in question, it is
right that the parties in interest should have an opportunity in all
cases to be heard. With this view you are required,--
"3d. When application is made by a railroad company to select tracts
which are covered by existing pre-emption or homestead claims at the
date of the right of the road attaching, but subsequently relinquished
or abandoned, to allow the company to file such proof as they may have
in support of their right to the land, or to have hearings for the
purpose, and should the evidence be satisfactory you will permit the
selections.
"4th. When any person applies to enter a tract of such lands, claiming
the right to do so by such prior abandoned claim, you will order a
hearing, notifying the railroad company, as well as the pre-emption or
homestead claimant, so that they may produce such evidence in support of
their right as they may have to furnish. Your inquiry must be directed
to the personal qualifications of the original claimant, and his
compliance with the law prior to filing an entry; and I desire to
enjoin upon you the necessity of excluding all testimony not material to
showing the facts upon the subject of inquiry. You will, however, be
careful that all such facts are brought out, and if necessary to this
end you will yourselves examine and question the witnesses. You will in
all cases give the parties interested personal notice of the time and
place of hearing, when their whereabouts are known, or they can be
reached by such notice. In other cases you will cause the notice of
contest to be published at least once a week for four weeks in the
newspaper having the largest circulation in the vicinity of the land.
Parties initiating a contest must provide for defraying the expenses
thereof, but when the case comes before you for trial you can apportion
the expenses according to the equities of each case. Your particular
attention is called to the fact that in some of the earlier railroad
grants, lands covered by homestead claims, which may subsequently be
cancelled, are not exempted from the operation of the grant. Therefore,
in such cases, the tracts revert to the grant, and you will recognize no
application for these lands by other parties, but will pay due regard to
the rights of the grantees. You will in no case allow pre-emption
filing, or homestead entry on this class of lands, without instructions
from this office."
This circular, in the interest of railroad companies, is signed by
Willis Drummond, commissioner, and directed to registers and receivers
of district land offices. While the acts of congress exclude from the
grants to railroad companies all lands held by pre-emption and homestead
claims, the secretary of the interior says it means _valid_ claims. He
then declares all claims invalid or fraudulent when there has not been a
literal compliance with the statute. If the pre-emptor filed his claim
one day or one week before he commenced his occupation, his claim, as
against the railroad company, is fraudulent. Or, if for some cause,
after having complied with all preliminaries, he should leave his claim
for a day or a week, it could be treated as abandoned, and his right
would be lost. These rulings, in favor of railroad companies, and
adverse to the settlers, having been made, the companies were not slow
in taking advantage of them. Men who supposed their claims to be valid,
who had invested their all in improving them, have had their validity
questioned, or have been charged with abandonment. The first intimation
a settler has, is a notice to appear and defend the home of his family
against the claim of a powerful corporation that is seeking to take it
from him. He must submit to the alternative of losing his home at once,
or of protracted, expensive litigation, with the assurance that he is
combatting a powerful adversary before a tribunal that has already
prejudged his case in favor of his opponent. All that the railroad
companies need do to defraud the settler is to satisfy the register or
receiver that, under the rulings of the department we have quoted, the
settler's claim is invalid, or that he has abandoned it.
We draw no fancy sketch. The circular speaks for itself, and the large
number of men who have been compelled to leave their pre-emption and
homestead claims, with the constantly increasing quarter-sections of
land that are being added to the railroad grants, attest the truth of
our statements. We are not aware of any law of the United States
recognizing the right of railroad companies to become parties in a
contest concerning a homestead or pre-emption right. Nor do we believe
that the interior department of the government can legally authorize
these companies to become claimants for lands held by settlers under act
of congress. If any question arises between two pre-emption claimants,
the commissioner of the general land office decides the dispute. If any
question is raised as to whether the claimant is entitled to his
pre-emption, there are, under the acts of congress, but two parties to
the controversy--the claimant himself and the interior department. The
order allowing railroad companies to appear as parties, and by virtue of
numerical strength and immense wealth and influence, to overpower the
settler, is doing him injustice, as well as degrading a high official
position, and sustains our charge that these railroad companies
influence the interior department of the government. We think we have
shown that the whole strength of this department is used in favor of
these great monopolies, and against the interests of the people. While
we do not charge the officers of this department of government with
intentional wrong, we do charge that this great corporate power, which
has such unlimited influence over the legislative department of the
government, has virtually taken control of the department of the
interior in cases where its interests can be subserved by the influence
of the department.