Soon the officers came, came armed with legal papers,
and backed by shooting irons, and out of the homes their
toil had made, off from the lands that their hands had cultivated,
into the highway, homeless and shelterless, were
driven two hundred and twenty families of American citizens,
driven from what the United States had declared to be
the people's lands, and for titles to which they had all received
government assurance, and for which they had paid the
required fees to United States officers.
—Lois Waisbrooker, The Wherefore Investigating Company
————
One of several plot lines in Lois Waisbrooker's novel [hereinafter WIC], which was published serially from July 1893 to April 1894, is based on a purportedly historical incident in northwestern Iowa. Several assertions are made as follows:
The following quote is attributed to an eyewitness:
"Men were run down with horses, hand-cuffed, and with their families, dragged off their lands. Women within a few days of confinement, have been, in the absence of their husbands, left in the midst of their household goods, farming implements, etc., sitting in the highway."
While WIC names neither the railroad nor the syndicate involved, it does quote the following letter:
Executive Mansion,
Washington, D. C. Oct. 29, 1887.
HON. J. B. WEAVER:—
MY DEAR SIR:—Your letter of the 25th inst., regarding the eviction by proceedings in the state courts, of certain parties, in O'Brien county, has excited my interest and sympathy. Such results are sure to bring distress oftentimes on those entirely innocent, and who have settled upon lands in good faith. I very much fear there will be much of this consequent upon the loose and wasteful manner in which our public domain has heretofore been managed.
I find upon consultation with the secretary of the interior and the attorney general that the cases to which you refer were sometime since considered by them, and they concluded that the United States could not interfere in those controversies, because, in any event, its title to the land is gone, and I am obliged to concur with them in their opinion that under the circumstances, the United States would have no standing in the contest and could demand no redress for itself. I think, with reflection, you will see the difficulty.
I am afraid the claimants in these cases must fight out their respective rights in the state courts; but I suppose the determination there may be submitted to the supreme court of the United States for final adjudication. If any legal way can be suggested by which the general government can aid in the settlement of the question involving so much hardship and vexation, it will be considered. Yours truly,
GROVER CLEVELAND.
In the spirit of John Wherefore, I decided to see what relevant historical material I could find, in order to evaluate the assertions made in WIC. Based on the above letter, I was able to start out with these clues: Grover Cleveland, John B. Weaver, O'Brien County, and October 1887. The Library of Congress has a digital collection of the Grover Cleveland Papers, and in it I found both the letter from Weaver to Cleveland [dated October 20], and the reply from Cleveland [dated October 25]; note the discrepancy in dates. The former letter is typed on a single page, and was easy to transcribe:
Des Moines, Iowa, October 20th, 1887.
To
The President,
Executive Mansion,
Washington, D.C.
Sir;-
The Close Bros.--representing a British Syndicate in
Iowa,claim title as purchasers from the C.M.& St.P.Ry.Co.,to cer-
tain lands in O'Brien County,Iowa,and have evicted through the
state Courts one hundred and twenty families in said county who
are now living in tents in the streets and highways.
About one hundred more suits will come on November 7th
prox. The settlers claim under title derived from the United
States,and in my judgement correctly claim,that neither the Syndi-
cate,nor the R.R.Co.,from which pretended title is derived have
any equitable interest in these lands.
Can you not direct that proceedings shall at once be
commenced in the Federal Court to test the title of the government
in these lands--and which will have the effect meantime to stay
proceedings in the State courts. The settlers are sorely pressed,
and face to face with great suffering.
Respectfully,
J. B. Weaver
Weaver's letter claims that one hundred and twenty families were already evicted, and one hundred more pending, hence the "two hundred and twenty families" in WIC. The letter also names the railroad company (Chicago, Milwaukee, & St. Paul Railroad Co. [CMSP]) and the British syndicate, or at least its management (Close Brothers Group [CBG]).
The reply from Grover Cleveland is handwritten, and nearly illegible. As far as I can tell, it largely matches the text given above, except for the dates: why those should have been altered is a mystery. Here is my transcription:
[page 1]
Oct 25. 1887
Hon J. B. Weaver
My dear Sir:
Your letter of the
20th inst regarding the
eviction by proceedings in the
State Courts of certain parties
from lands in O'Brien
County has excited my in-
terest and sympathy. Such
results are sure to bring
distress oftentimes upon
those entirely innocent and
who have settled upon lands
in entire good faith
[page 2]
very much fear there will be
much of this consequent upon
the loose and wasteful
manner in which our pub-
lic domain has been
heretofore managed.
I find upon consulta-
tion with the Secretary of the
Interior and the Attorney
General that the cases to
which you refer were some
time since considered by them
and they concluded that
the United States could not
interfere in those controversies
because in any event its
title to the land is gone;
and I am obliged to concur
[page 3]
with them in their opinion
that in these circumstances
the United States would
have no standing in the
contest and could demand
no redress for itself.
I think you will see
the difficulty with a little
reflection. I am afraid that
the claimants in these
cases must fight out their
respective rights in the
State Courts; but I suppose
the determination there, may
be submitted to the Su-
preme Court of the United
States upon appeal for
final adjudication. If any
legal way can be suggested
[page 4]
by which the General Government
can aid in the settlement of
the question involving so
much hardship and vexation
it will be considered.
Yours truly
Grover Cleveland
Who was James B. Weaver? From 1885 to 1889, he was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Iowa's 6th district, as a member of the Greenback Party. During that term in office, he played a major role in the opening of Oklahoma's "Unassigned Lands" to white settlement. I could find nothing directly connecting Weaver to O'Brien county. I did find this biography by Fred Emory Haynes [1919], but not a peep in it about his interest in the evictions.
————
There is little doubt in my mind that the primary sources used by both J. B. Weaver and Lois Waisbrooker were newspaper articles. I found the earliest and most detailed article in the Des Moines Register [October 7, 1887, page 6], part of which bears a strong resemblance to the eyewitness quote in WIC:
During the past few days the country has been considerably agitated over the reported evictions of settlers in Northern Iowa. Stories of the most cruel treatment of settlers at the hands of a British syndicate have been widely circulated. Many inquiries have been made of parties in this city supposed to be conversant with the facts. A REGISTER reporter in conversation with a prominent gentleman from O'Brien county yesterday learned a few additional facts. The lands in question were of the grant made to the McGregor & Western railroad, now the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul. It is understood that these lands are a portion of an old patent made to the railroad, and afterwards disposed of them to an English syndicate. There was a misunderstanding as to the legal status of these lands, there being some correspondence between Secretary Teller, of the Interior Department and Land Commissioner McFarland, and the Governor of Iowa, that led settlers to believe that the lands were open for settlement, and so they took the first steps in that direction, expecting that the Government would complete the formal transfer of the land to the State and throw it open for entry. This English syndicate, which now controls some 35,000 acres in O'Brien county, had at one time an office on the Strand, London, and it is reported that the Duke of Sutherland is one of the largest owners of the old land grants.
The settlers who are the victims of these proceedings settled upon these lands in 1884-85, although some made settlements prior to 1880, these settlements were made with the understanding that the lands were public lands, it being supposed that the railroad company had forfeited all claim to them by reason of having failed to comply with the conditions of the grant. Most of the settlers are foreigners, principally Swedes, and some unable to speak the English language. Many of them are very ignorant and unacquainted with the methods of obtaining relief. They imagine that the syndicate is all powerful and are so completely terrorized by the threats of the evictors that they dare not give the facts of the case to the public for fear of being cast into prison in addition to being put off the lands. It is said that they are actually afraid to say anything against the syndicate, however cruel their treatment. It is stated that the way of procedure in making evictions has often been for the Sheriff with a posse of men to approach the settler and offer him his choice between the British contract or eviction. This contract means "give me your crops," the other "give me your land."
The following are some of the more prominent cases that are reported:
Mrs. Peterson, wife of Samuel Peterson, living in N. W. 17-96-40, O'Brien county, when the evictors came to her is reported to have refused to go, and said she would not be put out. They laid hold of her and by main force put her out in the road. Her husband was away working for a living while she was holding the claim.
A man by the name of Wm. Carr, living n e 21-95-40, was evicted and his goods put in the road. Mr. Nelson, 3-95-41, said the only reason why he had forsaken his lands was that he feared the revolvers that were supposed to be enforcing the commands of the syndicate.
Mrs. Scott, s e 21-96-40, only four or five miles from Primghar, an invalid living with her daughter, was lying on her bed when the evictors came; six men picked up her bed, carried it out into the road and left her there on the bed. Another sad case is reported when a man by the name of Cooper tried to escape by running from the evictors. The man was run down by the Sheriff and his posse mounted on horses, captured and handcuffed and brought back to his wife when they, with all they owned, were put out into the public highway. In another case reported they broke into the house with axes and dragged the terrified inmates, among whom were three children, out into the street. Those who preferred the British contract to the eviction, it is said, were subjected to most outrageous conditions. One man living northwest of Primghar, after paying the usual entry fee and placing improvements to the amount of $2,000 on his land, was charged $13 per acre. In another instance they are said to have levied on the owner's team and stock to cover the damage done to the land; the damage in this case being the fact of having turned 165 acres of sod. The most harrowing tales of lrish cruelty cannot seem more horrible than the evictions reported to be made by British agents in Northwestern Iowa. The pleadings of the aged, the shrieks of women and the cries of children in vain ask for leniency. Many families, it is stated, are to-day living on the public highways with nothing but tents made out of scanty bed sheeting to shield them from the inclemencies of the season.
Many of the cases reported above happened in August, so completely were the settlers under the control of the evictors that through fear they dared not give them to the public. It is expected that many more evictions will be made in November. Some of the more intelligent and better informed of the settlers will carry their cases to the highest courts, if need be, to obtain redress. Some of the best legal authorities in the country have given opinions favorable to the settlers.
Clearly, the Duke of Sutherland is the English aristocrat referred to in WIC. Note, however, that no mention is given in this particular article of the number of people evicted. The following short blurb appeared in the Daily Evening Bulletin [October 18, 1887, page 4], and the Wheeling Daily Intelligencer [October 19, 1887, page 1], as reported from the Knights of Labor assembly in Minneapolis:
A. M. Hamblin has arrived here from O'Brien county, Iowa, where the recent evictions have occured, with the expectation of laying the matter before the assembly of the Knights. He is President of the Settlers' Association. He says: "It is a terrible state of affairs. The half has not been told. Families are living on the roads and in the tents made of sheets and quilts. It is worse than it is in Ireland. The evictions have been from 59,000 acres of land, and there are 116 families evicted now, and I understand there are seventy-four more. After taking people's houses, barns, etc., they take the growing crops. When settlers have taken off the crop, they have been sued. The evictors have asked exemplary damages awarded by the court for having the audacity to take their crops. I have seen them take a woman, in a very delicate condition, and put her out on the unprotected prairie. The unfortunate people hired an attorney, who sold them out. No records are made of their English syndicate sales."
A contrary story, reprinted from the Sioux City Journal, appeared in the Sutherland Courier [October 14, 1887, page 4]:
The eviction of settlers from lands in O'Brien county has been the subject of considerable comment, and to get at the facts in the matter from the best possible source a Journal reporter, learning that Mr. McMurtrie, manager of the Western Land company, was in the city, had a pleasant chat with the gentleman. The land company of which Mr. McMurtrie is manager, has its headquarters at Cedar Rapids, with branch offices at Chicago and Sibley. Mr. McMurtrie was found to be a pleasant gentleman, a perfect picture of a sturdy Scotchman, and has lead an active life since coming to America in 1856. He was pension agent at St. Louis for six years and collector of customs for the district of Minnesota from 1879 to 1883. His attention was called to the dispatches from Washington relative to the eviction of settlers from lands in O'Brien county. "I have noticed the reports," said Mr. McMurtrie, "but they are flat misrepresentations. I understand all about the excitement and the attempts to work up a feeling against the Western Land company. Dr. Hamblin, the Englishers and Olsons and a few others are doing it to work up a sentiment. Dr. Hamblin lived as a squatter on a claim near Primghar, and is now an Indian agent at some point in Nebraska."
"What is your title to the land?" asked the reporter. "It is perfect. At the start the Western Land company purchased about 40,000 acres from the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad company in O'Brien county and got a warranty deed from the company for every acre of it. Then came on the lawsuit between this road and the Sioux City and St. Paul, and pending the legal settlement of this question squatters went on to the lands, and for nearly two years we were so peculiarly placed that we could not sell the land or take steps to force the squatters to vacate. We felt sure our title was perfect, but no one wanted to buy when the title was under a cloud. The squatters were thus permitted to remain, and many made improvements, which I confess it is hard for them to leave."
"When the matter was settled between the railroads what course did you pursue?"
"I have had full charge of the lands, and when the suit, establishing our title, ended, I came out from Chicago and advertised all the unsold lands for sale. In these advertisements I was particular to slate that the squatters had the preference, and further notified the public that the squatters could buy the lands they were on at the price of raw prairie, giving them the benefit of their improvements, without permitting another party to bid against them. I did this feeling that it was simple justice in view of trouble the railroads had caused the company, and the way the public had been deceived. When the court decided our title good, we went right at it to close out the lands. Our way of settling has been to organize excursions, but the squatters were so mad at the decision of the court and our company, that they made it very disagreeable for the land seeker, even though he did not attempt to purchase the land they were living on. Everything has been done by a few of the squatters to injure us, and even then we held to our first proposition to give them the first chance without recognizing competition. A great many took advantage of our offer and terms, while some eighteen refused to recognize the order of the court or our right to the lands, and these have been evicted."
"How many, all told, have been evicted?"
"I think sixteen have been taken from the lands by the officers, and two more will be taken this week."
"How about the reports of cruelty?"
"There is nothing in it. No one has been abused or injured beyond what a man would naturally be to be forced from his farm. The report about the sick woman by the name of English being carried from the house while at the point of death, is all a hoax. The family attempted to play it sharp with the officers, and had this old lady go to bed and pretend sickness. This she did. The officers thought her sick and went to another place, but on their return home an hour later, met Mrs. English and another lady walking across the prairie. The next day they went to the house, and found the old lady again in bed feigning sickness. She refused to leave the bed, and was carried out, and as soon as the bed was in the yard she got out and walked around. The report was then circulated that we were throwing sick people out of their houses, and committing all sorts of brutal things. We have done everything to compromise with these squatters, but have been unable to do anything with some of them. When they went into the courts and sought to beat us and injure our business, we got mad and thought it no more than fair to assert our rights."
In further conversation Mr. Murtrie said that all the land the company owns in O'Brien county, except 320 acres has been sold, and in order to give the purchasers possession, these evictions became necessary. Much of the land, he added, was purchased by the older residents of the county, and that aside from a few who had refused to leave, the people of that section are with the company. The views given are those of Mr. McMurtrie, the responsible head of the company, and throws considerable light on the trouble in O'Brien county.
I found a number of other articles, which I won't bother to cite, much less transcribe. Many were obviously derived from the Des Moines Journal article. As for letters to editors, I was amused to find one in the Iowa Plain Dealer [October 13, 1887, page 2] blaming the "disgrace to the state" on the Republicans, while another in the Audubon County Republican [October 27, 1887, page 2] blames the Democrats for capitalizing on a hoax. Some things never change.
————
A fuller story, which helps explain some of the contradictory statements, emerges from these resources that I found online, listed in order of publication:
It all began on May 12, 1864, when Congress passed "An Act for a Grant of Lands to the State of Iowa, in alternate Sections, to aid in the Construction of a Railroad in said State,"1 calling for a railroad north from Sioux City to the Minnesota border, and from McGregor westward to intersect with the other in O'Brien County (at present day Sheldon). The former became the Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company [SCSP], and the latter (initially the McGregor Western Railroad Company) became the CMSP. The land grants overlapped at the intersection, and this would become the basis of a land dispute between the two companies.2
In the meantime, in 1872 SCSP completed their railroad from Minnesota only as far as LeMars; for whatever reason, it contracted with the Illinois Central Company to use the existing track the rest of the way to Sioux City. This would bring the validity of their land grants into doubt. CMSP completed their railroad in 1878,3 and in 1879 brought suit against SCSP over the overlapping land grants.4
While the question of CMSP's right to land was never seriously challenged,5 SCSP's right was another matter. On March 16, 1882, the Iowa General Assembly approved an act which determined that SCSP had failed to earn their land grants, and forfeited them back to the State. On February 6, 1883, Secretary of the Interior Henry Teller wrote a letter to the governor of Iowa, requesting that the lands withheld from SCSP be reconveyed to the United States. Subsequently, on March 27, 1884, the Iowa General Assembly approved an act which relinquished and reconveyed the lands to the United States, with the exception of lands situated in Dickinson and O'Brien counties. The necessary certification by the governor, in accordance with the act, would not take place until January 12, 1887.6
The first squatter of any note on railroad grant lands in O'Brien County was Dr. H. M. Hamblin (not "A. M." as given in the Knights of Labor article above).7 According to a later Supreme Court case, in February 1884 he settled on land conveyed to the State for SCSP but never patented to SCSP; he made an application under the homestead laws, and was refused. The Land Department did not recognize any right for him to enter the land.
The basis for this was verified by a letter from N. C. McFarland, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, dated July 14, 1884,8 stating that, until certified by the governor, title of the lands withheld from SCSP is still in the State, are not public lands, and are not subject to homestead laws. However, he also made a remarkable statement: "A bare application to take such lands under the timber-culture or any other law confers no preference right upon the party making it, but when the application is followed by such acts on the part of the claimant as show his intention, in good faith, to comply with the law under which the application is made, he may have a preference right of entry... in the event of the restoration of the land to the public domain. Or, should the lands be restored by congressional legislation, the rights of actual settlers upon them may be protected."
Meanwhile, Hamblin remained on the land, claiming rights of occupancy and forfeiture of rights by SCSP. It was he who issued the cattle call for settlers, advertising in various American, Scandinavian, and German papers that large tracts of land had opened for homesteading in the county. And they came. Because the lands were more than one hundred and fifty miles from the land office (which would have turned them down), they could make an entry for homestead at a clerk of courts. The papers would be drawn, but with the advice that law questions were yet unresolved, and that the settlers must take their chances on the results.9
Such was the situation when, on March 29, 1886, the U. S. Supreme Court delivered an opinion that the overlapping land grants should be divided between the two companies. The total of the award to CMSP was nearly 79,500 acres: 41,700 of which the State had patented to SCSP, and 37,800 which the State had not patented.10 That same year, CBG purchased 37,900 acres from CMSP for WLC; it should also be noted that CBG sold 1,400 acres in 1886 and 6,200 acres in 1887 for WLC, and the bulk of the remaining land would be sold between 1888 and 1898.11
Although there is disagreement between sources I and II as to acreage purchased by WLC, both agree that it was fully patented to CMSP by the State,12 both agree that where the land had been previously patented to SCSP, land purchases had already been made from the railroad,13 and that the land purchased by WLC was occupied by squatters,14 including Hamblin himself. Thus it seems likely that WLC purchased the previously unpatented land.
Was the Duke of Sutherland involved? In January of 1881, CBG's English counterpart sent word to SCSP that the Duke, and other dignitaries from England, were making plans to visit. In April 1881, SCSP designated CBG sole agent for disposing of its excess land. In May 1881, the month of the Duke's visit, ILC was organized in London.15 That year, CBG purchased 42,700 acres for ILC in Osceola county. This coincidence led to newspaper reports that the Duke was the principal investor in ILC, but in fact no such investment took place.16 WLC, on the other hand, was formed by CBG in 1882, and was fully controlled by them.17 Thus, the Duke of Sutherland had no connection with WLC.
After WLC obtained the CMSP lands, they were appraised and placed back on the market, giving the squatters a preference right of thirty days, most of whom did.18 As for the remainder, from January 3 to August, 1887, WLC filed 117 suits for eviction. There is no denying that there were forced evictions, and some were harsh.19 Even people who were taking their cases to court found their holdings demolished. It may well be impossible to determine the actual count of people physically removed from their places of settlement.
And that is the historical setting for the plot line in WIC.
I will only touch briefly on the legal battles that followed. Hamblin organized the first union for squatters on both SCSP and CMSP lands, in order to sue for possession of the lands they occupied. Because CMSP and WLC were on much stronger legal grounds than SCSP, few suits were taken beyond the district court.20 One notable case, already cited above, made it to the Supreme Court, and on February 6, 1893, they delivered an opinion against Hamblin. I'm sure that was pretty much the death knell of the resistance against WLC.
The SCSP squatters had better legal footing, and on October 21, 1895, the U. S. Supreme Court delivered an opinion in favor of them. However, it failed to address adequately the issue of those who had purchased lands directly from SCSP on patented lands, and the litigation continued on.21
What little I've written here doesn't begin to cover the complexity of the issue.
————
In summary, the main points to be taken from history are:
In conclusion, Lois Waisbrooker (not to mention J. B. Weaver and a number of newspapers), should have taken greater care in the assertion of "facts." After all, had she presented the plot line in WIC with greater historical accuracy, it would have supported just as well her thesis that property laws are a load of crap.
June 4, 2021