102 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 



the Free Timber Act, as already indicated, but it also contained a 

 clause providing that "suits to vacate and annul any patent hereto- 

 fore issued must be brought within five years of the passage of this act, 

 and to vacate patents hereafter issued, shall be brought within six 

 years of the issuance of the patent." This was a limitation on the right 

 of the government to regain lands fraudulently acquired — a limita- 

 tion of real importance, because of the small force of government 

 agents and inspectors and the consequent delay in investigating cases. 

 About a year before this, Congress had extended substantial assist- 

 ance to fraudulent entrymen by providing more liberal regulations 

 for filing affidavits. ^^* In 1864, provision had been made that an appli- 

 cant who, by reason of distance, bodily infirmity, or other good cause, 

 was prevented from personal attendance at the district land office, 

 might make his affidavit before the clerk of the court of the county of 

 his residence.^*^ In 1890, Congress provided that affidavits of various 

 kinds might be made also "before any commissioner of the United 

 States Circuit court, or before the judge or clerk of any court of 

 record of the county or parish in which the lands were situated." 

 These affidavits were commonly used in the fraudulent acquisition of 

 land, and while the new regulations were a convenience to settlers, they 

 made fraud easier to perpetrate and more difficult to detect. 



THE FAILURE TO FORFEIT THE RAILROAD GRANTS 



Like the above legislation, not specifically relating to forests, yet 

 of great influence on the public timber lands, was the action of Con- 

 gress in regard to the forfeiture of railroad land grants. During the 

 seventies, a strong sentiment against further land grants developed, 

 and during the next decade the question of forfeiture was always 

 before Congress. On this question. Congress divided into three distinct 

 groups. One group contended that failure to build any part of the 

 road in the time specified in the grant should work a forfeiture of the 

 entire grant. ^*^ Another group held that it should work a forfeiture 

 only of the lands adjoining that part of the railroad completed "out 

 of time," while a third group favored forfeiture only of the lands 



1" Stat. 26, 121. 



145 Stat. 13, 35. 



i*« Cong. Bee, July 5, 1888, 5933-36. 



