The History of the Old American West – 4 Books in One Volume (Illustrated Edition). Emerson Hough
for all.
There was abundance of grass for all, but the water was startlingly and disproportionately scanty. Yet if a man kept his title legally or by force of arms to the water he had fenced, what was to be done? The cattle could go only so far to drink, and if the owner of a water front wanted all the water for himself, there was no way to settle it but to buy him out, kill him, or marry into his family — all of which methods were popular, and each of which had especial merits of its own. Water front thus came to be the one desired thing in the cattle trade of the dry Southwest. In brief, the grass was free, but the water was not free. The result was that the man who owned the water had all outdoors for his range, and needed to pay not a dollar for any land outside that along the water. No one wanted this outside land. Any one could settle upon it who liked, but it was very sure no one would like.
Perhaps there was a daughter of some ranchero's family who owned a mile of water front and a heart susceptible to the charms of the robust Americano. Some wandering teamster, perhaps a deserter from one army or other in the civil war, drifted in across this country, met and wooed and married the senorita, and so after a fashion got control of the water front. Perhaps the teamster sold out after a while to some ranch agent, giving at least a quit-claim deed to his shadowy rights, and moved off across the country again, probably to marry some other senorita at some other place. Then perhaps the ranch agent hired some cowboy or some one else who was not very busy just then to "file on a quarter" on some other water at another place, he making his claim under the Desert Lands Act, or the Mineral Lands Act, or the Homestead Act, or any other act upon which there could be hung a lawsuit or a fight. Since the only opposing title was perhaps one dating back into the impenetrable haze of some Spanish land grant, and since it was very far to the city of Washington, and since, moreover, it was a weary country, where no one cared very much what any one else was doing, the affair was probably concluded pleasantly all around, with not more funerals than seemed absolutely necessary. Thus the land agent got control of several "pieces of water," no one knowing or caring who owned the land. Then, if this were in the palmy days of the trade, the agent very likely went to Europe and sold out all the land lying between these pieces of water which he owned and which he did not own, Government land and all, fraudulent homestead or desert or mineral land entries included, to whatsoever customer he could find. It was not difficult to find a buyer in those days, for Europeans had no knowledge of this country, and were wild at the stories of the profits of the cattle trade, than which nothing ever did figure out more handsomely upon paper. Sometimes the land agent had a map of his country nicely executed. It is of record that one of the most successful of these ranch agents took over to Holland with him a finely drawn map of a tract of land in New Mexico, showing many rivers no one else had ever found, and displaying steamboats, with pretty clouds of smoke rolling from their smokestacks, .navigating the waters of the upper Pecos, where really a man could wade comfortably for mountain trout. Yet this map did its work, and made the man his fortune. Some time after he had departed, the Holland syndicate bethought itself to send over a representative to look into this land of steamboats. This representative assured them that they ought certainly to have their money back, for no steamboats could be found. It was too late then, however. The jovial inhabitants laughed merrily at the protests of the foreign customers for a cattle ranch, nor has explanation ever been forthcoming for the absence of the steamboats on the Pecos. A wealthy Englishman or English syndicate was a favourite customer for such a tract of land, and history hath not yet recorded all the frauds that were perpetrated upon foreigners under the name of ranch property in the sunny and calm Southwest. In these operations there were so many crimes committed against the United States land .laws that early in the '80's inspectors were sent down by the Government, who looked into matters and uncovered a very pretty kettle of fish.
In other portions of the Southern country where also the soil was dry and valueless, vast bodies of land held under various individual or State titles were upon the market at a price of not more than a few cents an acre. Fifteen cents an acre was long thought to be an exorbitant price for land which has since then sold for many dollars an acre. Many men thus got control of large bodies of land by actual purchase. Many leased or bought large tracts of school lands or railroad lands, perhaps leasing every alternate section of the land. This latter tenure usually seemed sufficient to warrant fencing in the entire tract upon which the alternate sections lay, this keeping out other parties who did not know just what was the description of the land. Limits and bounds were more elastic in those days than they are now, for the country seemed unspeakably large and inexhaustible. Numbers of alien landholders went into the State of Texas under ranch titles such as the above. In time there came to be trouble over ranch titles in that State, just as there has been trouble in every State where the loose nature of such titles has finally been discovered. Meantime the farming element came steadily on in Texas, and now that State is free grass no more, and the rancher must there control his holdings under some process of law.
In the Indian Nations, to follow the course of the ranch to the North, the cattle men did not have free grass, but made very desirable leases of large tracts of land of the Indians, often gaining extremely valuable privileges at a nominal cost. Later these privileges were much curtailed by the Government. The Kiowas and Comanches leased their own land direct to the cattle men. In the case of the Cherokees and Creeks the leases had to run to the United States Government, the usual form being a per capita tax upon all cattle pastured upon the tribal lands. But as this tax was sometimes estimated upon the cattle actually shipped, and not upon those actually ranged, the sophisticated ranchmen were able to stand the hardship. The "ten-mile strip" on the upper part of these lands, adjoining the State of Kansas, was parceled out into lots of perhaps ten by twenty miles, and leased to cattle men, who fenced it, charging up the cost of the fencing against their lease payments, and leaving the Indians owners of the fences, as they desired to be; for they did not want their own cattle running over the farms of the Kansas grangers. All the moneys of the ten-mile strip leases were applied to the joint revenue of the tribes. The cattle men of the Nations have their ranges under fence, so that the old forms of cattle growing are there much changed, the business being more like a vast farming operation. Under such conditions all the features of round-ups, the question of Mavericks, etc., are much simplified. Yet the tenure of the ranch holdings in the Nations is a more or less uncertain thing, held in some sections only from year to year, and subject to the watchfulness of the authorities at Washington. There is no free grass in that country now.
In Kansas there is a herd law, under which the farmer does not fence his land, but which compels the cattle man to pay for any damage done by his cattle to the crops of the farmer. Naturally the cowman does not love a State where they "turn out their farms and fence up their cows," as the cattle man expresses it. This State is now largely given up to farming, though at the time of the great drives it had large tracts of free grass. Ten years after the drives the settlers had flooded all over the Government lands and left little open ground. Since that time many of the homesteads of the dry southwestern parts of the State have been abandoned, and there are some cattle ranging there without objection, though there is little left to appeal to a large operator.
In Nebraska the same herd law exists. This State was also long ago tested as a farming region, yet there remain some tracts of wild land in the western part of the State, where a great many cattle are ranged. Some ranchers there hold large bodies of school lands under lease. These are fenced, and it is very possible that there may be included in these fences some lands not included in the leases. The Western cowman has always had a naive way of believing that everybody wished to give him the benefit of all the doubts in the matter of range limits.
In Colorado we come again upon the dry country similar to that of New Mexico, where the question of water fronts first came up. There is free grass in Colorado,, but much of it is free upon country which is of no use without water, and the best of the water was taken up long ago. Here, as also to a great extent in Texas, the cattle depend upon water raised from artesian or other wells by windmills. The best of the natural water of Colorado is fenced and used for irrigating purposes. In this we meet still another factor of great moment in the cattle questions of the day. The tendency of a country where crops can be raised by irrigation is toward small holdings, and this is, of course, contrary to the spirit of the cow trade. Yet there are many large tracts of land in Colorado which are leased or owned by cattle men.
Both North and South Dakota have herd laws similar