In 1783 the government prohibited individuals from bargaining with the Indians for land, reserving this power to Congress alone. In the case of the public domain the government insisted that the Indian rights to the land must be extinguished by treaties before the land could be surveyed or opened for sale.
According to the latest public reports available in 1929, there were in the United States 35,000,000 ac. in Indian reservations. These were established either by treaty or by order of the presi dent. Until 1887 the Indian land was generally held by the tribe rather than by the individual. By an act passed at that time indi viduals were to be allotted land and after a certain length of time given a title in fee simple.
In the colonial period the highest property was that of the Crown and that obtained in America. The form of settlement was somewhat different in New England from that in the rest of the country. Large grants of land in New England were given to the trading companies by the Crown and these companies in turn granted land to groups of settlers but only occasionally to individuals. In this way the land was settled compactly in village communities. Land was set aside for the church, the school and other community purposes before home lots were transferred to each settler. The remainder of the grant was divided into farm areas. Originally each settler had several different strips. When this was found to be inconvenient, there was a tendency to consoli date each man's holdings into one piece. Primogeniture was modi fied to the extent that the eldest son inherited only two-thirds of the father's estate. As long as this method of settlement was used there was substantially no speculation in land in New Eng land.
In the remainder of the country the proprietary system of settle ment was more general. Pennsylvania derives its name from Wil liam Penn to whom a vast territory was awarded, and Baltimore traces back to Lord Baltimore who also had a large grant from the Crown. In the selling of land to settlers, the grantees transferred larger holdings than was the case in New England. Especially was
this true in the South where it was profitable to farm larger areas. This scattering of settlers in the South postponed the formation of communities, comparable with the compact settlements of New England. Moreover, the title was not so clearly established under the Southern method of colonization. New York was the only colony in which a manor system was built up. Outside of Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut a quit-rent was demanded of all settlers but was collected often with difficulty, if at all.
When British sovereignty was terminated by the treaty of 1783, lands hitherto belonging to the crown went to the separate states in which, rather than in the federal government, the highest right of eminent domain was vested. Coincidently with the breaking of colonial ties, began the modification of some features of the mother country's system of land tenure. In conformity with pub lic sentiment, allodial tenure was in many instances substituted for the English idea of an overlord, although some traces of the earlier concept lingered long, especially in New York State. The form of freehold tenure was extended by the ordinance of 1787 to all the lands held by the nation.
The fact that the land was disposed of by the national government instead of the states is important since it has meant one land policy instead of 48 possibly different policies. Early in the re public's history the suggestion was made that the land should always remain in the public domain and the rentals therefrom should be paid into the public treasury. Thus it was contended vast sums could be used for public purposes. This policy could not well be sustained scientifically although it is superficially plausible. Since land taxation in the United States is based upon selling value, a substantial proportion of land value is virtually public property. As a matter of fact real estate taxes have grown to such enormous proportions as to indicate that the tax revenues have exceeded what might have accrued from rents of public land. But we cannot enter into the theoretical consideration of the two methods of public versus private ownership of land now and here. Suffice it to say that the American ideal has been that of private property and development has been along that line.