1/1 E> HAR.Y 
 
 OF THE 
 U N IVLRSITY 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 
 336,14 
 Sa54c 
 cop .2 
 
 I • H • o •
 
 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN 
 
 NO. 30. 
 
 Economics, Political Science and History Series, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 263-392. 
 
 CONGRESSIONAL GRANTS OF LAND IN AID OF 
 
 RAILWAYS 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN BELL SANBORN, Ph. D. 
 
 AssistaJit in American History, Ohio State University. 
 
 A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, 
 UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, 1899. 
 
 Published bi-monthly by authority of law with the approval of the Regents 
 
 of the University and entered at the post office at 
 
 Madison as second-class matter. 
 
 MADISON, WISCONSIN 
 August, 1S99 
 
 PRICE 50 CENTS
 
 ,5f c 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 C£ 
 
 The investigation which has resulted in this monograph was 
 
 begun in the seminary in American History of 1896-97 at the 
 
 University of Wisconsin, and continued independently since 
 
 that time. In its present form it was submitted as a thesis for 
 
 the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at that university in 1899. 
 
 £ A portion of the results obtained have already been published 
 
 ~ in volume XII of the Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy 
 
 ~- of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 
 
 The subject of land grants in aid of railways, as well as of 
 i*- many other features of our public land policy, has been practi- 
 cally neglected by historians. I found, therefore, that my work 
 had to be done from the ground up and that an investigation 
 had to be made of many collateral aspects of land legislation. 
 Some aid has been rendered by various railroad histories and 
 \ articles on the public lands, but in general only the original 
 sources have been used. 
 
 I have endeavored to trace the history of railroad land grants 
 $ from their inception to the present time. In this my object has 
 -^ been to give an account of the various land grant bills, the argu- 
 ments for and against them and the forces which caused their 
 success or failure; while I have also tried to connect this bare 
 legislative history with the other features of our public land pol- 
 - icy. In addition to this economic side of the subject, on the po- 
 litical side the influence of the legislation on the other issues of 
 7 the time has been considered, and an attempt has been made to 
 point out what seems to me the deeper and more general ini- 
 : ' portance of my subject. 
 
 An effort was made to determine what became of the lands 
 after they left the possession of the government — how the states
 
 4 PREFACE. 
 
 and corporations to which they were granted disposed of them. 
 But the materials on this question were too scanty to allow of 
 any certainty in the conclusions reached, although I have 
 thought it advisable to embody such tentative results in the f omi 
 of an appendix. I hope that further treatment of this subject 
 may be given in general railroad histories of the different states 
 and that my work may be of assistance to those investigating this 
 subject. 
 
 In the library of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin 
 have been found most of the materials from which this mono- 
 graph has been prepared, and I wish to express my appreciation 
 of the unfailing courtesy of the officers of that society and of 
 the members of the library staff. Some additional materials 
 were found in the Chicago Public Library, The Newbury Li- 
 brary and the library of the Chicago Historical Society. 
 
 During my work on this monograph I have been under con- 
 stant obligation to Professor F. J. Turner, who has given not 
 only advice but actual assistance at every point in my investiga- 
 tion and in the preparation of my work for the press. Profes- 
 sor C. H. Haskins has read the proofs and made many valuable 
 suggestions, while Professor W. H. Hobbs has also given assist- 
 ance in the proof-reading. 
 
 Madison, Wisconsin, August, 1899.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Introduction . . . . . .» 
 
 Chapter I. — The Beginning of Land Grants. 
 
 Chapter II.— The Illinois Central Grant. 
 
 Chapter III. —The East against the West — Land Grants and 
 Homesteads. .... 
 
 Chapter IV. — Later Grants to States 
 
 Chapter V. — The Pacific Railroads. 
 
 Chapter VI. — The Repeal of the Land Grants. 
 
 Chapter VII. — The Disposal of the Grants. 
 
 Chapter VIII. — Conclusion. . . 
 
 Appendix A. — The Use of Railroad Lands by States and Corpo 
 rations. ... . 
 
 Appendix B. — Bibliography. . . 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 7 
 19 
 25 
 
 38 
 50 
 62 
 68 
 76 
 85 
 
 93 
 
 127
 
 CONGRESSIONAL GRANTS OF LAND IN AID OF 
 
 RAILWAYS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 1 
 
 Questions relating to land tenure, and particularly to the man- 
 agement and disposal of lands held by the state, have always oc- 
 cupied a large place in the history of nations. In the case of the 
 United States the public domain has been a most important factor 
 in the national development. Aside from the diplomatic and 
 military struggles involved in the acquisition of the soil, and the 
 relation of the slavery struggle to the public domain, the position 
 of the government as landed proprietor has been profoundly im- 
 portant. Even in colonial days the management of the vacant 
 lands by the crown, the proprietors or the corporations who gov- 
 erned the colonies, had important effects in political, economic, 
 and social development. There, as later, land grants were used 
 for political purposes as well as to promote immigration and in- 
 dustrial development. Colonial history affords precedents for the 
 use of land as bounties for soldiers, for education, and for interna] 
 improvements. The question of the devolution of the crown 
 lands after the declaration of independence, became one of the 
 most influential factors in the history of the Revolution and the 
 Confederation, and was only settled by thei cessions of the claim- 
 ant states and by the passage of the Ordinance of 1787. The 
 vast political influence of the land question upon the politics of 
 the Confederation has frequently been pointed out, but it cannot 
 be too strongly urged. 2 The acquisition of the public domain 
 
 'See Sato. History of the Land Question in the United States, Johns Hopkins 
 University Studies, IV, nos. 7, 8, 9. 
 
 2 "And just here lies the Immense significance of this acquisition of the Public 
 Lands. It led to the exercise of National Sovereignty in the sense of eminent 
 domain, a power totally foreign to the Articles of Confederation." Adams. Mary- 
 land's Influence upon Land Cessions to the United States, Johns Hopkins Uni- 
 versity Studies, III, no. 1, p. 44. 
 
 2 (-269)
 
 8 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 was the first great step toward national unity — the disposal of 
 this domain was to be one of the most important factors in the 
 new national life. 
 
 When the Constitutional Convention met it found the public 
 land question settled for the time. Little attention was paid to 
 the power which Congress should have over the lands which the 
 government then owned or which it might afterward acquire. 
 The subject was touched in two provisions of the Constitution, 
 the first that "]STew States may be admitted by the Congress into 
 this Union," and the second that "The Congress shall have the 
 power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations 
 respecting the territory or other property belonging to the 
 United States." 3 The latter of these was not discussed in the 
 convention and the discussion on the former was not such as to 
 throw any light on what property rights the government had in 
 the territory from which these new states were to be formed or 
 on the question whether the acquisition of new territories was 
 contemplated. Madison's discussion in Number 4-3 of the Fed- 
 eralist is not more satisfactory, the only point touched being the 
 prohibition against the division of states without their consent. 
 
 It is unfortunate that as regards both the acquisition and the 
 disposal of territory the Constitution is not more specific, and 
 that a contemporaneous explanation of the powers of Congress 
 does not seem to have been made. But, wherever in the Consti- 
 tution the right to acquire territory is found, the public domain 
 has grown rapidly. Originally amounting to 258,504,129 acres, 
 by the various purchases and cessions it has been increased to 
 over 1,800,000,000 acres. 4 Of course the a ctual amount of land 
 
 3 Art. IV, Sec. 3. Acres. 
 
 4 State cessions 258,504,129 
 
 Louisiana purchase, 1803 750,6S6,855 
 
 Florida purchase, 1819 35,264,500 
 
 Mexican cession, 1848 329,623,255 
 
 Texas purchase, 1850 62,266,953 
 
 Gadsden purchase, 1853 29,142,400 
 
 Alaska purchase, 1867 369,529,600 
 
 Total , 1,835,017,692 
 
 Message and Documents, Abridgment, 1897-98, 589. The figures are only esti- 
 mates, aa much of the territory has not been surveyed. 
 
 (270)
 
 SANBORN" — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 9 
 
 in the possession of the government at no time amounted to this. 
 Exclusive of Alaska there have been 741,702,365 acres of land 
 appropriated and 132,441,774 acres reserved, leaving 591,343,- 
 953 acres vacant at the present time, 5 
 
 The influence, from the earliest times, of the comparatively 
 small public domain was fundamentally important ; the influence 
 of these new and vaster areas which came into the possession of 
 the government, and particularly their influence upon the devel- 
 opment of the West, was quite as marked. 
 
 Some consideration of the methods by which this land passed 
 out of the hands of the government must first be given. Of these 
 various methods, that of cash sales has disposed of over two hun- 
 dred million acres. The different grants to states, except those in 
 aid of railroads, have taken more than one hundred and sixty 
 million while grants to railroads and homestead entries are next 
 on the list with a little over one hundred million each. This pro- 
 portion is, however, only a temporary one, as homestead entries 
 are constantly being made and many of the railroad grants are 
 incomplete, while sales and state grants are steadily decreasing. 9 
 
 During the first part of the present century the object of the 
 administration of the public lands was to obtain as large a rev - 
 enue from them as possible. In 1796 an act was passed providing 
 for public sale of the lands in the JSTorthwest Territory at prices 
 not less than two dollars an acre. Credit on the purchase price 
 could be given. This system continued with some modification 
 up to 1820, when the credit feature was abolished and the price 
 
 8 Ibid., 591. 
 
 •Cash sales 214,414,395 
 
 Homesteads 102,280,228 
 
 Timber-culture acts 16,118,228 
 
 Military bounty-land warrants 60,252,790 
 
 Script locations 3,008,516 
 
 Indian allotments 560,780 
 
 Donations 3,006,128 
 
 Railroad, wagon-road, canal and river improvement grants to states 
 
 and corporations 106,584,898 
 
 State grants, general and special 165,476,402 
 
 Private land grants 70,000,000 
 
 Total ; 741,702,365 
 
 Ibid., 592. 
 
 (271)
 
 10 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OP WISCONSIN. 
 
 reduced from $2.00 to $1.25 an acre. 7 The size of the tract? 
 "which were sold varied from time to time. Before 1800 only 
 ■quarter townships and sections could be entered. In that year 
 the minimum was reduced to a half section, in 1804 to a quarter- 
 section, and in 1820 to a half quarter-section. A further reduc- 
 tion to a quarter quarter-section has also been made. 8 
 
 In 1841 the pre-emption act effected a considerable change in 
 the method of sale by giving a preference to actual settlers, and 
 allowing them to enter the land at a minimum or double mini- 
 mum price. 9 This policy of pre-emption dated in effect from 
 1830 when an act allowing pre-emption for one year was passed. 
 This was followed by extensions from year to year until the per- 
 manent law was enacted. 10 While these temporary acts were in- 
 tended to apply only to those who settled on the lands before the 
 act was passed, yet the practical effect was to encourage squatters 
 who went to the lands in the expectation that similar laws would 
 be passed for their relief. 11 
 
 Except during limited periods the amount received from the 
 public lands has not been great in comparison with that received 
 from other sources of revenue. From 1816 to 1836 the receipts 
 from customs were $454,317,403 and from the public lands 
 $79,408,379, and in 1836 the land sales reached their highest 
 point, amounting to $24,877,179 as against $23,409,940 from 
 customs. 12 Ag _a business investment the public domain hna not, 
 pajd the government 13 Yet the influence of the lands on na- 
 tional finances was much greater than would be indicated by the 
 amount received from their sale. It was always expected that a 
 large increase in this amount would sooner or later appear and 
 plans were discussed for hastening the time when their sale 
 would cause a g reat reduction in national taxation. 
 
 7 Donaldson, Public Domain, Washington, 1884, 200, 202. 
 "Sato, Land Question in the United States, 143. 
 
 8 Ibid., 159. 
 
 10 Ibid., 160-162. 
 
 11 Ibid., 162. 
 
 "Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury, IV, 459. 
 
 "In 1883 the balance against the government on account of the public lands 
 stood at $126,428,484. Hart, The Disposition of our Public Lands, Quarterly 
 Journal of Economics, Jan. 18S7, p. 174. 
 
 (272) 
 
 

 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 11 
 
 In addition to the lands which were held for sale, grants from 
 the public domain were made from an early period. In 1776 the 
 Congress provided for grants of land to soldiers in the Conti- 
 nental army. This principle was continued in regard to both 
 the War of 1812 and the war with Mexico. The method by 
 which these grants were made was that of land warrants, to be lo- 
 cated on the vacant public lands. 14 Besides these general grants 
 to private persons various other grants of a private nature and of 
 a very miscellaneous character have been made. 15 
 
 The regular method of such grants was, however, to the differ- 
 ent states. All of the public land states, except California, re- 
 ceived two, three, or five per cent, on the net proceeds of the sales 
 of their public lands. 16 The states have quite generally re- 
 ceived the swamp and overflowed lands within their limits on ac- 
 count of the expense which was necessary to reclaim these lands. 
 The enhanced value of the adjoining public lands was also one of 
 the reasons for these grants. 17 For education, the states, prior to 
 1848, received the sixteenth sections and after that date th e six=. 
 teenth and thirty-second sections of their p ublic, lands, 18 
 
 The grants which were t he predecessors of the land grants in 
 aid of rai lroads were those made to the states in aid of various in- 
 ternal improvements. The right of the government to make 
 money grants in aid of internal improvements was the subject of 
 much controversy, but portions of the public domain were often 
 donated in aid of river improvements, wagon roads, and canals. 
 The last kind of grants was made in the form which was charac- 
 teristic of the later grants in aid of railroads. By this method of 
 grant the alternate sections were reserved to the government and 
 by their rise in value a reimbursement for the grant was ex- 
 pected. One of the grants, that for the Illinois and Michigan 
 canal, was in 1833 transferred to a railroad, thus making the 
 first railroad grant, which however was never utilized by the 
 
 "Donaldson, Public Domain, 232-37. 
 15 Ibid., 209-13. 
 "Ibid., 238. 
 " Ibid., 219-21. 
 18 Ibid.. 223. 
 
 (273)
 
 12 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 state. 19 After 1841 each new state was allowed to select 500,000 
 acres of public land for internal improvements. 20 
 
 •Nearly, all of the states chafed under their inability to control 
 the large tracts of public lands lying within their borders and ap- 
 pealed to Congress to cede to them these lands. This request wa? 
 in 1832 referred to the Committee on Manufactures, of which 
 Henry Clay was chairman. He reported against such a propo- 
 sition as unjust to the old states, and against the reduction in 
 price, but proposed a distribution of the proceeds of the 
 land sales among the states in proportion to their federal 
 population. The matter was then referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Public Lands which reported against Clay's plan 
 as the equivalent of a distribution of money raised from 
 general taxation, and favored a reduction in the price of 
 the lands to $1.00 an acre. 21 In spite of this report Clay in- 
 troduced a bill on the lines laid down in his report. This passed 
 Congress in 1837 but was vetoed by Jackson. In 1836, Calhoun 
 made almost the same proposition, although clothed in different 
 language. This w as to deposit with the state s a pro rata share of 
 t he surplus revenue th en_in the treasury. _ _This proposition re- 
 ceiyed_the approval of Jackson and became a law. 22 
 
 The money Ihus distributed was used by the states, at their 
 pleasure. In a number of the western states it was employed, di- 
 rectly or indirectly, for internal improvements, but, like most of 
 the state investments of this time, it was very generally wasted. 
 However it had a very considerable effect on the internal im- 
 provement craze of that time, and if the money had been received 
 later it would probably have been largely employed in railroad 
 building, as was the case in South Carolina. 23 
 
 "While not mentioned in the previous platform, Clay's plan for 
 the distribution of the proceeds of land sales was adopted 
 as a part of the party platform by the Whigs after the 
 
 19 Ibid., 257-01. 
 
 20 Ibid.. 255. Revised Statutes, section 2378. 
 "Schurz, Henry Clay, I, 369-71. 
 
 22 Von Hoist, Constitutional History of the United States, II, 1S6-8S. 
 
 23 Bourne, History of the Surplus Revenue of 1837, New York, 18S5, 122-24. 
 
 (274)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 13 
 
 death of Harrison, and was enacted into law in 1841. Only one 
 distribution was made under its provisions; 24 but the issue was 
 carried over into subsequent campaigns by the platforms of both 
 parties, the Whigs declaring for the idea and the Democrats 
 against it. 25 
 
 This outline of the public land policy of the United States in- 
 dicates how important a place it had as an independent ques- 
 tion in politics. But its importance in relation to the other 
 questions then before the people was even more marked. With 
 regard to financial questions and the tariff the connection was par- 
 ticularly < ^losj?. The land sales formed an important source of 
 revenue and their increase would have allowed a nearer approx- 
 imation to free trade, while their diminution or diversion in the 
 manner proposed by Clay would have made necessary an increase 
 in the tariff. Thus views on the tariff were apt to color views on 
 the public land question. 
 
 Besides being a source of revenue, the public lands furnished 
 a fund by which internal improvements could be carried on. The 
 right to make such improvements by money grants had by 
 the beginning of Jackson's administration come to be quite 
 generally admitted. But in 1830 the veto of the Mays- 
 ville road bill checked the system of money grants. The 
 public lands had before this time been used for inter- 
 nal improvements and after the denial of the right of Con- 
 gress to appropriate money for the purpose they were given to 
 the states and to corporations in large quantities for this purpose, 
 their most extensive use being for railroads. It seems quite pos- 
 sible that if this substitute for appropriations had not been at 
 hand, the pressure on Congress would have been strong enough 
 to secure money instead of the land grants which were actually 
 made. 
 
 The question of the power of Congress over the public domain 
 was also affected by the doctrines of state sovereignty held by the 
 opposing schools. The members of the states' rights party were 
 
 "Schurz, Henry Clay, II, 204, 210-212. 
 
 ^Stanwood, History of Presidential Elections, 4th ed., 149, 155. 169. 
 
 (275)
 
 14 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OP WISCONSIN. 
 
 inclined to restrict the power to narrow 7 limits and to make much 
 of the reservations in the deeds of cession from the states in re- 
 gard to the purposes to which the land was to be applied. On the 
 other hand those favoring the exercise of wide powers on the part 
 of the United States could not but welcome the most extreme con- 
 struction of the powers of the government over the public lands. 
 The bearing of this will be seen in the debates on the railroad 
 grants, where the Democrats were forced to find the power to 
 grant in the position of the government as land-owner rather 
 than as sovereign. And it must be remembered that the most 
 famous debate on state sovereignty grew out of Foot's resolution 
 regarding the policy of the government in the sale of its lands. 
 
 What was the connection between the Public Lands and 
 that most vital of ante-bellum controversies, slavery? It is con- 
 ceded that this was almost entirely a territorial question, and that 
 if there had been no domain into which its extension was to be 
 allowed or prohibited, the history of the United States would 
 have been very different. But aside from the territorial aspects 
 of the case the influence of the administration of the public 
 lands upon slavery was very marked. Had the government, in- 
 stead of adopting a policy which favored the northern settler who 
 desired and could cultivate only a small tract of land, favored the 
 creation of large estates, the preponderance of the free states in 
 the western territory would not have been so quickly secured. 
 It may be doubted whether any system of settlement would have 
 spread slavery north of the old Missouri Compromise line, but 
 the spread of free settlers could have been very easily checked by 
 a different system of the land administration. Those Southerners 
 who endeavored to hasten the settlement and sale of the public 
 lands were unwittingly assisting in the downfall of their cher- 
 ished institution. 
 
 The industrial development of the country between 1800 
 and 1850 helps us to understand the form taken by our 
 land policy at the beginning of the second half of the cen- 
 tury. In 1800, two hundred years after the first settlement, the 
 
 (276)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 15 
 
 population of the United States was confined to the immediate 
 vicinity of the Atlantic coast. In 1850 the line of settlement had 
 crossed the Mississippi and its extension to the shores of the Pa- 
 cific was not a remote possibility. Early in the century enough 
 settlers had crossed the mountains to secure for Ohio in 1802 ad- 
 mission as a state. The increase of western population by 1810 
 was quite strongly marked, but the full force of the movement 
 began to make itself felt during the next decade. The stream of 
 immigration was such as to cause fears among the Eastern states 
 that they would become depopulated. By 1S30 Indiana, Illi- 
 nois and Missouri had each passed the 100,000 mark. Practi- 
 cally all of the western population was, however, confined to the 
 vicinity of the large rivers. By 1840 a large increase had taken 
 place in the states which were settled earliest, while considerable 
 numbers of settlers had entered the newer states. 26 The spaces 
 between the rivers were filling up and considerable settlements 
 had appeared west of the Mississippi. In 1850 only six states 
 exceeded Indiana in the number of their inhabitants, while Ill- 
 inois was eleventh among the states. The greatest proportional 
 increase was in Wisconsin, but all of the states of the Missis- 
 sippi valley were growing with great rapidity. While all por- 
 tions of these states were receiving settlers, the lines of densest 
 populations were still among the watercourses. 27 
 
 To enable these settlers to reach the West, and to furnish 
 trade communications with them, improved methods of trans- 
 portation were demanded. At first this demand was met by 
 turnpike roads and the improvement of the waterways. Around 
 these centered the plans for internal improvements proposed up 
 to 1830. In 1806 work was begun on the Cumberland road and 
 in 1808 Gallatin proposed a great system of internal improve- 
 
 "Illlnois had increased from 157,445 to 476,183. Michigan from 31,639 to 
 212,267, Indiana from 343,031 to 685,866, standing tenth among all the states; 
 Missouri from 140,455 to 383,702, Arkansas from 30,388 to 97,574, while Wis- 
 consin and Iowa appear with 30,945 and 43,112, respectively. 10th Census, 
 Population, 4. 
 
 "See McMaster, History of the United States, IV, cb. 33 ; and 10th Census, 
 Population, xi, ff. 
 
 (277)
 
 16 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 ments, including not only canals and roads along the coast but 
 roads toward the west. In 1817 the passage of the Bonus bill 
 was intended to aid transportation to the interior, but its object 
 was prevented by Madison's veto. Various other plans were pro- 
 posed for the extension of roads in the western states, the 
 construction of canals and the improvement of the rivers, but no 
 very important results were obtained from them. In 1830 fur- 
 ther aid was prevented by the stand taken by Jackson, although 
 the public lands were still used in aid of canals. 
 
 When aid for improvements could not be secured from the 
 government, the states themselves took up the work. In 1817 
 New York had begun the construction of the Erie Canal, 
 which was finished eight years later. The other states under- 
 took similar enterprises but in most cases their efforts did not 
 attain the same success as that of New York. The failures of 
 the western states were particularly noticeable. Not only were 
 the results obtained insig-nificant, but the states were driven to a 
 repudiation of the debts incurred on behalf of the improve- 
 ments. This further led to a distrust in the ability of the states 
 to engage in industrial enterprises and many state constitutions 
 practically prohibited further attempts of this nature by narrow 
 restrictions on public debts. 28 
 
 About 1830 the railroad began to supersede the turnpike as a 
 means of transportation where rivers could not be used and 
 where canals were impractical. From a construction of forty 
 miles in 1830, railroad building increased rapidly until 1,261 
 miles were constructed in the year 1850, making a total for the 
 country of 8,571 miles. 29 Of course a great part of this mileage 
 was in the old states. By 1850 New England had developed its 
 railway system in its main outlines; in the Middle and South At- 
 lantic states the method in which the railroad systems were to 
 grow was evident, while the states of the Mississippi valley 
 were making their first experiments in railroad building. 30 Nor 
 
 13 H. C. Adams, Public Debts, Part III, Ch. II. 
 
 i9 10th Census, IV, 289-90. 
 
 80 Iladley, Railroad Transportation, New York, 1SS6, 36-37. 
 
 (27S)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 17 
 
 until about this date was it considered that railroads would sup- 
 plant canals, at least as far as the carriage of freight was con- 
 cerned. 31 
 
 The development of the railroad systems in the states along 
 the Mississippi, of course depended on the general industrial de- 
 velopment of that section of the country and on the movement 
 of population. So we find that at first the railroads, as well as 
 the population, tended to follow the rivers. Water was to be 
 the chief means of transportation; but at certain places and for 
 certain portions of the year the railroads would render assistance 
 to the rivers. This soon changed, however, when land trans- 
 portation came to be regarded as independent of that by water, 
 and we find the railroads entering into the thinly populated sec- 
 tions between the large rivers. Finding here large tracts of un- 
 occupied public land, which would rise in value if the settler 
 could be brought to them, it was to be expected that the govern- 
 ment would be asked to donate a part of this land in aid of the 
 railroads. Particularly was this the case since the new states 
 were eager that the federal government should exchange vacant 
 land for settlers and that the same beneficent authority should 
 assist in improving the transportation facilities on which the 
 prices of their crops depended. 
 
 The change in the routes of commerce is well illustrated in 
 the loss of the freight business which was sustained by the Mis- 
 sissippi just prior to 1850. Products which had before passed 
 down this river and to New Orleans for shipment were now 
 sent by the Great Lakes, and later by the trunk lines to New 
 York. This change had a political as well as an economic influ- 
 ence as it tended to separate the West from the South and unite 
 it to the East, a situation of the utmost importance in the conflict 
 between the sections. 32 
 
 The outcome of all these industrial conditions, toward the 
 close of the first half of this century, along the rivers, the 
 
 81 Ibid, 11-12. 
 
 "See Libby, Significance of the Lead and Shot Trade in Early Wisconsin His- 
 tory, Wisconsin Historical Collections, XIII, 293-334. 
 
 (279)
 
 18 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 change from water to land transportation, and the prohibition of 
 state activity, led the railroads to seek aid in the only way left 
 open to them, grants from the public domain. In doing this, 
 they simply demanded for a new agency of transportation, the 
 government aid which had been afforded to its imperfect pred- 
 ecessors, the canal and the turnpike. 
 
 (280)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANT8. 19 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE BEGINNING OF LAND GRANTS. 
 
 The grant in which the later grants to railroads may be said 
 to have originated was that in aid of a canal in Indiana. 1 In an 
 amendment to this the alternate section principle was inaugu- 
 rated, 2 while similar grants were made at the same time to Ohio 
 and Illinois. In 1833 the grant for the Illinois and Michigan 
 canal was transferred to a railroad, 3 but this was never utilized 
 except in connection with the later grant in aid of the Illinois 
 Central. 
 
 The right of way through the public lands was frequently 
 granted to railroads from this time on, but such grants at first 
 carried no extra donation of lands. Sometimes the right of pre- 
 emption was given the railroad company. These were, however, 
 in no sense land grants and so have not been considered here. 
 
 In 1835 a memorial from Michigan was presented to Con- 
 gress asking for a grant of lands in aid of a railroad from Detroit 
 to the mouth of the St. Joseph river. No definite amount or 
 manner of grant was specified, 4 and no action was taken upon 
 the petition. During the next year a favorable report was made 
 on a bill granting alternate sections of land for a railroad from 
 Mobile to the Tennessee river. The increased sale of the public 
 lands which would result from the construction of the road was 
 given as a reason for the passage of the bill. 5 Later in the year 
 a bill granting lands for a road from Jefferson City, Missouri, 
 to the Mississippi, via Little Rock, Arkansas, was also favorably 
 reported, 6 but no action on either bill was taken. 
 
 1 tStatutes at Large, IV, 47. 
 
 2 Ibid., 23G. 
 
 • Ibid., G62. 
 
 'Exec. Does., 2d sess. 23d Cong., No. 131. 
 
 'Reports of Committees, 1st sess. 24th Cong., No. 607. 
 
 «Ibid., No. 651. 
 
 (281)
 
 20 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 In 1838 the strongest attempt thus far was made to secure a 
 land grant. This was for a road from ISTew Albany, Indiana, to 
 Mt. Carmel in the same state. A favorable report was made 
 from the Senate committee on Eoads and Canals, 7 and the bill 
 was taken up in the Senate on June 6. Smith of Indiana made 
 the principal speech in its favor. He said that the lands along the 
 proposed road had been in the market for nearly thirty years 
 without finding a purchaser and that the road would render 
 them salable. He also considered the carrying of the mails free, 
 as was provided in the bill, a full equivalent of the value of the 
 lands. Xiles, of Connecticut, who throughout his career in 
 Congress was the consistent antagonist of land grants, opposed 
 the bill as unconstitutional and as being a bargain with a corpo- 
 ration. A motion to strike out all after the enacting clause 
 prevailed by a vote of 23 to ll. 8 
 
 As some of the opposition to the bill arose from the fact that 
 the grant was made directly to a corporation attempts were made 
 later in the session to amend it so that the grant would be made 
 to the state. 9 Nothing was done, however, nor was any other 
 important action taken at this session. 10 The next year the New 
 Albany and Mt. Carmel bill was introduced again but was 
 amended in the Senate so as to give the right of pre-emption 
 only, 11 and although in IS 40 it was introduced as a land grant 
 bill in the House, it was buried in the committee of the whole. 12 
 The failure to secure the passage of this bill showed that the 
 time was not ripe for railroad land grants. It had much greater 
 merit than many roads which later secured grants. New Albany 
 was on the Ohio, opposite Louisville, while Mt. Carmel was on 
 the "Wabash. The road would, it was claimed, secure a passage 
 around the low water of the lower Ohio, and thus afford an out- 
 
 7 Sen. Docs., 2d sess. 25th Cong., No. 203. 
 
 8 The support of the bill came from the South and West, the East being almost 
 solidly against it. Globe, 2d sess. 25th Cong., 434. 
 
 8 Ibid., 450. 
 
 10 For other reports on land-grant bills, on which no action was taken, see 
 Ben. Docs., 2d sess. 25th Cong., Nos. 454, 455. 
 
 11 Senate Journal, 3d sess. 25th Cong., 270. 
 "House Journal, 1st sess. 26th Cong., 1128. 
 
 (282)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 21 
 
 let for the products of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana to the Mis- 
 sissippi and thence to New Orleans. 13 
 
 From this time the consideration of land grants disappeared 
 from Congress until 1840, when the request came from a south- 
 ern state. A bill was introduced making a grant of the alter- 
 nate odd-numbered sections for five miles on each side of the line 
 for a road from Jackson, Mississippi, through Brandon to the 
 western boundary of Alabama. It was debated in the Senate 
 April 30th. The opposition was voiced by Bagby, of Ala- 
 bama, on the ground that the grant was the same as a money ap- 
 propriation for internal improvements and because the price of 
 the lands remaining in the hands of the government along the 
 line would probably be raised. Speight, of Mississippi, said that 
 the purpose of the bill was to enhance the value of the remain- 
 ing public lands, while Calhoun took very similar grounds when 
 he said that he favored the bill because it would benefit the treas- 
 ury. 14 Yulee, of Florida, favored the bill because Mississippi 
 had not had her share in the distribution of the public lands. 15 
 Haywood remarked that if the principle of proportionate distri- 
 bution was carried out the old states should have their share. 
 To this Yulee answered that it was on account of the exemption 
 from taxation which the public lands had enjoyed that a share 
 in the lands was due the new states. 16 The Mississippi bill was 
 ordered read a third time by a vote of 28 to 8, 17 and passed the 
 next day. It was not brought up in the House. The arguments 
 advanced for and against the bill were, in their main features, fol- 
 lowed in subsequent discussions of the subject. In them four 
 
 13 See Sen. Docs., 2d sess. 25th Cong., No. 203 ; and Sen. Docs., 3d sess. 25th 
 Cong., No. 49. A memorial from New Orleans merchants accompanied the latter 
 report. For the Illinois internal improvement scheme of 1837, with which this 
 road was to connect, see Moses, Illinois, Historical and Statistical, I, 411. As 
 late as 1849 the Illinois legislature passed resolutions favoring a grant to the 
 New Albany and Mt. Carmel road. Sen. Misc., 2d sess. 30th Cong., No. 3G. The 
 road was not built until much later. 
 
 14 Globe, 1st sess. 29th Con., 751. 
 
 15 The truth of this position is not clear. Mississippi received the usual five 
 per cent, of the proceeds of the sale of her public lands (Statutes at Large, III, 
 348), and one of the first grants of public lands for education (Ibid., II, 229). 
 
 la Globe, 1st sess. 29th Cong., 752. 
 
 "Ibid. The negative votes were from New Hampshire (2), Connecticut, 
 North Carolina, Georgia (2), Alabama, and Tennessee. 
 
 (283)
 
 22 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 ideas are prominent. The opponents of the bill called it an inter- 
 nal improvement scheme, and objected to increasing the price of 
 the lands; those favoring it claimed that it was a positive benefit 
 to the treasury; and others held that the states had rights to a 
 share of the public lands. It will be interesting to note the de- 
 velopment of these lines of argument. 
 
 The first session of the thirtieth Congress, held in 1847-48, 
 barely escaped being a fruitful one in land grant legislation. A 
 bill was introduced making a grant for a railroad from Hannibal, 
 Missouri, to St. Joseph. 18 This was followed by one making a 
 grant to Iowa for a railroad across the state, 19 and these bills 
 were incorporated with a bill making a grant for a railroad from 
 Mobile to the mouth of the Ohio, and with one making a grant 
 for a road from Jackson to the Alabama state line. 20 This very 
 extensive bill passed the Senate without difficulty 21 and almost 
 slipped through the House. When it reached the House it was 
 ordered read a third time without division and almost without 
 discussion. 22 This was only two days after it had passed the 
 Senate. That there was method in this haste seems very prob- 
 able from the fact that the next dav the vote was reconsidered 
 and the bill laid on the table, 102 to 80. Of the New England 
 states, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut favored 
 the bill, as did New Jersey and Delaware in the Middle States, 
 iiside from these none but the western land states voted in its 
 favor. 23 In the West, Ohio and Indiana were against the bill. 
 
 18 Globe, 1st sess. SOth Cong., 728. 
 
 19 Ibid., 763. 
 -° Ibid., 1051. 
 
 21 The vote was 34 to 15, the negative votes being from Maine, Vermont, Con- 
 necticut (2), New York (2), Maryland, Virginia (2), South Carolina, Georgia, 
 Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Ibid. 
 
 - Ibid., 1059. For. Against. 
 
 23 New England 9 10 
 
 Middle 31 23 
 
 South 28 9 
 
 Gulf 5 5 
 
 West (land) 17 26 
 
 West (non-land) 12 7 
 
 House Journal, 1st sess. 30th Cong., 1241. In this classification of the states, 
 "Gulf" includes Florida and Alabama, but not Texas ; the western non-land states 
 are Texas, Tennessee and Kentucky. Thus the first three and last categories are 
 those states without public lands, and the fourth and fifth those with lands. 
 
 (284)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANT8. 23 
 
 The only other land grant bill of importance at this session 
 was the Illinois Central grant, which will be considered in con- 
 nection with the passage of that act. 
 
 The tendency of population to follow the watercourses dur- 
 ing the period prior to 1850 and the prevalence of the idea that 
 railways were only supplemental to rivers and canals has already 
 been noted. This is well illustrated in the land grant legislation 
 which we have just been considering. The bills which received 
 the consideration of Congress were largely for roads which fol- 
 lowed natural watercourses and which were to assist these water 
 routes during seasons of low water. Yet just before 1850 a de- 
 cided change may be observed. In the first session of the thirty- 
 first Congress only four bills for roads of this character were in- 
 troduced while there were fifteen bills for roads connecting sepa- 
 rate waterways. It would appear that if the requests of those 
 asking land grants were agreed to, these grants would materially 
 assist in the development of the country lying between the 
 rivers. 
 
 The prospects for railroad land grants cannot be said to have 
 been bright at the close of the thirtieth Congress. The Senate 
 was willing to give nearly all that was asked but the House was 
 firm in its position against the grants. The cause of this differ- 
 ence in sentiment seems to have been the greater proportionate 
 representation of the new states in the former body. A similar 
 difference in the two houses of Congress has often been observed 
 in connection with other questions which divided the country on 
 sectional lines. It is to the House then, that we must look in 
 our future consideration of the land grant question. And it is 
 this body which is the most difficult to study. The propensity 
 of the Senate to debate with thoroughness all questions which 
 come before it even to the delay of important public business 
 has of late years been the subject of much unfavorable com- 
 ment. But whatever the defects of the plan from the point of 
 view of the public interest, it enables the student of the consti- 
 tutional history of the period to learn much of the opinions and 
 motives of members of the Senate. In the House, on the other 
 3 (285)
 
 24 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OP WISCONSIN. 
 
 hand, debate, even in the period now under consideration, was 
 much restricted. The great number of members also makes a 
 determination of the causes of individual action much more dif- 
 ficult than in the case of the Senate. The problem which is be- 
 fore us, the cause of the changed attitude of the House, and 
 whether that change was one of permanent sentiment or due to 
 temporary political causes, must be considered in the succeeding 
 chapters. 
 
 (286)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANT8. 25 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 
 THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL GRANT. 
 
 The first bill to force its way through the opposition of the 
 House was that granting lands to Illinois, Mississippi, and Ala- 
 bama, in aid of the Illinois Central and Mobile and Ohio rail- 
 roads. Aside from the amount of land granted, this bill was of 
 special importance from its position as pioneer. The precedent 
 once established, the path of the other bills was rendered easier, 
 for the benefits which had been secured to the three states were 
 with much justice demanded by the other land states. Illinois 
 had received land, and why should not also Iowa? A separate 
 consideration of the Illinois Central bill with a Anew to deter- 
 mining the forces which secured its passage is therefore neces- 
 sary at this point in the history of railroad land grants. 
 
 As earlv as 1844, Senator Breese had endeavored to secure 
 for the Great Western Railway company of Illinois the right of 
 pre-emption of the public lands along its line. He considered 
 that right of as much practical value as a grant to the state in 
 aid of the road would have been, especially as there seemed no 
 hope of securing such a grant. In this he was opposed by 
 Stephen A. Douglas, then a representative from Illinois in the 
 House, who believed that the chances of securing a grant to the 
 state were good and that to ask for the pre-emption right would 
 embarrass efforts to secure a grant at some other time. 1 But in 
 1846, Breese, then chairman of the Senate Committee on Public 
 Lands, introduced a bill granting alternate sections of the pub- 
 lic lands in aid of the Northern Cross and Central railroads. 3 
 
 1 Douglas to Breese, Jan. 5. 1851. Springfield Daily Register, Jan. 20, 1851. 
 Reprinted in Fergus Hist. Ser., No. 23, pp. 66-7. 
 
 2 Globe>, 1st sess. 29th Cong., 208. The Northern Cross road was from Quincy 
 to the Indiana line. 
 
 (287)
 
 26 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 He did not have much faith in this bill for it was never called 
 up, and at the second session of this Congress he again intro- 
 duced his pre-emption bill, which did not pass. 
 
 In the fall of 1847, Douglas, then thirty-three years of age, 
 entered the Senate. "With his appearance the situation was ma- 
 terially changed. His marked political ability had already won 
 for him a high place in the Democratic party. As a practical 
 politician, skilled in the manipulation of men for the benefit of 
 his own or his party's measures, he has probably not been ex- 
 celled by any other American. As a debater he was adroit 
 rather than deep, and his well-known speeches on Kansas and in 
 his debates with Lincoln show his great skill in the favorable ex- 
 pression of his side of the question. Yet it would be unjust to 
 consider him as working merely for the sake of the party spoils. 
 He had large views as to the future of his country and particu- 
 larly his section of it. His faith was in the speedy develop- 
 ment of the West, and in that he was anxious to assist. Even 
 beyond this he believed in "manifest destiny;" at present he 
 would have been called an "imperialist." A bill which enlisted 
 his personal approval and which did not run counter to the posi- 
 tion of his party was sure of his hearty support and by that sup- 
 port was placed very near success. 3 
 
 Not only was he in hearty accord with the principles of the 
 grant for the Illinois Central, but he seems to have been the chief 
 supporter of that measure. Breese favored the securing of the 
 right of pre-emption and considered the attempts to secure a 
 grant only wasted energy. In accordance with this, belief, he in- 
 troduced a pre-emption bill, a move which received the severe 
 criticism of Douglas, who felt the weakness of their divided po- 
 sition and thought that Congress could hardly be expected to 
 donate lands to Illinois when one of her senators only asked the 
 right of pre-emption of those same lands. Breese, however, 
 said that he only wished to have the pre-emption bill on the cal- 
 endar to call up after the anticipated failure of the land grant. 4 
 
 s For a good characterization of Douglas, see Rhodes, History of United, States, 
 I, 244-6. 
 
 * Douglas to Breese, Jan. 5, 1S51, 1. c. pp. 69-73. 
 
 (288)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 27 
 
 It would seem probable that the moral effect of the division of 
 the Illinois senators on the fate of the bill was considerable. 
 
 Both introduced bills in accordance with their ideas, but 
 Douglas made an important modification in the one which he put 
 forward. The Central road of the previous bills had been from 
 Galena to Cairo, following the great natural waterway of the 
 Mississippi and the route which western commerce had up to 
 this time taken. Douglas modified this by a "branch" from 
 Centralia to Chicago. By so doing he believed that he would 
 strengthen the bill by connecting with it the Eastern interests 
 of the Great Lakes and the roads then building toward Chicago. 5 
 Politically the idea was an excellent one, but Douglas may also 
 have forseen the current of commercial development, in the path 
 of which he desired to place himself. 
 
 This bill came up as a special order May 3, 1848. A disagree- 
 ment as to the carrying of the mails by the road was settled by 
 providing that the United States District Judge was to fix the 
 rate. ISTiles then opened the opposition to the bill by declar- 
 ing that Congress had no power to carry on internal improve- 
 ments and that a grant of lands was only an evasion of the Con- 
 stitution. 7 Crittenden, of Kentucky, and Bagby, of Alabama, 
 discussed the constitutionality of the bill at some length. The 
 former considered the right of Congress to grant lands settled by 
 precedent, while the latter did not think that constitutional 
 questions could be settled that way. 8 The discussion took 
 another turn when Butler, of Carolina, claimed that the West 
 would receive all the benefit from such a law. Crittenden re- 
 plied that it was no more than was due the West as the East had 
 received all the benefit from appropriations for forts and cus- 
 tom houses. Cass supported the bill on the theory that the gov- 
 ernment, as a land-owner, could dispose of its lands as it saw fit 
 
 6 Ibid., 69. 
 
 «Olobc, 1st sc-ss. 20th Cong.. App., 534-5. 
 
 '"To say that we car. get round the Constitution by granting the public lands, 
 instead of taking the money directly out of the treasury, is certainly trifling 
 With the judgment of this body." Ibi<L, App., 535. 
 
 8 Ibid. 
 
 8 Ibid., App.. 536. 
 
 (289)
 
 28 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 and do what it could to enhance the value of those lands. 10 Cal- 
 houn followed with almost the same argument of financial bene- 
 fit which he had once before used. 11 
 
 These arguments have been heard before but are here devel- 
 oped into their final form. To one who interprets the Constitu- 
 tion as loosely as most of us do at the present time neither of the 
 arguments seems sound. Congress can "dispose of" the public 
 lands. That seems ample authority for a grant in aid of rail- 
 roads, but to the strict constructionist of ante-bellum days this 
 "dispose of" was limited by his general theory of the provinces 
 of the federal government and the states. The public lands 
 were also a source of revenue and to give them away would to 
 that extent decrease the amount received from that direction 
 and correspondingly increase taxation. Granting the interpre- 
 tation of the Constitution which preceded it, Xiles' argument 
 seems sound. As the advocates of the bill held the same con- 
 stitutional principles, they met it the only way open to them — 
 by providing a return for the lands granted. This return was in 
 the increase in the price of the lands and was to correspond ex- 
 actly to the value of the lands granted. This resembles more a 
 temporary expedient for meeting a constitutional difficulty than 
 a true principle of interpretation. If the Democratic reading 
 of the Constitution on internal improvements was the correct 
 one, their argument in favor of land grants was a mere evasion 
 of tKat document under an ingenious and plausible juggling of 
 words. The true basis of land grants was national benefit, but 
 
 10 "The Federal government is a great land-owner ; it possesses an extensive pub- 
 lic domain ; and we have the power under the Constitution to dispose of that do- 
 main ; and a very unlimited power it is. The simple question is, what disposi- 
 tion we may make of the public lands? . . . We may bestow them for school 
 purposes, or we may bestow a portion for the purpose of improving the value of 
 the rest." Ibid., App., 536. 
 
 ""The question in this case is a very simple one. We are authorized by the 
 Constitution to dispose of the public lands. Here is a public improvement . . . 
 by which the value of the public lands would be enhanced. If then, it will add 
 to the value, ought we not to contribute to it ... ? I do not think that there 
 Is a principle more perfectly clear from doubt than this one is. It does not be- 
 long to the category of internal improvements at all. It is not a power claimed 
 by the government as a government. It belongs to the government as a land 
 proprietor. And I will add that it is not only a right but a duty and an im- 
 portant duty." Ibid., App., 537. 
 
 (290)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 29 
 
 to take this ground required an extension of the "general wel- 
 fare" clause which few at that time were willing to make. 
 
 The bill was ordered read a third time by a vote of 24 to 11. 
 The states with public lands cast 14 votes for and 3 against it 
 while from thel states without lands 10 votes were cast for and 8 
 against. The opposition came chiefly from New England and 
 the South, while the West voted solidly for it. 12 The measure 
 was supported by both parties, the Democrats voting 14 for and 
 10 against, and the Whigs 10 for and 1 against. 
 
 In the House the bill came up August 12. Callamer, of Ver- 
 mont, thought that the company ought not to be allowed to go 
 off its line for the selection of lands, and offered an amendment 
 to that effect which was adopted. Under the previous question 
 a vote was then taken and a third reading refused, 74 to 78 
 according to the Globe 13 or 73 to 79 according to the Jour- 
 nal 1 * The South furnished most of the opposition; nearly 
 all of the Middle States were divided, while in the West 
 Ohio cast 9 votes against the bill. 15 On party lines the vote 
 stood 30 Democrats for and 42 against the bill, and 43 Whigs 
 for and 37 against. Here, as in the Senate, the bill was rather 
 more of a Whig than a Democratic measure, but party lines were 
 not closely drawn. It must also be remembered that the chief 
 sponsor of the bill was a leading Democrat. An attempt was 
 
 For. Against. 
 
 12 New England 2 3 
 
 Middle 2 1 
 
 South 2 3 
 
 Gulf 4 3 
 
 West (land) 10 
 
 West (non-land) 4 1 
 
 Senate Journal, 1st sess. 30th Cong., 314. 
 
 "Globe, 1st sess. 30th Cong., 1071. 
 
 14 Hou3e Journal, 1st sess. 30th Cong., 1270. 
 
 For. Against. 
 
 " New England 10 5 
 
 Middle 25 22 
 
 South 7 31 
 
 Gulf 3 4 
 
 West (land) 27 9 
 
 West (non-land) 1 8 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 (291)
 
 30 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OP WISCONSIN. 
 
 made to reconsider the vote the following day but the motion 
 was laid on the table 78 to 64. 16 , 
 
 In asking why the bill failed to pass, we must remember the 
 problem which confronted the advocates of the bill in their en- 
 deavor to secure favorable action by the House, and the differ- 
 ence between the conditions there and in the Senate. In the 
 House the members from the states which contained public lands 
 were largely in the minority while in the Senate the representa- 
 tion from the two sections was almost the same, the non-land 
 states having 140 representatives as against 90 from the land 
 states and 32 senators as against 28. A very few votes from the 
 old states would pass such a bill in the Senate but a considerable 
 number must be secured in order to achieve success in the House. 
 It would be incorrect to represent the matter as entirely a sec- 
 tional one, but in general the interests of the old and new parts 
 of the country were diverse when questions of land policy were 
 concerned. It was therefore necessary to win over a number of 
 members from the non-land states, and the friends of the Illinois 
 Central bill had as yet failed to do this. Influences were al- 
 readv at work in this direction. Some of the eastern mem- 
 bers may have been influenced by their western interests, but 
 the growing connections between the East and the Mississippi 
 valley acted with the most power in securing eastern votes for 
 western enterprises. 
 
 At the short session of the Congress Breese secured action on 
 his pre-emption bill, which passed the Senate without opposition. 
 Douglas stated that he withdrew his opposition to the bill on the 
 understanding that it could not pass the House. 17 It, however, 
 almost became a law, but the close of the session prevented de- 
 cisive action. 18 
 
 Breese was succeeded in the thirty-first Congress by General 
 
 10 Douglas was in error when he stated In his letter to Breese of Jan. 5, 1851, 
 that the bill was laid on the table in the House. 
 
 " Douglas to Breese, Jan. 5., 1851, 1. c, 74. Compare Breese to Douglas, Jan. 
 25, 1851, Springfield Weekly Register, Feb. 6, 1861. Reprinted in Fergus Hist. 
 Ber., No. 23, pp. 76-89. 
 
 18 See House Journal, 2d sess. 30th Cong., 537, 670 ; compare Glooe, 2d sess. 
 30th Cong., 616, 698. 
 
 (292)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 31 
 
 Shields, who was not apt to be of great assistance in any matter 
 requiring delicate political management, but who would at least 
 not hinder Douglas in the efforts which he might make towards 
 a land grant for the Illinois Central. Felch, of Michigan, suc- 
 ceeded Breese as chairman of the committee on Public Lands. 
 At the beginning of the session Douglas introduced a bill sim- 
 ilar to the one which had previously passed the Senate. When 
 it was called up for consideration, King, of Alabama, introduced 
 an amendment making a similar grant to Alabama and Missis- 
 sippi for a road from Mobile to the mouth of the Ohio. 19 This 
 amendment was not simply the insertion of a separate grant but 
 the continuation of the previous grant to the Gulf, thus increas- 
 ing the national importance of the undertaking and tending to 
 secure the support of the South as well as of the West. 
 
 The first opposition to the bill came from Walker, of Wiscon- 
 sin, who considered it a tax on the settlers for the benefit of the 
 railroads. He said that he favored granting the lands to the set- 
 tlers themselves, 20 and moved to strike out that part of the bill 
 increasing the price of the sections reserved to the government, 
 but as this increase in price was the essential feature of the "land- 
 owner 1 ' theory of land grants the amendment was rejected. 21 
 Walker's position was that which was finding expression at this 
 time in the movement for the homestead bill, and shows the an- 
 tagonism between that system and the grants for railroads. A 
 more detailed examination of the conflict between the two sys- 
 tems will be made later, but we( may note at this point that such 
 a division between the members from the land states argued ill 
 for the success of either measure. But as Walker's plan did not 
 
 18 Globe, lBt sess. 31st Cong., 845. The statement by Douglas that this amend- 
 ment was made at his suggestion may have some truth, but the greater part 
 ef the story is manifestly improbable. The value of the book by Cutts, Short 
 Treatise on Constitutional and Party Questions, is discussed in Appendix B. 
 
 20 "It amounts, then, to a tax upon the actual settlers to that amount [$1.25 an 
 acre, the increase in the price of the lands under the bill] in order to build the 
 road. This is one of the greatest embarrassments to the settlement of the new 
 states. I know of nothing that would embarrass the settlement of these states 
 more than increasing the price of the public lands. ... I am in favor of 
 granting the whole of this land to the states to be given to actual settlers at 
 the cost only of surveying it." Globe, 1st sess. 31st Cong., 845. 
 
 » Ibid., 852-3. 
 
 (293)
 
 32 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 find favor with the rest of the Senate, it did not now endanger 
 the land grant bills. The only other point brought out in the 
 discussion was the objection made by Bradbury, of Maine, in re- 
 gard to the location of lands at a distance from the road in lieu 
 of those already sold by the government. 22 This was discussed 
 at some length and an amendment restricting the grant to six 
 miles on each side of the road was lost 15 to 23. 23 The amend- 
 ment offered by King was adopted without division 24 and the 
 bill went over to the next day. 25 
 
 A glance at the map will show that the bill did not provide for 
 a complete line from Chicago to Mobile. Between Illinois and 
 Mississippi lie Kentucky and Tennessee, states without public 
 lands and therefore not included in the bill. When the Senate 
 considered the bill the next day, Bell, of Tennessee, called atten- 
 tion to the lack of a connecting link in the system and offered an 
 amendment which provided that Kentucky and Tennessee should 
 be given a part of the lands in the other states in proportion to 
 the length of line in the various states, for a continuation of the 
 Mobile and Ohio railroad. 26 
 
 Nothing illustrates the theory of the land grants better than 
 the reception of this amendment. King asked Bell to withdraw 
 it as it would probably defeat the whole bill. He said that it pro- 
 ceeded on a different principle, as the road in Kentucky and Ten- 
 nessee would not increase the value of any public lands. 27 To 
 this objection the answer was made by Miller, of ISTew Jersey, 
 that if a road from Chicago to Cairo increased the value of lands 
 
 22 "If the lands have been sold, then the selection is to be made from other lands 
 not upon the road, but quite remote from the road, and so remote that the prin- 
 ciple upon which the bill is advocated cannot fairly apply." Ibid., 847. 
 
 83 Ibid., 854. 
 
 "Ibid., 851. 
 
 25 For debate, see ibid., 844-54. 
 
 26 "So to amend the bill that a proportion of the net proceeds of the lands given 
 to the state of Illinois and the states of Alabama and Mississippi be secured to 
 the states of Tennessee and Kentucky respectively, equal to the proportion of 
 the entire line of the railroad proposed to be constructed from the southern 
 terminus of the Illinois and Michigan canal to the city of Mobile, which passes 
 through each of the two latter states, to be applied by them to the construction 
 of the sections or divisions of the road within their respective jurisdiction." 
 Ibid., 868. 
 
 27 Ibid. 
 
 (291)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 33 
 
 in Illinois, and a road from Mobile to the boundary of Missis- 
 sippi increased the value of lands in Alabama and Mississippi, the 
 complete line from Mobile to Chicago ought to still further in- 
 crease the lands in all those states. 28 The amendment was, how- 
 ever, defeated without a division. 29 That such an amendment 
 would only continue the idea of the original bill, even on the 
 "land-owner" theory of the grant, seems clear. But the consti- 
 tutional basis of the support of the bill was not strong enough to 
 carry such an extension of the principle. This fact illustrates the 
 essential weakness of the position taken by those favoring the 
 bill. Forced to accept a strict construction of the Constitution, 
 they had to evolve an unnatural argument and could not follow 
 that argument to its logical conclusion but were constantly 
 forced into inconsistencies. 
 
 Dayton, of ISTew Jersey, attempted to bring in a new question 
 by an amendment providing for the distribution of the proceeds 
 of the public lands, after the land grant, in the manner provided 
 by the Distribution Bill of 1S41. 30 This was defeated 12 to 30. 
 All those favoring the amendment were Whigs while only five 
 "Whigs voted against it. 31 The votes for it were nearly all from 
 the East. 
 
 Jefferson Davis expressed the sentiment which had been heard 
 in the previous debates in regard to the indemnity limits by offer- 
 ing an amendment restricting such lands to within fifteen miles 
 of the road. He considered that such a distance was the limit 
 of the road's influence as this was as far as a loaded team could go 
 and return in a day. 32 What became of this important amend- 
 ment is not clear. Davis said that he would not press it and the 
 
 23 "Gentlemen say that we have the right to donate to the state of Illinois the 
 public lands for building this road within that state, but the moment the great 
 public highway crosses her line we have no right to assist in the completion 
 of this work ! In other words, we, holding this domain, have a right to assist 
 in building the road in the state where the lands lie. but the moment we cross 
 that line our power ceases. This is a partial administration of the public prop- 
 erty which I cannot comprehend." Ibid., 8fi9. 
 
 "Ibid., GOO. 
 
 s0 Ibid., 871, 873. 
 
 "They were Smith (Conn.), Badger and Mangum (N. C), Bell (Tenn.), and 
 Morton (Fla.). Ibid., 900. 
 
 " Ibid., 902. 
 
 (293)
 
 34 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 bill "was reported from the committee of the whole without it. 3S 
 The Journal throws no light upon it, 34 and it was not inserted 
 in the House. Yet it appears in the bill as published and was in- 
 corporated in the subsequent acts on the subject. The effect of 
 this change was considerable. By the original bill the company- 
 could replace lands previously disposed of within the limits of the 
 grants by the nearest public lands, and could go to the- 
 boundaries of the state, if necessary, in making its selections. 
 But under the amendment the lands could only be replaced by 
 vacant lands more than six and less than fifteen miles from the 
 road. If lands could not be secured within those limits the com- 
 pany had to do without them. This amendment, apparently 
 irregularly passed, affected not only the Illinois Central act but 
 all others, as the later bills were drawn up on the model of the 
 first one. If the amendment slipped in by a clerical error it was 
 probably the most far-reaching mistake of that nature ever made* 
 by Congress. 
 
 The bill passed the Senate 26 to 14. The sectional division 
 was very similar to that of the previous Congress except that the- 
 vote of Ohio was divided and New York and Pennsylvania both 
 favored the bill. 35 Both parties supported it, the Democrats vot- 
 ing 18 to 6 and the Whigs 8 to 7. 36 
 
 The reading of the Globe gives one the impression that much 
 interest was taken in the bill, yet it is scarcely mentioned in the- 
 newspapers of the year. This was the time of the Compromise of 
 1850 and there was little time for economic discussions. On- 
 April 30th, Pike v T rote to the New York Tribune that "the de- 
 
 M "Mr. Davis : Well, if no one else objects, I shall not press my amendment. 
 
 "There being no further propositions to amend, the bill was reported back to- 
 the Senate ; and the amendments of the committee concurred in." Ibid., 904. 
 
 84 Senate Journal, 1st sess. 31st Cong., 320-1. 
 
 For. Against. 
 
 15 New England 1 4 
 
 Middle 2 4 
 
 South 2 3 
 
 Gulf 5 1 
 
 West (land) 13 1 
 
 West ( non-land ) 3 1 
 
 Globe, 1st sess. 31st Cong., 904. 
 
 80 There was one free-soil vote, cast by Chase, of Ohio, against the bill. 
 
 (29C)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 35 
 
 serted seats of the Senate were in the course of today addressed 
 by Mr. Benton, who made some brief and beautiful remarks in 
 favor of the bill making a donation of alternate sections of the 
 public lands to aid road-making in Illinois." 37 
 
 The bill came up in the House with a favorable report from 
 the committee on Public Lands, but was laid aside several times. 
 On September 17 it was passed, under the previous question, 101 
 to 75. As before, it was opposed by the South, New England 
 was almost exactly divided, and the Middle states were slightly 
 in favor of it 33 There were 52 Whig votes for and 28 against 
 the bill. Comparing this vote with that of the previous Con- 
 gress we rind that there has been a change of three votes in the 
 Middle States, one in the South, ten in the Gulf States, and five 
 in Tennessee and Kentucky. 
 
 "What caused the change in the vote? The most obvious cause 
 is the incorporation of the Mobile and Ohio road in the bill as 
 there was a gain of fifteen votes from the states likely to be bene- 
 fited by this road. If Douglas really originated this idea the pass- 
 age of the bill may be said to have been due to him alone. An 
 explanation of the change in .some of the eastern votes is given 
 by John Wentworth, then a member of the House from Illinois. 
 He states that there had been opposition to land grants from the 
 old states on account of fears of western emigration and among 
 the Whigs who wished a distribution of the proceeds of the 
 land sales. Through the holders of the old canal bonds, mostly 
 eastern men and Whigs, and with the aid of Webster and Ash- 
 mun in return for concessions on the tariff, the passage of the 
 
 "New York Weekly Tribune, May 11, 1850. 
 
 For. Against. 
 
 M New England 10 11 
 
 Middle 2S 22 
 
 South 8 23 
 
 Gulf *f! 13 
 
 WVst (land) 34 12 
 
 West (non-land) 8 7 
 
 House Journal, 1st sess. 3l3t Cong., 1490. Walker, of Wisconsin, stated that 
 the Senators and Representatives from his state were acting under a memorial 
 from the legislature and that he did not believe that any of them were in favor 
 of land grants. Olobc, 1st sess. 31st Cong., 1766. 
 
 \ 
 
 (297)
 
 36 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 bill was secured. 39 There was certainly an increase in the Whig 
 vote in favor of this bill and Breese liints at some such bargain 
 in his letter to Douglas of January 25, 1851. 40 There also ap- 
 pears to be a confirmation of this in the action three days later 
 on the bill granting lands for a railroad in Florida. When this 
 bill was received from the Senate Cabell said that it had been his 
 intention to move the immediate passage of the bill but as his 
 tariff friends were in such a bad humor at the defeat of their bill 
 that morning he would not do so. He said that he did not think 
 that the sins of the Democratic side of the House should be vis- 
 ited upon him. (He was a Whig.) 41 
 
 Another element which probably influenced the East was the 
 branch to Chicago which connected the Mississippi river traffic 
 with the trade from the East by way of the Great Lakes and the 
 railroads which were just being constructed. Douglas attached 
 great importance to this feature of the bill. 42 The system was as 
 comprehensive a one as could well be devised, connecting as it 
 did the Xorthwest, South, and East, To this comprehensiveness 
 must be attributed in great part the success of the measure. Of 
 minor importance was the political astuteness of the friends of 
 the bill. The fate of the other land grant bills was such as to 
 show that a combination of exceptional circumstances was neces- 
 sary at this time to enable such a bill to secure the approval of the 
 House. 43 
 
 The only thing of importance in connection with the other 
 land grant bills considered at this session was an amendment of- 
 fered by King, of New Jersey, to the bill making a grant for a 
 
 88 Wentworth, Congressional Reminiscences, Fergus Hist. Ser., No. 24, pp. 
 40-42. 
 
 40 "It was the votes of Massachusetts and New York that passed the bill, and 
 you and I know how they were obtained." Springfield Daily Register, Feb. 6, 
 1851 ; Fergus Hist. Ser., No. 23, p. S9. 
 
 "Globe, 1st sess. 31st Cong., 1953. 
 
 42 "It was the Chicago branch . . . connecting the main road with the 
 various lines in progress of construction, from Philadelphia, New York, Boston, 
 and Portland, as well as the great chain of lakes and the St. Lawrence, whicn 
 secured the votes we obtained from Pennsylvania, New York and New England." 
 Douglas to Breese, Feb. 22, 1851; Fergus Hist. Ser., No. 23, p. 96. 
 
 43 Other bills were acted on as follows : Hannibal and St. Joseph, laid on the 
 table, 91 to 81, Globe, 1st sess. 31st Cong., 1951 ; Missouri Pacific, laid on the 
 table, 102 to 65, Ibid., 1952 ; others not considered. 
 
 (298)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 37 
 
 road from Hannibal to St. Joseph. This provided that none of 
 the lands should be transferred to any corporation, company, or 
 individual, but should be used by the state directly, the profits to 
 be applied to the school fund. 44 This, together with the bill, 
 was laid on the table. Young, of Illinois, submitted a similar 
 amendment to another bill which was disposed of in the same 
 manner. 45 
 
 By this time the arguments for and against land grants had 
 been well defined. They were to develop in certain directions, 
 but little new was to be added by subsequent discussions. The 
 chief argument for the land grant was that the government was 
 a great landed proprietor. Subordinate to this was the claim by 
 the various states for a share in the public lands, on the theory 
 both of a proportional distribution and of compensation due the 
 new states on account of the exemption of the lands from taxa- 
 tion. Against the grants were, first, the constitutional argument, 
 that they were only internal improvements in a veiled form, and 
 the objection from the standpoint of the settler that the desira- 
 ble lands were raised in price. From the idea that the states 
 were entitled to a share in the public lands, came the plea for a 
 general grant of lands; and from the settlers' argument came the 
 agitation for the homestead law. 
 
 44 Ibid., 1951. 
 "Ibid., 1952. 
 
 (299)
 
 38 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OP WISCONSIN. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE EAST AGAINST THE WEST — LAND GRANTS AND 
 
 HOMESTEADS. 
 
 The effect of the IHinois Central grant on legislation was not 
 felt at once, and little was done in regard to the matter during 
 the second session of the thirty-first Congress. But at the begin- 
 ning of the next Congress, bills were introduced granting lands 
 to railroads in nearly all of the states which had public lands. 
 The Commissioner of the Land Office estimated that the bills in- 
 troduced in the Senate provided for 3,090 miles of road, and 
 grants amounting to 13,901,657 acres. 1 Other estimates were 
 much higher. Not only were many more bills introduced ; the 
 interest in the bills, was much greater than at the previous Con- 
 gress. Pike wrote to the Tribune, February 10, 1852, "This 
 question of grants of the public lands is engrossing, and is likely 
 to engross much of the time of the session. It is in fact the 
 great leading topic of interest." 2 
 
 It is not worth while considering these bills in detail. The ar- 
 gument for land grants has been discussed in the previous chap- 
 ter. A noteworthy development was, however, made by Charles 
 
 Length of Grant, 
 
 1 States. road, miles. acres. 
 
 Michigan 534 341,760 
 
 Wisconsin 156 599,040 
 
 Iowa 434 3,104,417 
 
 Missouri 232 890.8S0 
 
 Arkansas 488 1,873,920 
 
 Alabama 314 1,205,760 
 
 Florida 932 3.S82.880 
 
 Total 3,090 13,901,657 
 
 Globe, 1st sess. 32d Cong., App., 428. 
 
 1 Semi-Weekly Tribune, February 24, 1852. On June 10, Orr claimed in the 
 House that the committee on public lands had occupied most of the morning hour 
 for the previous three or four months. Globe, 1st sess. 32d Cong., 1551. 
 
 (300)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 39 
 
 Sumner in his speech on the Iowa bill. Attention had been 
 called before to the fact that the states had not been allowed to 
 tax the public lands within their limits and that something was 
 due the states on this account. Sumner worked out the propo- 
 sition mathematically, claiming that the grants to the states 
 would no more than compensate for the money which might have 
 been obtained had the lands been subject to taxation. He at- 
 tempted to estimate* the amount of these taxes and found some 
 $60,000,000 due the states from the government. 3 This argu- 
 ment was answered by Hunter, of Virginia, who claimed that an 
 estimate of a tax of one cent an acre on lands which could not be 
 sold for $1.25 was too high. He also claimed that the exemption 
 of the public lands from taxation had been compensated for by 
 the administration of the territories at the expense of the general 
 government, by the sections granted for the use of schools, the 
 5 per cent, of the proceeds of the lands, and by the lands granted 
 for internal improvements. 4 Felch, of Michigan, advanced the 
 same argument as Sumner, and also objected to the government 
 as a land owner in the states. He claimed that the new states did 
 not have the powers of sovereignty over their own soil, and could 
 not exercise the right of eminent domain or assess government 
 lands for benefits due to state action. 5 In the House an opposi- 
 tion to corporations developed and the method by which Illinois 
 disposed of her lands was criticised. 6 An attempt was made to 
 meet this objection by providing that the lands should not be 
 transferred to a corporation but should be sold to actual settlers 
 only, the profits to be applied to the support of schools. 7 This 
 amendment was not adopted. 
 
 At this session of Congress fifteen land grant bills passed the 
 Senate and only one the House* On only one of the Senate bills 
 
 3 Ibid., App., 136-30. The exemptions from taxation which the government lands 
 enjoyed was one of the terms on which the new states had been admitted to the 
 Union and existed only on account of this compact. Withcrspoon v. Duncan, 4 
 Wallace, 210. 
 
 ' Globe, 1st sess. 32d Cong., App., 203. 
 
 •Ibid., App., 149. 
 
 Ibid., 75-77. 
 ' Ibid., 545-46. 
 
 (301)
 
 40 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OP WISCONSIN. 
 
 was a vote taken. This was the grant to Iowa which, passed 30 to 
 10. 8 In the House the bill for the south-west branch of the 
 Pacific passed 103 to 76 and the next day the Iowa bill was laid 
 on the table 102 to 68. There were twenty-six persons who 
 voted for the former bill and against the latter, the change being 
 largely for the New England and Middle States. The Missouri 
 bill received the support of these states and the West, but Massa- 
 chusetts (8-0), Pennsylvania (14-6) and Maryland (3-1) were 
 the only eastern states favoring it. 9 The Iowa bill was opposed by 
 those three states, no eastern states giving a majority for the 
 measure. 10 It appears that Iowa was not a unit in favor of the 
 bill, as some of the river towns feared that the railroads would 
 divert trade from the river and thus injure them. 11 But it is evi- 
 dent that an explanation must be sought for the passage of the 
 Missouri bill, as that was the exception to the general rule. The 
 Democrats cast 49 votes for the Missouri and 36 for the Iowa bill, 
 with 62 votes against the former and 68 against the latter. Of 
 the Whig votes 51 were for the Missouri bill and 31 for the Iowa 
 bill, with 14 against the former and 33 against the latter. 
 
 This session of Congress was also marked by an effort of the 
 eastern states to secure a portion of the public lands for their own 
 use. When the Iowa land grant bill first came up in the Senate, 
 
 8 The votes against were from Maine (2), New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Dela- 
 ware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Ohio (2). Senate Journal, 1st 
 sess. 32d Cong., 284. 
 
 For. Against. 
 
 B New England 12 8 
 
 Middle 36 23 
 
 South 6 31 
 
 Gulf 12 2 
 
 West (land) 40 1 
 
 West (non-land) 9 10 
 
 House Journal, 1st sess. 32d Cong., 749. 
 
 For. Against. 
 
 10 New England 2 16 
 
 Middle 10 34 
 
 South 6 29 
 
 Gulf 10 2 
 
 West (laud) 29 14 
 
 West (non-land) 11 7 
 
 Ibid., 155. 
 
 11 See letter of Pike, Semi-Weekly Tribune, March 9, 1852, and speech of Sena- 
 tor Bradbury, Jan. 17, 1S53, Globe, 2d sess. 32d Cong., 318. 
 
 (302)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 41 
 
 Underwood, of Kentucky, proposed an amendment granting to 
 the states which had no public lands specified amounts of the 
 lands in the other states. These lands were to be used for educa- 
 tion and internal improvements. 12 Hunter objected to this 
 on the ground that the holding by one state of lands in 
 another would cause trouble between the states. 13 Under- 
 wood claimed that it was no worse for a state so to hold 
 lands than it was for the general government. He cited 
 the settlement of the boundary dispute between Kentucky 
 and Tennessee where the former was given the land and 
 the latter the political jurisdiction. 14 The amendment was de- 
 feated 15 to 26. Of those favoring it 13 were Whigs while 21 
 Democratic votes were cast against it. 15 In the House a similar 
 attempt was made. Bennett, of New York, moved to re-commit 
 the Hannibal and St. Joseph land grant bill, with instructions to 
 amend so as to secure a grant to the various states in proportion 
 to their representation in Congress, the amount granted to Illi- 
 nois being taken as a unit. The land states were to have double 
 the proportion of the others. 16 The motion was lost 70 to 96. 17 
 Bennett then reported a bill from the committee on Public 
 Lands, making specified grants to the land states for railroads; 
 to the non-land states, except Texas, 150,000 acres for each sen- 
 ator and representative, for the support of schools; and to the ter- 
 ritories and the District of Columbia 150,000 acres each. 18 
 There was little discussion on this bill and it was ordered read 
 a third time by a vote of 95 to 92. The opposition to the bill was 
 
 12 Globe, 1st sess. 32d Cong., 390. 
 
 13 "What does the amendment propose, Mr. President? It proposes to estab- 
 lish the old states as landholders in the bosoms of the new states — a measure that 
 could not fail to sow the seeds of dissension and discord between the several 
 state of the Confederacy.*' Ibid., App., 204. 
 
 " Ibid., App., 222-26. 
 
 15 Senate Journal, 1st sess. 32d Cong., 2S1. 
 
 18 Globe, 1st sess. 32d Cong., 632-3. 
 
 17 Ibid., 670. 
 
 18 The amounts to tho land states were as follows : To Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, 
 and California, 3,000,000 each ; to Alabama. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Louisiana, 
 2,500.000 each ; to Mississippi and Florida, 2.000.000 each : to Illinois. 1,000,000 ; 
 to Indiana. 1.000,000, and all unappropriated public lands within the state; to 
 Ohio, 2,000,000, and all unappropriated public lands in the state. Ibid., 1536. 
 
 (303)
 
 42 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 largely from the South and West. 19 On party lines the "Whigs 
 voted 66 to 4 for the bill while the Democrats stood 26 to 87 
 
 against it. 
 
 In the Senate the bill was reported adversely by the commit- 
 tee on Public Lands and a motion to take it up was lost, 22 to 23. 
 New England was quite evenly divided on the bill, otherwise the 
 sectional division was much the same as in the House, 20 as was 
 also the vote by parties, the Whigs being 15 to 1 for the motion 
 and the Democrats 20 to 6 against. The explanation of these 
 votes may be found in the opposition of the Democrats to any 
 general system of internal improvements and to the old plan of 
 the Whigs for a distribution of the proceeds of the land sales. 21 
 
 Bennett's plan was an effort to settle the railroad land grant 
 question, and indeed many features of the general land policy, 
 on a permanent and equitable basis. Whether the old states 
 were entitled to share in the public lands is perhaps outside of the 
 present discussion, but as a matter of fact they had received such 
 a share from the beginning in the money which came into the 
 treasury from land sales. If they were to give up this revenue 
 on account of grants in aid of enterprises in the new states 
 they could with plausibility claim some share in the lands theni- 
 
 For. Against. 
 
 "New England 19 2 
 
 Middle 35 13 
 
 South 16 27 
 
 Gulf 2 10 
 
 West (land) 15 30 
 
 West (non-land) 8 10 
 
 Ibid., 1603. 
 
 For. Against. 
 
 50 New England 6 5 
 
 Middle 5 1 
 
 South 3 5 
 
 Gulf 4 2 
 
 West (land) 3 7 
 
 West (non-land) 1 3 
 
 Senate Journal, 1st sess. 32d Cong., 660. 
 
 21 It was charged that the Whigs wished a speedy disposition of the public- 
 lands, so that an Increase in the tariff would be necessary. Globe, 1st sess. 32d 
 Cong., App., 238. A railroad convention, held at St. Louis, November 15, 1852, 
 protested "against giving them [the public lands] away to any one class of the 
 people or assigning them wholesale to the old states, as provided for by the 
 'Homestead' and 'Bennett's' land bills." Proceedings of Mississippi Valley Road 
 Convention, 12. 
 
 (301)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 
 
 43 
 
 selves. True, the theory of the railroad grants had provided for 
 this in the increase in the price of the reserved lands, but as we 
 have seen, this theory was more or less of a make-shift. In Ben- 
 nett's bill the broader basis of making a general grant to the 
 states was adopted without complications of reserved and indem- 
 nity lands. How this would have worked in practice we cannot 
 tell, but the workings of the other system were not such as to 
 commend it, so that some slight 1 improvement could be expected. 
 Of course, even if the plan had been adopted the other system 
 of specific grants might have continued, but this was not likely. 
 So far as we can see, Bennett's plan was an improvement on the 
 other in that it was general and permanent and aimed to put an 
 end to lobbying in behalf of special bills; and in that it made gen- 
 eral grants to the states, leaving the special disposition of the 
 lands to the legislatures. But instead of accepting this solution 
 of the question the special legislation was continued and the op- 
 portunity was lost of avoiding many of the evils which were at- 
 tendant on that legislation. 
 
 The sectional divisions noted in the votes on the different bills 
 were brought out strongly in a discussion over a report on the 
 Iowa bill, made April 1, 1852, by Henn, of Iowa. After report- 
 ins; the bill from the committee on Public Lands he said: "I 
 think that the time has come when the members of the House 
 from the West should stand up and vote with each other upon all 
 these propositions." He went on to charge the eastern members 
 with sectionalism in their votes on measures before Congress. 
 Venable, of North Carolina, claimed that there had been no dis- 
 position on the part of eastern members unduly to favor their 
 own schemes. 22 The next day Henn elaborated his position, 
 showing opposition on the part of the East to the Missouri bill on 
 motion to refer the bill to the Committee of the "Whole. 23 This 
 same bill, however, afterwards passed the House. 
 
 22 Olohe, 1st sess. 32d Cong., 9.-.O. 
 2S Ibid., 961-62. 
 
 {005)
 
 44 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 For a correct understanding of railroad land grants it will be 
 necessary to trace in some detail the history of another feature 
 of our public land system — the homestead law. The first, al- 
 though very imperfect expression of this principle was found in 
 an act of 1842, called the "Florida Donation Act." 24 This 
 granted to each actual settler in that territory a quarter section of 
 land on the conditions of actual settlement and the cultivation of 
 a portion of the land. At that time the new territory was in 
 terror of the Indians, and it was felt that some inducement was 
 needed to promote settlement there. It was argued that this do- 
 nation would in fact be to the financial profit of the government 
 by making settlement safer and thus causing the sale of other 
 public lands. 25 Very similar acts were passed in 1850 for the 
 territory of Oregon, in 1853 for Washington and in 1854 for 
 New Mexico. 26 
 
 The high-water mark in the sales of the public lands was 
 reached in 1836. The fact that the government possessed many 
 acres of land which it could not dispose of led to attempts to re- 
 duce and graduate the price of the lands. At first such attempts 
 were favored on the ground of the advantage which they would 
 bring to the government, simply as a business proposition. But 
 in 1846 the idea that such a reduction in price should be made on 
 account of the settler was advanced. 27 Darragh, of Pennsyl- 
 vania, introduced in the House an amendment to a graduation 
 bill, providing that lands which had been subject to entry for ten 
 years should be given to actual settlers after three years' occupa- 
 tion. This was an approach toward the later homestead law, but 
 the House was not ready for such a step, and the amendment 
 was rejected, 28 as was one offered by Andrew Johnson granting 
 a quarter section to destitute heads of families after four years' 
 occupation. 29 The claim which Johnson later made to the 
 
 "Statutes at Large, V, 502. 
 
 25 Globe, 2d sess. 27th Cong., C23-24, 764-66. 
 
 20 See Donaldson, Public Domain, 295-7. 
 
 27 Globe, 1st sess. 29th Cong., 1058-63. 
 
 2S Ibtfi., 1077. 
 
 29 Ibid. 
 
 (300)
 
 SANBORN— RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 45 
 
 fatherhood of the homestead law seems to be justified by the 
 action which he took at this time. 
 
 We hear little of homesteads or graduation bills during the 
 next Congress, but in the thirty-first Congress two distinct prop- 
 ositions were brought forward looking toward the donation of 
 the public lands to actual settlers. Douglas proposed to grant 
 160 acres of land to actual settlers who should take up a resi- 
 dence upon and cultivate the land for a period of four years. 30 
 Walker, of Wisconsin, wished to cede to the new states the public 
 lands on condition that they be granted to actual settlers, in lim- 
 ited quantities, for the cost of administration. 31 
 
 To both of these propositions the committee on Public Lands 
 made the same general objections. The point of view taken 
 was that the public lands were to be administered for the bene- 
 fit of the treasury as they were pledged to the payment of the 
 public debt. It was also argued that the large quantity of free 
 lands suddenly placed upon the market would reduce farm 
 values in the new states and also the value of the grants made in 
 favor of internal improvements. 32 In this last objection may be 
 found one of the sources of the conflict which was to arise later 
 between land grants and homesteads. The chief discussion over 
 the report was during the second session of this Congress. 
 
 Two resolutions were introduced at this time; one by Webster 
 declaring the right of each male citizen to a homestead of 160 
 acres after three years' cultivation, 33 and the other by Houston, 
 of Texas, declaring that each family not worth $1,500 was en- 
 titled to 160 acres of land after three years' cultivation. 34 The 
 discussion over these resolutions developed the connection be- 
 tween the revenues from the public lands and the tariff, and 
 was mixed up with the discussion of Seward's resolution for 
 grants to Hungarian exiles. 35 In the House Andrew Johnson 
 
 •° Senate Journal, 1st 6ess. 31st Cong., 36. 
 
 81 Ibid., 116. 
 
 12 Senate Reports, 1st sess. 31st Cong., No. 167. 
 
 88 Glouc, 1st sess. 31st Cong., 210. 
 
 " Ibid., 2T52. 
 
 85 Ibid., 264-66. 
 
 (307)
 
 46 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 introduced two homestead bills, which were not discussed at 
 any length. 
 
 With this agitation in favor of homesteads we may connect the 
 objections made to the increase in the price of the lands reserved 
 to the government in the grants to railroads. 36 That the home- 
 stead doctrine was opposed to the land grant system was evident 
 from the report of the public lands committee. The antagonism 
 of the two systems will be observed during the later history of 
 the homestead law. 
 
 Outside of Congress the feeling in favor of grants to actual 
 settlers was becoming manifest. The Buffalo convention of 
 1848 had declared for "free soil" in an economic as well as a 
 political sense, 37 and the Free-soil convention of 1S52 reaffirmed 
 this in stronger terms. 3S During 1850 and 1851 there were 
 resolutions transmitted to Congress from the legislatures of New 
 York, 39 Missouri, 40 Illinois, 41 and Indiana, 42 favoring grants 
 of land to actual settlers. Probably the strongest expression of 
 the anti-land grant sentiment from the settler's point of view 
 came from Wisconsin. In his message to the legislature of that 
 state in 1852, Governor Farwell objected to grants as restrain- 
 ing the development of the state by removing valuable portions 
 of the public lands from settlement. 43 Eastman, one of Wis- 
 
 36 Supra, p. 31. 
 
 ST "Resolved, That the free grant to actual settlers, in consideration of the 
 expenses they incur in making settlements in the wilderness, which are usually 
 fully equal to their actual cost, and of the public benefits arising therefrom, of 
 reasonable portions of the public lands, under suitable limitations, is a wise and 
 ju3t measure of public policy which will promote, in various ways, the interests 
 of all the states of this Union." Stanwood, History of Presidential Elections, 175. 
 
 3S "The public lands of the United States belong to the people, and should not 
 be sold to individuals nor granted to corporations, but should be held as a 
 sacred trust for the benefit of the people, and should be granted in limited 
 quantities, free of cost, to landless settlers." Ibid., 18S. 
 
 39 House Misc. Docs., 1st sess. 31st Cong., No. 23. 
 
 <°Ibid., No. 29. 
 
 » Ibid., 2d sess. 31st Cong., No. 6. 
 
 42 Senate Misc. Docs., 1st sess. 31st Cong., No. 86. 
 
 43 "These large grants of the public lands to the states, in trust for the bene- 
 fit of specific works of internal improvement under the supervision of private 
 Incorporated companies, will retard the settlement of the state, by engrossing tne 
 most valuable portions of the public lands, and, in every instance, will probably 
 have the effect to keep them out of Immediate market, as well as to increase the 
 cost to the settler when offered for sale." Assembly Journal, 5th sess., 30-31. 
 
 (308)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 47 
 
 consin's representatives, said that this message did not represent 
 the sentimont of the state ; 44 certainly the governor was not sup- 
 ported by the legislature in this position. 45 The more advanced 
 ground which Wisconsin took in this matter may be due to 
 the large increase in its population between 1840 and 1850. 
 During these ten years there was an increase from 30,945 to 
 305,391, or 886 per cent. During the same time Illinois grew 
 from 470,183 to 851,470 or 79 per cent., Michigan from 212,- 
 267 to 397,654 or 87 per cent., and Iowa from 43,112 to 129,214 
 or 199 per cent. 
 
 During the thirty-second Congress the two ideas regarding the 
 •disposal of the public lands came into conflict more strongly 
 than at any other time. On March 17, Pike wrote to the Trib- 
 une that the House would stop the land grant bills, but that com- 
 promises might be formed with those who were opposed to the 
 system, but who were more opposed to grants to settlers. 46 It 
 was stated in the House that the only formidable opposition to 
 the homestead bill came from those who favored land grants; 47 
 
 * 
 
 and the opposition to the land grants by the advocates of the 
 homestead bill was said to bo caused by the fear that the grants 
 would take up large tracts of land. 48 Thomas A. Hendricks 
 admitted the opposition, but considered it ill-founded as the two 
 measures were necessary to the development of a new country. 49 
 The homestead bill, in the form it was introduced and passed 
 the House, provided that any vacant public lands could be en- 
 tered under its provisions. This would of course include the re- 
 served lands of the railroad grants and thus the effect on the 
 value of the lands granted to railroads and the theory on which 
 those grants were made was much greater than it would have 
 been if such lands were reserved from the action of the law. 
 
 44 Globe. 1st. sesa. 32d Cong.. App., 431. 
 
 *'- .See Madison correspondence in the Milwaukee Sentint I, January 20, 1S52. 
 
 48 Semi-Weekly Tribune, March 19, 1852. 
 47 Globe, 1st sess. 32d Cong., App., 574. 
 43 Ibid., App., 737. 
 
 49 Ibid., App., 482. 
 
 (309)
 
 48 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 The house passed the homestead bill at this session 107 to 
 56, 50 while the Senate twice refused to take it up for discussion, 
 first by a vote of 14 to 31, 51 and then by a vote of 16 to 38. 52 
 In the House the only section to oppose the bill was the South, 
 the free states voting for the bill 73 to 23 and the slave states 
 for it 34 to 33. 53 
 
 In the Senate all sections of the country except the West were 
 opposed to the bill. On the first vote Arkansas was the only 
 slave state to vote for the bill while on the second vote Louisi- 
 ana was alone in her support. On the other hand the free states 
 cast 15 votes on the first motion and 14 on the second against 
 the bill. 54 
 
 . A comparison with those representatives who voted on both the 
 homestead act and the bill granting lands to Iowa, 55 shows 131 
 voting on both bills. Of these two favored the land grant and 
 opposed the homestead bill, 51 favored both bills, 35 were for 
 homesteads and against land grants and 43 against both systems. 
 In the Senate a similar comparison shows 17 for the Iowa bill 56 
 and against the homestead bill, 9 for both measures, 2 against 
 land grants and favoring homesteads and 7 against both bills. 
 
 60 House Journal, 1st sess. 32d Cong., 705. 
 
 61 Senate Journal, 1st sess. 32d Cong., 586. 
 
 02 Ibid., 618. 
 
 For. 
 
 M New England 12 
 
 Middle 27 
 
 South 4 
 
 Gulf 10 
 
 West (land) 39 
 
 West (non-land) 13 
 
 House Journal, 1st sess. 32d Cong., 705. 
 
 For. 
 
 I. II. 
 
 "New England 2 4 
 
 Middle 2 2 
 
 South 
 
 Gulf 1 
 
 West (land) 10 9 
 
 West (non-land) 
 
 Senate Journal, 1st sess. 32d Cong., 586, 618. 
 
 65 House Journal, 1st sess. 32d Cong., 755. 
 
 60 Senate Journal, 1st sess. 32d Cong., 284. 
 
 (310) 
 
 Against. 
 
 8 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 28 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 Against. 
 
 I. 
 
 II. 
 
 8 
 
 r 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 &
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 49 
 
 Combining both sets of figures we find that of 166 senators and 
 representatives 56 were in favor of one and opposed the other 
 measure, 60 were in favor of both plans and 50 were opposed to 
 both. The division between the three opinions is thus almost 
 equal. 
 
 (311)
 
 50 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 LATER GRANTS TO STATES. 
 
 After 1853 there was a lull in land grant legislation. By the 
 close of that year grants had been made to Illinois, Mississippi, 
 Alabama, Missouri, and Arkansas to an amount estimated at 
 about 8,000 acres. 1 If there was any sectionalism in the dis- 
 tribution of the grants, the South had received more than her 
 share. iSTot until 1856 do land grants again become prominent 
 in Congress, but during this time the homestead movement is 
 fast gaining ground. On account of this neglect of land grants 
 little light is thrown on the conflict between the two systems. 
 
 In the House a homestead bill was passed in 1854, by a vote 
 of 107 to 72. The sectional groupings were not materially dif- 
 ferent from the vote at the previous session. The conflict with 
 the slavery question had not yet developed and from the slave 
 states 24 votes were cast for the bill, while 34 members from the 
 free states voted against it. Both political parties favored the 
 bill. 2 
 
 In the Senate the bill was amended by a substitute which pro- 
 vided for a graduation in the price of the public lands; a gen- 
 eral grant to the states for railroads, and the right of a head of a 
 family to receive 160 acres of land at 25 cents an acre after five 
 years' occupation. 3 The substitute was adopted 34 to 13, being 
 favored by both the friends and enemies of the homestead act. 
 
 When the bill had been introduced in the House it had pro- 
 vided for the entry of any vacant public lands. An amendment 
 was introduced limiting the lands to which the law was applica- 
 
 1 Donaldson, Public Domain, 273. 
 1 Globe, 1st sess. 33d Cong., 549. 
 3 Ibid., App., 1122. 
 
 (312)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 51 
 
 ble to those held at $1.25 an acre. Cobb, who moved the amend- 
 ment, said he did so because to open up the reserved lands in the 
 railroad grants who would have been to lose to the govern- 
 ment the compensation for those grants. 4 Bissell, of Illinois, 
 said that he did not believe that it was the intention of any 
 member of the House to apply the homestead law to the rail- 
 road lands, 5 and an amendment similar in effect to Cobb's was 
 adopted. This point was not discussed in the Senate. 
 
 The amendment to the homestead bill which was adopted in 
 the Senate had provided that if a state should charter a railroad 
 which ran through the public lands of the United States the Sec- 
 retary of the Interior should set apart 7,680 acres a mile, within 
 twelve miles of the road, these lands to be subject to pre-emption 
 by the state at prices varying with the length of time the lands 
 had been in the market, with a maximum of one dollar an acre. 7 
 This part of the amendment was not discussed in the Senate nor 
 was it brought up in the House. 
 
 The only land grant bill passed at this session of Congress 
 was one to the territory of Minnesota. Some doubts were ex- 
 pressed as to the power of a territory to dispose of the grant and 
 charter a company but the bill passed the House 99 to 71, 8 the 
 Senate without a division, 9 and became a law June 29, 1854. 10 
 About a month after the passage of the bill, Washburn, of Illi- 
 nois, stated in the House that the bill ui passed differed from the 
 engrossed bill in an important particular. In a sentence which 
 read "nor shall they [the lands] enure to the benefit of any com- 
 pany heretofore constituted or organized," the word or had 
 been changed to and. It seems that there existed a company in 
 Minnesota which by its charter was to receive any lands which 
 Congress might grant in aid of a railroad along that route. It 
 
 * Ibid., 500-501. 
 °Ibid., 522. 
 
 6 Ibid., 526. 
 
 7 Ibid., App., 1122. 
 
 8 Ibid., 1452. 
 8 Ibid., 1552. 
 
 10 Statutes at Large, X, 302. 
 
 (313) 

 
 52 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OV WISCONSIN. 
 
 was felt that to pass a bill granting lands to Minnesota when it 
 was known that a certain company would receive them would 
 be making the grant to a corporation and not to the state. This 
 was contrary to the theory of the grants which implied perfect 
 freedom to the state in the exercise of its sovereignty over the 
 lands granted to it. The provision quoted above had therefore 
 been inserted to prevent the old company from receiving the 
 lands. By the change noted, however, the company, which had 
 not been fully organized until after the passage of the law, al- 
 though chartered before, had set up a claim to the lands. On 
 Washburn's motion a committee was appointed to investigate 
 the matter. 11 
 
 Later in the day H. L. Stevens, from the committee on Pub- 
 lic Lands, stated that he had intended to make the change be- 
 fore the bill was reported from the committee, but failing to do 
 so and regarding it as merely verbal he had requested the clerk 
 of the House to do so. 12 
 
 The reports of the investigating committee agreed with 
 Stevens' statement of the case and exonerated him of any wrong 
 intention in his action. Bills were also introduced amending the 
 act so that it would read as when originally reported from the 
 committee. 13 But instead of so amending the law the House 
 passed a bill repealing the entire grant. 14 This bill reached the 
 Senate August 3. It was so late in the session that an immediate 
 consideration was necessary.' Objection being made to a second 
 reading of the bill it appeared as if the grant might be saved to 
 the territory. The objection was, however, overcome by offer- 
 ing the repeal of the law as an additional section to a private bill 
 then under consideration. 15 An effort was made by Douglas to 
 amend the amendment so that the act would be restored to the 
 form which the House had originally intended but this was lost 
 
 11 Globe, 1st sess. 33d Cong., 1888-89. 
 
 12 Ibid., 1S91. 
 
 13 Ibid., 2094. 
 " Ibid., 2100. 
 15 Ibid., 2172. 
 
 (334)
 
 SANBORN- — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 53 
 
 15 to 28. The amendment was then agreed to 36 to 10 and the 
 bill passed. 10 The bill was then sent to the House which passed 
 it as amended, 17 so that the grant was entirely repealed. The 
 question of the validity of the repeal came before the Supreme 
 Court, where its constitutionality was upheld on the ground that 
 the territory could acquire no vested interests in the lands until 
 the first twenty miles of the road had been constructed. 18 
 
 The next Congress was the banner one for land grants. Flor- 
 ida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Michigan, Wisconsin, Min- 
 nesota, and Iowa received lands estimated at over 10,000,000 
 acres. 19 There was little discussion of constitutional questions 
 in connection with these bills. The Iowa bill received the most 
 attention and illustrates well the ideas of the time on the sub- 
 ject of land grants. It had been received from the House and the 
 question was on its reference to the committee on Public Lands. 
 Jones, of Iowa, opposed this and asked for immediate considera- 
 tion, because if the bill were delayed the land along the proposed 
 lines would be taken up on bounty warrants. Yulee, of Florida, 
 considered that when the senators and representatives from a 
 state were agreed on a land grant bill it was the duty of Con- 
 gress to pass that bill without further question. 20 
 
 Foot, of Vermont, urged the reference to the committee in 
 order that the parties interested might be heard, while Adams, 
 of Mississippi, claimed that the only parties interested were the 
 United States and Iowa. Crittenden, of Kentucky, thought 
 that the committee should be given a chance to determine 
 whether or not the roads were of national importance. 21 Ref- 
 erence was finally refused and the bill read a third time and 
 passed. 22 A few days later Crittenden moved a reconsideration 
 of the bill. He said that there was another road already begun 
 
 18 Ibid., 2178. 
 
 17 Ibid., 2118. 
 
 18 Rice v. Minn, d V. W. R. Co., 1 Black, 358. 
 10 Donaldson, Public Domain, 269-70. 
 
 20 Globe, 1st sess. 34th Cong., 1168. 
 51 Ibid., 1168-69. 
 "31 to 9, Ibid., 1173. 
 
 (315
 
 54 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 in Iowa on which some hundreds of thousands of dollars had 
 been expended. He wished the bill referred to a committee so 
 that the rights of this road could be considered. 23 There were 
 already four roads provided for by the bill, but there was a long 
 discussion, covering thirteen pages of the Globe, as to the right 
 of this other road to a grant. 24 Reconsideration was refused, 
 however, by a vote of 15 to 19. 
 
 There was little discussion over bills in the House as they 
 usually went through under the previous question. Jones, of 
 Tennessee, (Sailed attention to the fact that the original theory 
 of the grants had been abandoned as they were being made to 
 roads then under process of construction and which did not need 
 the aid. 25 Letcher, of Virginia, expressed the feelings of some 
 on the subject wjien he moved to amend the title of the Missis- 
 sippi bill so as to read: "A bill for constructing works of inter- 
 nal improvements by means of the Federal Government of the 
 United States." 26 At this time the only section which opposed 
 the bills was the South, although Ohio was inclined to vote 
 against them. 27 
 
 It was evident that a great change in regard to land grants 
 had occurred in six years. The passage of the Illinois Central 
 bill in 1850 was exceptional and only secured by a most fortu- 
 nate combination of circumstances. But in 1856 the doctrine 
 could be advanced that where a railroad was to be built through 
 the public lands it was a matter of course entitled to an ex- 
 tensive portion of those lands to aid in its construction. The 
 
 23 Ibid., 1187. 
 
 24 Ibid., 1207-20. 
 
 25 Ibid., 132S-29. 
 
 26 Ibid., 1945. 
 
 27 The vote on the Mississippi bill shows the sectional division : 
 
 ■ House. . Senate » 
 
 For. Against. For. Against. 
 
 New England 13 7 5 1 
 
 Middle 30 15 1 3 
 
 South 7 13 2 5 
 
 Gulf 13 1 5 
 
 West (land) 24 14 6 2 
 
 West (non-land) 5 9 3 
 
 House Journal, 1st sess. 34th Cong., 1379 ; Senate Journal, 1st sess. 34th Cong., 
 545. 
 
 (310)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 55 
 
 Senate seems almost to have accepted this idea, although the 
 House was much more conservative. But it can be said that 
 Congress was approaching the point where nearly every appli- 
 cant had a good chance of receiving a grant of the public lands. 
 The causes which brought about this change are not entirely clear. 
 The fact that some states had received grants enabled the others 
 to set up a claim to the same favor, while the passage of each 
 bill made easier the succeeding ones by the mere force of ex- 
 ample. Moreover, it had been found useless to expect that the 
 public lands would continue to be any considerable source of rev- 
 enue, so that the financial value of the grants to the government 
 was becoming less. Another possible cause was the growth of 
 the union between the East and West, due to the economic de- 
 velopment of those sections at the expense of the South. This 
 is illustrated in the votes on the land bills. 
 
 One reason for the increase in land grants whose extent it is 
 impossible to determine, is political corruption. The character 
 of the congressmen who supported the earlier bills indicates 
 that at that time no such charge could be brought against the 
 chief friends of those measures, commanding as they did the sup- 
 port of Douglas, Cass, Sumner, Davis, Calhoun, and other lead- 
 ing senators. But in the period just before the war the political 
 standards were much lower than in 1850. General legislative 
 corruption was freely charged, 28 and it is very probable that 
 land grant bills, involving as they did great corporate interests, 
 were helped along by improper methods. An important charge 
 to this effect was made by the correspondent of the New York 
 Tribune, in 1854, in which he alleges great bargaining in connec- 
 tion with the land grant bills. R. J. "Walker is mentioned as 
 mixed up in one of the largest of the schemes. 29 The interest 
 in land grants taken by congressmen from New England and the 
 Middle States was also doubtless not uninfluenced by capitalists 
 ■of those sections interested in the railroads of the interior. 
 
 The thirty-fifth Congress practically ended railroad land 
 
 28 Rhodes, History of United States, III, 60. 
 2 ' J V. Y. Daily Tribune, March 11, 1854. 
 
 5 (317)
 
 56 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 grants for some time. The crisis of 1857 stopped the construc- 
 tion of roads already begun or projected and prevented the for- 
 mation of plans for building new ones. In 1858 a number of 
 bills granting lands for railroads were introduced in the Senate 
 but were laid on the table on the recommendation of the commit- 
 tee on Public Lands, it being considered inexpedient to act 
 upon them at that time. 30 
 
 Without going into a discussion of the crisis of 1857, it may 
 be stated that the great amount of railroad building of the pre- 
 vious years was one of its prominent causes. Wirth so considers 
 it, and comments on the large increase in railroad building at 
 this time. 31 The same view is taken by both von Hoist 32 and 
 Rhodes. 33 Up to 1857 about 5,000 miles of projected road had 
 been aided by grants of government lands. 34 The entire railroad 
 construction during the same period was 15,175 miles. The ef- 
 fect of the grants on the other roads was of course considerable, 
 as many were begun in the hope of receivng land grants. Also 
 the land grants stimulated railroad building in the very portion 
 of the country least ready for it. 
 
 The crisis did not, however, prevent a vigorous debate over 
 the homestead bill during the session of 1858-59. In the first 
 session of the thirty-fifth Congress the bill was discussed at some 
 length in the Senate, but little was brought out concerning its' 
 relation to land grants. The bill was finally postponed to the 
 next session. 35 Before it came up again in the Senate, the House 
 had passed a homestead bill by a vote of 120 to 76. The division 
 of the vote was on the line between the free and slave states, 
 rather than by the old sectional divisions. The only votes from 
 the free states against the bill were from Pennsylvania, Ohio, In- 
 
 80 Globe, 1st sess. 35th Cong., 2451. 
 
 31 Wirth, Geschichte der Handclskrisen, Frankfurt am Main, 1890, 335. 
 
 32 Von Hoist, Constitutional History of the United States, VI, 104-10. 
 
 35 "The most prominent element in bringing on the panic of 1857 was the ex- 
 pansion of credit, induced by the rapid building of new railroads and by the new 
 supply of gold from California," Rhodes, History of the United States, III, 52. 
 
 34 This is only an estimate of the number of miles of road provided for in 
 the various land-grant bills. Not all of the roads so provided for were con- 
 structed. 
 
 85 Globe, 1st sess. 35th Cong., 2426. 
 
 (318)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 57 
 
 diana, and Illinois. On the other hand the only votes for the bill 
 in the slave states came from Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, 
 and Arkansas. 30 On party lines the division was also significant. 
 The Democrats (I use the classification of the Tribune Almanac) 
 stood 38 for and 60 against the bill, the Republicans 82 for and 
 1 against, and the Americans 15 against. 
 
 In the Senate a motion was made February 1 to take up the 
 bill. On this the vote stood 28 to 28 and the vote of Vice-Presi- 
 
 ■ 
 
 dent Breekenridge, of Kentucky, decided the motion in the neg- 
 ative. On February 25 the bill to appropriate $30,000,000 for 
 the purchase of Cuba was before the Senate. During the even- 
 ing, Doolittle, of Wisconsin, moved to take up the homestead 
 bill. 37 Andrew Johnson, a staunch supporter of the bill, asked 
 Doolittle to withdraw his motion as it was needlessly antagoniz- 
 ing the friends of the Cuba bill. Douglas and Rice made sim- 
 ilar requests. 38 A speech of Toombs accusing the opponents of 
 the Cuba bill with cowardice called forth the report of Wade, 
 "The question will be, shall we give niggers to the niggerless, or 
 lands to the landless?" 39 What seemed at first only a struggle 
 for precedence between the bills was in fact a contest between 
 two opposing doctrines. 40 The motion to take up the bill 
 failed. 41 A number of votes from the free states were found in 
 opposition to the motion, 42 while only one vote from a slave state, 
 that of Johnson, of Tennessee, was cast in favor of it. It was 
 then too late in the session to make another effort for the bill. 
 Before adjournment that evening, Brown, of Mississippi, a 
 friend of the Cuba bill, moved to lay it on the table in order to 
 secure a test vote upon it. The motion was lost, 18 to 30. The 
 only difference between this vote and the one on the homestead 
 
 38 Globe, 2d sess. 35th Cong., 727. 
 37 Ibid., 1351. 
 
 3S Ibid., 1352. 
 
 39 Ibid., 1354. 
 
 40 Seward said : "The homestead bill is a question of homes, of homes for the 
 landless freemen of the United States. The Cuba bill is a question of slaves for 
 the slaveholders of the United States." Ibid., 1353. 
 
 41 The vote was 19 to 20. 
 
 42 One vote from Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. Delaware, Ohio, Indi- 
 ana, Oregon, and California, and two votes from Minnesota, Ibid., 1362. 
 
 (319)
 
 58 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 bill was that Johnson voted against the motion, two senators 
 who had voted before were now paired, and there were two new 
 votes, one from Maryland for and one from Oregon against the 
 motion. 43 
 
 With its usual promptness the House passed a homestead bill 
 at the next Congress. 44 The vote was 115 to w 65. From Penn- 
 sylvania and Delaware came the only free state votes against it, 
 while Missouri was the only slave state in which a representative 
 favored the bill. The affirmative vote was cast by 90 Republi- 
 cans and 25 Democrats while 48 Democrats and 17 Americans 
 made up the negative. 45 The bill differed in one important par- 
 ticular from the previous ones. Under it the settler could enter 
 160 acres of land held at $1.25 an acre or 80 acres at $2.50, 
 thus partially opening up the reserved railroad lands. 46 
 
 Andrew Johnson had introduced a homestead bill in the Sen- 
 ate which was under consideration when the other bill was re- 
 ceived from the House. The essential difference between the 
 bills as regards railroad lands was that one hundred and sixty 
 acres of the reserved lands could be entered under the Senate bill 
 and only eighty acres under the House bill. There was considera- 
 ble discussion, however, over which of the bills should be acted 
 upon, but the point in regard to the railroad lands was not men- 
 tioned. During the discussion Pugh cited the Southern Pacific 
 bill, then before Congress, as an example of a donation of pub- 
 lic land supported by the South. Wigfall, of Texas, claimed 
 that a grant to the Southern Pacific could be made under the 
 power given the government to transport the mails and to pro- 
 vide for an army and navy. He further argued that the railroad 
 would increase the value of the remaining public lands while 
 under the homestead bill only the poorer lands would be left to 
 the government. 47 
 
 On April 17, Johnson reported from the committee on Pub- 
 
 43 Ibid., 1363. See Rhodes, History of the United States, II, 352-54. 
 
 ** On March 12. 
 
 45 Globe, 1st sess. 36th Cong., 1115. 
 
 48 Donaldson, Public Domain, 33C. 
 
 17 Globe, 1st sess. 36th Cong., 1528. 
 
 (320)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 59 
 
 lie Lands a substitute for both tlie bills. This provided for the 
 right of pre-emption by an actual settler at twenty-five cents an 
 acre. 48 Wade moved to substitute the House bill for the com- 
 mittee's bill, but the motion was lost. 49 Again we find the free 
 and slave states arrayed against each other. The two far west- 
 ern states, California and Oregon, voted against the motion, 
 however, as did Delaware, while Pennsylvania was divided. 50 
 The bill was then passed by a decisive majority. 01 
 
 The House insisted on its original bill for some time, but as the 
 Senate remained firm the House yielded for this Congress, in 
 hope of obtaining something more at the next. In reporting the 
 result of the conference to the House, Colfax stated that it was 
 the best that could be secured. He said he wished that the bill 
 opened up the railroad lands to settlement, but it was impossible 
 to obtain this concession. 52 
 
 President Buchanan returned the bill to the Senate without 
 approval. 53 He considered the price charged by the bill as 
 merely nominal. Regarding the bill as conferring a gift of the 
 lands, he claimed that Congress had no such power over the pub- 
 lic domain. Congress as the trustee of the lands could "dispose 
 of" the lands only in the limited sense required by the act of 
 those creating the trust — the States. Nor did he consider it 
 just to the former settlers because they would have paid the 
 higher price for their lands. It was also unjust to the holders of 
 land warrants, by reducing the value of the lands to which they 
 could be applied. He considered the law wrong also in its dis- 
 crimination in favor of the agricultural class and in its offer of 
 inducements to emigration from the old states. The message 
 closed with a plea for the continuance of the system of holding 
 the lands for revenue, which in his opinion, ought to amount to 
 
 48 Ibid., 1751. 
 
 48 26 to 31. 
 
 60 Ibid,, 1999. 
 
 "The vote stood 44 to 8. Those voting against the bill were Bragg (N. C), 
 Clingman (N. C), Hamlin (Me.), Hunter (Va.), Mason (Va.), Pearce (Md.), 
 Powell (Ky.), and Thomas (Ga.). Ibid., 2043. 
 
 62 Ibid., 3179. 
 
 83 June 22. 
 
 (321)
 
 60 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 $10,000,000 annually. 54 After some discussion the vote on the 
 passage of the bill over the veto stood 27 to 18, not the neces- 
 sary two-thirds. 55 
 
 In the thirty-seventh Congress matters were very radically 
 changed. The chief opponents of the homestead policy were no 
 longer sitting in that body, and when the homestead bill came 
 up for passage in the House only 16 votes were cast against it. 56 
 The bill was very similar to the one which had passed the House 
 at the previous Congress, providing for the entry of 160 acres of 
 land at $1.25 an acre, or 80 acres at $2.50 an acre. Soon after 
 the bill passed the Senate, the vote being 33 to 7, 57 and be- 
 came a law, May 20, 1862. 
 
 At this time railroad land grants again came to the front, the 
 first bill for a Pacific railroad being passed in this year, when 
 the mass of the southern representatives had disappeared from 
 Congress, under the pressure of the military importance 
 of the road to the Pacific coast. Grants were also made to 
 Michigan, Iowa, and Colorado. The next vear in the crant to 
 Kansas an important change was made. This was the extension 
 of the grant from six to ten miles on each side of the road and 
 of the indemnity limits from fifteen to twenty miles. This was 
 done because the lands along the line had been so largely taken 
 up that the increased grant was in fact no larger than previous 
 ones. 58 But having been done once in a particular case it was 
 continued as a matter of practice in others. 
 
 New grants continued to be made to the states with little con- 
 sideration, but the most important bills were those renewing 
 previous state grants and those making grants to corporations. 
 The crisis of 1857 and the war had prevented the construction 
 
 "Richardson. Messages and Papas, V, (jOS-14. 
 
 t! Globe, 1st s.ss. ::t;th Cong., 3272. 
 
 66 Those votes were from Rhode Island (1), Pennsylvania (1), New York (21, 
 Virginia i2). Tennessee (1), Kentucky (7), Missouri (1), and Oregon (1). Globe, 
 2d sess. 37th Cong., 1035. 
 
 57 The negative votes were from Delaware (2). Virginia (2), Kentucky (2), and 
 Oregon (1). Ibid.. 1951. The fact that Oregon had had a special homestead 
 act may explain the opposition of that state to a more general law. 
 
 M Globe, 3d sess. 37th Cong., 115S. 
 
 (322)
 
 SANBORN RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 61 
 
 of many of the land grant roads and these grounds were urged 
 for a renewal. 59 The same extension of the grants to ten and 
 twenty miles was made as in the other acts, on the same plea 
 of the taking up of the lands." The interest taken in the bills 
 may be seen in a remark of Senator Morrill, who said that he did 
 "not know that anybody takes any interest in them except as a 
 matter of locality." 61 
 
 69 "The financial trouble of 1857, and then the war coming on, prevented the con- 
 struction of many roads." Speech of Hendricks in Mouse, May 25, 18G6. Globe, 
 1st sess. 39th Cong., 2S20. 
 
 80 Globe, 1st sess. 3Sth Cong., 1034. 
 
 81 Ibid., 1744. 
 
 (323)
 
 62 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE PACIFIC RAILROADS. 
 
 Projects for a railway from the valley of the Mississippi to the 
 Pacific coast followed not long after the exploration of the vast 
 tract of land purchased from Prance in 1803. The western and 
 northern limits of that purchase were long in dispute, but this 
 seems to have furnished a stronger motive for hastening its set- 
 tlement. 
 
 The first public advocate of such a road seems to have been 
 one Hart well Carter, who, in 1S32, presented his plan in the 
 New York Courier and Inquirer. He proposed to build a road 
 from Lake Michigan to the mouth of the Columbia and to San 
 Prancisco, on condition that he should receive a strip of land for 
 the whole distance and the privilege of buying 8,000,000 acres 
 of public lands at $1.25 an acre, to be paid for in the stock of the 
 company. 1 During the early forties, John Plumbe presented a 
 plan to Congress for the building of a transcontinental road. 
 This included a grant of alternate sections of land on each side 
 of the road, a plan similar to the other grants which were being 
 urged at this time. 2 
 
 The most prominent of all the advocates of a Pacific railroad 
 was Asa Whitney. His first plan, as set forth in a memorial to 
 Congress in 1845, involved a grant to him of a strip of land 60 
 miles wide, extending from Lake Michigan to the Pacific. On 
 this he would build a railroad, selling the land as needed, and re- 
 taining for his own use that which might remain after the com- 
 pletion of the railroad. 3 The next year he repeated his request, 
 
 1 Bancroft. California, VII, 49S-9. 
 
 2 Ibid.. 500. 
 
 'Reports of Committees, 1st sess. Slst Cong., No. 140, p. 23. 
 
 (324) '
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 63 
 
 accompanied by an account of his exploration of the proposed 
 route during the previous summer. 4 In 1848 lie presented a 
 modified plan by which he was to be allowed the lands along the 
 line at 16 cents an acre, which he was to receive in alternate five 
 mile sections as each ten miles of the road were finished. 5 In 
 1850 "Whitney secured a favorable report from the House Com- 
 mittee on Eoads and Canals. This advocated his plan as the 
 most practicable one that had been advanced, gave preference to 
 the northern route, and based the constitutionality of the land 
 grant on the ground that it was not an appropriation of the pub- 
 lic lands or their proceeds, but an acceptance of an offer to buy 
 lands otherwise unsalable. 6 The bill accompanying the report 
 authorized Whitney to construct a road from Lake Michigan to 
 the Pacific. The lands for thirty miles on each side of the road 
 were to be sold to Whitney for ten cents an acre. Deficiencies 
 in lands along the road were to be made up from such lands as he 
 might select. 7 
 
 The opposition to Whitney's plan came largely from the advo- 
 cates of a "National" road, that is, one built by the general gov- 
 ernment. In 1849 Benton advocated a bill setting aside seventy- 
 five per cent, of the money received from the public lands in Cal- 
 ifornia and Oregon, and fifty per cent, in the other states and ter- 
 ritories, for the construction of a road from St. Louis to San 
 Francisco, and a branch to the Columbia. A strip of land one 
 mile in width was to be set aside for the road. 8 The advocates of 
 a "National" road opposed Whitney's plan on the grounds that it 
 was too great for private management, that individuals could not 
 treat with the Indian tribes, and that the government should not 
 assist in a "stockjobbing" enterprise. 9 On the other hand Whit- 
 ney also cited the magnitude of the work as an objection to gov- 
 
 Mbid., p. 27. 
 
 6 Ibid., p. 36. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 1-19. 
 
 7 Ibid., p. 43. 
 
 8 Globe, 2d scss. 30th Cong., 473-4. 
 • See speech of Benton, Ibid., 472. 
 
 (325)
 
 64 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 eminent control and claimed that there was danger of party dom- 
 ination and clash of sectional interests in the"National" plan. 10 
 
 Neither Whitney's nor the "National" plan received much 
 attention from Congress. The matter of a Pacific road was not 
 so simple in 1850 as it had heen in 1845. When Whitney first 
 brought forward his plan, our Pacific coast did not extend south 
 of latitude 42°. Only Puget Sound and the mouth of the Col- 
 umbia, both necessitating a northern route, were available as 
 western termini of a Pacific railroad. But in 1848 California 
 was added to our territory, San Francisco and Monterey entered 
 the field as candidates for the terminus of the road, and a south- 
 ern route became a possibility. The natural economic rivalry be- 
 tween the two sections was increased by the question of slavery 
 and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. It is small wonder, 
 to one familiar with the history of the country from 1850 to 
 1860, that a project which meant so much for or against the 
 prosperity of one section or another failed to receive the assent of 
 Congress. 
 
 From 1850 on, the question of a Pacific railroad was one of 
 route, not of constitutionality. The northern route, from the 
 Great Lakes to the Columbia, received also the support of the 
 East. The central route, from Memphis or St. Louis via the 
 South Pass to San Francisco, had many supporters among the 
 central and southern states. The southern route ran from Texas 
 via the valley of the Gila. 11 
 
 In 1853 the projects came most prominently before Congress. 
 Rusk, of Texas, had introduced a bill for a road on the southern 
 route with branches northeast and northwest. Alternate sections 
 for forty miles on each side of the road were granted to aid in its 
 construction. As the road was only within the territories, grants 
 were made to Iowa, Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, and California 
 for extensions through those states. 12 Gwin, of California, in- 
 
 10 Bancroft, California, VII, 507-8; citing Whitney, A Project for a Railroad to 
 the Pacific. 
 
 11 See Davis, Union Pacific Railway, Chicago, 1894, 38-42. 
 
 12 Globe, 2d sess. 32d Cong., 2S0. 
 
 (326)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 65 
 
 troduced a bill for a line from San Francisco to Memphis, via 
 Fulton, with brandies to Dubuque, St. Louis, Matagorda, New 
 Orleans, and Fort Nisqually. The odd numbered sections for 
 forty miles on each side of the road in the territories and Cali- 
 fornia, and for twenty miles in the other states, were to be 
 granted. 13 
 
 The latter bill was an attempt to satisfy and harmonize all the 
 conflicting and sectional interests. Rusk's bill had been referred 
 to a select committee which reported a bill which attempted to 
 solve the matter by leaving the selection of the route to the pres- 
 ident, and providing for a grant of alternate sections for six miles 
 on each side of the road in the states, and for twelve miles in the 
 territories, together with $20,000,000 in bonds. 14 The bill re- 
 ported by the committee was discussed at some length but no 
 action was taken. The land grant feature of the bill attracted 
 little attention, being overshadowed by the question of location 
 and by the question of the power of Congress to create a corpora- 
 tion. In 1855 a bill providing for roads on all three routes and 
 making a grant of lands of alternate sections for twelve miles on 
 each side of the lines passed the Senate by a vote of 24 to 21. 15 
 There was little discussion of the land grant. Indeed, the 
 power to grant lands in aid of the Pacific roads seems to have 
 been assumed even by the opponents of grants to the states. 
 Niles, the persistent enemy of the state grants, was an advocate 
 of Whitney's plan. 16 In the House a bill providing for a Pacific 
 railroad was passed but the vote was immediately reconsidered. 
 Nothing was done with the Senate bill. 17 
 
 Sectional differences increased as the war drew near, yet there 
 
 13 Ibid., 281. 
 
 14 Ibid.. l<;!i-70. 
 
 w Globe, :id sess. 33d Cong.. 814. 
 
 15 June 27, 1848, he introduced a bill granting lauds to Whitney for a railroad 
 to the racific (Globe, 1st sess. 30th Cong., 875). July 29 ha endeavored to 
 secure the consideration of his bill (Ibid., Kill i. and on August 8 he moved it as 
 an amendmo!>t to a land-grant bill (Ibid.. 1051). On January 29, 1849, he again 
 moved to take up his bill {Globe, 2d sess. 30th Cong., 381). Davis, p. 32, says 
 that the article in Hunt's Merchants' Magazine for July, 1849, on Whitney's plan 
 was by Nlles. I have found nothing to coniirm this statement. 
 
 "Davis, Union Pat ', lltcay, G4-65. 
 
 (327)
 
 66 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 is a possibility that even if there had been no secession of the 
 southern states a Pacific railroad bill might have been passed. 
 In 1861 a bill for roads on the central and southern routes, passed 
 the House. The Senate added a road on the northern route, to- 
 gether with various other amendments, and there was not time 
 for the House to act on the amended bill. ls 
 
 At the next session of Congress the law for the Union Pacific 
 railroad was enacted. The only contest was between the St. 
 Louis and Chicago interests. 19 The act granted the company 
 created by it five alternate sections on each side of the road, with 
 indemnity limits of ten miles. 20 
 
 The inducements of this act were not, however, sufficient to 
 persuade capitalists to invest in the enterprise. 21 The next Con- 
 gress received appeals for further aid, and a bill was passed in- 
 creasing the bonds and raising the grant of land from five to ten 
 sections a mile. 22 The increase in the grant was made without 
 discussion, the only argument being over the other features of 
 the bill. 
 
 Opposition to land grants had by this time almost vanished,, 
 and at this session of Congress grants were made to the Northern 
 Pacific and to various connecting lines of the Union Pacific. In 
 1866 grants were made to the Southern Pacific and to the Atlan- 
 tic and Pacific. The year 1871 saw the last of the land grants,, 
 that provided by the Texas and Pacific bill. 
 
 The Pacific railroad proposition was thus advanced as early as 
 the plans to aid the railroad in the states by means of the public 
 lands. That it was so long in securing the assent of Congress was 
 due to the sectional differences which arose as soon as the road on 
 
 1S Ibid., 94-95. Gwin (Memoirs, MS.) says that action was deferred so that the 
 new administration might have the credit for the measure. Bancroft, California, 
 VII, 527. 
 
 19 Davis, Union Pacific Railway, 9S-103. 
 
 20 "That there be, and is hereby, granted . . . every alternate section of 
 public land, designated by odd numbers, to the amount of five alternate sections 
 per mile on each side of said road, on the line thereof, and within the limits of 
 ten miles on each side of said road." Statutes at Large, XII, 492. 
 
 21 Davis. Union Pacific Railway, 110-115. 
 '- Statutes at Large, XIII, 356. 
 
 (328)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 67 
 
 one or the other of the possible routes was proposed. The con- 
 stitutionality of the measure was not questioned to any great ex- 
 tent, and the political necessity of a road on some route was gen- 
 erally admitted. Then, too, the enterprise could be carried out 
 within the territories, and no question of interference with the 
 rights of a sovereign state could arise. In consequence of the re- 
 striction of the road to the territories the grant had either to be 
 made to a corporation or the work done directly by the govern- 
 ment The latter plan was never seriously considered, so the 
 essential difference between the Pacific and the other grants was 
 the person to whom they were made. Where the Pacific road 
 was to be extended beyond the territories the states were to re- 
 ceive the grants. This distinction did not, however, hold in the 
 case of later grants as the relaxation of the states' rights doctrine 
 caused Congress to make grants to the corporations even where 
 the roads ran through the states. 
 
 Numerically, the Pacific grants were the most important, as 
 they covered a greater area than the grants made by the states. 
 Yet their political importance has not been as great. At the time 
 the grants were made Congress did not bestow the attention upon 
 them it did upon the state grants, nor did thev have as great an 
 effect upon the land policy of the government. Since the roads 
 were provided for they have been of importance in the politics of 
 the country, but in connection with the bonds issued in favor of 
 the companies rather than in regard to the lands granted them. 
 The effect of the grants and the methods by which the roads ad- 
 ministered them were, of course, very marked in the states and 
 territories where the lands were located. This part of the ques- 
 tion has been reserved for a later discussion. 
 
 (3-29)
 
 68 .BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OP WISCONSIN. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE REPEAL, OF THE LAND GRANTS. 
 
 Even before the grants to railroads ceased, a movement was 
 started to revoke some of the grants already made. At first this 
 movement was not based on objections to the system but on the 
 cases of individual roads where it was alleged that the conditions 
 of the granting acts had not been fulfilled. 
 
 Many grants had been made during 185 G. The crisis of the 
 following year and the war were effectual checks to railroad 
 building even in the northern states. In the South it was at a 
 standstill. This involved non-compliance with the conditions 
 of the grants, and an effort was made to secure their forfeiture. 
 A bill forfeiting the grants to the southern states was introduced 
 during the second session of the fortieth Congress. Not only was 
 it urged that the roads had not been constructed but that the 
 states had been disloyal, and so merited the forfeiture as a pun- 
 ishment. The argument was an effective one in the House and 
 the bill passed 83 to 75, 1 but was not acted on in the Senate. At 
 the previous session of Congress a committee had been appointed 
 to investigate the southern railroads and report on their use dur- 
 ing the war and on the forfeiture of the grants. A report was 
 made December 11, 1867, but the forfeiture of the grants was 
 not considered in it. 2 A report on this matter had been called 
 for by a resolution of July 12, 1867, 3 and on February 7, 1868, 
 the committee reported itself unable to arrive at any conclusion 
 on the subject. This seems to have ended the matter. 4 A con- 
 stitutional amendment prohibiting the disposal of the public 
 
 1 Globe, 2d sess. 40th Cong., 310, 9S5. 
 
 "Reports of Committees, 2d sess. 40th Cong., No. 3. 
 
 • House Journal, 1st sess. 40th Cong.. 192. 
 
 4 Reports of Committees, 2nd. sess. 40th. Cong., No. 13. 
 
 (330)
 
 ANB0RN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 69 
 
 lands to any but actual settlors was introduced, but a resolution 
 to suspend the rules on its passage failed. Similar resolutions 
 were introduced the next year but were not considered. 5 
 
 On the other hand requests were still received from the states 
 for grants in aid of railroads. The weight of opinion, however, 
 seemed to be. in favor of a discontinuance of the grants. 7 
 
 The opposition of land grants was of a two-fold nature. Many 
 who did not believe that any new grants should be made admitted 
 that the former ones were justified but that the changed condi- 
 tions of the country had removed the necessity for a continuance 
 of the system. The population of the western states had in- 
 creased until any aid which ought to be furnished new railroads 
 could come from the country through which they passed. And, 
 in fact, the new states were well provided with railroads and fur- 
 ther building needed to be discouraged rather than aided. The 
 result of these conditions was that practically no effort was made 
 to secure new grants of lands. But not only had a change oc- 
 curred in the conditions of the country, rendering land grants out 
 of place, but the theory of the use of the public lands had also 
 completely changed. The dominant idea was now that of the 
 homestead law. As a source of revenue the public lands had 
 failed, nor was it felt that such was their mission. The lands 
 were to be used for the benefit of the settlers and nothing should 
 be allowed to interfere with that use. Such w T as the general feel- 
 ing in the country after the war. Out of this grew the demand 
 
 6 Ames, Proposed Amendments of the Constitution, Report of the American 
 Historical Association, 1896, II, 1S2. 
 
 6 Alabama (House Misc. Docs., 2d sess. 42d Cong.. Nos. 54, 89, 90, 91) ; Wis- 
 consin (Ibid., No. 125) ; Oregon, (House Misc. Docs., 3d sess. 42d Cong., No. 27) ; 
 Idaho (Ibid., No. 28). 
 
 7 G. W. Julian, in the International Review for February-March, 1883, speak- 
 ing of the opposition to land grants, says: "This found expression in the press, 
 in numerous gatherings of the people throughout the Northern and Western 
 states, in the platforms of both the great political parties, in the resolves or 
 state legislatures, and in the second annual message of President Grant. In 
 which he condemned the policy of any further grants of lands to railroads, and 
 recommended the dedication of the public domain to actual settlement under the 
 Homestead and Pre-emption laws." I have given the main indications of public 
 sentiment of this period which I have found, and beyond these can find no further 
 justification for the statements of Mr. Julian. I am inclined to think that, writ- 
 ing at a later date, he exaggerated the state of popular feeling on the subject. 
 
 (33!)
 
 70 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 for the repeal of tlie land grants where the conditions of the act 
 had not been fully complied with. 
 
 As early as 1870, the grant to Louisiana in aid of the Xew Or- 
 leans, Opelousas, and Great Western was declared forfeited. 3 
 It was, however, considered that the grants lapsed of their own 
 accord on the non-fulfillment of the conditions. But in 1876 the 
 supreme court decided that the lands granted reverted to the gov- 
 ernment onlv after action had been taken to assert the forfeiture. 9 
 The same year a bill was passed forfeiting the unearned lands 
 of the Leavenworth, Lawrence, and Galveston road. The only 
 difference of opinion was on the disposition of the forfeited lands, 
 which were finally made subject to entry under the homestead 
 law only. In 1877 a bill was passed repealing the grant in aid of 
 the Kansas and Neosho Valley company. It was stated that this 
 was done at the request of the company on account of the hostil- 
 ity of settlers along the line. 10 
 
 During the next six years various attempts were made to secure 
 the forfeiture of other grants, but it was not until the session of 
 1883-84 that the movement was strong enough to secure much 
 attention from Congress. xVt this session twenty-four bills were 
 introduced in the House and five in the Senate forfeiting lands 
 granted to railroads. 
 
 In the House the bills were sent to the committee on Public 
 Lands which reported a bill forfeiting a number of the grants, all 
 of them being in the southern states. 11 An attempt was made to 
 except the Gulf and Ship Island but the bill was passed as re- 
 ported. 12 In the Senate the bill was not taken up. The House 
 also passed a bill forfeiting the unearned lands of the Atlantic 
 and Pacific. 13 There was little discussion on this and no division. 
 
 8 Statutes at Large, XVI, 277. 
 
 9 Bohulen'oerg v. Harriman, 21 Wallace, 44. See pp. 80-S1. 
 
 10 Record, 2d sess. 44th Cong., 1510. 
 
 11 Gulf and Ship Island ; Mobile and New Orleans ; Tuscaloosa to the Mobile 
 road ; Elyton and Beard's Bluff ; Memphis and Charleston ; Iron Mountain and 
 Southern in Arkansas ; and New Orleans to the state line. House Reports, 1st 
 sess 48th Cong., No. S. 
 
 12 Record, 1st sess. 48th Cong., 787. 
 
 13 Ibid., 4888. 
 
 (332)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 71 
 
 In the Senate the bill was discussed at some length by Morgan, 
 of Alabama. He said that the committee on Public Lands had re- 
 ceived very contradictory opinions in regard to the power of the 
 government in the matter. To settle the question of the right to 
 declare a forfeiture he proposed an amendment conferring jur- 
 isdiction on the circuit court for the western district of Missouri 
 to try the title to the lands, with the right of appeal to the su- 
 preme court. This amendment was adopted, 31 to ll. 1 * He fur- 
 ther claimed that by the passage of the act of 1871, which al- 
 lowed a mortgage of lands held by the company, the government 
 had waived its right of forfeiture. 15 
 
 The bill, as amended, passed the Senate without division, 16 
 and went over to the next session of the House. At that time the 
 House refused to agree to the Senate amendment. Two com- 
 mittees of conference were appointed but both failed to agree. 
 
 The Senate did not, however, hold consistently to its position 
 in favor of a judicial determination of the right and power of the 
 government in the forfeiture of railroad lands, for an amendment 
 offered by Morgan to the bill repealing the grant to the Oregon 
 Central, proposing to settle the question in the same manner 
 as by his previous amendment, was defeated, 15 to 28. 17 The 
 same amendment when offered to the Texas Pacific bill was re- 
 jected, 24 to 31-. 18 
 
 At the next session the bill forfeiting the unearned lands of 
 the Atlantic and Pacific became a law, but the Senate and the 
 House were unable to agree as to the extent of the forfeiture of 
 the Northern Pacific lands. The bill as it passed the Senate pro- 
 vided for the forfeiture of the lands along portions of the road 
 not then completed. The House amended the bill by providing 
 for a forfeiture of all lands opposite to portions of the road not 
 finished by July 4, 1879, the date fixed in the granting act for 
 
 14 Ibid., 5941, 5964. 
 
 15 Ibid., 5CS6. 
 18 Ibid., 5966. 
 
 17 Record, 2nd sess. 48th Cong., 482. 
 "Ibid., 1895. 
 
 6 (a33)
 
 72 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 the completion of the whole road. 19 The Senate refused to 
 agree to this and conferences held during this and the next ses- 
 sion were unavailing. 
 
 By 1888 the attempts to secure the forfeiture of separate 
 grants were succeeded by attempts to forfeit all unearned grants. 
 A bill introduced that year in the Senate provided for the for- 
 feiture of all lands "opposite to and coterminous with the por- 
 tions of any such railroad, not now completed and in opera- 
 tion." 20 
 
 This passed the Senate after considerable discussion as to the 
 rights of individual roads. The ayes and nays were not taken on 
 its passage. 21 This bill would have forfeited lands along 1,049 
 miles of road. 22 The House committee on Public Lands, to 
 which the bill was referred, made three reports. The majority 
 favored the forfeiture of the lands opposite all portions of the 
 roads not completed within the time required. 23 A minority of 
 three favored the Senate bill, and another minority of two wished 
 to forfeit the entire grants in all cases where the conditions had 
 riot been strictly complied with. These three, which were prob- 
 ably all the possible plans of forfeiture, were thus presented to 
 Congress. The most radical one was defeated in the House by 
 a vote of 60 to 106. Those favoring this proposition came from 
 all sections of the country and it is impossible to determine any 
 particular reason for the vote standing as it did. The party di- 
 vision was, however, quite strongly marked, as only 9 Republi- 
 cans favored the amendment. 24 The Senate proposition was then 
 voted down 71 to 92. The chief opposition to this measure 
 seemed to come from the western states. Only 13 Dem- 
 ocrats favored it while only 23 Republicans voted against it 25 
 The amendment bill passed the House, 179 to 8. 26 The Senate 
 
 19 Record, 1st sess. 49th Cong., 7613. 
 
 20 Record, 1st sess. 50th Cong., 3033. 
 
 21 Ibid., 3S78. 
 
 22 House Reports, 1st sess. 50th Cong., No. 2476. 
 
 23 This would have forfeited lands opposite 4,598 miles. Ibid. 
 21 Record, 1st sess. 50th Cong., 5933. 
 
 26 Ibid., 5935. 
 
 28 Ibid., 5939. t 
 
 (334)
 
 SANBORN RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 73 
 
 refused to accept the House amendment and the matter went 
 over to the next Congress. 
 
 These three plans of forfeiture may be considered both from 
 the standpoint of equity and legality. On neither ground could 
 exception be taken to the Senate proposition forfeiting lands op- 
 posite to the then uncompleted portions of the roads. The time 
 for their completion had expired and Congress was in no wise 
 bound to extend that time. But the forfeiture of all lands earned 
 since the expiration of the time specified in the laws has a dif- 
 ferent aspect. It had been well understood, both by Congress 
 and the roads, that the forfeiture did not work without Congres- 
 sional action. The repeated failures of Congress to so act were 
 therefore in effect an extension of the grants and Congress was 
 estopped from going back and annulling its previous action. In 
 ordinary cases negative action would not have the strength of 
 positive, but where, as in the case of grants on condition subse- 
 quent, one party was regarded as agreeing to the acts of the other 
 unless an express statement to the contrary was made, its nega- 
 tive action was equivalent to a sanction of the act. It is also im- 
 probable that such a law would have been upheld by the supreme 
 court as they had stated in regard to the St. Joseph and Denver 
 Tailroad that "so far as that portion of the road which was com- 
 pleted and accepted, is concerned, the contract of the Company 
 was executed, and as to the lands patented, the transaction on the 
 part of the government was closed, and the title of the Company 
 perfected."- 7 In the face of such language the legality of the 
 act proposed by the House was very doubtful. As to the most 
 extreme plan, that of complete forfeiture, its injustice was ap- 
 parent. It was prompted probably more by a general feeling 
 against the railroads than by abuses of the land grant system. 
 
 At the next Congress, the bill in almost the same form as be- 
 fore passed the Senate, 28 and was again referred to the House 
 committee on Public Lands. This time the committee reported 
 
 2 - Van Wyck v. Enevals, 106 U. S., 360. 
 = s Record, 1st sess. 51st Cong., 3971. 
 
 (335)
 
 74 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OP WISCONSIN. 
 
 in favor of the Senate plan. 29 Stone, of Missouri, introduced an 
 amendment directing the attorney general to bring suit to forfeit 
 all lands not earned within the time required by law. This was 
 rejected, 72 to 93. 30 Holman introduced an amendment forfeit- 
 ing lands along all portions of roads not completed within the 
 time prescribed. 31 He claimed that the lands forfeited by the 
 Senate bill were insignificant, and while he did not believe that 
 the Senate would accept his amendment, he wished to place the 
 responsibility upon that body. 32 His amendment was defeated 
 by a vote of 60 to 79, 33 and another attempt to secure the same 
 amendment was lost, 84 to 107. 34 
 
 The Senate disagreed to some of the minor amendments of the 
 House but an agreement was reached and the bill became a law 
 September 29, 1890. 35 
 
 As has already been indicated, the action taken by Congress 
 was practically the only one open to it. "Whatever may have been 
 the feelings of the members of the House on the subject, they 
 were wise in yielding to the Senate and securing the forfeiture 
 of those lands concerning which no doubt existed. But if the 
 proposition for a judicial determination of the matter could have 
 been adopted, a much more satisfactory solution would have been 
 reached. The extent to which the forfeiture ought to work 
 would have been in the hands of the supreme court and the rights 
 of the government and the railroads given an authoritative deter- 
 mination. 
 
 The House, having secured something from the Senate, at- 
 tempted to go further and during the next Congress passed a 
 bill forfeiting lands along all portions of roads not completed in 
 time. This bill was passed, under suspension of the rules, by a 
 two-thirds vote, 36 but was not considered in the Senate. At the 
 
 29 House Reports, 1st sess. 51st Cong., No. 2215. 
 
 30 Record, 1st sess. 51st Cong., 7013, 7387. 
 
 31 Ibid., 7012. 
 82 Ibid., App., 581. 
 * 3 Ibid., 7382. 
 
 34 Ibid., 7388. 
 
 35 Statutes at Large, XXVI, 496. 
 38 Record, 1st sess. 52nd Cong., 5121. 
 
 (336)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 75 
 
 next Congress a similar bill was passed by the House. 37 The Sen- 
 ate committee reported it adversely, declaring that Congress had 
 no right to make such a forfeiture. 38 Here the matter may be 
 said to have ended. 
 
 Probably the only statement of the change in the attitude of 
 Congress on land grants which can be made is that it was due to 
 the opinion that land grants had had their place and that the 
 time when such aid to western railroads was necessary had 
 passed. Under the changed conditions of the country it was felt 
 that the government should demand back the lands previously 
 granted from the companies which had failed to take advantage 
 of the opportunity offered them. Probably considerable feeling 
 against the railroads existed in the far west but I have obtained 
 no definite evidence of this. 
 
 The Democrats wished to go much further than the Republi- 
 cans in the matter of forfeiture and emphasized this fact, and the 
 large grants to the Pacific railroads made under Republican ad- 
 ministrations, in their campaign text books. But at no time was 
 the issue of importance in a national election. 
 
 "Record, 2d sess. 53d Cong., 7355. 
 w Record, 3d sess. 53d Cong., 386. 
 
 (337)
 
 76 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 CHAPTER VH. 
 
 THE DISPOSAL OF THE GRANTS. 
 
 The history of a land grant requires more than an account of 
 the passage of the bill making the grant. It involves also the pro- 
 cess by which the lands passed into the possession of the states 
 and the companies and were by them disposed of to the settlers. 
 The question is thus an administrative one, and the machinery of 
 the general land office for the adjustment of railroad grants must 
 first be examined. Some attempt will then be made to show in 
 a general way the process by which the state grants were be- 
 stowed upon the companies, what restrictions were placed on 
 these companies, how they fulfilled the conditions of the grants 
 and how they disposed of their lands. 
 
 The grant to Illinois of September 20, 1850, was taken as a 
 model for nearly all the other grants to states. This gave the 
 right of way through the public lands for 100 feet on each side 
 of the road with the right to take necessary materials from the 
 lands. In addition every alternate even-numbered section for 
 six miles on each side of the road was granted the state. If any 
 of the lands so granted had been disposed of, the deficiency should 
 be made good from the next adjacent public lands not more than 
 fifteen miles from the road. The line was to be commenced at its 
 termini simultaneously and the lands were to become available 
 as the road progressed. The lands remaining to the United 
 states within six miles of the road were not to be sold for less than 
 the double minimum ($2.50). The line was to remain a public 
 highway for the use of the government, and mail was to be trans- 
 ported for such price as Congress might direct. If the road was 
 not completed within ten years the lands should revert to the gov- 
 
 (338)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 77 
 
 eminent, and the state should pay the United States the amount 
 received from the land already sold. 1 The same general features 
 were retained in the grants to the other states. During the later 
 period the grants were increased from six to ten miles and the in- 
 demnity limits from fifteen to twenty. The grants to the Pacific 
 roads were also made on the same general basis, but directly to 
 corporations. More stringent exceptions concerning the lands to 
 which the grants applied, were also made, so that the lands 
 within the ten mile limits were somewhat reduced. 
 
 After a grant had been made, a procedure was adopted which 
 was probably the only just one to the railroads, under the circum- 
 stances, but which proved in the end to be probably the worst 
 feature of the system. After a map showing the definite location 
 of the road had been filed in the land office, the lands falling 
 within the limits of the grant were withdrawn from sale or entry 
 until the grant should be adjusted. The titles to the lands within 
 the six mile limits were first ascertained, and when these had been 
 adjusted the road made its indemnity selections, and the remain- 
 ing lands were restored to market. 2 Thus it was necessary to 
 withhold the lands within the indemnity limits until a complete 
 adjustment had been made. If the adjustment had been prompt 
 the plan would not have worked a hardship, but, as it was, the in- 
 demnity lands of nearly all the roads were kept out of the market 
 for over thirty years. 
 
 The effect of this delay in the adjustment of the grants and the 
 restoration of the remaining lands to market was a most unjust 
 one on the settler. He was in theory prohibited from going on a 
 strip of land thirty or forty miles wide and the length of the road 
 to which the grant had been made. As a matter of fact, many 
 did go on these lands, expecting to secure a perfect title later, and 
 then the railroads would select these lands as due them for in- 
 demnity. There was, of course, a temptation for the railroads to 
 make a selection of such lands inasmuch as the squatters would 
 
 1 Statutes at Large, IX, 4GG. 
 
 1 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1S57 ; Sen. Docs. 1st sess. 
 35th Cong., II, 88-89. 
 
 (339) 
 
 )
 
 78 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 be forced to come to some agreement with the companies. The 
 case of Guilford Miller attracted some considerable attention in 
 connection with this feature of the land grant system. He had 
 settled on lands afterwards claimed by the Northern Pacific as 
 indemnity lands. The case came before the Attorney General, 
 who decided that the withdrawal of the lands was legal and that 
 Miller could acquire no title. President Cleveland thereupon 
 took an interest in the case and directed the Interior Department 
 to make the railroad selections in such manner as to protect the 
 rights of settlers wherever possible. 3 
 
 Soon after this case was decided, an effort was made to secure 
 a final adjustment of the grants. In 1887 Congress passed a law 
 directing the Interior Department to adjust the grants, and Sec- 
 retary Lamar ordered the railroads to show cause why the with- 
 drawals of their indemnity lands should not be revoked. In the 
 case of most of the roads it was found that either they had se- 
 lected all the lands to which they were entitled, or had selected 
 all liable to such selection within the indemnity limits. The pur- 
 pose of the withdrawal had therefore been served and the lands 
 should have before been restored to entry. 4 In a number of cases 
 the department had not been informed to what extent the roads 
 were entitled to lands within the indemnity limits. These roads 
 were chiefly in the southwest and west, including the Northern 
 Pacific west of Dakota and the Atlantic and Pacific west of Mis- 
 souri. 5 
 
 The answer of the Atlantic and Pacific to this order, and the 
 decision of the secretary in regard to the land of this road (the 
 decision was applied, mutatis mutandis, to the other roads), 
 showed that the companies were not in many cases responsible for 
 the delay in the selection ; surveys of the public lands in the west- 
 ern states have been slow, and until thev had been made in the 
 land through which the railroad passed, it was impossible to tell 
 to what land the company was entitled. Secretary Lamar, how- 
 
 8 Secretary of the Interior, Report, 1887, 9-10. 
 
 *Decisiona of the Dept. of the Interior relating to the Public Lands, VI, 80-S1. 
 
 s Ibid., 82-83. 
 
 (340)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 
 
 79 
 
 ever, held that the original withdrawal had not been contem- 
 plated by Congress but had been on executive authority only. 
 He thought that the time had come when the best interests of all 
 concerned required that the withdrawal for the benefit of the 
 company should cease, claiming that the matter of survey was in 
 the discretion of Congress. He therefore directed that all lands 
 withdrawn for indemnity purposes be restored to he public do- 
 main, except in the case of a few companies when the withdrawal 
 had been expressly authorized by Congress. 6 The amount of 
 land restored by this order was 21,323,600 acres. 7 
 
 Many questions have arisen regarding the interpretation of the 
 various land grant laws, the conflicts over lands claimed under 
 them, and also their relation to the pre-emption, homestead, 
 and other laws relating to the disposal of the public domain. The 
 decisions of the courts on this subject are very numerous and a 
 complete examination of them belongs to the legal field. 8 Some 
 of the more general principles may, however, be noted here. 
 
 While the relation between the government and the states or 
 corporations receiving the land grants is a contractual one, yet as 
 the contracts are a part of public rather than private law, the in- 
 tent of Congress will govern in regulating their construction. 9 
 In order that this intent may be correctly ascertained the condi- 
 tion of the country at the time the grants were made as well as 
 the language of the law will be taken into consideration, 10 but in 
 general the grants will be strictly construed against the grantee. 11 
 
 The question of the exact time that the companies acquired 
 title to lands was of great importance in relation to entries which 
 might be made along the line under pre-emption and homestead 
 laws. While, as has been noted, it was the practice to suspend 
 the right to enter lands along the probable route of the road 
 
 i 
 
 8 Ibid., 85-93. 
 
 'Secretary of the Interior, Report, 1887, 12. 
 
 8 See Elliott, Treatise on the Lan- of Railroads, ch. S3; Rapalje and Mack, Dt- 
 ■gest of Railway Decisions, under "Land Grants." 
 
 •Mo., K. & T. ;.'. Co. v. Kas. Par. R. Co., 97 U. S., 401. 
 
 ^Winona d St. 1'. R. Co. v. Barm-,), 113 U. S., G18. 
 
 ^Dubuque & P. R. Co. v. Litchfield, -.1 Howard. 66; o~ Am. aud Eng. Railroad 
 •Cases, 338. 
 
 (311)
 
 80 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 until the definite location was made, yet no title passed until the 
 road was so located. 12 But in case conflicting grants for two com- 
 panies were made, the priority of the grant, rather than priority 
 of location, gave the title to the lands. 13 When grants of the 
 same date conflicted, priority of location or construction gave no. 
 right to the lands within the conflicting primary limits of both 
 roads, as these were divided, but in case of the conflicting indem- 
 nity limits priority of selection gave the title. 14 Lands which had 
 been entered under other laws were excepted from the grant,, 
 but such entries had to be made before the company located its- 
 road. Where lands within the grant had been previously en- 
 tered under the homestead law and the conditions of that law 
 were not complied with, the company did not obtain these lands- 
 but on their reversion to the public domain priority of selection 
 gpye title to the lands. 15 
 
 By far the most important judicial decision concerning land 
 grants was that of Schuleriberg v. Harriman, rendered in 1876. 
 In this case the court held that the words of the grant "there be, 
 and is hereby granted," etc., signified an immediate transfer of 
 title, although subsequent proceedings were required to give pre- 
 cision to that title and attach it to specific tracts of land. The 
 grants were therefore made on condition subsequent and the pro- 
 vision that lands should revert to the United States in case the 
 road was not completed within ten years, was only a provision 
 that the grant would be void if a condition subsequent was not 
 performed. In regard to the enforcement of this right the court 
 say: "It is a settled law that no one can take advantage of the 
 non-performance of a condition subsequent annexed to an estate 
 in fee, but the grantor or his heirs, or the successor of the grantor, 
 if the grant proceeds from an artificial person; and if they do- 
 not see fit to assert their right to enforce a forfeiture on that 
 ground, the title remains unimpaired in the grantee." 10 
 
 12 Hannibal d St. Jo. R. Co. v. Smith, 9 Wallace, 95; 14 Am. & Eng. Railroad 
 Cases, 503. 
 
 13 St. P. & S. C. R. Co. v. W. cf St. P. R. Co., 112 U. S., 720. 
 
 14 46 Am and Eng. Railroad Cases, 430. 
 16 Ibid. 
 
 "21 Wallace, 44. 
 
 (342)
 
 SANBOKN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 81 
 
 The effect of this decision was to make it necessary for Con- 
 gress to take action, either in the form of a repeal of the grant or 
 an authorization of the Attorney General to bring suit for a for- 
 feiture of the lands. Until some action was taken, the companies 
 could go on and complete their roads, receiving from the govern- 
 ment the patents for the lands as fast as they earned them. Nor 
 was it probable that the supreme court would have sustained 
 laws forfeiting the lands thus earned after the expiration of the 
 time for the building of the road. A decision which has already 
 been noted, 17 implies that the contract between the government 
 and the companies was complete when the road was built and the 
 lands patented, so that it would be impossible for the government 
 to recede) from its side of the contract at a later date. 
 
 One of the ideas in making the grants to states rather than to 
 corporations was that the state would be able to exercise control 
 over the grants, thus placing a check on the evil effects of cor- 
 porations. But there is nothing to show that the states did any 
 better in this than Congress would have done if the companies 
 had received the grants direct, or than Congress did do when the 
 grants were made to the Pacific roads. The contest in the Wis- 
 consin legislature over the disposal of the land grant was, propor- 
 tionately, more discreditable than the Credit Mobilier. Boards 
 were in some states created to supervise the roads and the grant- 
 ing of lands to them, but these do not seem to have contributed 
 to the improvement of the system. Another step which some of 
 the states took was the requirement that a certain percentage of 
 the earnings of the road be paid into the treasury as a condition 
 of the grant. But as this was in lieu of other taxes the gain was 
 questionable, especially as the earnings of the roads have become 
 the usual basis of taxation. So the interposition of the states be- 
 tween the government and the roads cannot be regarded as hav- 
 ing placed any additional safeguards around the grants. 18 
 
 "Van Wyck v. Kncvals, 106 U. S., 30G. Supra, p. 73. 
 
 18 In Appendix A an attempt has been made to trace the history of the grants 
 after they passed into the hands of the states and corporations. All such ques- 
 tions will be considered at greater length there. 
 
 (343)
 
 82 BULLETIN OP TUE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 As far as the roads themselves were concerned the system was 
 in many cases not carried out in the manner intended by Con- 
 gress. A quick construction of the roads had been expected, 
 since the purpose of the grants was to enhance the value of the 
 other public lands. A long delay in the building of the road 
 might entirely change the situation and remove the necessity for 
 that particular road. But that Congress failed to act, after the 
 need of such action to prevent the further earning of the grant 
 had been pointed out, was not the fault of the roads, and the fail- 
 ure so to act was, in effect, a re-grant from year to year. 
 
 It is impossible to give an exact estimate of the amount of 
 railroad mileage completed on time. In many cases the time for 
 the building of the road was extended greatly over the original 
 grant. In 1890 the House committee on Public Lands reported 
 that of railroads aggregating 7,445 miles in length there had been 
 built on time 2,847 miles and after the time required 3,541 
 miles, leaving in 1890, 1,056 miles unbuilt, 19 This did not in- 
 clude the Atlantic and Pacific and various smaller roads, the 
 grants to which had been repealed previously. ISTor, on the other 
 hand, did it include those roads which had been entirelv built 
 on time. The best estimate I can make is, that about one-half of 
 the railroad mileage to which the grants applied was built within 
 the time required by the acts. 
 
 Donaldson 20 estimated that the total amount of land granted 
 under various acts was 155,504,994 acres. Previous claims and 
 forfeitures have taken up a large part of this, so that in 1897 
 there had been patented on behalf of these grants 87,915,326 
 acres, and it was estimated that 11,436,809 acres were necessary 
 to complete them. 21 Figures relating to the disposal of those 
 lands by the companies are very incomplete. In general, the 
 roads seem to have made no effort to build up a land monopoly, 
 but to have disposed of their lands to settlers as rapidly as pos- 
 sible, and at reasonable prices. The attempt to bring settlers to 
 
 19 House Reports, 1st sess. 51st Cong., No. 1179. 
 50 Public Domain, p. 273. 
 
 21 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1S97, 234, 224. 
 
 (314)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 83 
 
 these lands is a part of the general effort which the railroads have 
 made, by advertisements, immigration agents, home-seekers ex- 
 cursions, etc., to increase the population along their lines. 
 
 In 1880 a report from the Auditor of Railroad Accounts con- 
 cerning most of the roads to which lands have been givnted 
 showed that of 32,131,731 acres then patented to the roads, 
 14,310,201 acres had been sold. 22 The time since the grants had 
 been made was from twenty-eight to fourteen years. Consider- 
 ing the newness of the country, the sales seem to have been as 
 rapid as could be expected. ~No evidence has been found of a dis- 
 position to retain the lands until high prices could be obtained for 
 them. Every effort seems to have been to attract settlers and to 
 sell the lands as soon as possible. The total amount received 
 for the lands included in the above report was $68,905,479. The 
 highest average price per acre was in the case of the Chicago, 
 Burlington, and Quincy which had received $12.12. The lowest 
 price was that of the lands of the Oregon and California, $2.14 
 an acre. After 1880, higher prices were sometimes obtained, 
 but the average price to date has been under rather than over 
 $10 an acre. 
 
 Few of the roads still hold large tracts of valuable lands, and 
 the lands have not been the source of wealth to the roads that 
 is commonly supposed. Even in the case of the largest grants 
 the balance for the whole period is quite small and in many cases 
 the land departments are now a source of expense rather than 
 of revenue. The question, like all features of railway finance, 
 is a complicated one. The lands may not have been well man- 
 aged, sales may have been made to those interested in the road, 
 or profits may have been concealed in an expense account. Any 
 definite conclusion on this subject would require a complete ex- 
 amination of the finances of the companies, an examination im- 
 practicable in this connection and probably impossible in any 
 case. 
 
 Comparing the building of the roads which received land 
 
 ** Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 
 (345)
 
 84 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OP WI8CONSIN. 
 
 grants with those that did not, it seems that there was no partic- 
 ular need for most of the grants. Unaided roads were built along 
 similar routes even faster than aided ones. The great transcon- 
 tinental roads, however, probably needed the assistance of aid in 
 the sHape of land or bonds to secure their construction at the 
 time they were built. 
 
 (346)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 85 
 
 \ 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The development of the Mississippi valley in the period pre- 
 ceding 1850 has already been considered. It was the fact of 
 this development, together with the existence of large tracts of 
 public lands in this new country and the peculiar political con- 
 ditions of the time, which led to the system of railroad land 
 grants. As we have seen, it was useless to expect direct aid 
 from the states or federal government. The attempts of the 
 states to carry on works of internal improvement directly had 
 been so disastrous that aid to private enterprises of that kind was 
 virtually prohibited. On the other hand the prevalent political 
 theory was that it was not within the province of the national 
 government to extend such aid. With both of these sources of 
 assistance cut off, the idea of indirect aid by means of the public 
 lands was evolved. 
 
 It was not proposed that there should be a direct gift of the 
 lands. That the public lands were to be held for profit was 
 another doctrine of the time. If the proposition could be so pre- 
 sented that both the government and the railways would derive 
 a direct financial gain, it would be taken out of the category of 
 internal improvements — the spectre of every Democratic politi- 
 cian since Jackson's administration — and would become simply 
 an advantageous means of raising revenue. By the use of the 
 states as an intermediary, moreover, the respect for the state 
 autonomy was preserved. 
 
 Having in mind the conditions of the time when the land 
 grants were first discussed in Congress, we may review the his- 
 tory of the grants and the principles on which they were made. 
 
 (347)
 
 86 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OP WISCONSIN. 
 
 We may distinguish four periods in the history of land grant 
 legislation : 
 
 1. The first of these extended from about 1837 to 1850. This 
 
 was the formative period, when the theories on which 
 the grants were made, and the grounds of opposition to 
 them, were becoming evident. 
 
 2. The second period extended from 1850 to 1857, and may 
 
 be called the period of grants to states, together with the 
 beginnings of the homestead law. During this period 
 the movement for the Pacific railroad was also taking- 
 shape; it occupies much the same relation to that move- 
 ment which the earlier period occupies toward the state 
 grants. 
 
 3. In the third period from 1857 to 1872, the Pacific roads 
 
 had their turn, and the grant to a corporation was the 
 distinctive form of the time. Extensions were also made 
 of earlier grants to states and a few new grants to the 
 states were made. 
 
 4. The reaction set in, and from 1876 to 1890 efforts were 
 
 made to secure the forfeiture of the unearned grants. 
 
 During the first period, the main argument for the land grants 
 was that which represented the government as a private land 
 owner wishing to secure the largest returns from his domains. 
 Much of the government land was far from the settled portions 
 of the country and would not sell unless the country was devel- 
 oped. If a portion of this land was donated to a railroad which 
 would make the remaining land salable, was not the government 
 acting as any wise individual would ? To give greater force to 
 this idea, it was proposed that the grant should be in alternate 
 sections, with the price of the remaining lands doubled, so that 
 the gain would be direct and in exact proportion to the amount 
 granted. Extended to its logical conclusion, the argument 
 amounted to this: lands can only be granted in an unsettled 
 country, for if the country was settled the government would not 
 need to create a market for its lands. That this was a good thing 
 
 (348)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 87 
 
 to build railroads beyond the outposts of civilization, was one of 
 the popular ideas of the time. 1 The framers of the above argu- 
 ment held that the lands should be used for the direct benefit of 
 the treasury. 
 
 There were also those who considered that the better plan was 
 to distribute the proceeds of the lands, or even the lands them- 
 selves, among the states. The distribution of the proceeds had 
 been a "Whig doctrine at the time of that party's greatest power. 
 But there was now hardly enough money from the sale of lands 
 to pay to distribute, so it was proposed to distribute the lands 
 themselves. This was the idea of the bill which passed the 
 House in 1852, which, as we have seen, 2 received its chief sup- 
 port from the Whigs. The fundamental doctrine of this bill was 
 the same as that of the regular land grants: the land was the joint 
 property of all the states, but the profits from the lands were to 
 be realized in a different manner. 
 
 It has seemed to me that some such division as that proposed 
 by Bennett, 3 if it could have been final, would have solved the 
 problem of land grants better than was done by the separate 
 grants. The selection which Congress made of one road or 
 another to receive the aid from the lands was not on any prin- 
 ciple of national or state interest, but on political or personal 
 grounds. The other plan would have placed the matter in the 
 hands of the states who would probably have dealt as wisely with 
 the matter as Congress did. At any rate as between the states 
 some proportion would have been observed in the distribution of 
 the grants. 
 
 Still another class of persons considered the new states entitled 
 to the lands within their boundaries. At least it was urged that 
 the state should be allowed to exercise a high attribute of sov- 
 
 1 Von Hoist says, speaking of the crisis of 1857 : "Railroads had not only to 
 precede artificial roads, but to wide circles of people It did not, by any means, 
 seem an absurd idea to build them into the wilderness." Constitutional History of 
 the United States, VI, 105. It may be noted, however, that Professor von Hoist 
 entirely neglects land grants and their effect on the period which he covers In his 
 work. 
 
 2 Supra, p. 42. 
 
 3 Supra, pp. 41-42. 
 
 7 (349)
 
 88 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 ereignty over these lands, the right of taxation. As such a right 
 was not enjoyed by any of the states over the public lands within 
 their limits, it was argued that the donation of a certain amount 
 of land in lieu of the money which might otherwise have been 
 secured, was only just and equitable. 
 
 During the first period those opposed to land grants held that 
 the exercise of such a power was unconstitutional. This idea was 
 connected with the opposition to internal improvements, for 
 there were some who saw that the difference between grants of 
 alternate sections of land and grants of money was not so great 
 as many professed to believe. No particular constitutional pro- 
 vision was cited in behalf of their position, but the general un- 
 constitutionality of national support for internal improvements 
 was relied upon in support of their case. And if federal internal 
 improvements were unconstitutional, then land grants should 
 probably be considered so. On the other hand, the provision of 
 the Constitution that '"Congress shall have power to dispose of, 
 and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the terri- 
 tory or other property belonging to the United States," 4 was 
 cited as clearly giving the power to grant lands. 
 
 Such were the arguments pro and con during the first period 
 of land grants. The second period may be called that of the 
 homestead law. At this time the chief objection to the grants 
 was made on behalf of the settlers : that the grants would raise 
 the price of the best lands in the new states, not only the lands 
 granted to the railroads which it was supposed would be sold at 
 high prices, but also the lands reserved to the government, which 
 were held at double the regular price. As it would, to a large ex- 
 tent, have destroyed the principle on which the grants were made 
 to have left the price of the reserved lands at $1.25 an acre, ob- 
 jections to the grants on that score were unavailing. The some- 
 what narrow ideas of the time on the question of transportation 
 caused the belief that the fifteen mile limits of the grant formed 
 the limits of the influence of the road so that the benefit to gov- 
 
 4 Art. IV, sec. 3, paragraph 2. 
 
 (350)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 89 
 
 ernment lands beyond those limits was considered as nil. It was 
 believed that the only way to reimburse the government was to 
 raise the price of the reserved lands, and the settler must pay the 
 difference if he wished to be near a road. 
 
 The objection to the increase in price of the lands was part of 
 a general feeling that the best way to dispose of the public lands 
 was to grant them to actual settlers in consideration for improve- 
 ments and cultivation. Beginning with a reduction in price to 
 actual settlers the theory was soon enlarged to an actual donation. 
 Many believed that the work of the settler on his land would be 
 a full equivalent to the government for the price at which it was 
 held. But a much broader view was that which considered the 
 best basis of the nation its agricultural population, and that the 
 best use which, could be made of the public lands was to encour- 
 age the development of a rural class. The correctness of this 
 view has, I think, been attested by the working of the law, and 
 by the fact that the good results have never been seriously ques- 
 tioned. 
 
 That the homestead law was a party question is clearly shown 
 by the analysis of the votes given in the previous pages. It was 
 first brought forward prominently by the Free-Soil party and 
 passed with the other doctrines of that party to the Republican 
 party on its organization. The Democrats largely opposed the 
 measure because of their ideas on the construction of the Consti- 
 tution, as they did not believe that it was one of the functions of 
 government to assist the needy or landless by donations of the 
 public lands. 
 
 The economic principle of laissez faire, which had been since 
 the time of Adam Smith the dominant doctrine in economics 
 and political science, was frequently invoked by the Democrats 
 both on the tariff and homestead questions. It was said : You pro- 
 posed the tariff because there was too much agriculture and too 
 little manufacturing in the United States, and now you propose 
 the homestead law because there are too many people engaged 
 in manufacturing in the cities and too few in agriculture on the 
 
 western lands — you should have left matters alone at first. But 
 
 (351)
 
 90 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 the thing which most of all made the homestead law a political 
 question was its connection with slavery. For it was very true 
 that the North alone would receive the benefit of the law. The 
 struggle for Kansas had shown that the South did not have the 
 men to settle even one territory, 5 and if the additional induce- 
 ment of free land was added, the struggle would have been even 
 more hopeless. In the intensity of the struggle over slavery just 
 preceding the war, the least weight which would influence the 
 balance was fought with intense energy by the slaveholders. A 
 measure of such importance to the North as the homestead law 
 stood no chance of receiving the votes of the South. 
 
 The opposition between homesteads and land grants has al- 
 ready been indicated. How far this extended is not clear. Only 
 at one time, during the thirty-second Congress, did the two meas- 
 ures appear before the national legislature at the same time. At 
 that time we noted an equal three-fold division of the members 
 of Congress, those favoring both systems, those opposed to both 
 plans, and those in favor of one and opposed to the other. Some 
 members argued that the systems conflicted and others that they 
 did not. The nearest approach to a solution seems to be that 
 there was opposition between the plans, but that this opposition 
 was not entire and did not extend to all features of the questions 
 or to all members of Congress. 
 
 The third period, that of the Pacific grants, has not the interest 
 which the previous ones had, although the grants to the Pacific 
 roads form a quite distinct part of the land grant system. The 
 principle on which they were made was frankly that of aid to a 
 certain work of internal improvements, but it was justified 
 by the extent and national importance of the undertaking and 
 by the constitutional power of the government to establish post- 
 offices and post roads and to carry on war. The great obstacle to 
 
 B "The lesson of the vain struggle for Kansas showed that they lacked the 
 human material — slaves as well as freemen — successfully to stand the struggle of 
 competition with the north in the making of settlements. A homestead law would 
 necessarily accelerate the growth of the preponderance of the free states much 
 more than a railway running north of Mason and Dixon's line to the Pacific 
 ocean." Von Hoist, Constitutional History of the United States, VI, 302. 
 
 (352)
 
 SANBORN RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 91 
 
 the building of the Pacific road was not constitutional but sec- 
 tional. That portion of the territory through which the road 
 was built was expected to show a great increase in wealth and 
 population. Whether the territory so benefited was to be slave 
 or free was a vital point in the opinion of every person. The 
 first Pacific grant, although passed after secession, was on the 
 middle rather than the northern route; but it also tended to 
 strengthen the power of the North as it ran through free states. 
 
 The last period was distinctly anti-land grant ; the failure of 
 many of the companies to build the roads within the time re- 
 quired by the granting acts and the various abuses which had en- 
 tered into the system soon caused a demand to be made for the 
 forfeiture of a number of grants. At first this was confined to 
 individual roads, but later the more comprehensive plan of for- 
 feiting all unearned grants was presented. This forfeiture could 
 be made in three different ways. First, the entire grant could be 
 forfeited where the provisions of the granting act had not been 
 fully complied with. Second, the lands opposite the parts of 
 the road which had not been built on time could be forfeited. 
 Third, the lands opposite the part uncompleted at the time of the 
 passage of the forfeiture act could be restored to the public do- 
 main. 
 
 The first proposition secured the favor of a considerable num- 
 ber of representatives, but failed to pass the House. In the Sen- 
 ate it was never offered. The second plan was that demanded by 
 the House, at first by the passage of a bill to that effect, and then 
 in a reluctant assent to the more moderate plan of the Senate fol- 
 lowed by another bill embodying their ideas on the subject. The 
 last plan was that which the Senate always advocated and which 
 was expressed in the legislation of 1890. 
 
 It is doubtful whether any but the last plan would have been 
 held valid by the supreme court. The matter never came di- 
 rectly before that body for its determination, but the language 
 used in land grant opinions would indicate that the legality of 
 any more complete forfeiture was doubtful. This seems to be as 
 true in equity as in law. The time for Congressional action was 
 
 (353)
 
 92 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 when the grants expired. Then the lands could have been for- 
 feited without particular hardship. But as Congress not only 
 neglected but refused to act in the matter, the roads could assume, 
 especially in view of the decision in Schulenberg v. Ilarriinan, 
 that construction gave them an equitable title to the lands thus 
 earned. Action should have been taken much earlier in regard 
 to many of the roads, but having failed to take such action Con- 
 gress could not undo its work at some future date without regard 
 to what had happened in the meantime. On the question of for- 
 feiture, the Democrats took a much more advanced position than 
 the Republicans, but there is no evidence that the question was 
 ever a live one in national politics. 
 
 The land policy of the government in regard to its arable pub- 
 lic lands was practically settled by 1863. It was that of grants 
 for railroads, education, and settlement. After the war the cor- 
 rectness of this policy was not seriously questioned, and the pub- 
 lic land question ceased to occupy an important place in national 
 politics. There was, indeed, considerable discussion over the for- 
 feiture of certain railroad grants, but this question occupied a 
 very minor position in the politics of the time and was uncon- 
 nected with other political issues. On the other hand, the home- 
 stead policy was considered as the only possible manner in which 
 the lands should be given to settlers. The lands thus ceased to be 
 a source of revenue and so had no effect on finance and the tariff, 
 while slavery and state sovereignty had ceased to be questions of 
 the day. The problems arising in connection with the adjust- 
 ment of the old principles of land legislation to the conditions of 
 the forest areas and arid tracts of the west of to-day, constitute 
 a new chapter in the agrarian history of the country. Irrigation 
 areas now attract attention in place of railroad routes. But dis- 
 position of the public domain is still a living question. 
 
 (354)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 93 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 THE USE OF RAILROAD LANDS BY STATES AND CORPORATIONS. 
 
 The following summary of the disposition of the land grants to rail- 
 roads must be regarded as provisional. The material is too scattered, 
 insufficient, and sometimes unreliable, to permit exhaustive treatment 
 or very positive detailed conclusions. But the following data have 
 been laboriously collected and, although incomplete, are presented 
 partly in the hope of stimulating students in the respective states to 
 give fuller investigation to the subject. 
 
 ILLINOIS. 
 
 The act of September 20, 1850, granted lands to Illinois for a road 
 from Chicago to Cairo, with a branch to Dubuque via Galena. 1 The 
 western part of 'this line had been part of the internal improvement 
 scheme of 1837, 2 but like the rest of the plan had never been carried 
 out. 
 
 Even before the internal improvement plan had been adopted a com- 
 pany had been chartered to build the road. When the state undertook 
 the work, this company was compelled to surrender its charter; but in 
 1843 the charter was returned, onlj r to be repealed in 1845 and again 
 revived in 1849." By this last act the governor was to hold in trust for 
 the company any lands which might be granted to the state for the 
 benefit of the road. 4 There seems to have been considerable opposi- 
 tion to this company and to the "Holbrook charters," as the laws re- 
 lating to it were called. Douglas was particularly persistent in his 
 work against the company and finally secured from the company a re- 
 lease from all its rights to the lands which might be granted to the 
 state. Douglas regarded this release as necessary in order to secure 
 
 1 "From the southern terminus of the Illinois and Michigan canal to a point at 
 or near the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers with a branch of the same 
 to Chicago, on Lake Michigan, and another via the town of Galena in said state 
 to Dubuque in the state of Iowa." Statutes at Large, ix, 466. 
 
 2 Moses, Illinois, Historical and Statistical, Chicago, 1889, I, 409-413. 
 
 3 Davidson and Stuve, History of Illinois, Springfield, 1874, 573-74. 
 *Private Laws of Illinois, 1st sess. 16th Assembly, 90. 
 
 (355)
 
 94 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OP WISCONSIN. 
 
 the passage of the bill, 5 but it is not clear how widespread the feeling 
 against the company was or what were the grounds for it. At any rate 
 the old company was not inclined to give up its claim to the lands and 
 a struggle in the legislature ensued. The grant was at last conferred 
 upon a company organized by eastern capitalists. 
 
 The act incorporating the new company provided for trustees to 
 supervise the disposal of the lands, which were to be sold as fifty-mile 
 sections of the road were completed. The main liue was to be built, 
 within six years. The lands of the road were to be exempt from 
 taxation and in lieu of this five per cent, of the gross income of the 
 road each year was to be paid into the state treasury. The other assets 
 of the company were to be exempt from taxation for six years, and 
 after that any excess over three-quarters of one per cent, on the taxa- 
 tion of these assets was to be deducted from the five per cent, income 
 tax. 7 The company seems to have been willing to agree to as 
 high as ten per cent, tax, 8 but this was not necessary. In 1870 an 
 amendment to the Illinois Constitution was adopted by a vote of 147,032 
 to 21,310, prohibiting any modification of this law. 9 
 
 The new company was organized in March, 1851, and the construction 
 of the road begun during the summer of 1852. In September, 1855, the 
 whole road was opened for traffic. 1 " The entire length of the road 
 was 705.5 miles, which would have given the company, if all the lands 
 had been unoccupied, 2,709,100 acres. Of this amount the company has 
 received 2,595,053 acres. 11 
 
 It was decided by the directors to divide the lands into the following 
 classes: For construction, 2,000,000 acres; for interest on bonds, 250,000 
 acres; free lands, 345,000 acres. The price was fixed in 185G at from 
 $5 to $25 an acre, to be sold on six-year credit, with interest at three 
 per cent. The deed was not given until the entire price was paid, and 
 so the exemption from taxation was secured to the purchaser for six 
 years. It was required that the lands should be put under cultivation." 
 The actual average price received for the lands up to 1872 was $10.09 
 an acre. 13 After that the price decreased, until in 1883 it had reached 
 $4.30. Since then it has increased and was $7.59 in 1895. " 
 
 Douglas to Breese, Feb. 22, 1851, Springfield Daily Register, March 13, 1851 ; 
 Fergus Historical Scries, No. 23, 9G-7. 
 
 6 Davidson and Stuve, History of Illinois, 576-81. 
 
 7 Private Laics of Illinois, 1st sess. 16th assembly, 61. 
 
 8 Bonham, Fifty Years' Recollections, Peoria, 1SS3, 460. 
 8 Donaldson, Public Domain, 265. 
 
 10 Poor, Railway Manual, 1879, 739-40. 
 
 11 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 225. 
 
 12 Circular Concerning the Illinois Central Lands, New York, 1S56. 
 
 13 Poor, Railway Manual, 1872-73, 540. 
 "Poor, Railway Manuals. 
 
 (356)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 
 
 95 
 
 It was stated in Congress that the plan of the company was to hold 
 its lands until the increase of population had raised their value, and 
 during the interim the money for the road was to be secured by 
 means of bonds. 1 '' Xo such intention is evident in the action of the 
 company, for the lands were freely offered at the price above men- 
 tioned and their sale was quite rapid. Up to and including 1855, lands 
 to the amount of 528,863 acres had been sold. 18 This was for only sev- 
 enteen months, as the lands were not put on the market until August, 
 1854. By 1861 the sales had amounted to 1,200,000 acres; 17 by 1872 the 
 company had disposed of 2,215,789 acres," and in 1895 only 87,373 acres 
 remained. 18 
 
 The largest sales up to 1S65 had been in the«central portion of the 
 state, from Centralia north to La Salle and Kankakee. In the south the 
 saleswerevery light, while in the northern portion of the state the com- 
 pany received few lands. 20 In 1873 the lands remaining in the hands of 
 the company were nearly all south of Centralia. 21 There had been re- 
 ceived from the lands sold up to 1872 something over twenty-three 
 million dollars.- From 1872 to 1880 complete figures are not obtainable; 
 from 1880 to 1890, $936,923 were received. 23 
 
 The building of the road accomplished the avowed purpose for which 
 the grant was made: the sale of the public lands. As early as 1852 the 
 land commissioner considered that the sale of lands had demonstrated 
 the success of the bill, 2 * and by 1855 it was reported that all of the gov- 
 ernment lands were sold. 25 
 
 MICHIGAN. 
 
 The first grant to Michigan was that of June 3, 1856, by which several 
 railroads were provided for. 28 The legislature of Michigan accepted the 
 
 "Glote, 1st sess. 32d Cong., App., 808. 
 
 16 Gerhard, Illinois as It Is, 407. 
 
 17 Circular in regard to the Illinois Central lands, Chicago, 1S61. 
 
 18 Poor, Railway Manual, 1872-73, 540. 
 
 19 Ibid., 1896, 565. 
 
 20 Map of Illinois Central Lands, Chicago, 1865. 
 "Vernon, American Railroad Manual, 1S74, 530. 
 »Poor, Railway Manual. 1872-73, 540. 
 
 ,3 Poor, Railway Manuals. 
 
 ""The grant to the Mobile and Chicago railroad, made by the act of 20th Sep- 
 tember, 1850, so far as the state of Illinois is concerned, where the selections 
 have been completed and the lands retained by the government brought into mar- 
 ket, is strongly in point in support of this view. Here the greatest anxiety was 
 manifested to obtain lands along the road, even at the enhanced minimum, and 
 thousands of acres were disposed of that would probably have remained unsold 
 for many years." Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1852, 78. 
 
 •'Bankers' Magazine, ix, 815. 
 
 29 "From Little Bay de Noquet to Marquette and thence to Ontonagon, and 
 from the two last named places to the Wisconsin State line ; and also from Am- 
 
 (357)
 
 9G BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 grant and disposed of it to various companies. The lands were to be 
 given the companies in sixty-section lots as each twenty miles of the 
 road were completed, and were to be free from taxation for seven 
 years. A board of control was provided which was to supervise the sale 
 of the lands and to declare the grants forfeited in case the conditions 
 were not fulfilled. A special tax of one per cent, on the cost of the 
 road was levied and the legislature had power to increase this to two 
 per cent, after ten years. The tax, however, was not to apply to the 
 roads on the Upper Peninsula until after ten years, and the Detroit 
 and Milwaukee and the Port Huron and Milwaukee were to be liable to 
 an increase only in proportion to the lands received." 
 
 The road from Little Bay de Noquet to Marquette was opened in 
 1864, and the same year it passed into the hands of the Chicago and 
 Northwestern railroad company/ 5 A joint resolution of July 5, 1862,™ 
 authorized the re-location of the road from Marquette to the state 
 line, and an act of March 3, 1865, 30 recognized the route as via Bay de 
 Noquet. Under these acts the Chicago and Northwestern built from 
 the Wisconsin line to Escanaba (Bay de Noquet) in 1872." From 1878 
 the highest annual average which the Northwestern has obtained for 
 its Michigan lands has been $4.79, and the lowest $1.65. In 18S2 the 
 highest point in annual sales was reached, 56,937 acres having been 
 disposed of at that time. Of late years there has been a decrease in the 
 lands sold, during 1897 the amount being 5,147 acres. 32 
 
 The time for the completion of the road from Marquette to Onto- 
 nagon was extended to December 31, 1872. =" Within the time required 
 the road was built from a point twenty miles west of Marquette to 
 L'Anse, fifty-two miles. 34 The portion from L'Anse to Ontonagon has 
 never been constructed, and an act of March 2, 1889, forfeited the lands 
 opposite to the uncompleted portion of the road. 35 
 
 No portion of the Ontonagon and state line road was constructed 
 within the time required, and in 1868 the governor released to the gov- 
 ernment the lands certified for the benefit of the road. In 1880 the 
 board of control, ignoring the release of the governor, conferred the 
 
 boy, by Hillsdale and Lansing and from Grand Rapids to some point on or near 
 Traverse Bay ; also from Grand Haven and Fere Marquette to Flint and thence 
 to Port Huron." Statutes at Large, xi, 21. 
 
 -''Laics of Michigan, 1857, 346-53. 
 
 28 Poor, Railway Manual, 1882, 672. 
 
 19 Statutes at Large, xii, 620. 
 
 30 Ibid., xiii. 520. 
 
 ai rooi\ Railway Manual, 18S2, 672. 
 
 K Annual Reports C. & N. TF. Railroad. 
 
 « Statutes at Large, xv, 252. 
 
 a * Donaldson, Public Domain, 799. 
 
 ""Statutes at Large, xxv, 1008. 
 
 (358)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 97 
 
 grant on the Ontonagon and Brule Elver company." In 1889 the grant 
 was forfeited, with the exception of twenty miles from Ontonagon to 
 Rockland. 37 
 
 The grant for a road from Amboy to a point on Traverse Bay was 
 first conferred on the Amboy, Lansing, and Traverse Bay company. 
 Later that portion of the grant north of Lansing was given to the Jack- 
 son, Lansing, and Saginaw company, and the portion south of Lansing 
 to the Northern Central Michigan railroad company. The time for the 
 completion of the road was in 1S66 extended to June 3, 1873. The road 
 was built from Lansing to Owasso, twenty-eight miles, by the Amboy, 
 Lansing, and Traverse Bay company. By June 3, 1873, the Jackson, 
 Lansing, and Saginaw company had built one hundred and sixty miles 
 north from Owasso. By an act of March 3, 1S73, the northern terminus 
 of the road was changed from Traverse Bay to Mackinaw City, which 
 point was reached by 1882. South of Lansing the building of sixty 
 miles from Lansing to Jonesville was certified by the governor in 
 1873. The portion from Jonesville was never built. 38 No additional 
 lands were granted by the change of the northern terminus, and there 
 have been certified on account of this road 743,787 acres. 33 
 
 The grant for a road from Grand Rapids to Traverse Bay was as- 
 signed to the Grand Rapids and Indiana company. In 1865 the time 
 for the building of the road was extended eight years, or until June 3, 
 187-i. The road was opened to Traverse Bay in December, 1872.*° 
 
 The legislature had conferred the grant for a road from Grand Haven 
 to Port Huron on. two companies, the portion from Port Huron to 
 Owasso on the Port Huron and Milwaukee, and the portion between 
 Owasso and Grand Haven on the Detroit and Milwaukee. The later 
 company accepted the grant, except as to the conditions of sections 
 eleven and twenty of the act, which related to a control over the lands 
 by the state, and the tax on the road. The board of control held that 
 this was not a sufficient acceptance of the grant. The company built 
 the road in 1859, but made no effort to claim the lands." Of the portion 
 east of Owasso, thirty and five-tenths miles were built on time and 
 the remaining sixty miles before 1890. 42 
 
 The grant from Pere Marquette to Flint was given to the Flint and 
 Pere Marquette company. The time for the completion of the road 
 
 86 Donaldson, Public Domain, 800. 
 
 "Statutes at Large, xxv, 1008. 
 
 88 Donaldson, Public Domain, 798-9. 
 
 38 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 227. 
 
 40 Poor, Railway Manual, 1882, 595, 597. 
 
 * x Rogers v. Port Huron & Lake Michigan R. R., 45 Mich., 460. 
 
 * 3 IIouse Reports, 1st sess. 5 1st Cong., No. 1179. 
 
 (359)
 
 98 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OP WISCONSIN. 
 
 was fixed at March 3, 1876, and the road was opened in December, 1874." 
 There have been certified to the state on account of this grant 512,877 
 
 acres. 44 
 
 June 7, 1864, a further grant was made for a road from Fort Wayne, 
 Indiana, to Grand Rapids. 45 This road was to form an extension of 
 the road from Grand Rapids to Traverse Bay. The portion from Grand 
 Eapids to Fort Wayne was built in 1S70. 4 " 
 
 For most of the Michigan roads the information regarding the use of 
 the lands has been too scanty to be of any importance in a general 
 study of the subject. 
 
 WISCONSIN. 
 
 In 1856, under an act approved June 3, two grants were made to Wis- 
 consin. 47 These were known as the Northwest and the Northeast 
 grants, respectively, and were given by the legislature to different com- 
 panies after a struggle which showed the worst possibilities of land- 
 grant legislation. A bill was passed disposing of the two grants, the 
 one to the La Crosse and Milwaukee, and the other to the Wisconsin 
 and Lake Superior company. This was vetoed by Governor Bashford 
 on account of numerous objections which he expressed regarding the 
 bill. 43 These objections were only partially met by two new bills, dis- 
 posing of the two grants on nearly the same terms, but these received 
 his approval. 
 
 Charges of bribery and corruption in connection with these bills 
 were soon heard, and in his message for 1S58 Governor Eandall called 
 the attention of the legislature to these charges. 49 An investigating 
 committee was appointed and their report revealed an astonishing state 
 of affairs. They found that thirteen senators and fifty-nine assembly- 
 men had received stock or bonds in the La Crosse and Milwaukee com- 
 pany, varying in value from $5,000 to $25,000. Governor Bashford's 
 share in the plunder had been $50,000 worth of bonds. 50 The commit- 
 tee were very positive in their statement of the case, 51 and the testi- 
 mony of Byron Kilburn that he "caused it to be understood, through 
 
 43 Poor, Railway Manual, 1S80, 661. 
 
 44 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 227. 
 
 45 Statutes at Large, xiii, 119. 
 
 46 Poor, Railway Manual, 1S82, 595. 
 
 47 "From Madison, or Columbus, by the way of Portage City to the St. Croix 
 River or Lake between townships twenty-five and thirty-one, and from thence to 
 the west end of Lake Superior : and to Bayfield, and also from Fond du Lac on 
 Lake Winnebago, northerly to the State line." Statutes at Large, xi, 20. 
 
 4S Senate Journal, 1S56, 1143. 
 
 40 Governor's Message, 1858, 23. 
 
 ^Report of Investigating Committee, 5-7, 10. 
 
 61 "The evidence taken establishes the fact that the managers of the La Crosse 
 and Milwaukee Railroad company have been guilty of numerous and unparalleled 
 
 (360)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 99 
 
 the medium of persons not connected with the legislature, that in the 
 event of the La Crosse company obtaining- the grant, that company 
 would acknowledge the favor by a liberal douceur or gratuity to such 
 members as should favor its passage," 6 - may be taken as very good 
 proof of something so like bribery that perhaps only a railway presi- 
 dent would have thought to have drawn the distinction. 
 
 The committee accused only the La Crosse and Milwaukee company 
 of bribery in obtaining its grant; but Byron Kilburn claimed that the 
 Wisconsin and Superior was equally guilty, and that the committee had 
 "whitewashed" the officers of this company. 63 As this statement was 
 made in a private communication and never published, Mr. Kilburn was 
 undoubtedly sincere in making it; but I have found no evidence which 
 would confirm the accusation. 
 
 The grant to the La Crosse company repeated the provisions of the 
 act of Congress and also provided for the construction of the roads 
 from Madison and Columbus to Portage by December 31, 1858. The 
 company was to pay four per cent, on its gross earnings in lieu of all 
 taxes. Lands remaining unsold after five years were to be publicly 
 offered for sale in limited quantities, preference being given to actual 
 settlers. 64 The grant to the Wisconsin and Superior company was very 
 similar, except that three per cent, of the gross earnings was to be 
 paid in lieu of taxes. . 
 
 The La Crosse and Milwaukee, or the companies with which it had 
 consolidated, had alreadj' built a road from Milwaukee to Portage, but 
 which passed through Horicon instead of Columbus. This road was 
 continued from Portage on the line of the land grant as far as Tomah, 
 but there it turned west to La Crosse, which was reached in 1858. The 
 line from Columbus to Portage was built in 1864, and the line from 
 Madison to Portage in 1870. 60 Thus only the portion of the road from 
 Portage to Tomah, sixty miles, was constructed according to the pro- 
 visions of the original act. 
 
 On account, of the failure to build the road from Madison and Colum- 
 bus, Governors Randall and Salomon refused to certify the lands to the 
 company. 67 But in 1868 the legislature provided that the lands patented 
 to the state on account of the line between Portage and Tomah should 
 
 acts of mismanagement, gross violations of duty, fraud and plunder. In fact 
 corruption and wholesale plundering are common features." Ibid., 47. 
 
 62 Ibid., App., 7. 
 
 63 Kilburn to Downer, ms. in library of Wisconsin State Historical Society, pp. 
 9-11. 
 
 "General Laics of Wisconsin, 1856, 217. 
 
 65 Ibid., 239. 
 
 ""Wisconsin Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1888, 387. 
 
 er Cary, Organization and History C, M. & St. P. Railroad, 22-3. 
 
 (361)
 
 100 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 be granted to the Wisconsin Farm Mortgage Land company. This 
 consisted of commissioners named in the act, who were to manage 
 the lands in the interest of the farmers along the line who had 
 subscribed for stock in the La Crosse and Milwaukee company and 
 mortgaged their lands as security. Annual reports were to be made to 
 the secretary of state. 01 * The commissioners reported in 1S74 that they 
 had received 68,820 acres, of which 44,350 acres had been sold for 
 $45,628. Claims aggregating $951,356 had been filed with them. 59 Subse- 
 quent reports of the commissioners were not published, and a search 
 in the state archives has failed to reveal them. 
 
 In 1861 the grant from Madison and Columbus to Portage was taken 
 from the La Crosse and Milwaukee company and given to the Sugar 
 Kiver Valley railroad company. The road was to be constructed by 
 December 31, 1863. 00 In 1866 the time for building the road was ex- 
 tended to December 31, 1869, and the company relieved from the obli- 
 gation of building from Columbus to Portage. 01 In 1S70 the Madison 
 and Portage company, which had purchased the property of the Sugar 
 River Valley company was given the same rights to the grant." 
 
 There were no government lands between Madison and Portage by 
 the time the road was built, and the company claimed indemnity lands 
 from, the grant north of Tomah. This claim was disallowed and no 
 lands have been received for this portion of the road. The govern- 
 ment endeavored to treat the line as a land-grant road in regard to the 
 compensation for carrying mail, but this point was decided in favor 
 of the company. 83 
 
 That portion of the land grant from Tomah to Lake St. Croix was 
 in 1S63 resumed by the state and given to a company which afterward 
 became the St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha. The grant from St. Croix 
 to Bayfield was conferred on another company, which failed to con- 
 consolidated with the Omaha company and built the road. 64 Con- 
 company, which had applied for it, but which afterward refused to 
 accept it. It was then given to the North Wisconsin company, which 
 consolidated with the Omaha company and built the road. 04 Con- 
 gress had meanwhile, by act of May 5, 1864, renewed the grant 
 with limits increased to ten and twenty miles. The time for the com- 
 pletion of the road was extended five years from the passage of the 
 
 58 Private and Local Lairs of Wisconsin, 1868, 114,9. 
 
 59 Wisconsin Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1874, 237. 
 
 ^Private and Local Laics of Wisconsin, 1861, 333. 
 
 61 Ibid., 1866, 1345. 
 
 82 Ibid., 1870, 284. 
 
 63 Cary, Organization and History C, M. & St. P. Railroad, 200. 
 
 61 Ibid. 
 
 (362)
 
 SANBORN RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 101 
 
 act, or three years beyond the original time." The road as built by the 
 Omaha company did not begin at Tomah, but at Elroy, near Tomah, but 
 on the Chicago and Northwestern line. As thus located the road was 
 built to Lake St. Croix in 1872, to Bayfield in 1SS3, and to Superior in 
 1S84. 60 
 
 On account of the continuity of the grant of 1856 it was claimed that 
 deficiencies along one section of the road could be made up from the 
 indemnity limits of another section. But it was decided by the United 
 States Circuit court that the effect of the act of 1S64 was to make dis- 
 tinct grants and to break up the continuity of the former grant, so 
 that each company was confined to its own portion of the road. 07 
 
 For the grant from Tomah to St. Croix, the state has received 813,706 
 acres; for the St. Croix and Superior grant, 854,221 acres, and for thd 
 Bayfield branch, 503,018 acres. 08 By 1880 there had been sold of the 
 grant from Tomah to St. Croix, 330,127 acres. Of these 77,374 acres 
 had been sold for $307,654. The price of the remainder, which had been 
 sold by the West Wisconsin company, is not obtainable."" The company 
 has since acquired the land grants to Minnesota and Iowa for the 
 St. Paul and Sioux City and the Sioux City and St. Paul roads. Under 
 all the grants the company has received 2,183,867 acres, of which it has 
 disposed of 1,774.060 acres. The cash receipts have amounted to 
 $8,000,856, and there are clue on time sales $91,011. 70 
 
 The northeast grant, as before stated, was given to the Wisconsin 
 and Superior railroad company. A resolution of Congress of April 25, 
 1862, made some slight changes in the route, but provided that the 
 lands granted shoxild not be affected. 71 This company soon became 
 the Chicago and Northwestern and built the road to Fort Howard in 
 1862, and to the state line in 1871." Under the grant 546,446 acres have 
 been received by the state." Of these there remained unsold on May 
 31, 1897, 281,974 acres. 74 The sale of lands has never been very rapid, the 
 highest mark being reached in 1882, when 14,656 acres were disposed 
 of. Of late years it has not risen much above 1,000 acres a year. The 
 average price obtained for the lands has varied from $11.27, in 1885, to 
 $1.65 in 1SS8. In 1S97 it was $5.55. From the lands the company has 
 
 63 Statutes at Large, xiii, 68. 
 
 60 Wisconsin Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1888, 389. 
 
 "Madison £ P. R. Co. v. Wisconsin, et al. Federal Cases, xvi, 366. 
 
 6S Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 228. 
 
 69 Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 
 70 Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1897, 119. 
 
 71 Statutes at Large, xii, 618. 
 
 "Wisconsin Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1888, 388. 
 
 "Commissioner General Land Office, Report, 1897, 228. 
 
 74 Chicago and Northwestern Co., Report, 1897, 20. 
 
 (363)
 
 102 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OP WISCONSIN. 
 
 obtained since 1878, when the first separate reports are given, $658,424. 
 This includes the amount received from trespass and stumpage, which 
 in Wisconsin frequently exceeded the receipts from land sales. 75 For 
 its entire system, including grants in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michi- 
 gan, the company has received 3,091,669 acres, of which it has sold 
 2,422,796 acres, for $8,715,350, with $849,311 due on contracts. 76 In its 
 report for 1898 the company credited its land department with a bal- 
 ance of $2,374,516. 77 
 
 The act of May 25, 1864, in addition to the renewal of the previous 
 grants, contained a provision for another road from the central portion 
 of the state to Lake Superior. 78 The legislature gave this grant to two 
 companies. The Portage and Superior railroad company, incorporated 
 April 9, 1866, received the lands for a road from Portage to Stevens 
 Point, and one-half of the lands from Stevens Point to Superior. The 
 road was to be exempt from taxation and to pay three per cent, of 
 its gross earnings to the state. 78 An act of April 6 gave one-half of 
 the grant from Stevens Point to Superior to the Winnebago and Lake 
 Superior railroad company under the same conditions. Consolidation 
 with the Chicago and Northwestern was forbidden. 00 
 
 As might have been expected, the two companies soon united as the 
 Portage, Winnebago, and Superior railroad company. 81 In 1871 it 
 became the Wisconsin Central Railroad company, which built the road. 
 By an act of Congress of April 9, 1874, the time within which the road 
 was to be built was extended to December 31, 1876. 82 By that time the 
 division between Portage and Stevens Point was constructed and all but 
 the ten miles between Butternut Creek and Chippewa Crossing, on the 
 Stevens Point and Ashland division, which were built in 1S77." 
 
 The company has received 834,999 acres under the grant, with 49,834 
 acres estimated as still due. 8 * Up to 1880 it had sold 88,977 acres for 
 $229,325, while the sale of stumpage from the lands had amounted to 
 $222,343. 8G In 1890 the sales had been 268,194 acres for $765,041, while 
 the receipts from stumpage had been $962,960. 8S 
 
 76 See Chicago and Northwestern Co., Reports, 1875-97. 
 
 70 Rail road Commissioner, Report, 1897, 108. 
 
 "Chicago and Northwestern Co., Report, 1898, 39. 
 
 7S "From Fortage City, Berlin, Doty's Island or F-on [sic] du Lac, as said state 
 may determine, in a northwestern direction to Bayfield, and thence to Superior, 
 on Lake Superior." Statutes at Large, xiil, 66. 
 
 n Private and Local Laws of Wisconsin, 1866, 869. 
 
 80 Ibid., 730. 
 
 81 Ibid., 1869, 578. 
 
 82 Statutes at Large, xviii, 28. 
 
 83 Wisconsin Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1888, 391. 
 "Commissioner General Land Oflice, Report, 1897, 228, 224. 
 85 Report to Trustees Wisconsin Central Co., 1880, 36. 
 
 89 Wisconsin Central Co., Second Report, 1890, 39. 
 
 (364)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 103 
 
 MINNESOTA. 
 
 A grant was made to Minnesota in 1853, but this was immediately re- 
 pealed," 7 so that it was not until 1857 that a permanent grant was se- 
 cured. On March 3d of that year a grant of lands was made to the state 
 for various roads. 83 In 1865 these grants were changed to ten and 
 twenty miles, and the time for the completion of the road extended 
 to eight years from the passage of that act. 83 An act of the Minne- 
 sota legislature of May 22, 1857, accepted the grant, assigning to the 
 Minnesota and Pacific company that portion of the grant for a road 
 from Stillwater, via St. Paul and St. Anthony, fixing the terminus at 
 Breckinridge, and the branch via St. Cloud to St. Vincent; to the Root 
 Paver Valley and Southern Minnesota company the grant from St. Paul, 
 via Shakopee Junction to the southern boundary of the state, and the 
 grant from La Crescent to the junction with the road from Winona 
 (fixed at Kochester) ; to the Transit railroad company the grant from 
 Winona to the Big Sioux river, and to the Minneapolis and Cedar Val- 
 ley company the grant from Minneapolis to the southern boundary of 
 the state. The roads were to pay three per cent, on their gross earn- 
 ings in lieu of all taxes. 00 
 
 The Constitution of the state prohibited the loan of its credit in aid 
 of the railroads, but in 1858 an amendment was adopted by a vote 
 of 25,023 to 6,733 allowing an issue of bonds in aid of the land-grant 
 roads. In 1860 the further issue of bonds was prohibited." 1 Under this 
 law bonds to the amount of $200,000 for each road were issued by the 
 state. 
 
 The Minnesota and Pacific was surveyed and located, but no work 
 was done on the road. In 1859 the company defaulted on the interest 
 on its bonds and the mortgage on the lands was foreclosed. In 1861 the 
 legislature relieved the road from all claims of the state against it on 
 
 87 Supra, pp. 51-53. 
 
 88 "From Stillwater, by way of Saint Paul and Saint Anthony, to a point be- 
 tween the foot of Big Stone Lake and the mouth of Sioux Wood River, with a 
 branch via Saint Cloud and Crow Wing, to the navigable waters of the Red River 
 of the north, at such point as the Legislature of said Territory may determine ; 
 from St. Paul and from Saint Anthony, via Minneapolis, to a convenient point of 
 junction west of the Mississippi, to the southern boundary of the Territory in the 
 direction of the mouth of the Big Sioux River, with a brancu, via Faribault, to 
 the north line of the State of Iowa, west of range sixteen ; from Winona, via St. 
 Peters, to a point on the Big Sioux river, south of the forty-fifth parallel of 
 north latitude ; also from La Crescent, via Target Lake, up the valley of Root 
 River, to a point of junction with the last mentioned road, east of range seven- 
 teen." Statutes at Large, xi, 195. 
 
 «»Ibid., xiii, 526. 
 
 <"> Session Laics of the Territory of Minnesota, Extra Session, 1857, 3-26. 
 
 81 Neill, History of Minnesota, 630-31. 
 
 8 (365)
 
 104 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 consideration of the completion of the road. No work having been 
 done in 1862, the rights enjoj'ed by the Minnesota and Pacific were 
 granted to the St. Paul and Pacific company. 92 The portion of the line 
 from St. Anthony to Breckenridge, known as the first division of the 
 St. Paul and Pacific, was built in 1871, 93 within the time required. This 
 line became later a part of the St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Manitoba, now 
 Great Northern, system. Under the grant there have been patented for 
 the company 1,253,468 acres, with 195,366 acres still due." Up to 1877 
 there had been sold of this grant and the one for the line to St. Vin- 
 cent 458,S65 acres for $3,651,641," and by 1897 there had been 2,052,282 
 acres sold, for $8,242,583, with $1,295,244 outstanding. The company 
 still owned 794,364 acres. 00 When the state boundaries of Minnesota 
 were adjusted, it was found that part of this grant was in the territory 
 of Dakota, but this has always been treated as if it were in Minnesota." 
 In 1871 the route of the branch of the St. Paul and Pacific was 
 
 * 
 
 changed so that a more direct line could be secured. 08 Two hundred 
 and eight miles were completed by 1S76, the time required, and the re- 
 mainder was finished in 1SS1. 09 This also became a part of the St. Paul, 
 Minneapolis and Manitoba, and its lands have been treated in connec- 
 tion with that road. 
 
 Under the act of 1871, re-locating the branch of the St. Paul and 
 Pacific, the "Western Eailroad of Minnesota had built from Brainard 
 to Crow Wing in 1878. The distance was fifty-four and two-tenths 
 miles, but for sixteen and one-tenth miles in the Fort Ripley reserva- 
 tion no lands were received. 100 There have been patented for the com- 
 pany 666,865 acres, 101 but information as to their disposal is not ob- 
 tainable. 
 
 The Root River Valley and Southern Minnesota company failed to 
 build the line from St. Paul to the Iowa line and in 1S64 the grant was 
 given to the Minnesota Valley company, afterward the St. Paul and 
 Sioux City company. This built to the line between Minnesota and 
 Iowa in 1870, forming a connection with the Sioux City and St. Paul. 101 
 The state has received 1,123,57S acres on account of the grant. 103 Up 
 
 s -Farnsworth v. Minn. <£ Pac. R. Co., 92 U. S., 49. 
 93 Poor, Railway Manual, 1884, 747. 
 
 M Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1S97, 228, 223. 
 05 Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 96 Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1897, 150. 
 w St. Paul, M. & M. Co. v. Phelps, 137 U. S., 528. 
 95 Statutes at Large, xvii, 631. 
 "Neill, History of Minnesota, 787. 
 100 Donaldson, Public Domain, 803-4. 
 
 101 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 229. 
 10, Poor, Railway Manual, 1880, S30. 
 
 103 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 229. 
 
 (366)
 
 SANBORN RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 105 
 
 to 1SS0 there had been sold 324,543 acres for $2,099,387. 1 Since then the 
 line has been owned by the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha. 
 
 The other portion of the grant to the Root Kiver Valley company, 
 providing for a road from La Crescent to the junction with the Wi- 
 nona and St. Peter road, was in 1864 conferred on the Southern Min- 
 nesota railroad company. In 1866 Congress made a grant for a road 
 from Houston to the western boundary of the state. The grant 
 amounted to five sections a mile on each side of the road and the 
 road was to be finished within ten years. 2 The Southern Minnesota had 
 built to Winnebago, one hundred and sixty-seven miles, in 1870. s In 
 1878 the legislature conferred the grant of 1866 upon the Southern 
 Minnesota Railway Extension company, requiring the completion of 
 the road by the last of 1SS0. 4 The road was built to Flandrau, Dakota, 
 by January 1, 1880. 6 The road as constructed was not on the line of 
 the original grant, but the interior department decided that the diverg- 
 ence was not enough to forfeit the grant. 6 The state has received 
 546,2S4 acres, on account of the grant, 7 information as to which is lack- 
 ing. The road is now owned by the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul 
 company. 
 
 The Transit railway was sold under foreclosure by the state in 1S60, 
 and the Winona and St. Peter was chartered to build the road in 1862. 
 By this company the road was constructed to New Ulm in 1872, and to 
 the Dakota line in 1874. 8 The road has received 1,678,618 acres under its 
 grant. 9 Up to 1SS0 it had sold 557,574 acres, for $1,045,801. 10 From 
 1880 to 1890 there had been sold 861,303 acres, for $3,409,981, and from 
 1890 to 1897 the sales amounted to 272,50S acres for $2,077,435." An 
 interesting feature of the sale of these lands was the fact that Arch- 
 bishop Ireland acted as an agent for their sale, in order to establish a 
 colony of immigrants in Minnesota. 12 
 
 The Minneapolis and Cedar Valley railroad company became the 
 Minneapolis, Faribault, and Cedar Valley company, and later the Minne- 
 sota Central Railway company. In 1866 it had built seventy-one miles 
 of road, to Owatonna, and in that year the road was sold to the Mc- 
 
 I Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 2 Statutes at Large, xiv, 87. 
 3 Cary, C, M. & St. Paul Road, 164. 
 
 * Special Laics of Minnesota, 1878, 537. 
 B Cary, C, M. & St. Paul Road, 167. 
 
 « Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1880, 520. 
 
 7 Ibid., 1897, 229. 
 
 •Poor, Railway Manual, 1880, 837. 
 
 * Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 229. 
 "Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 
 II Chicago & Northwestern Railroad, Reports, 1880-1897. 
 12 Ibid., 1880, 26. 
 
 (367)
 
 106 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 Gregor Western company, the Minnesota Central retaining the lands. 18 
 The former company built to Owatonna, via Austin in 1867. 14 This, 
 however, brought the road east of range sixteen at the state line. In 
 1870 the Minnesota Central company built from Austin to the state line, 
 thus earning the grant. 15 179,734 acres have been patented on account 
 of this grant, no information concerning which is given in the report of 
 the company. 18 
 
 May 5, 1S64, an act was signed granting lands for a railroad from 
 St. Paul to the head of Lake Superior. 17 The road should have been 
 built May 5, 1872, but was not finished until February 28, 1873. 18 Up 
 to June 30, 1880, of the 860,564 acres patented only 28,964 had been sold 
 for $106,462. 19 By 1886, 308,955 acres had been sold for $1,157,054,-° and 
 by 1897, 526,687 acres for $2,558,589." 
 
 The act of July 6, 1S66, also made a grant for a road from Hastings 
 to the western boundary of the state. 22 This grant was in 1867 con- 
 ferred upon the Hastings, Minnesota, and Red River of the North rail- 
 road company, the name of the company being the same year changed 
 to the Hastings and Dakota. The road was built to the state line in 
 1879. 23 There have been patented to the state on account of this grant 
 364,628 acres. 24 Information as to their disposal is lacking. 
 
 IOWA. 
 
 In 1856 Iowa received a grant for four railroads across the state from 
 east to west. 25 The discussion over this act in Congress has already 
 been noted, as has also the opposition of the river towns to the east 
 and west grants. 26 The Iowa legislature, by an act of July 14, 1856, 
 
 "Cary, O., M. & St. Paul Road, 151-159. 
 
 « Ibid., 96. 
 
 15 Ibid., 160. 
 
 16 Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1897, 114. 
 
 17 Statutes at Large, xiii, 64. 
 
 18 Donaldson, Public Domain, 805. 
 
 19 Ibid., 779. 
 
 20 Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1SS6, 598. 
 
 21 Ibid., 1897, 147. 
 
 -Statutes at Large, xiv, 87. 
 
 28 Cary, C, If. & St. Paul Road, 175-181. 
 
 24 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1S97. 229. 
 
 26 "From Burlington, on the Mississippi River, to a point on the Missouri River 
 near the mouth of the Platte River ; from the city of Davenport, via Iowa City 
 and Fort Des Moines, to Council Bluffs ; from Lyons City northwesterly to a 
 point of intersection with the main line of the Iowa Central Air Line Railroad, 
 near Maquoketa, thence on said main line, running as near as practicable to the 
 forty-second parallel across the said State to the Missouri River, from the city 
 of Dubuque to a point on the Missouri River near Sioux City, with a branch 
 from the mouth of the Tete Des Morts to the nearest point on said road." Stat- 
 utes at Large, xi. 9. 
 
 25 Supra, pp. 53-54, 40. 
 
 (368) 

 
 SANBORN RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 107 
 
 accepted the grant and gave the lands for the road from Burlington 
 to the Missouri to the Burlington and Missouri River railroad company; 
 from Davenport to Council Blurt's, to the Mississippi and Missouri rail- 
 road company; from Lyons to the Missouri river, to the Iowa Central 
 Air Line railroad company; and from Dubuque to Sioux City, to the 
 Dubuque and Pacific railroad company. Each company was to con- 
 struct seventv-five miles within three years, from December 1, 1856, 
 thirty miles a year for five years thereafter, and the remainder in one 
 year, that is b}' December 1, 1S65. In case of failure to carry out the 
 conditions, the state could resume the grant.- 7 
 
 The first road, the Burlington and Missouri Biver, was constructed 
 on time. It has received under the grant 389,989 acres, 23 of which in 
 1880 it had sold 283,014 acres for $3,430,572. 29 Since that time the sales 
 were slow, but the lands were practically all disposed of by 1888. The 
 average price received for the lands was $11.79 an acre, and the total 
 amount realized was $5,829,165, of which $4,870,890 was above taxes and 
 expenses. 30 
 
 In 1866, one hundred and thirty miles of the Mississippi and Mis- 
 souri river road had been constructed and in June, 1869, it was finished 
 to the Missouri river. 31 The legislature had meanwhile, in 1868, granted 
 the lands to the Chicago and Bock Island Bailroad company which had 
 purchased the Mississippi and Missouri road. The company was re- 
 quired to build the road to the Missouri within two years. 32 Up to 1880 
 the sales of land by this road had amounted to 371,854 acres for 
 $2,944,374. 3S By 1891, lands to the amount of 547,173 acres were re- 
 ported as sold, 34 which amount seems to have been in excess of the 
 lands actually due the company. 35 These lands were sold at an aver- 
 age of $8.81 an acre and the total amount received from land sales to 
 1891 was $5,796,639, or an excess of $4,887,260 above taxes and expenses 
 of management. 30 
 
 By an act of March 17, 1S60, the grant to the Iowa Central Air Line 
 company was resumed bv r the legislature, as no part of the line had 
 been constructed. 37 The grant was then given to the Cedar Bapids and 
 
 27 Laws of Iowa, 1856, 1. See Dey, Railroad Legislation in Iowa; in Iowa His- 
 torical Record, ix, 547-8. 
 
 28 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 226. 
 "Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 30 Iowa Railroad Commissioners, Report, 1888, 174. 
 "Poor, Railway Manual, 1885, 664. 
 . s-Laws of Iowa, 1868, 13. 
 83 Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 "Iowa Railroad Commissioners, Report, 1891, 212. 
 35 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 226-7. 
 88 Iowa Railroad Commissioners, Report, 1891, 212. 
 zl Laws of Iowa, 1860, 29. 
 
 (369)
 
 108 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 Missouri River Railroad company which was to build the road by Decem- 
 ber 1, 1865. 38 By 18G4 the company had built from Cedar Rapids about 
 one hundred miles west, while the Chicago, Iowa, and Nebraska com- 
 pany had built from a point on the Mississippi, three miles from Lyons, 
 to Cedar Rapids. In 1S64 an act was passed by Congress which relieved 
 the company of the obligation to build from Lyons to the line of the 
 Chicago, Iowa, and Nebraska road; allowed a change of the route west 
 of Cedar Rapids, and, if the new route should not pass through Onawa, 
 required a branch to be built to that city; and also required the con- 
 struction of a branch to the line of the Mississippi and Missouri. 39 
 
 The provisions of this act were not fully carried out, as the connec- 
 tion with the Mississippi and Missouri was not built, nor was the 
 branch to Onawa, although the line passed fifteen miles from that 
 city. The difference between the road as actually constructed and as 
 first located was seventy-four miles. The company claimed lands for 
 the length of the original location but this was not allowed. 40 Of the 
 lands patented for this road the first one hundred sections were given 
 to the Iowa Central Air Line company by a decision of the supreme 
 court. 41 Up to 1869 the Cedar Rapids company had sold 46,049 acres 
 for $220,559. In that year all the remaining lands of the company and 
 those which should thereafter be certified to it, were sold to the Iowa 
 Railroad Land company for $S00,00O. 43 I have been unable to find 
 anything as to the disposal of the lands by this company. 
 
 In 1868 the lands which had been granted to the Dubuque and Pacific 
 were resumed by the state on the ground of the non-fulfillment by the 
 company ot the conditions of the granting act. This act, however, 
 reserved to the company the right to all lands actually earned. 43 The 
 company had built the road as far as Iowa Falls and an agreement 
 had been made with the Iowa Falls and Sioux City company by 
 which the latter was to build the remainder of the road. 44 This 
 agreement was ratified by the legislature, 45 and the road built to 
 Fort Dodge the next year, when it was leased to the Illinois Central, 
 which completed it to Sioux City. 40 In 1S78 the treasurer of the Du- 
 buque and Sioux City company stated that he was unable to furnish 
 information as to the land grant and said that it had been a constant 
 
 88 Ibid., 40. 
 
 39 Cedar Rapids & Mo. R. Co. v. Herring, 110 U. S., 27. 
 
 40 Ibid. 
 
 "Cedar Rapids & Mo. River R. Co. v. Courtright, 21 Wallace, 310. 
 
 42 Iowa Railroad Commissioners, Report, 1878, 197. 
 
 ™Laws of Iowa, 1868, 29. 
 
 44 Iowa Railroad Commissioners, Report, 1S79, 109. 
 
 «» Laics of Iowa. 1868, 164. 
 
 48 Iowa Railroad Commissioners, Report, 1S79, 109. 
 
 (370)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 109 
 
 source of annoyance and loss to the company." In 1880 it was re- 
 ported that the two companies had sold 314,275 acres for $2,098,994.** 
 By 1886 all but 26,448 acres had been disposed of. The average price 
 received was $6.85, while the net income from the lands was $3,676,902.*' 
 
 In 1864 a further grant was made to Iowa for two roads, one from 
 Sioux City to the northern boundary of the state and the other from 
 McGregor west to the Sioux City road. 60 
 
 The lands in aid of a road from Sioux City to the Minnesota line were 
 granted by the state to the Sioux City and St. Paul Railway company," 
 and the grant for the McGregor Western accepted and held in trust for 
 that company." 
 
 The Sioux City and St. Paul company built its line from the state line 
 to Le Mars, a distance of 56 miles. Meanwhile the Dubuque and Sioux 
 City company had built its road to Sioux City, via Le Mars, so that 
 there was a line from that city to Sioux City when the Sioux City and 
 St. Paul company reached it. An agreement was made whereby the 
 line was to be used by the Sioux City and St. Paul company for its 
 through traffic, while doing no local business between Le Mars and 
 Sioux City. 53 The company received certificates from the governor for 
 the construction of 50 miles of road, but, as the line was to be built in 
 10-mile sections, the remaining 6 miles were not certified and no lands 
 were received by the company. 54 Suit was brought for the lands ad- 
 jacent to the last 6 miles but the supreme court of Iowa decided that 
 the company was only entitled to land for completed sections of 10 
 miles. 55 
 
 This road crossed the line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul, 
 formerly the McGregor Western, at Sheldon, thus causing a conflict 
 between the lands granted the road. By a decision of the supreme 
 court, lands within the ten mile limits of one road and the twenty mile 
 
 47 Ibid., 1878, 275. 
 ^Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 
 48 Iowa Rajlroad Commissioners, Report, 18S6, 336. 
 
 50 "From Sioux City in said State, to the south line of the State of Minnesota, 
 at such point as the said State of Iowa may select between the Big Sioux and 
 the west fork of the Des Moines river ; also . . . for the use and benefit of the 
 McGregor Western Railroad Company, for the purpose of aiding in the construc- 
 tion of a railroad from a point at or near the foot of Main street, South Mc- 
 Gregor, in said state, in a westerly direction, by the most practicable route, on 
 or near the forty-third parallel of north latitude, until it shall intersect the said 
 road running from Sioux City to the Minnesota State line, in the county of 
 O'Brien in said state." Statutes at Large, xiii, 72. 
 
 "Laics of Iowa, 1866, 143. 
 
 52 Ibid., 189. 
 
 83 Senate Reports, 1st sess. 49 Cong., No. 45. 
 
 54 Ibid. 
 
 65 Sioux City and St. Paul R. Co. v. Countryman, 83 Iowa, 172. 
 
 (371)
 
 110 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF "WISCONSIN. 
 
 limits of the other were given to the former; lands within the ten 
 mile limits of both roads were evenly divided, as were lands within 
 both twenty mile limits; 60 the general rule in regard to conflicting 
 limits, however, was that priority of selection gave the right to such 
 lands. 67 Little further information can be obtained concerning the 
 lands. This road has become a part of the Chicago, St. Paul, Minne- 
 apolis and Omaha system. 
 
 In 1868 the grant to the McGregor Western was resumed by the state 
 and the lands granted to the McGregor and Sioux City company. 58 At 
 that time it had been constructed as far as Calmar, while in 1870 it 
 was built to Algona and conveyed to the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. 
 Paul company. No further work was done on the road until 1878, after 
 the time for its completion had elapsed. In 1876 the grant had, how- 
 ever, been renewed, but on terms which the McGregor Western refused 
 to accept. In 1879 the lands were given to the St. Paul company, which 
 in 1879 built to the state line. 50 By 1891 this company had disposed 
 of practically all of the lands received under the grant, some 372,000 
 acres, and had received for them $1,601,766. 60 
 
 We have still to consider the Des Moines Kiver grant. This was 
 originally a grant, made in 1846, of the alternate sections for ten miles 
 on each side of the Des Moines River from its mouth to the Eaccoon 
 Fork, to aid in the improvement of the river. 01 In 1862 the grant was 
 extended to include the alternate sections for five miles on each side 
 of the river from the Eaccoon Fork to the north boundary of the state, 
 and permission was given to apply a portion of the lands to the aid of 
 the Keokuk, Fort Des Moines and Minnesota railroad. 62 Under the 
 first grant it was claimed that lands north of Des Moines 03 were in- 
 cluded but this was disallowed. 04 It was later decided, however, that 
 the odd-numbered sections within five miles of the river were so far re- 
 served that they did not pass with the grant of 1856. 65 
 
 In 185S the legislature of Iowa granted the Des Moines river lands to 
 the Keokuk, Fort Des Moines and Minnesota Eailroad company, reserv- 
 ing those lauds which had been previously convej'ed to the Des Moines 
 Navigation and Railroad company. Seventy-five miles of the road were 
 
 08 Sioux Gity & St. Paul R. Co. v. C, M. d St. P. R. Co., 117 U. S., 406. 
 "St. Paul d Sioux City R. Co. v. Winona d St. Peter R. Co., 112 U. S., 720. 
 ss Laus of Iowa, 1S68, 20. 
 69 Cary, Organisation and History of the C, M. & St. P. Railroad, 114-13. 
 
 60 Iowa Eailroad Commissioners, Report, 1891, 2S-9. The report of the land 
 office shows only 325,000 acres patented for this company. Report, 1S97, 227. 
 
 61 Statutes at Large, ix, 77. 
 
 62 Ibid., xii, 543. 
 
 63 The Racoon Fork was at Des Moines. 
 "Dubuque d P. R. Co. v. Litchfield. 23 Howard, 66. 
 K Wolcott v. Des Moines Co., 5 Wallace, 681. 
 
 (372)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. Ill 
 
 to be completed within three years and the whole road by 1868. 66 The 
 road was built from Keokuk to Bentonsport in 1857, to Ottumvva in 
 1859 and to Des Moines in 1S66. In 1S78 it was leased to the Chicago, 
 Rock Island and Pacific.^ Any information as to the disposition of the 
 lands received by this company cannot be obtained. 63 The road was 
 continued to Fort Dodg-e under the name of the Des Moines and Fort 
 Dodge railroad. Information as to the lands of this road is also lack- 
 ing. 
 
 ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI. 
 
 An amendment to the Illinois Central act of 1850 granted lands to 
 Alabama and Mississippi for a railroad from Mobile to the mouth of 
 the Ohio river. 68 This grant was conferred by the legislatures of Ala- 
 bama and Mississippi on the Mobile and Ohio company, which built the 
 road by September, 1859. 70 There have been patented for the company 
 1,156,659 acres. 71 These lands sold very slowly and in 18S0 the company 
 held 1,162,401 acres, valued at $567,125. 72 From the sales of its lands 
 up to 1865 the company had received $252,237." The exact amount re- 
 ceived since then I have been unable to determine. The yearly re- 
 ceipts have been quite small. 
 
 By an act of June 3, 1856, further grants were made to Alabama for 
 a number of roads within that state and extending into the neighboring 
 states. 74 The grant from Gunter's Landing to Gadsden was conferred 
 
 ce Laics of loica, 1858. 195. 
 
 87 Iowa Railroad Commissioners, Report, 1S79, 110. 
 
 6s Ibid., 1878, 4G. 
 
 69 "J.hc7 be it further enacted, That in order to aid in the continuation of said 
 Central Railroad from the mouth of the Ohio river to the city of Mobile, all the 
 rights, privileges, and liabilities hereinbefore conferred on the State of Illinois 
 shall be granted to the States of Alabama and Mississippi respectively, for the 
 purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad from said city of Mobile to a 
 point near the mouth of the Ohio river, and that public lands of the United 
 States, to the same extent in proportion to the length of the road, on the same 
 terms, limitations and restrictions in every respect shall be, and is hereby, 
 granted to said States of Alabama and Mississippi respectively." Statutes at 
 Large, ix, 4G7. 
 
 70 Poor, Railway Manual, 1877-78, 215. In 1859 the time for the completion 
 of the road was extended to Sept. 20, 1805. Statutes at Large, xi, 384. 
 
 71 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 225. 
 
 72 roor, Railway Manual, 1881, 425. 
 
 73 Rcports of Committees, 2nd sess. 39th Cong., no. 34, p. 848. 
 
 74 "From the Tennessee River, at or near Gunter's Landing, to Gadsden, on 
 the Coosa River ; from Gadsden to connect with the Georgia and Tennessee line 
 of railroads, through Chattooga, Wills, and Lookout Valleys ; and from Elyton 
 to the Tennessee River at or near Beard's Bluff, Alabama . . . 
 
 "Section G. And be it further enacted, That a grant of lands shall be made 
 to said state to aid in the construction of the following railroads, to-wit : The 
 Memphis and Charleston Railroad, extending from Memphis on the Mississippi 
 
 (373)
 
 112 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 on the Coosa and Tennessee Railroad company. This had not been 
 built in 1890 and was included in the general forfeiture act of that 
 year. 70 
 
 Under the grant for a road from Gadsden to the Georgia line two 
 companies were organized, one to construct the road through the 
 Chatooga valley and the other through the Wills and Lookout val- 
 leys. The latter company received the grant from the state. 76 In 1863 
 it consolidated with the Northeast and Southwest Alabama, which had 
 received the grant from Gadsden to the Mississippi line. In 1869 the 
 time for the construction of these lines was extended to April 10, 1872, 
 and they were completed during 1871. 77 
 
 The grant for a road from Elyton to the Tennessee river was given 
 to the Elyton and Beard's Bluff Railway company. No map of the road 
 was ever filed and no work has been done on it. 78 
 
 The state refused to accept the grant in aid of the Memphis and 
 Charleston road and the lands were restored to market February 19, 
 1858.™ 
 
 The Mobile and Girard company built fifty-four miles from Girard 
 toward Mobile within the time required by the law, and to Troy, thirty 
 miles further, before the forfeiture of 1890. 80 There had been certi- 
 fied to the company 504,167 acres, of which 201.9S5 were restored to the 
 public domain. 81 
 
 Of the Coosa and Alabama road (later the Selma, Rome, and Dal ton) 
 one hundred and forty-three miles were constructed on the line of 
 definite location filed with the secretary of the interior. Of these one 
 hundred miles were built within the time required by law. 82 No at- 
 tempt was made by the company to build the remainder of the line 
 as located, so that the portion to Gadsden was forfeited in 1890. 8S 
 
 The grant to the North and South Alabama was renewed in 1871 and 
 
 River in Tennessee, to Stevenson on the Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad in 
 Alabama ; the Girard and Mobile railroad, from Girard to Mobile, Alabama ; the 
 Northeast and Southwestern Railroad, from near Gadsden to some point on the 
 Alabama and Mississippi State line, in the direction of the Mobile and 0*nio Rail- 
 road ; the Coosa and Alabama Railroad, from Selma to Gadsden; the Central 
 Railroad from Montgomery to some point on the Alabama and Tennessee Stat* 
 line in the direction to Nashville, Tennesse." Statutes at Large, xi, 17-18. 
 
 75 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1891, 39. 
 
 70 Donaldson, Public Domain, 792. 
 
 77 House Reports, 1st sess. 48th Cong., no. 2016. 
 
 78 Donaldson, Public Domain, 792. 
 
 79 Ibid., 792. 
 
 S0 Hou$e Reports, 1st sess. 51st Cong., no. 1179, p. 3. 
 
 81 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1893, 54. 
 
 82 Donaldson, Public Domain, 793. 
 
 83 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1891, 39. 
 
 84 Statutes at Large, xvi, 580. 
 
 (374)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 113 
 
 the road required to be constructed within three years, 84 which was 
 done. 
 
 In 1857 a grant was made for a road "from the line of Georgia on 
 the Chattahoochee river to the city of Mobile, Alabama," with a 
 branch from Eufaula to Montgomery." No map of location for the 
 road was filed and no portion of it has been constructed. 89 
 
 I have been able to obtain practically no information as to the dis- 
 posal of the lands received by the various companies in Alabama. 
 
 By an act of August 11, 1S5G, Mississippi received a grant of lands 
 for railroads "from Jackson to the line between Mississippi and Ala- 
 bama; from Tuscaloosa to the Mobile railroad within Mississippi, and 
 from Brandon to the Gulf of Mexico," and from Mobile to New Or- 
 leans." 
 
 The first road (now the Vicksburg and Meridian) was completed on 
 time. Information as to its land transactions is lacking. There have 
 been patented for the use of the road 198,028 acres. 83 
 
 For the roads from Tuscaloosa to the Mobile road and from Mobile 
 to New Orleans no maps of location were filed nor were any lands cer- 
 tified to the states on account of the grants. ** 
 
 The land grant road from Brandon to the gulf (known as the Gulf and 
 Ship Island) w T as built as far south as Hattiesburg before the forfeiture 
 of 1890. In that act there was a proviso giving the company one year to 
 build the remainder of its road. This w r as not done and the lands have 
 been forfeited. There have been patented on account of this grant 
 138,478 acres. 90 
 
 FLORIDA. 
 
 An act of May 17, 1856, made grants for various roads in Florida and 
 for a road from Pensacola to Montgomery. 81 The first grant was given 
 to two companies, the Florida, Atlantic, and Gulf Central to build from 
 Jackson to Lake City and the Pensacola and Georgia from Lake City to 
 Pensacola. These companies afterward consolidated as the Florida 
 Central and Western Company. The line from Jacksonville, fifVy-nine 
 
 85 Statutes at Large, xi, 197. 
 
 80 Donaldson, Public Domain, 794. 
 
 "Statutes at Large, xi, 30. 
 
 88 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 225. 
 
 "•Donaldson, Public Domain, 791. 
 
 90 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 225. 
 
 91 "From St. Johns River, at Jacksonville, to the waters of Escambia Bay, at or 
 near Pensacola ; and from Amelia Island, on the Atlantic, to the waters of Tampa 
 Bay, with a branch to Cedar Key, on the Gulf of Mexico ; and also a railroad 
 from Pensacola to the State line of Alabama, in the direction of Montgomery" 
 [line continued to Montgomery by section six]. Statutes at Large, xi, 15. 
 
 (375)
 
 114 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 ruiles, and from Lake City to Quincy, one hundred and thirty miles, was 
 completed on time. The remaining - one hundred and eighty-one miles 
 were completed much later bj r the Pensacola and Atlantic company." 
 There have been certified to the state under this grant 1,308,541 acres. 91 
 
 Of the line from Amelia Island (Fernandina) to Tampa, the line 
 from Fernandina to Waldo, the junction (one hundred and eighty-four 
 miles), and the branch from Waldo to Cedar Keys, seventy-one miles, 
 were constructed on time." 4 The remainder of the road was built to 
 Waldo in 1884.'* The company has received 430,504 acres and it is es- 
 timated that 1,000,000 acres remain unpatented. 08 
 
 The road from Pensacola to the Alabama line was built in 1S59 and 
 destroyed during the war. It was rebuilt in 1870. 97 There have been 
 certified to Florida on account of this road 166,691 acres. 98 
 
 LOUISIANA. 
 
 Louisiana received a grant of land for two roads by an act of June 3, 
 1856. 99 The road from the Texas line to Shreveport, twenty miles, and 
 from the Mississippi to Monroe, seventy-four miles, was constructed 
 within the time required. 10 " The section from Shreveport to Monroe 
 was built in 1884. 101 The state has received from the road 462,465 acres. 1 
 
 Some eig'hty miles of the road from New Orleans to the Texas line 
 were built before the war. During the war the road was in the posses- 
 sion of the Federal Government. 2 In 1S70 the grant was declared for- 
 feited, 3 and in 1888, 719,189 acres which had been patented for the road 
 were reconveyed to the government. 4 
 
 The other grant, from New Orleans to the Mississippi line, was not 
 accepted by the state and the lands were restored to market July 27, 
 1857. 5 
 
 S2 House Reports, 1st sess. 49th Cong., no. 2437. 
 
 93 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 225. 
 
 ai House Reports, 1st sess. 49th Cong., no. 2437. 
 
 85 Poor, Railway Manual, 1S8S, 654. 
 
 90 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 223, 225. 
 
 "Poor, Railway Manual, 1884, 510. 
 
 98 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 225. 
 
 09 "From the Texas line, in the State of Louisiana, west of the town of Green- 
 wood ; via Greenwood, Shreveport, and Monroe to a point on the Mississippi river, 
 opposite Vicksburg ; and from New Orleans by Opelousas to the State line of 
 Texas ; and from New Orleans to the State line, in the direction to [sicl Jackson, 
 Mississippi." Statutes at Large, xi, 18. 
 
 ""Donaldson, Public Domain, 796. 
 
 101 Poor, Railway Manual, 1885, 476. 
 
 1 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 226. 
 
 2 Poor, Railway Manual, 18S5, 474. 
 
 3 Statutes at Large, xvi, 277. 
 
 4 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 226-7. 
 5 Donaldson, Public Domain, 79G. 
 
 (376)
 
 SANEORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 115 
 
 MISSOURI. 
 
 The second land grant act which passed Congress was one which 
 granted lands to .Missouri for roads from Hannibal to St. Joseph and 
 from St. Louis to the western boundary of the state." This passed the 
 32nd Congress and was signed June 10, 1852. The lands were granted 
 by the Missouri legislature to the Hannibal and St. Joseph and the Pa- 
 cific Kailroad companies respectively. It was provided that lands re- 
 maining unsold ten years after the completion of the roads should be 
 offered at public sale annually until disposed of. 7 
 
 The road from Hannibal to St. Joseph was opened February 29, 1S59, 8 
 well within The time required. There have been patented to the state 
 under this grant 611,323 acres. 9 Of these the company had sold in 
 1880, 512,998 acres for $4,802,448, an average of $9,55 an acre. 10 In 1888 
 the receipts had amounted to $2,337,317." Detailed reports of land 
 sales since 18S0 are not obtainable. 
 
 In addition to the land grant the state had given the Pacific com- 
 pany $4,500,000 in bonds. In 1860 the road had been constructed to 
 Eolla, one hundred and thirteen miles. Then the company failed to 
 pay the interest on the bonds which it had received, and in 1S66 the 
 road was sold under foreclosure for $1,300,000. The new company failed 
 to build the road and in 1868 it was again sold, this time for 
 $300,000. The new company had built the line almost to the state line 
 by 1870 when the Atlantic and Pacific company purchased the road, 12 
 and built to Vinita, Indian Territory, during the next year. 13 Congress 
 had meanwhile, by an act of June 5, 1862, extended the time for the 
 completion of the road to June 10, 1872. 14 In 1866 the Atlantic and Pa- 
 cific company had been incorporated and given a grant of lands for a 
 road from Springfield, Missouri, to the western boundary of the state." 
 The company was allowed to purchase the Pacific road and thus pre- 
 vent a duplication of the grant, while the amount of the previous grant 
 was deducted from the new grant. The grant as adjusted for the Pa- 
 cific road thus extended from St. Louis to Springfield, two hundred and 
 forty miles. 
 
 Under the grant the government has certified to the state 1,161,284 
 
 "Statutes at Large, x, 8. 
 
 7 Laics of Missouri, 1852, 10, 15. 
 
 8 Poor, Railway Manual, 1879, 830. 
 
 8 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 226. 
 
 "Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 
 11 Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1888, 264. 
 
 "See infra, p. 124. 
 
 "Poor, Railway Manual, 1884, 821. 
 
 "Statutes at .'.ari/e, xii, 422. 
 
 15 Ibid., xiv, 292. 
 
 (377)
 
 116 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF "WISCONSIN. 
 
 acres. 10 In 18S0 the company had sold 553,873 acres, while its receipts 
 had amounted to $1,461,S55, making an average of $2.53 an acre." In 
 1S97 the companj'' then owning the land grant (the St. Louis and San 
 Francisco) reported that there had been sold 1,072,803 acres. The 
 amount received for the lands was not given but the net profit during 
 the previous year had been $25,310. 18 
 
 In 1S53 a grant was made to Missouri and Arkansas for a railroad 
 from a point opposite the mouth of the Ohio, via Little Rock, to Ful- 
 ton, with branches to the Mississippi and Fort Smith. 18 By an act of 
 July 28, 1866, the grant was revived and increased, the time for the 
 completion of the road being fixed at July 28, 1876. 2i The main line 
 was constructed as the Cairo and Fulton (now the St. Louis, Iron 
 Mountain, and Southern) by 1874. - 1 On account of this grant the states 
 of Missouri and Arkansas have received 1,388,444 acres. 22 of which there 
 had been sold by 1SS0, 264,802 acres for $1,129,873, an average of $4.27 
 per acre. 23 By 1S90, 8S2,578 acres had been sold for $2,349,521, with 
 $542,420 due on contracts, 21 and in 1S97 the company reported that it 
 had sold or lost by contest, 779,639 acres, for which $3,075,145 had been 
 received, with $163,742 due on time sales. During 1896 the receipts 
 from the land department were $65,906 and the expenses $53,005. The 
 Missouri lands are now held at an average of $3 an acre and those in 
 Arkansas at an average of $2.65. 25 
 
 The branch from Little Rock to Fort Smith was completed in 1876. 23 
 To this company 1,052, 0S2 acres have been patented. 27 The report of 
 this company in 1S90 showed that 517,591 acres of these lands had been 
 sold for $1,544,642, with $395,900 due on contracts. 23 But in 1897 the 
 companj' reported the sale and loss by contest of only 517,642 acres, but 
 receipts amounting to $2,247,907, with $180,907 outstanding on con- 
 tracts. It is evident that both of these reports cannot be right. Dur- 
 ing the past year the receipts were reported as being $23,14S, with the 
 expenses, $24,367. 2S 
 
 16 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 226. 
 
 17 Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 
 15 Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1897, 142. 
 
 19 Statutes at Large, x, 155. 
 
 20 Ibid., xiv, 33S. 
 
 21 Poor, Railway Manual, 1875-6, 613. 
 
 22 Commissinoer of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 226. 
 23 Donaldson, Public Domain, 783. 
 
 "Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1891, 193. 
 
 25 Ibid., 1897, 145. 
 
 28 Donaldson, Public Domain, 796-7. 
 
 27 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1S97, 226. 
 
 28 Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1S90, 180. 
 
 29 Ibid., 1897, 145. 
 
 (378)
 
 SANBORN RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 117 
 
 The branch to the Mississippi was located to a point opposite Mem- 
 phis and was finished in 1871. 30 Under this grant there have been 
 patented 184,657 acres, 31 but as the records of the company have nearly 
 all been destroyed, little can be learned concerning the disposal of 
 these lands. 32 
 
 July 4, 1856, a grant was made to Arkansas and Missouri for a road 
 from Pilot Knob to Helena. 3S The St. Louis, Iron Mountain, and South- 
 ern company built the road from Pilot Knob to Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 
 where it joined the line of the Cairo and Fulton. No further work 
 was done on the line and the road as constructed was not according 
 to the map filed by the company. No particular effort was made to 
 claim the grant and in 1884 it was repealed. 34 
 
 KANSAS. 
 
 The first grant to Kansas was that of March 3, 1863, for various rail- 
 roads in that state. 30 The first of these grants was given to the Leav- 
 enworth, Lawrence, and Galveston company and the second to the At- 
 chison, Topeka, and Santa Fe. Of the former only the portion from 
 Lawrence to the southern boundary of the state was built, 39 and in 
 1876 the unearned lands were forfeited. 37 There have been patented 
 for the earned portion of the grant 249,446 acres but from this must 
 be deducted 186,936 acres lying within the Osage reservation, leaving 
 only 63,510 acres for the company. 38 Yet in 1880 the company was re- 
 ported as having sold 199,759 acres for $597,166. 39 How this excess has 
 been accounted for I am as yet unable to ascertain. 
 
 For the construction of the main line of the other road the Santa Fe 
 company has received 2,944,788 acres. 40 In 1876 it offered its lands at 
 
 30 roor, Railway Manual, 1877-8, 795. 
 
 31 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 226. 
 
 32 Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1895, 142. 
 
 33 Statutes at Large, xiv, 83. 
 
 34 Ibid., xxiii, 61. 
 
 35 "First, of a railroad and telegraph from the city of Leavenworth by way of 
 the town of Lawrence, and via the Ohio City crossing of the Osage River, to the 
 Southern line of the State, in the direction of Galveston bay in Texas, with a 
 branch from Lawrence by the valley of the Wakarusa River, to the point on the 
 Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad where said road intersects the Neosho 
 River. Second, of a railroad from the city of Atchison, via Topeka, the capital 
 of said State, to the Western line of the State, in the direction of Fort Union and 
 and Santa F6, New Mexico, with a branch from where this last-named road 
 crosses the Neosho, down said Neosho valley to the point where the said first- 
 named road enters the said Neosho valley." Statutes at Large, xii, 772. 
 
 ss House Reports, 1st sess. 48th Cong., no. 1113, p. 5. 
 
 37 Statutes at Large, xix, 101. 
 
 33 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 229. 
 
 "Donaldson, rublic Domain, 779. 
 
 40 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 230. 
 
 (379)
 
 118 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 prices ranging from $1.75 to $9 an acre. 41 Up to 18S0 it had sold 
 993,675 acres and had received for them $5,802,985. " In 1888 the com- 
 pany reported 1,513,724 acres sold and practically all the rest contracted 
 for. The receipts from the lands had been $11,601,636, the expenses 
 $1,644,603, and the taxes $1,175,724, leaving a net profit of $7,781,309. *» 
 
 An act of July 1, 1804, extended the branch road from Emporia north 
 to a point near Fort Riley. 44 By an act of July 26, 1S66, a grant was 
 made for a line from Fort Riley down the valley of the Neosho to the 
 southern line of the state, 45 thus duplicating the previous grants. On 
 March 9, 1866, the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe company made an 
 agreement with the southern branch of the Union Pacific (afterward 
 the Missouri, Kansas, and Texas) by which the latter assumed all the 
 obligations in regard to the building of the Neosho valley branch. In 
 view of this agreement it was considered that the act of 1866 was an 
 extension of the previous grants and the Missouri, Kansas, and Texas 
 received the grant. 40 The state has received 974,017 acres on behalf 
 of the company, but of these 270,970 acres must be deducted as part of 
 the Osage Indian reservation. 47 In 1880 the sales had amounted to 
 435,554 acres and the receipts to $1,604,014. 4S In 1886 there had been 
 received from sales of lands $2,847,803. 49 
 
 By an act of July 23, 1866, a grant was made to Kansas in aid of the 
 St. Joseph and Denver City Railroad compam~, which was to build from 
 a point opposite St. Joseph, Missouri, via Maryville to the Union Pacific 
 railroad. 50 The road as constructed connected with the Burlington 
 and Missouri River railroad but not with the Union Pacific. It was, 
 however, decided that the company had complied with the law in so 
 building, and it received the grant. 51 Under the act 462,733 acres have 
 been patented to the company 52 but no information can be obtained 
 as to the disposition of the lands. 
 
 The Kansas and Neosho Valley company received a grant by an act 
 of July 25, 1S66, for a road from Kansas City through the eastern part 
 of the state. 53 The road was to be completed within ten years and 
 
 ^How and Where to Get a Living, Boston, 1S76, 26-7. 
 
 4 -Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 
 "Kansas Railroad Commissioners, Gth Annual Report, 222. 
 
 "Statutes at Large, xiii, 339. 
 
 45 Ibid., xiv. 289. 
 
 * a Kansas City, etc., Co. v. Attorney General, 118 U. S., 9S2. 
 
 47 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 230-31. 
 
 48 Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 
 49 Railroad Commisssioner. Report, 18S6, 611. 
 
 60 Statutes at Large, xiv, 210. 
 
 6i ran Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U. S.. 360. 
 
 62 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1S97, 230. 
 
 "Statutes at Large, xiv, 236. 
 
 (380)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 119 
 
 was built to the state line in 1870." But in 1877 the grant was re- 
 pealed," at the request of the company on account of the hostility of 
 the settlers along the road. 6 * The lands were surrendered and restored 
 to entry under the homestead law." 
 
 CORPORATIONS. 
 
 The act incorporating the Union Pacific Eailroad company, approved 
 July 1, 1862, provided for a line from a point on the 100th meridian to 
 San Francisco." From the eastern terminus four branches were pro- 
 vided, to the eastern boundary of the state of Iowa, to Sioux City, to 
 the mouth of the Kansas river, and to St. Joseph. A grant of five sec- 
 tions of land a mile was made. In 1S64 the grant was increased to ten 
 sections per mile. The Central Pacific was to meet the Union Pacific 
 at any point east of California but was to receive lands for only one 
 hundred and fifty miles of that distance. The Kansas City branch 
 could connect with the main line at any point west of the eastern 
 terminus but would receive no more lands than if the road had been 
 built as originally provided for. The Union Pacific company was re- 
 leased from the obligation to construct the Sioux City branch and an 
 extension of the Burlington and Missouri river was provided for." In 
 1866 the eastern terminus was changed to Omaha. 8 " 
 
 The point of meeting of the Union and Central Pacific roads was in- 
 definite and so a race ensued to prolong each road as far as possible. 
 The two roads met at Promontory Point and their completion was cele- 
 brated May 10, 1869. 61 A joint resolution of the same year fixed the 
 
 "Poor, Railway Manual, 1875-6, 732. 
 
 85 Statutes at Large, xix, 404. 
 
 "Record, 2nd sess. 44th Cong., 1510. 
 
 87 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1878, 458. 
 
 88 "The line of said railroad and telegraph shall commence at a point on the 
 one hundredth meridian of longitude west from Greenwich, between the south 
 margin of the valley of the Republican River and the north margin of the valley 
 of the Platte River, in the Territory of Nebraska at a point to be fixed by the 
 President of the United States, after actual surveys ; thence running westerly 
 upon the most direct, central, and practicable route, through the territories of 
 the United States, to the western boundary of the Territory of Nevada, there 
 to meet and connect with the line of the Central Pacific Railroad company of 
 California . . . 
 
 "... The Central Pacific Railroad company of California, a corporation 
 existing under the laws of the State of California, are [sic] hereby authorized to 
 construct a railroad and telegraph line from the Pacific coast, at or near San 
 Francisco, or the navigable waters of the Sacramento River, to the eastern 
 boundary of California." Statutes at Large, xii, 493-4. 
 
 89 Ibid., xiii, 356. 
 
 •° Ibid., xiv, 79. 
 
 "Davis, Union Pacific Railway, 152. 
 
 9 (381)
 
 120 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OP WISCONSIN. 
 
 junction at or near Ogden." The Union Pacific has received 6,806,497 
 acres under the act of 1864 and it is estimated that 517,286 acres are still 
 due it. 63 In 1875 it offered its lands for from $2 to $10 an acre. 64 Up to 
 1880 the company had sold 1,568,438 acres for $6,916,811, an average of 
 $4.41 an acre. These sales had been made in tracts averaging about 100 
 acres to each purchaser. 05 
 
 After 1880 the report of the Union Pacific lands sales includes the Kan- 
 sas Pacific and Denver Pacific grants. In 1886 the company had received 
 3,856,835 acres and sold 12,260,163 acres for $21,667,734, with $13,986,939 
 outstanding. The sales had been at an average of $2.54 for the Union 
 Pacific, $3.61 for the Kansas Pacific and $4.37 for the Denver Pacific. M 
 Up to 1897, 10,380,066 acres had been patented to the company, while 
 it had sold 14,2S7,517 acres for $38,602,141, with $5,917,843 still due. 
 These sales were at an average of $2.49 for the Union Pacific, $4.21 for 
 the Kansas Pacific and $4.21 for the Denver Pacific. The land grant 
 department of the company is now operated at a loss, the expenses for 
 the year 1897 exceeding the receipts by $65,241. On the Union Pacific 
 proper there was a surplus of $21,553, but this was more than overcome 
 by the deficits of the other divisions. The company now asks an aver- 
 age of 65 cents for its Union Pacific lands and $2.61 for its Kansas and 
 Denver lands." 
 
 In 1897 the secretary of the interior directed the commissioner of 
 the land office to suspend the issuance of patents to the bond-aided 
 railroads for lands not actually sold to bona fide purchasers before 
 these companies defaulted on their indebtedness to the government. 
 The secretary fixed the date of such default at November 1, 1895, for 
 the Kansas Pacific and January 1, 1897, for the Union Pacific. 68 
 
 The Central Pacific, as related, met the Union Pacific at Promontory 
 Point in 1869. On account of the road, as patented, the company has 
 received 2,648,433 acres, with 2,5S0,723 unpatented. 68 In 1880 it had sold 
 295,886 acres for $1,114,999, an average of $3.77 an acre. 70 The company 
 consolidated with the Western Pacific, and California and Oregon, both 
 land-grant roads. Up to 1886 of the lands of these roads 1,891,571 acres 
 had been sold for $7,117,886," and to 1897, 3,144,336 acres for $10,189,635. 
 
 92 Statutes at Large, xvl, 56. 
 
 63 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1S97, 230, 224. 
 
 "Guide to the Union Pacific Railroad Lands, Omaha, 1875, p. 26. 
 
 "Donaldson, Public Domain, 916-17. 
 
 66 Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1886, 562. 
 
 67 Ibid., 1897, 75. 
 
 68 Ibid., 74. 
 
 69 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 230, 224. 
 "Donaldson, Public Domain, 920. 
 
 "Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1886, 581. 
 
 (382)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 121 
 
 with $825,876 outstanding. The average price now asked is $3 an acre.' 1 
 As in the case of the Union Pacific, in accordance with the order of 
 the secretary of the interior in 1897, the issuance of patents for this 
 road has been suspended. The date of default on the indebtedness has- 
 been fixed at January 1, 1896, for the Central Pacific and January 1, 
 1897, for the Western Pacific. 73 
 
 The Western Pacific built that portion of the road west from Sacra- 
 mento. Before consolidating with the Central Pacific it received 
 424,727 acres, all of which it sold before consolidation. 74 
 
 The California and Oregon Railroad company was to build from the 
 Central Pacific to the Oregon line. By an extension of time it had un- 
 til July 1, 18S0, to complete the road. The portion from the Central 
 railroad to Redding was built on time, 75 and the road finished to the 
 state line during 1886. 76 Up to 1880 the company had received 1,338,039 
 acres and sold 366,622 acres for $2,970,365, an average of $8.95 an acre." 
 There have been patented on account of the road 2,968,698 acres. 73 
 
 The Kansas Pacific, having the right to join the Union Pacific at any 
 point it wished, west of the one-hundredth meridian, built to Den- 
 ver and then north, joining the Union Pacific at Cheyenne. 78 In 1880 
 the company had received 828,830 acres and sold 1,291,454 acres for 
 $4,419,960, an average of $3.42 an acre. 80 The total number of acres 
 patented on account of the grant is 3,170,184 acres and 4,120,901 acres 
 have been disposed of for $13,4S7,437, with $2,851,567 outstanding on 
 time sales. No more lands will be patented to the company except 
 those sold to actual purchasers before November 1, 1895. n 
 
 The Denver Pacific received the grant for that portion of the road be- 
 tween Denver and Cheyenne. By 1880, 49,811 acres had been patented 
 to the company and 160,731 acres sold for $731,881, an average of $4.44 
 an acre. 82 In 1897 there had been 403,256 acres patented and 582,722 
 sold, the receipts amounting to $2,219,799, with $439,114 outstanding. 8 * 
 
 The extension of the Hannibal and St. Joseph was known as the 
 Central Branch of the Union Pacific. This received a grant for 100 
 miles of road of which there had been patented up to 1880, 187,608 acres. 
 
 "Ibid., 1897, 86. 
 73 Ibid. 
 
 74 Donaldson, Public Domain, 920. 
 "Donaldson, Public Domain, 806. 
 '"Poor, Railway Manual, 1888, 937. 
 "Donaldson, Public Domain, 920. 
 "Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1897, 86. 
 "Davis, Union Pacific Railway, lOSn. 
 80 Donaldson, Public Domain, 918. 
 "Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1897, 75, 74. 
 ^Donaldson, Public Domain, 919. 
 83 Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1897, 75. 
 
 (383)
 
 122 BULLETIN OP THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 The company had sold about 170,000 acres on an average of $5 an acre. 8 * 
 In 1S97 there had been patented to the company 219,531 acres. No re- 
 port was made on the amount sold or the price obtained for its lands. 
 During the previous year the receipts were $676 and the expenses $51. 
 The secretary of the interior has suspended the issuance of patents 
 except for lands sold to bona fide purchasers before the default of the 
 company on its indebtedness to the government, January 1, 1896. M 
 
 The branch from Sioux City was built by the Sioux City and Pacific 
 company in 1869. The company received 41,31S acres which it sold 
 April 15, 1875, to the Missouri Valley Land company for $200,000. 8S 
 
 Under the act of July 25, 1866, 8I that portion of the line from the 
 Central Pacific to Portland was to be disposed of by the legislature 
 of that state. This conferred the grant upon the Oregon Central 
 company which built from Portland to Roseburg, one hundred and 
 ninety-seven miles, on time. 88 The remainder of the road was com- 
 pleted in December, 1887. 89 An act of January 31, 1885, forfeited the 
 lands opposite to all portions of the road not then completed, i. e., from 
 Roseburg to the state line. 90 The road has received 2,287,131 acres and 
 it is estimated that 227,992 acres remain unpatented." Up to 1880 it 
 had sold 82,072 acres for $175,650. 92 By 1S86 237,773 acres had been sold 
 for $384,389, with $385,647 due on time sales. 93 In 1S97 the sales had 
 amounted to $382,443 aeres for $1,020,329, with $775,S81 outstanding. 
 During the previous year the receipts had amounted to $33,724, and the 
 expenses $60,012. The average price now asked for the lands is $3.00. "* 
 
 The amendatory act of 1864 had also provided for an extension of the 
 Burlington and Missouri River road through Nebraska to connect 
 with the Union Pacific not further west than the 100th meridian. In 
 1870 the point of connection with the Union Pacific was changed to 
 at or near Fort Kearney. 95 The road was opened for~traffic September 
 2, 1872. M There have been received on account of the grant 2,374,090 
 acres. By December 31, 1879, there had been sold 1,574,392 acres for 
 
 84 Donaldson, Public Domain, 921. 
 
 85 Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1897, 97. 
 ••Donaldson, Public Domain, 922, 778. 
 "Statutes at Large, xiv, 239. 
 
 88 Donaldson, Public Domain, 807. 
 
 89 Poor, Railway Manual, 1888, 914. 
 '^Statutes at Large, xxiil, 296. 
 
 91 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 232, 223. 
 
 "Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 
 93 Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1886, 596. 
 
 94 Ibid., 1897, 137. 
 
 "Statutes at Large, xvi, 118. 
 
 96 Donaldson, Public Domain, 922. 
 
 97 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 231. 
 
 (384)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 123 
 
 $8,556,7S2. M In 1880 the road consolidated with the Burlington and Mis- 
 souri River company as the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy. In 1886 
 the new company had disposed of 2,673,345 acres under both grants for 
 $15,725,314. "» In 1897 there had been sold 2,374,501 acres, the receipts 
 amounting to $11,201,463, with $305,674 outstanding on time sales. Dur- 
 ing the previous year the receipts were $75,035, and the expenses $29,136. 
 The remaining lands are held at an average of $4.00 an acre. 100 
 
 July 13, 1866, a grant was made to the Placerville and Sacramento 
 Valley railroad company for a road from Folsom to Placerville, Cali- 
 fornia. 101 This grant was forfeited in 1874, a and no lands have been 
 patented on account of it. 
 
 A grant for a road from Stockton to Copperopolis, California, which 
 was made by an act of March 2, 1867, 2 was also forfeited in 1874. s No 
 lands have been patented to this road. 
 
 The grant for a road to the Pacific by the northern route was made 
 July 2, 1864, to the Northern Pacific Railroad company, which was to 
 build from a point on Lake Superior to a point on Puget's Sound, with 
 a branch to Portland, via the valley of the Columbia. The grant 
 amounted to ten sections per mile in the states and twenty sections 
 in the territories, and the road was to be completed by July 4, 1876.' 
 In 1866 the time for building the road was extended two years, 8 and 
 in 186S the original act was amended so as to fix the time at July 4, 
 1877." It was, however, held that the effect of these provisions was to 
 make the final limit July 4, 1879, the act of 1866 being considered as 
 amendatory of the act of 1868. 7 Within the time required there were 
 constructed 531 miles of road, leaving 1,739 miles to be built. 8 In 1883 
 the through line from Ashland to Portland was opened, 9 but as the 
 branch between Wallula and Portland had been built by another com- 
 pany it was forfeited by the act of 1890. 10 
 
 Up to 1880 there had been patented to the company 746,509 acres, 
 while it had sold 2,593,983 acres for $9,089,453. u By 1886 11,459,836 acres 
 
 Toor, Railway Manual, 1880, 924. 
 ■"•Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1886, 603. 
 160 Ibid., 1897, 111. 
 101 Statutes at Large, xiv, 94. 
 
 1 Ibid., xviii, 29. 
 
 2 Statutes at Large, xiv, 548. 
 
 3 Ibid., xviii, 72. 
 ♦Ibid., xiii, 365. 
 
 6 Ibid., xiv, 355. 
 •Ibid., xv, 255. 
 
 7 Commissioner of the General Land Office. Report, 1879, 109-111. 
 'House Reports, 1st sess. 48th Cong., no. 1256, p. 3. 
 
 •Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1897, 131. 
 
 10 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1891, 39. 
 
 "Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 
 (385)
 
 124 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 had been patented and 5,830,871 sold for $20,856,000, with $3,676,204 due 
 on time sales. 12 In 1S95 8,466,250 acres had been sold by the company for 
 $34,273,375, with $4,280,438 still due. The average price had been $3.92 
 an acre. 13 In the balance sheet of the companj r for 1898 the net pro- 
 ceeds of the land department were given as $3,624,712. u 
 
 An act of July 27, 1866, chartered the Atlantic and Pacific Kailroad 
 company, which was to build from Springfield, Missouri, to the Pacific 
 coast by the southern route. 15 As allowed by the charter the com- 
 pany purchased the South Pacific road, which had received a grant 
 over the same route as far as the southern boundary of Missouri. 16 The 
 road was to be constructed by July 4, 1878. By that date the line had 
 been built from Springfield to Vinita, Indian Territory. 17 In 1886 the 
 lands opposite the uncompleted portions of the road were declared for- 
 feited. 18 By that time the road had been extended to Sapulpa (76 
 miles) by the St. Louis and San Francisco company, and from near 
 Albuquerque, N. M., to the Colorado river (559 miles) by the Atchison, 
 Topeka, and Santa Fe compauy. 19 According to the report of the land 
 office there have been patented to the company 1,222,012 acres, and it 
 was estimated that 3,476,041 acres were still due. 20 But according to 
 the report of the railroad commissioner 798,723 acres only have been 
 patented. 21 Of these 220,259 acres had been sold in 1S80 for $623,369," 
 while by 1897 all of the lands which the company reported as having 
 received, 708,523 acres, were reported as sold. The total receipts from 
 land sales had been $3,940,483, but during the previous year the receipts 
 had only been $92.03, while the expenses were $13,462. 12. 23 
 
 Section 18 of the Atlantic and Pacific act authorized a connection 
 with the Southern Pacific road of California and made a similar grant 
 to that road. 24 Within the time required by the granting act there 
 were built the sections of the road between San Jose and Tres Plnos, 
 50 miles, and between Huron and Mojave, 182 miles. 25 The line was 
 afterward built from Mojave to the state line, and from Huron to 
 
 12 Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1886, 595. 
 
 13 Ibid., 1895, 151. 
 
 "Northern Pacific Railway Company, Report, 189S, 31. 
 
 ^Statutes at Large, xiv, 292. 
 
 16 Supra, p. 115. 
 
 "Donaldson, Public Domain, 807. 
 
 "Statutes at Large, xxiv, 123. 
 
 19 Poor, Railway Manual, 18S8, 744-5. 
 
 20 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 232, 223. 
 
 21 Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1897, 105. 
 22 Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 "Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1897, 105. 
 -'Statutes at Large, xiv, 299. 
 
 25 Donaldson, Public Domain, 808. 
 
 (386)
 
 SANBORN RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 125 
 
 Aclade. In 1890 the lands along the portion between Tres Pinos and 
 Aclade were forfeited. 28 The grant to the Texas Pacific also authorized 
 the Southern Pacific company to connect with the Texas Pacific at 
 the Colorado river. 27 This road was completed January 23, 1878." 
 On account of this grant the company has received 2,672,753 acres. 29 In 
 1880 it had sold 279,623 acres for $1,999,396. 30 By 1886 there had been 
 sold 961,950 acres for $3,467,681, with $2,472,541 due on time sales." In 
 1897 the company reported that it had received 3,186,301 acres, of which 
 3,544,970 acres had been disposed of. The total receipts from the lands 
 had been $9,167,290, while $3,234,006 were due on time sales. The re- 
 ceipts of the land department during the year were $73,773 and the 
 expenses $30,326." 
 
 The Texas and Pacific grant was made March 3, 1871, and provided 
 for a road from Marshall, Texas, to San Diego, California, via El Paso 
 and the Colorado river, which w T as to be crossed near the southern 
 boundary of California. The road was to be built within ten years," 
 which time was extended to May 2, 1882. As there were no United 
 States lands in Texas the grant only began at El Paso, and the com- 
 pany had not built to that point when the time for the completion of 
 the road expired. This was due, however, to the fact that the South- 
 ern Pacific company had built east from Yuma to El Paso, without 
 the authorization of Congress. The Texas Pacific released its rights 
 under the land grant to the Southern Pacific, but in 1885 the entire 
 grant was forfeited." 
 
 Section 23 of the act granting lands to the Texas Pacific provided 
 for a grant to the New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Vicksburg company 
 for a road from New Orleans, via Baton Rouge and Alexandria, to con- 
 nect with the Texas Pacific. The road was to be constructed by March 
 3, 1876. The eompanj- located its line from New Orleans to Baton 
 Rouge on the east side of the Mississippi, and thence via Alexandria 
 and Shreveport to the Texas line. No portion of the road was con- 
 structed by the company, and in 1880 it assigned to the New Orleans 
 Pacific, a company which was building a line from Texas to Baton 
 Rouge over the same route as the other company, but which had built 
 
 28 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1891, 39. 
 25 Donaldson, Public Domain, 929. 
 
 29 Ibid., 1S97, 232. 
 
 27 Statutes at Large, xvi, 579. 
 
 '"Donaldson, Public Domain, 779. 
 
 "Railroad Commissioner, Report, 1886, 621. 
 
 32 Ibid., 1897, 152. 
 
 83 Statutes at Large, xvl, 573. 
 
 " Ibid., xxiii, 337. 
 
 (387)
 
 126 BULLETIN OE THE UNIVERSITY OP WISCONSIN. 
 
 from Baton Kouge to Vicksburg along the west bank of the Missis- 
 sippi. 35 
 
 An act of February 8, 1887, forfeited the grant on the east side of the 
 river and the lands opposite to portions of the road then unconstructed 
 by the New Orleans Pacific prior to January 5, 1881, the date of the 
 conveyance from the New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Vicksburg. 36 
 
 The company has received 9S0,587 acres under the grant, while 109.137 
 acres remain unpatented." In 1886 the company stated that no sales 
 had been made. Since then the company has failed to make reports on 
 its land grant. 
 
 86 Donaldson, Public Domain, 857-8. 
 
 80 Statutes at Large, xxiv, 391. 
 
 37 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 232, 223. 
 
 (3S8)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 127 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 Sources. 
 
 The chief source for the history of land-grant legislation, is the re- 
 port of debates in Congress, published as the Congressional Globe from 
 1833 to 1873, and as the Congressional Record from 1873 to the present 
 time. For an outline of the proceedings without the discussion, the 
 House Journal and Senate Journal are usually more accurate and have 
 been used in case of differences in the reports. In connection with the 
 debates in Congress, I have consulted many documents, such as commit- 
 tee reports, etc., which appear as Reports of Committees (House), House 
 Reports, Senate Reports, House Executive Documents, House Miscel- 
 laneous Documents, House Documents, Senate Executive Documents, 
 Senate Miscellaneous Documents, and Senate Documents. The most 
 important public documents relating to the public domain are collected 
 in a publication edited by Thomas Donaldson, The Public Domain, 
 "Washington, 1884. Reference has been made to the documents reprinted 
 there rather than to the original reports themselves, as they seem to be 
 substantially accurate. Messages and proclamations of the presidents 
 often relate to land grants and can be found in the collection edited by 
 James D. Richardson, Compilation of the Messages of the Presidents, 
 1789-1897, 10 vols., Washington, 1896-99. 
 
 All the laws are published in the Statutes at Large, to which reference 
 has been made. The land laws have been collected in two sets, one con- 
 taining those of a general and permanent character in one volume, and 
 the other those of a local and temporary character in two volumes. 
 (H. R. Mis., Doc. 45, parts 1, 2, and 3, 47th Cong., 2d session). Land 
 grant acts are in the latter collection, arranged chronologically under 
 the different states. 
 
 For Appendix A, a wide range of sources has been used. Poor's 
 Manual of the Railroads of the United States has been of great service. 
 Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and of the various 
 state courts often give the history of roads receiving grants. When the 
 matter came before Congress the reports of the Senate and House 
 committees are of great value. Various local and railroad histories have 
 
 (389)
 
 128 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 been used, care being taken in each case to test their accuracy. The 
 reports of the Auditor of Railway Accounts, later the Railroad Commis- 
 sioner, contain reports of the operations of the land departments of 
 many of the land-grant roads. Of course the onlj r sources for the statis- 
 tics of land sales are the accounts kept by the companies, and all esti- 
 mates are based on the reports concerning their land to boards and 
 commissioners. The danger of inaccuracy is increased the further the 
 report used is from these original sources. 
 
 Secondary Works. 
 
 No study of the history of railroad land grants had as yet appeared.' 
 General histories have neglected the subject and little is given in the 
 general accounts of the public domain. Of these general accounts the 
 best is that of Sato, History of the Land Question in the United States, 
 in the Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political 
 Science for 1886. The article by Worthington C. Ford, Public Lands of 
 the United States, in Lalor, Cyclopaedia, volume III, is good and brief. 
 The historical part of Donaldson's Public Domain must be used with 
 caution, but, on some points, is the only available account. 
 
 Very few histories of railroads in the various states have been pub- 
 lished. Mention may be made of Cary, Organization and History of the 
 Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad Company [Milwaukee, 1893] ; 
 and B. H. Meyer, History of Early Railroad Legislation in Wisconsin, 
 Wisconsin Historical Collections, Vol. XIV, 206-300, and Early General 
 Railway Legislation in Wisconsin, 1853-1874, Transactions Wisconsin 
 Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, Vol. VII, Part I, 337-338. 
 
 Histories of the Pacific roads have appeared, of whieh the best are 
 Davis, The Union Pacific Raihvay, and White, History of the Union Pa- 
 cific Railway, Economic Studies of the University of Chicago, No. 2. 
 H. H. Bancroft, in his History of California, volume VII, has an excel- 
 lent chapter on the various projects advanced for the road. 
 
 The administrative and legal side of the grants have been treated 
 in books on railway law. The best of these, as far as this feature is con- 
 cerned, is that of B. K. and W. F. Elliott, Treatise on the Law of Rail- 
 roads. 4 vols., Indianapolis and Kansas City, 1897. Rorer, Treatise on 
 the Law of Railways, 2 vols., Chicago, 1884, give a less complete ac- 
 count. 
 
 It has not seemed advisable to repeat here the references to general 
 secondary authorities cited in the notes. Outside of the public records 
 
 1 A summary of the present monograph was given in a paper read before the 
 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters and published in its Transac- 
 tions, Vol. XII, Part I, 306-16. 
 
 (390)
 
 SANBORN — RAILROAD LAND GRANTS. 129 
 
 and periodical literature there is little relating to grants of lands for 
 railroads. On the passage of the Illinois Central bill there is an ac- 
 count coming indirectly from Douglas, published in Cutts, Brief Treatise 
 on Constitutional and Party Questions. 2 which is so inaccurate that I 
 have rejected it altogether. As this has commonly been received as 
 authoritative, a few of its mistakes will be pointed out. The state- 
 ment is made by Douglas that between the sessions of the thirtieth and 
 thirty-first Congresses he made an agreement with the directors of the 
 Mobile and Ohio road by which he was to incorporate a grant to that 
 road in the Illinois Central bill, and in return the legislatures of Ala- 
 bama and Mississippi would instruct their Senators and Representa- 
 tives, who had before opposed the Illinois Central grant, to support the 
 bill. Douglas said: "The bill, when first introduced, had been opposed 
 by the Senators from Mississippi, Davis and Foote, on the ground of 
 its unconstitutionality, and also by the Senators from Alabama, King 
 and Clement, and by the members of the House from those states." As 
 a matter of fact, on the question of the third reading of the bill, Davis 
 and Foote voted in favor of it, and the Senators from Alabama, Bagby 
 and Lewis (not King and Clement), voted against it. 3 On a similar 
 question in the House three of the Alabama delegation voted against the 
 bill and four did not vote, while of the Representatives from Mississippi 
 two voted for and one against the bill and one did not vote. 4 Nor do the 
 laws of Mississippi and Alabama contain any resolution instructing a 
 vote in favor of the grant. 
 
 The account given by Douglas of the final consideration of the bill 
 in the House is as follows: "When the bill stood at the head of the 
 calendar in the House, Mr. Harris, of Illinois, moved to clear the Speak- 
 er's table, and the motion was carried. We had counted up and had 
 fifteen majority for the bill pledged to support it. * * * The House 
 proceeded to clear the Speaker's table, and the clerk announced 'A bill 
 granting lands to the state of Illinois,' etc. A motion was immediately 
 made by the opposition, which brought on a vote, and we found our- 
 selves in a minority of one. * * * Harris, quick as thought, pale 
 and white as a sheet, jumped to his feet and moved that the House go 
 into committee of the whole on the slavery question. There were fifty 
 members ready with speeches on this subject, and the motion was car- 
 ried." What really happened on July 31 was as follows: Inge, of Ala- 
 bama, (not Harris), moved to proceed to the business on the Speaker's 
 table. The Illinois bill came up and Richardson, of Illinois, moved the 
 
 2 For a reprint of this see Donaldson, Public Domain, 262-4. 
 
 'Globe, 1st sess. 30th Cong., 723. 
 
 4 House Journal, 1st sess. 30th Cong., 1270. 
 
 (391)
 
 130 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 previous question, and Jones, of Tennessee, moved to lay the bill on the 
 table. Duer, of Connecticut, (not Harris), moved to go into committee 
 of the whole, which was carried by a vote of 102 to 71. s No other vote 
 had been taken. 
 
 Douglas then explains how the bill was reached again after it had gone 
 to the foot of the calendar by the vote to go into committee of the whole. 
 "It occurred to me that the same course pursued with other bills would 
 place them, each in turn, at the foot of the calendar, and thus bring 
 the Illinois bill at the head. * * * The motion to clear the table, 
 and go into committee of the whole on the slavery question, would each 
 have to be made ninety-seven times, and while the first motion might 
 be made by some of our friends, or the friends of other bills, it would 
 not do for us, or any one known to be a warm friend or connected with 
 us to make the second motion, as it would defeat the other bills and 
 alienate from us the support of their friends. I thought a long while 
 
 and finally fixed on Mr. , who, though bitterly opposed to me 
 
 (politically), yet I knew to be my personal friend. Living up in , 
 
 he supported the bill, but did not care much one way or the other 
 whether it passed or not, voted for it but was lukewarm." So an ar- 
 rangement was made with Mr. by which he made the necessary 
 
 motion to go into committee of the whole, and thus forced the bill to- 
 the head of the calendar. But between July 31 and September 17, when 
 the bill was passed, the only person who could correspond to Douglas* 
 statement made such a motion seventeen times. This was Bagly, of 
 Virginia, who was not opposed to Douglas politically and did not vote 
 in favor of the bill. No one else made the motion with any frequency. 
 
 The fact that these accounts are based on conversations with Douglas, 
 some nine years after the occurrences, and not written out in their 
 final form by Cutts until much later would also tend to discredit their 
 accuracy. Douglas probably gave the facts as well as he would recol- 
 lect them, but the lapse of time was too great for anything approaching 
 exactness. 
 
 l House Journal, 1st sess. 31st Cong., 1490. 
 
 (o'92)
 
 73 3 -3 VI 
 5-c
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 336 14SA54C pnno 
 
 CONGRESSIONAL GRANTING ,N AID OF 
 
 3 0112 025292779