from Baton Rouge to Vicksburg along the west bank of the Mississippi.

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.

The company has received 980,587 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.

35 Donaldson, Public Domain, 857-8.

a Statutes at Large, xxiv, 391.

27 Commissioner of the General Land Office, Report, 1897, 232, 223.

APPENDIX B.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Sources.

The chief source for the history of land-grant legislation, is the report 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 committee reports, etc., which appear as Reports of Committees (House), House Reports, Senate Reports; House Executive Documents, House Miscellaneous 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 containing 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

been used, care being taken in each case to test their accuracy. The reports of the Auditor of Railway Accounts, later the Railroad Commissioner, contain reports of the operations of the land departments of many of the land-grant roads. Of course the only sources for the statistics of land sales are the accounts kept by the companies, and all estimates 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 published. 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 which the best are Davis, The Union Pacific Railway, and White, History of the Union Pacific Railway, Economic Studies of the University of Chicago, No. 2. H. H. Bancroft, in his History of California, volume VII, has an excellent 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 concerned, is that of B. K. and W. F. Elliott, Treatise on the Law of Railroads. 4 vols., Indianapolis and Kansas City, 1897. Rorer, Treatise on the Law of Railways, 2 vols., Chicago, 1884, give a less complete account.

It has not seemed advisable to repeat here the references to general secondary authorities cited in the notes. Outside of the public records

1A summary of the present monograph was given in a paper read before the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters and published in its Transactions, Vol. XII, Part I, 306-16.

and periodical literature there is little relating to grants of lands for railroads. On the passage of the Illinois Central bill there is an account coming indirectly from Douglas, published in Cutts, Brief Treatise on Constitutional and Party Questions. 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 statement 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 Alabama 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. 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. Nor do the laws of Mississippi and Alabama contain any resolution instructing a vote in favor of the grant.

The House

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. 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 ourselves 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 Alabama, (not Harris), moved to proceed to the business on the Speaker's table. The Illinois bill came up and Richardson, of Illinois, moved the

*For a reprint of this see Donaldson, Public Domain, 262-4.

Globe, 1st sess. 30th Cong., 723.

House Journal, 1st sess. 30th Cong., 1270.

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. 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 inhe 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 arrangement 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 recollect them, but the lapse of time was too great for anything approaching exactness.

House Journal, 1st sess. 31st Cong., 1490.