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, together with various other amendments, and there was not time for the House to act on the amended bill.18 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 Congress received appeals for further aid, and a bill was passed increasing 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 Atlantic 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 18 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, 98-103. 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. 22 Statutes at Large, XIII, 356. one or the other of the possible routes was proposed. The constitutionality of the measure was not questioned to any great extent, and the political necessity of a road on some route was generally 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 restriction of the road to the territories the grant had either to be made to a corporation or the work done directly by the government. 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 receive 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 they 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 administered them were, of course, very marked in the states and territories where the lands were located. This part of the question has been reserved for a later discussion. 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 1856. 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 punishment. 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 during 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. A constitutional amendment prohibiting the disposal of the public 1 Globe, 2d sess. 40th Cong., 310, 985. * 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. 15. lands to any but actual settlers 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 conditions of the country had removed the necessity for a continuance of the system. The population of the western states had increased 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 further 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 occurred 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 was the general feeling in the country after the war. Out of this grew the demand Ames, Proposed Amendments of the Constitution, Report of the American Historical Association, 1896, II, 182. Alabama (House Misc. Docs., 2d sess. 42d Cong., Nos. 54, 89, 90, 91); Wisconsin (Ibid., No. 125); Oregon, (House Misc. Docs., 3d sess. 42d Cong., No. 27); Idaho (Ibid., No. 28). G. W. Julian, in the International Review for February-March, 1883, speaking 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 of 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, writing at a later date, he exaggerated the state of popular feeling on the subject. for the repeal of the 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 New Orleans, Opelousas, and Great Western was declared forfeited.s 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 government only after action had been taken to assert the forfeiture." 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 hostility 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. At 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 reported.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. Schulenberg v. Harriman, 21 Wallace, 44. See pp. 80-81. 10 Record, 2d sess. 44th Cong., 1510. 11 Gulf and Ship Island; Mobile and New Orleans; Tuscaloosa to the road; Elyton and Beard's Bluff; Memphis and Charleston; Iron Mountain and Southern in Arkansas; and New Orleans to the state line. Mobile House Reports, 1st |