was strong; the various Pacific roads would strengthen the army, decrease costs, and enable the government to deal more effectively with the Indians. Similarly, the increased economy and efficiency of the mail service was constantly held up as a chief end. These two objects are frequently expressed in the acts of incorporation themselves, the common phraseology running, "to promote the public interest and welfare by the construction of said railroad and telegraph lines, . . and to secure to the government at all times (but particularly in time of war) the use and benefits of the same for postal, military, and other purposes." As proprietor of vast stretches of valueless lands the government had much to gain from their exploitation. Railways would open these to sale and settlement and enhance the value of reserved portions. It is notable, however, that this object was less prominent than in the case of the earlier grants and became less and less so; partly, no doubt, because there was less real objection on constitutional grounds, and partly because of bitter experience. From the inception of the Pacific railway idea trade with Asia was a factor, and when the Texas Pacific was chartered in 1871 it was urged that by its construction another and cheaper route for that trade would be opened. In connection with the southern route the development of trade with Mexico was also discussed. Closely allied with this object or argument was the increase of revenue which might be expected to flow from an increase in dutiable imports. Finally, union, the binding together of the newly-acquired Pacific territories and the East-the knitting of all the land west of the Mississippi, was an avowed object. When, after the Civil War, the South clamored for a southern road, justice to that section and assistance in her economie reconstruction were special pleas, together with the Mexican trade. It is interesting to reflect how one line having been established and one section favored, the others made of the fact a purpose or object in constructing a second. It is interesting also to observe the progression of reasons ex CHAPTER XII SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF THE PACIFIC RAILWAY MOVEMENT As early as 1834 the Pacific railway idea was conceived. By 1850 men took its ultimate realization for granted. In 1856 it became a political issue, both parties pledging themselves to hasten it, and in 1862 the first Pacific railway charter was enacted by Congress. At that time sectional opposition was simplified by southern secession and the spirit of nationalism became strong enough to down constitutional scruples. Beginning about 1867 hostility toward the Pacific railways became apparent, and about the same time land grants fell into disfavor, so that in 1871 came the last Pacific railway charter. By 1883 one might have journeyed by rail from the Atlantic to the Pacific over four different routes. It is to be observed that the later Pacific railways came at an inopportune time, financially. Beginning just prior to the panic of 1873 the various projects suffered severely at its coming; and then, upon getting to their feet, were prostrated by the crisis of 1883-84. One's first thought upon turning to the subject of Pacific railways is, perhaps, the vastness of the aid given. Surely the ends must have been great and the arguments weighty which could have induced Congress to bestow some 154,000,000 acres of land and advance over $64,000,000 of government bonds. The purpose of Congress, representing the people of the United States, as expressed on the floors of the House and Senate, was manifold. It varied, too, with the particular line involved. Common to all, however, were the following points. Just as the constitutionality of the aid was based in no small degree upon the public defense idea, so the military argument was strong; the various Pacific roads would strengthen the army, decrease costs, and enable the government to deal more effectively with the Indians. Similarly, the increased economy and efficiency of the mail service was constantly held up as a chief end. These two objects are frequently expressed in the acts of incorporation themselves, the common phraseology running, "to promote the public interest and welfare by the construction of said railroad and telegraph lines, . and to secure to the government at all times (but particularly in time of war) the use and benefits of the same for postal, military, and other purposes." As proprietor of vast stretches of valueless lands the government had much to gain from their exploitation. Railways would open these to sale and settlement and enhance the value of reserved portions. It is notable, however, that this object was less prominent than in the case of the earlier grants and became less and less so; partly, no doubt, because there was less real objection on constitutional grounds, and partly because of bitter experience. From the inception of the Pacific railway idea trade with Asia was a factor, and when the Texas Pacific was chartered in 1871 it was urged that by its construction another and cheaper route for that trade would be opened. In connection with the southern route the development of trade with Mexico was also discussed. Closely allied with this object or argument was the increase of revenue which might be expected to flow from an increase in dutiable imports. Finally, union, the binding together of the newly-acquired Pacific territories and the East-the knitting of all the land west of the Mississippi, was an avowed object. When, after the Civil War, the South clamored for a southern road, justice to that section and assistance in her economic reconstruction were special pleas, together with the Mexican trade. It is interesting to reflect how one line having been established and one section favored, the others made of the fact a purpose or object in constructing a second. It is interesting also to observe the progression of reasons ex pressed for a Pacific railway. At the outset, it will be remembered, emphasis was laid upon oriental and other foreign commerce, the whaling trade, etc. As population in California increased, communication and trade with that outlying possession became a principal reason, while, in the end, the possibility of developing local or way freight was made an important consideration. Thus the end to be obtained came closer and closer home to the road. The preceding objects or purposes were made arguments, it being assumed by Pacific railway advocates that once the desired railway was built the end would be attained. Against such. arguments were marshalled numerous objections, ranging from the hard-headed claim that a railway could not live by through traffic alone down to constitutional theory. It was feared that Congress would fasten upon itself and the nation a system of internal improvements. The land-grant fever rapidly waned after 1862 and the later grants met considerable objection. Just prior to the war objection was sometimes made to raising the Pacific railway issue on the ground that it would fan sectional strife, but this did not necessarily mean antagonism toward Pacific railways. The Pacific railway problem lay in the various questions as to the means to be employed in attaining the ends desired. These questions were three in number: kind of aid, route, agency for construction. The last seems to have been first decided, for serious propositions for a national railway ceased in the early fifties. At the same time the necessity for a loan of the government's credit in addition to a grant of land began to be seen and after 1855 bills generally contained a provision for aid in that form. Until the secession of the southern states there was such a divergence of sectional interests concerning the various routes as to make a Pacific railway politically impossible. It seems probable that but for the power of northern capital and a general idea of symmetry the southern route would have been first taken as the one believed to involve the least difficulties in construction and operation. The Civil War put a final end to this probability. At one time, too, it seemed possible to unite on a central route, but the increasing gap between South and North, together with the growing prominence of the northern route after 1855 dashed this hope. Though conflicting interests existed in 1862 they were not so divergent but that they could be temporarily satisfied by branches from a central eastern terminus. In the order of their incorporation the Pacific railways were as follows: Union and Central Pacific lines (1862, 1864), Northern Pacific (1864), Atlantic and Pacific (1866), Texas and Pacific (1871). The Southern Pacific received recognition in both 1866 and 1871, and in this connection the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe-which received a grant of over 3,000,000 acresis not to be forgotten. It will be well to examine and compare the provisions of the charters granted by Congress. In general features the charters are quite similar, the point of difference being emphasized in the accompanying chart. In the earlier acts subsidies were advanced in the shape of loans of government bonds, while the later ones specifically provided that no funds should be given. Rights of way varied from 200 to 400 feet in width, and other donations from 20 to 40 alternate odd-numbered sections per mile. Lands were granted as sections of the roads were completed, the length of section required varying from 20 to 401 miles. The general requirement was a beginning within two years and a completion in 12. Time was extended, however, in every case. The capital stock authorized was generally $100,000,000, the Texas and Pacific with $50,000,000 being the only exception. In this case, however,—and in this case alone-bonds were specifically authorized and limited in amount. The Northern Pacific was forbidden to issue bonds without the consent of Congress. In the majority of cases. $2,000,000 was to be subscribed and 10 per cent. paid in before business was begun, the variants being Atlantic and Pacific with a subscription minimum of $1,000,000, and Union Pacific which in 1862 was required to have but 1 per cent. paid in ($10 per $1,000 share). Rates were to be fair and reasonable, and no higher for government transportation than for private service of like character. Here again there was not uniformity. The Union Pacific's charter provided that if net earnings should exceed 1 Original act for U. Fac. changed to 20 in 1864. |