ways concerned and this, together with other donations, now began to be effective as entering wedges. What one state had received must be granted the others.

Though the Democrats were in power and Pierce was at the helm yet the new state element had become very strong, and, moreover, men were coming to realize that no great immediate profit was to be realized from the public domain.

11

Considerable emphasis has been laid upon the corruption factor,11 and this seems justifiable. This was just the time when corporations were beginning to multiply and grow strong. Great quantities of eastern capital flowed into western railway developments and pressure was brought to bear on eastern congressmen. Calhoun, Clay, and Webster were gone, and the new generation of congressmen does not seem to have been as noble-minded as the preceding one. Charges of corruption were frequent at this time.

In 1856 some 14,559,000 acres were granted to states for railways; in 1857, 5,118,000 acres were added-making a total of 19,678,000 acres in round numbers.12 Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Wisconsin were favored states.

Then came the crisis. Railway building was checked. The nation's surplus revenue disappeared and a deficit of over $27,000,000 arose in 1858. For five years no land-grant bill passed Congress.

Nor did the connection which undoubtedly existed between land-grant-stimulated railway construction and the crisis pass unnoticed. Mr. Mason (Va.) was forcibly impressed with the conviction that the revulsion resulted from "the improvident cessions made of the public lands in the immense northwest country, for the building of speculative railroads."'13 Soldiers'

11 Sanborn, Cong. Grants of Land in Aid of Railways, p. 55. 12 Donaldson, Pub. Domain, p. 270.

13 Note on the crisis of 1857: Contemporaneous congressional material bears witness to the severity of the crisis and depression. One speaker says of the railways, there are very few making returns for the capital invested in them," and concludes that the freight business is generally unprofit able. (Globe, 1856-57, p. 1598f.) Another testifies : "Railroad companies are not rich. A majority of them are poor and embarrassed. fore me a list of railroads in some fourteen of the States. Out of 205 of them only 70 make any return to the stockholders; and 135 of them pay nothing to

I have be

bounty lands and others had been bought up by speculators for from 80 to 90 cents an acre and then railway projects had been started to enhance the value of the lands-upon which enhanced land value would largely depend the railways' credit.

2. Land Grants to Corporations and States: 1862-72. When the generosity of Congress again began to flow, a noticeable change appeared in the machinery. The grants began to be made direct to railway corporations in 1862. The state continued to be used as an intermediary, but some of the largest grants were made to the ultimate recipients at once. This would seem to mark the all but complete downfall of constitutional objections on the score of state sovereignty or federal internal improvements. These roads, however, were to a considerable extent constructed in the territories, concerning whose power to administer the grants there was doubt; and the bills did not pass without discussion over the rights of the states to regulate, tax, etc., some recognition of state sovereignty being found in many of the direct grants.

According to Donaldson, the list of railway corporations receiving grants is as follows:14

those who have furnished the money to build them." (Globe, 1861-62. p. 1480f.) The opinion that there was a general social cause for the situation soon became widespread. In addition to the above statement by Mr. Mason the words of Senator Palmer may be cited. "Liberal legislation and a speculative spirit among our people led to overbuilding and misbuilding, and upon emerging from the crisis of 1857 many railroads found themselves embarrassed (Cong. Rec., 1885-86, p. 3476.) Some realized that a result of this "misbuilding" and crisis was a crystalization of debt-the fastening upon society of increased fixed charges. Moreover, from this time may be dated the beginning of corporate concentration. (Ibid.) These things attended the reorganization. 14 Pub. Domain, pp. 270-72.

With the exception of the grant made to Kansas for the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe in 1863 (2,995,000 acres) all the grants to states made after 1862 were either small or were merely renewals of earlier grants.

RIGHTS OF WAY

In 1852 a general right-of-way act was passed;15 and, in 1855, another act extending the same to all of the public lands of the United States. The operation of these laws appears to have been satisfactory, for in 1862 their provisions were extended for a term of five years." 16

17

In 1873 a bill granting a general right of way through the territories passed the House, but not the Senate; and it was not till 1875 that such a bill became law. The courts had long decided that the right of eminent domain did not lie in territories and that Congress must act. This led to a multitude of special acts and Congress was pestered with bills granting rights of way of various widths and including all sorts of allowances for stations, etc.18

Thereafter the matters most dealt with under this head concerned amendments to earlier right-of-way acts, rights of way through military and Indian reservations, and some special acts.

THE END OF THE LAND-GRANT POLICY

About 1870 the opposition to further land grants became so strong as to indicate the end of the policy. In that year the

15 Bul. of U. of W., Econ. and Pol. Sci. Series, 3: 337; reprint, vol. I, p. 171. 16 Chapter 179.

17 Below, p. 189.

18 E. g., see host of bills at the 1874-75 session.

House agreed to this resolution, submitted by Mr. Holman (Ind.): "Resolved, That in the judgment of the House the policy of granting subsidies in public lands to railroad and other corporations ought to be discontinued; and that every consideration of public policy and equal justice to the whole people requires that the public lands of the United States should be held for the exclusive purpose of securing homesteads to actual settlers under the homestead and pre-emption laws, subject to reasonable appropriation of such lands for the purpose of education.''19 And but a little later Mr. Garfield (O.), in speaking on the last great land grant, explained his support in these words: "I fully share in the general sentiment of the country, that we ought to put a speedy and effective end to the policy of granting public lands to railway corporations," but justice to the South dictates this one.20

In 1868 one plank in the Democratic platform was a pronunciamento to the effect that "when grants of public lands may be allowed, necessary for the encouragement of important public improvements, the proceeds of the sale of such lands, and not the lands themselves, should be applied." Both Republican and Democratic parties in 1872 asserted that they were opposed to further land grants.

Discussion on bills of the time reflects the same sentiment.21 The prevailing idea seems to be hostility to "corporate monopoly" on the one hand, and solicitude for settlers or homesteaders on the other. This is well illustrated in the debate on extending time to the St. Croix and Bayfield Railroad. It was referred to as a swindling system, by which the public lands of the government had been given away to corporations regardless of public interest. A coterie of speculators was building large private fortunes at the expense of the people. The lands held in trust for the people should not be given to soulless and heartless corporations. The House refused to pass the measure, in the face of great pressure, by a vote of 102 to 8422. At the 1870-71 session at least eighteen land-grant bills were brought

1 Cong. Globe, 1869-70, p. 2095.

20 Ibid., 1870-71, p. 1468.

"See e. g., ibid., 1870-71, pp. 1143; 20, 790, append., p. 90.

Ibid., p. 918.

up in the House and not discussed or passed, and besides these there is a list of forty-one bills which were only considered to the extent that the committee of reference was discharged.

One sees here the working of the Granger spirit, 23 and the reaction against the Pacific railways.24 It had come to be felt that land grants had been excessive if not unnecessary. As the country grew in wealth and population, the opinion came to be frequently expressed that private enterprise would alone supply all needful railroads.

Extensions of time were still made, but partly in the interest of settlers who had taken up the even-numbered sections along railway lines at $2.50 an acre and who might be supposed to suffer if the railway were not constructed. In using this argument the railways, of course, assumed that the grant was necessary to the completion of their lines.25

23 See below, p. 240 ff.

24 Below, p. 81 f.

25 For full discussion giving a good insight into the land-grant situation at this time see debate in the Globe, 1871-72, p. 1274, etc., on S. Bill no. 1274.