Land grants:

(a) Rights of way.

(b) Proceeds of land sales.

Propositions for aid through general internal improvement funds, special stock subscription or gifts of money, and in connection with the mail service were made, but failed.

Before the close of the first period aid through government surveys and the remission of duties on imports of railway iron ceased, and the same may be said of donations of the proceeds of land sales. But in 1850 began the epoch of great land grants and millions of acres of the public domain were given to encourage railways. Also, certain Pacific roads were aided by large subsidies in government bonds, though the principal of these subsidies, together with interest, was to be repaid. The second period of aid closed by 1870, approximately.

It will be observed that after 1850 almost no aid was given in the form which government aid took before that year; also, that no aid granted prior to 1850 took the form of the principal later assistance. Thus, in form, the aid aspect of the two periods differs. The surveys made by the government for Pacific railways make a possible exception.

As the second period wore on and the social side of railway property and service came to be more and more apparent the tendency to regulate grew stronger. The increasing importance of the service, its vitally essential character, coupled with the spread of abuses caused this tendency. It is noteworthy that this tendency was not carried out as soon or as thoroughly as might have been expected, and a point already made" is to be emphasized, namely, freedom from regulation may be regarded as a form of aid. The nation needed railways, and, indeed, capital in many forms. Hence corporations were encouraged, perhaps not consciously, through lax charters, light taxes, etc., as well as by grants. Then, following the abandonment and even forfeiture of positive aid, this negative aid began to decline. Herein lies no small part of the corporation and railway problems of today.

11 Above, p. 8.

IV. HAS CONGRESS A MEMORY?

One question which arises and to which our material suggests some answer is, has Congress a memory? The question has important bearing upon the efficiency, not alone of railway regulation, but of our entire system of government. In order to profit by experience and pursue a connected policy there must be a certain continuity in action which involves what may be called a group memory. Does a study of the Congressional history of railways show Congress to have such a faculty? The multitude of bills introduced and the many acts passed upon numerous different subjects obviously makes this difficult, especially for a constantly changing body. Yet, on the whole, a considerable degree of it is shown. The committee is its most effective seat. In committee reports are found more or less accurate and complete resumés of the history of the subject in hand. The thoughtful senator or representative who had served several terms sometimes became the prompter of Congress' memory. Moreover, the printed proceedings of Congress are available in the Globe and Record, and in not a few cases the past was called up through this medium-often for political attack, however. Notable instances of direct profit by experience are found in the insertion of clauses reserving the right to alter, amend, or repeal bridge and other laws12 and in the Pacific railway charters.13

On the other hand, evidences of lapses of congressional memory are found. It became doubtful whether Congress intended to require annual payment of interest on the Pacific railway bond subsidies.14 A few years after its passage congressmen did not know of the existence of an act allowing territorial incorporation. Committee reports sometimes overlook past events; and the bulky records are often not consulted.

In this connection the courts should be mentioned. In the interpretation of many acts the intent of Congress is the crucial point. Here the court does the effective remembering, and in

12 Above, p. 233.

13 Above, p. 123, 152.

14 Above, p. 85 f.

some cases its interpretation is doubtful.15 The memory of Congress may thus be practically perverted.

On larger lines one rather feels that, with the possible exception of party matters, there has not been sufficient appreciation of the evolution of things. Had Congress possessed a knowledge of the scope of regulatory acts and discussions prior to the act of 1887 it might have acted with more assurance and effectiveness. When it was remarked above that fragmentary regulation prepared the way for the general, no close connection between the two was meant. Congressmen did not-perhaps could notbring together, analyze, and synthetize all action pertaining to the subject.

It is believed that Congress has worked with fair consistency in the railway field; simply history shows that there is danger of forgetting, of losing the light of the past, and it should be the duty of congressmen to familiarize themselves with the earlier developments in the more important lines of legislation with which they are dealing. This is surely essential to the most efficient legislation, and here lies a practical reason for a congressional history of railways.

15 Above, e. g., p. 36.

GENERAL INDEX

Common law vs. statutory regulation, Extension of time, on land grants, 14, 22,

Indian titles, extinguishment of, 56, 117. Long-and-short-haul clause, 194, 289,