Yamhill asking that additional lands be appropriated, "in the establishment and endowment of an industrial university to be known as the 'Industrial University of Oregon' which shall have for its object, etc., etc." In his letter Watt said: "You can see what has been borrowed.''57

Early in 1857 word came from G. L. Lumsden who had been an enthusiastic aid to the industrial cause as a member of the legislature of Illinois, that he was busy in Minnesota working for the same cause. He wrote that their aim was to have Fort Snelling appropriated for the use and purpose of an industrial university and that he, himself, had prepared resolutions and a memorial to congress on the subject. Among the things asked for in these petitions was "an industrial university in each state of the Union. ''58

John Kennicott and Bronson Murray were constantly corresponding with individuals and with agricultural and horticultural societies of the country during this same period. Kennicott was in touch, too, with the United States agricultural society that held a number of annual meetings and fairs at Washington, D. C., during the same year. The leaders of the industrial league were also keeping their public men informed of what they were trying to do as the following letter from a United States senator will indicate.

My dear Sir:

"Chicago, October 12, 1857.

Accept my thanks for your kind note enclosing the pamphlet on Industrial Universities, which I will take pleasure in reviewing with the view of forming a favorable judgment on the proposed movement. I shall be happy to receive your work on The Races when complete.

Very Respectfully

Professor J. B. Turner

Your Obedient Servant

S. A. Douglas.

Jacksonville"

"Watt to Turner, June 1, 1856, December 18, 1856, Turner manuscripts. 58Lumsden to Turner, February 2, 1857, Turner manuscripts. The memorial to congress referred to above was introduced in Minnesota house of representatives, February 16, 1857, by Delano T. Smith. Printed copy corrected by George L. Lumsden, the author, at University of Illinois.

From the evidence produced it seems very clear that the Illinois industrial league backed as it was by a devoted group of vigorous men had prepared the way not only in Illinois but in many states of the union for an effective support of the land grant proposition for industrial universities when it should be brought before congress in the form of a bill. It is known now that for several years before the introduction of the land grant bill in congress legislatures, state officers, congressmen, state and county agricultural societies, presidents of universities and colleges, members of boards of trustees of educational institutions, and prominent private citizens, in states as far west as Oregon and as far east as New York, had been well informed concerning this project and their coöperation had been secured by this same group of Illinois men.

One need not be surprised, then, that when the bill was actually introduced into congress by a man who had not been identified with this nation wide movement up to this time, a flood of petitions in support of it came in from all these various bodies and organizations, from California, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Illinois, and other states.

CHAPTER IV

THE ILLINOIS PLAN BEFORE CONGRESS

In April, 1854, immediately following the presentation of the joint resolution of the Illinois legislature, the first step in presenting the land grant proposition of the Illinois men before congress in the form of a bill was taken. Representative Richard Yates of Illinois wrote to J. B. Turner asking him to draw up a bill and send it to him, saying that Mr. Washburne had merely presented the resolutions upon the subject of industrial universities and that he had introduced no bill. Yates suggested that it might be well to omit all reference to any connection between these institutions and the Smithsonian institution in order to avoid opposition from certain quarters but left the final decision upon that point to Turner. In conclusion he promised to present the bill and do what he could to get it passed.1 Turner prepared the bill and forwarded it to Washington but nothing further was accomplished as it was found inadvisable to push the matter in that session and the following fall Yates was not reëlected to congress.

The following two or three years did not seem a favorable time to introduce such a bill because of the attitude of opposition to land grants observable in the chief executive. President Pierce had vetoed in 1854 a bill carrying a grant of lands in support of the indigent insane and this had left small hope of his signing one for educational interests.

Turner was on guard, however, watching for the favorable moment; early in October, 1857 he believed the time was propitious for another attempt. That he consulted two of the great leaders in congress-both senators from his own state-upon the subject is shown by a letter to Lyman Trumbull: "I now send herewith a copy of our league report-and would be glad to know if in your opinion a grant of lands to the states could now be obtained I know of no measure that would be so universally

'Yates to Turner, April 14, 1854, Turner manuscripts.

popular with our farmers and working people, or do so much good if judiciously managed.

"In conversation with Senator Douglas on the cars the other day he expressed his opinion that such a grant could be obtained at the next session (See p. 43 Report) and I thought I would just enquire of you what could be done.""2

Twelve days later Senator Trumbull replied approving the land grant plan, pointing out the dangers that stood in the way of its success, and finally making a suggestion that was a determining factor in deciding who should introduce the desired bill in congress. "Since the receipt of your letter I have re-read the pamphlet in regard to industrial universities. The idea is a grand one, if it could be carried out and made practical. I thought I saw in the last congress an opposition springing up against any further grants of land in the States, but perhaps it was confined to those made to new States, and your project contemplating a grant to all the States might meet with more favor. Several large grants were made last year, but it was done grudgingly. For my own part I have been favorable to an early disposition of the public lands by the general government, and if they could only be secured to actual settlers, I would be glad to see it divested at once of this great source of patronage and corruption. If some of the old States would take hold of the matter, I think it not unlikely that a grant of lands might be obtained from Congress; but coming from the new States, which have already obtained such large grants for schools and other purposes, it would be likely to meet with less favor.

"Objections to the feasibility of the plan will, of course, be urged; but no one can doubt that something, if not all that is expected, could be accomplished by institutions of the character proposed.

"For the diploma you inclosed making me a member of the Industrial League, I desire to express my thanks."

Trumbull's arguments made it clear that the bill would have a better chance for success if it had the support of some of the "Turner to Trumbull, October 7, 1857, Trumbull collection, library of "ongress.

"Trumbull to Turner, October 19, 1857, Turner manuscripts.

older states. With this in view Turner and his associates selected Representative Justin S. Morrill of Vermont as the man to introduce the bill and to carry through this great and important measure. Immediately after this choice was made Turner forwarded to Morrill all his papers and documents and from that time forward gave him all the help and encouragement that he could. More than this Turner even succeeded in determining the language of the bill which was introduced into congress on December 14, 1857, by Representative Morrill and which was finally enacted into law on July 2, 1862. President Edmund J. James of the University of Illinois has shown very clearly that it could not have been a "mere coincidence that the language of the act of 1862 'to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life' should tally so closely with the language used in the various documents put forth by Professor Turner." He names three documents in which Turner used language almost identical with that quoted above from the act of 1862. Particularly was this true of a petition to congress in which Turner used these words "an industrial university for the liberal education of the industrial classes in their several pursuits and professions in life."

There is still another clause in the same paragraph of the bill that is clearly marked by Turner's influence. It is the parenthetical one that says "without excluding other scientific or classical studies." In Turner's plan, published in the league pamphlet which had been placed no doubt in Morrill's hand, it was stated "no species of knowledge should be excluded" and whether a distinct classical department should be added would depend on expediency. Friends of Turner, among them Dr. Kennicott, wished to exclude the classics entirely but Turner would not yield the point.

In confirmation of this direct connection between Turner and Morrill there is the testimony of two competent persons yet

'Whether the arrangement to get Justin S. Morrill to introduce the bill was made by letter or by some of the Illinois representatives in person is not as yet known.

'Illinois State Agricultural Society, Transactions, 5:38.

James, Origin of Land Grant Act of 1862, p. 26-27.