agitation for a system of contracting with the railways was on the basis of liberal payment for their services. In this matter a distinction was drawn between the mails and troops, munitions of war, etc., the latter being often excepted from transportation charge. CHAPTER XIV LAND GRANTS: INTRODUCTORY AND EARLY HISTORY The history of government aid to railways would be as Hamlet with Hamlet left out unless land grants were included in that history. Donations of land acres or proceeds of land sales have been the object of continuous agitation, and so important a part has this matter played, not only in railway history but in general history, that it is fitting to devote careful and detailed study to its development. The word development is used with purpose. From the early years of the nineteenth century well down to our own time the problem of land grants to transportation agencies has existed, changing with circumstances, it is true, but, nevertheless having continuity. To treat the subject intelligently and exhaustively one must begin, not with grants or proposals for grants to railways, but with such donations to roads and canals-the works of "internal improvement" which, after some struggle, the railway supplanted. As preliminary to a detailed history of congressional land grants to railways, some analysis of the problem should be made. The subject is a complex one, because it involves two distinct sets of doctrines: the attitude of Congress toward the disposition of the public domain was one factor; that toward government participation in internal improvements was another. While these factors are distinct, yet they react upon one another, and the attitude of a congressman toward internal improvements in general or railways in particular may modify his attitude toward bestowing public land, and vice versa. Furthermore, these two factors, land policies and internal improvement policies, might in their turn be analyzed and their relation to tariff, slavery, and states' rights poli cies be determined. Leaving this inquiry to a chapter on the philosophy of land grants, but bearing in mind the simple, preliminary analysis, let us at once take up the thread of events. In the following brief account of early grants to canals and roads some latitude will be taken in presenting matters not immediately connected with land-this for the purpose of having in mind all sides of the situation which confronted the railway in 1830 or thereabouts. Probably the first grant of land for "internal improvement” ever made by the Congress of the United States was that of 1796. In this year an act was passed, entitled "An act to authorize Ebenezer Zane to locate certain lands in the territory of the United States west of the river Ohio," according to which Zane received three tracts of land each one mile square. The lands were to be located "in such situations as shall best promote the utility of a road to be opened by him on the most eligible route between Wheeling and Limestone." In the same year, 1796, Madison submitted a resolution to the House for a road extending north and south through the states.2 As the debt incurred during the Revolutionary War neared extinguishment and Louisiana was purchased, Jefferson was instrumental in having a road made from Washington to New Orleans; and, in 1806, under the same administration, the government took up a work of internal improvement in the Cumberland Road. The period 1806-17 was one of projects for great systems of national internal improvement. In 1808 Gallatin presented his famous report advocating national aid to roads on economic as well as political grounds. Some premonition of the relation of the tariff to internal improvement appears in this report, as Gallatin argued that the expense of constructing roads could be defrayed from import duties, while decreased cost of transportation would more than counterbalance the effect of a tariff in raising prices. The carrying out 1 Laws of the U. S., II, 533. Limestone, Ky. 2 Throughout this brief account of early developments, Rep. of Com, 1830–31, (21 Cong., 2 sess.) No. 77 has been of service. of Gallatin's scheme was interrupted by the War of 1812— though even in 1814 it was discussed-but during 1816 and 1817 the great growth of nationalism which had taken place meanwhile gave rise to renewed projects. President Madison in his 1816 message urged that the constitution be so amended as to clearly vest in Congress power to "effectuate" a comprehensive system of roads and canals.3 In 1817 a bill was passed by Congress the object of which was to set apart the bonus paid by the Second National Bank together with the annual profits on government stock in it as an internal improvement fund. This "Bonus Bill" was vetoed by Madison on constitutional grounds and failed to get the necessary two-thirds majority. The President's words were, "I am constrained, by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States.' The failure of this bill somewhat checked the movement for a system of government aid to internal improvements. 774 In 1817, Monroe's first message stated his opinion that Congress could not constitutionally undertake internal improvements, but the committee to which the message was referred reported in direct contradiction of the opinion of the President" and the House passed a resolution that Congress had power to appropriate for constructing canals, roads, etc. By a very close vote it was decided, however, that Congress did not have power to construct even post and military roads, nor canals for military purposes. Thus "a practical distinction was taken between the right to originate by national authority and the right simply to appropriate in the aid of State construction." Much of the long discussion during 1818-19 centered around the distinction between expediency and constitutionality. At this time Calhoun reported in favor of a national system of internal improvements along Gallatin's lines on military grounds. Calhoun seems to have considered the constitutional feature of slight consequence. Between 1818 and 1827 there were many appropriations" for H. J., 1816-17, p. 14. H. J., 1816-17, p. 535. Schouler, U. S. History, III, 249. See above in chapter on appropriations. the Cumberland Road and other acts giving aid. Taking up those which deal with land, we find that in 1820 a strip eighty feet wide was reserved for continuing the Cumberland Road;" and two years later ninety feet of land on each side of its route were granted to Illinois and Indiana for a canal, the sections through which it passed being reserved for future sale by the government. The increase expected in public land values figured in both cases, and the ground for the extension of the Cumberland Road was definitely stated to be, "whereas by the continuation of the Cumberland road from Wheeling the land of the United States may become more val uable." The first considerable grant of land other than a right of way came in 1823, when an act was passed for laying out a road from the Miami of Lake Erie to the Western Reserve according to provisions of the treaty of Brownstown. In order to enable the state of Ohio to open and construct this road, a strip of land 120 feet wide was given and in addition an amount equal to one mile on each side of and adjoining the road, it being provided that this land should not be sold for less than $1.25 per acre. This grant differs from later ones in that the policy of reserving alternate sections was not adopted. Finally, in 1827, came the typical donation of alternate sections along the line of the Illinois & Michigan Canal, referred to below.10 At the same time a similar grant was made to Indiana for the Wabash & Erie canal, and in 1828 Ohio was aided in extending the Miami canal.11 Early in the next decade the Illinois grant was authorized for a railway, and at the same time railways began to supersede other means of transportation. The history of aid to canals and roads. may be dropped at this time, when it merges into that of aid to railways. In passing it should be observed that at about this very time (1827) such states as Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri were Laws of the U. S., VI, 536. Ibid., VII, 22. Ibid., p. 118. 10 pp. 334 and 360. 11 Laws of the U. S., VIII, 118. |