صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

asaw Indians in 1832, and the sum granted was to be applied to the same purposes specified in an act prior to the admission of the states, namely, internal improvements. While not specifically mentioned, the projected railways from Brandon to Montgomery and from Mobile to the Tennessee were doubtless among the works considered.

DEBATE OVER GIVING 2 PER CENT. FUND TO MISSISSIPPI; BILL FOR ALABAMA PASSED SENATE: 1838

From 1836 to 1841 the subject of the 2 per cent. funds did not occupy Congress much, but in 1838 a debate took place on a Senate bill (No. 198) to authorize Mississippi to invest the entire amount of her 2 per cent. fund which had accrued since 1817 "in such railroads in the state as they (the state legislature) may think proper. "12 As but few discussions on this subject are recorded, it will be well to give some account of this debate.

It should be stated here that this bill embraced a provision that the fund might be temporarily invested in lands, subject to private sale or entry at fifty cents an acre.13

Mr. Trotter urged the adoption of the plan, because, (1) it is the right of the state; (2) the broad principle of justice demands it; and (3) it will merely equalize the lands granted to Mississippi with those given to the new states. The same speaker stated that the original reason for creating a 2 per cent. fund-that of making a road to the state-had long ceased to exist, and that the "contract" made with Congress to that end should also cease. He held that the principle involved in the bill had been frequently acquiesced in and was fully established, referring to the passage of similar measures in favor of Arkansas, Michigan, and Louisiana.

Mr. Clay (Ala.), after addressing the Senate in favor of the preceding views, offered an amendment under assurance from those who opposed the details of the bill that if an express grant of land was asked for, equal to that made to other states,

12 Cong. Globe, 1837-38, p. 493.

13 See below, p. 352.

it would be granted. Such a bill was reported by the committee on internal improvements,1 but was not passed.

In December of this year a bill (No. 60) for relinquishing the 2 per cent. fund arising from sales of public land in Alabama was buried in the House; and the same event occurred in 1840.15

TWO PER CENT. FUNDS GRANTED TO MISSISSIPPI AND ALABAMA: 1841

Finally "an act to appropriate the proceeds of the sales of the public lands, and to grant pre-emption rights," passed September 4, 1841, gave to Mississippi and Alabama these long sought funds, providing that 2 per cent. of the net proceeds of lands sold after December 1, 1817, be relinquished to the states for internal improvements.17 Mississippi was to faithfully apply her grant upon a railway from Brandon eastward to the state line in the direction of Montgomery, Alabama.

The next year a resolution was agreed to by the Senate looking toward permitting Mississippi to appropriate $25,000 of the 2 per cent. fund thus granted for completing "the mail road1s leading from Jackson to Brandon," and in 1843 this modification of the original grant was enacted.19

At this time, too, the Governor of Mississippi was authorized to enter any public lands in the state that were subject to private entry, using the 2 per cent. fund for that purpose, and to hold such land on behalf of the state for the trusts and purposes of the fund.20

FIVE PER CENT. TO IOWA ON ADMISSION; RESOLUTIONS OF ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI: 1845-49

After the grant to Mississippi and Alabama in 1841 no further grant was made till Iowa was admitted, when, by act of

[blocks in formation]

17 U. S. Statutes at Large, V, 453; Acts of Cong., 1841, c. 163, ss. 16 and 17.

[blocks in formation]

21

March 3, 1845, 5 per cent. of the net proceeds of her land sales were given to that state, to be applied for the usual purposes. In 1848 a bill was introduced to grant Missouri her 2 per cent. fund, and in 1849 a resolution by the legislature of Arkansas was presented bearing on a similar matter. Arkansas asked that one-tenth of all public lands might be granted to the states in which they lay for education and internal improvement, and that the 5 per cent. fund accruing to herself might be paid in land.22 This resolution brings out clearly the close relation existing between grants of percentages of proceeds of land sales and grants of land, and indicates furthermore, how closely associated they were in the minds of the people. With this petition that a 5 per cent. fund be transformed to a donation of lands it is natural to turn to that part of the congressional history of railways which deals with direct land grants,. that is, grants of land acres.

[blocks in formation]

CHAPTER XVIII

LAND GRANTS: DONATIONS OF LAND OTHER THAN RIGHTS-OF-WAY

THE MT. CARMEL AND NEW ALBANY

Perhaps the most natural and helpful way to approach this complex subject will be to take up at once a particular case. The history of the efforts made by those interested in the Mt. Carmel and New Albany Railroad1 Company to obtain from Congress a donation of public lands extends over a decade of time, and will serve as an index to the status of the railway land grant issue in our national legislature throughout that period.

1837: MEMORIAL. 1838: RIGHT-OF-WAY BILLS FAIL

This railway first appears in the records of Congress during 1837, at which time a memorial was presented by it asking a grant of land on certain conditions.2 The memorial was referred to the committee on public lands, but was soon transferred to that on roads and canals (1838), and a bill to grant the right-of-way through public lands was reported. After reaching a second reading the bill was laid on the table and not taken up again. At about the same time a similar bill met a like fate in the House.3

1838: DONATION BILL PASSES SENATE; FAILS IN HOUSE

On January 12, 1838, before the bill for a right-of-way had failed, the Senate resolved that its committee on post offices and

1 This railway, which was finally constructed, extends from New Albany, Ind.,

a little below Louisville on the Ohio, to Mt. Carmel, Ill., a distance of about 120 miles. It thus lies almost entirely within the state of Indiana. By its means the low water often prevailing in the lower Ohio might be evaded.

2 S. J., 1837-38, pp. 28, 97, 109, 382.

3 H. J., 1837-38, p. 242.

4

post roads be instructed to inquire into the expediency of granting the railway all public land situated within five miles thereof providing it agreed to carry the mail free of charge for a term of twenty years. This committee was discharged before it could report, however, and the committee on roads and canals, which had reported the bill for right-of-way but ten days before was given control. Accordingly, in February, a report was presented that was highly favorable to the railway. On the ground that the road was of vital interest to at least three states, that it would open up unavailable lands and enhance their value, that it would foster commerce and public intercourse, and serve postal and military ends, the grant was advocated. "But above all," the committee concluded, "is the importance which this object possesses, in common with other works of a similar nature and magnitude, in a political point of view, as forming one of the great arteries of the body politic; giving strength to its arm, knowledge to its head, union to its parts, and perpetuity to its existence."' The report

was accompanied by a bill (Sen. No. 234) "for the benefit of the Mt. Carmel and New Albany Railroad Company." A debate ensued in which the fact that the lands had been on the market a long time and the mail concession were urged, while some objection was made that this was a bargain with a corporation.8 At this stage it was proposed to amend the bill so as to give a pre-emption right for six years, but the amendment was withdrawn. The bill, amended so as to grant "to the state of Indiana each alternate section of the unappropriated

*

*

*

public land which lies on both sides of the New Albany and Mt. Carmel Railroad," was finally reported, correctly engrossed, read a third time, and passed on July 4, 1838.10 On the same day it was received by the House, and two days later that body showed its belief concerning the matter by ordering that the said bill be committed to the committee of the whole

B. J., 1837-38, p. 135.

Ibid., p. 148.

Sen. Docs., 1837-38, III, No. 203.

S. J., 1837-38, p. 232.

s Cong. Globe, 1837-38, p. 434.

Ibid. (Sen.), p. 450.

10 S. J., 1837-88, p. 526.

« السابقةمتابعة »