Report on the lands of the arid region of the United States, with a more detailed account of the lands of Utah

by John Wesley Powell; Willis Drummond; Clarence E. Dutton; Grove Karl Gilbert; A. H. Thompson

OTHER STREAMS.

A few smaller streams are also tributary to the Colorado and Green within the Territory of Utah, but they mostly flow in deep cañons, are often dry in some portion of their course during every year, have at best only a few acres of arable land anywhere along their courses, and have been omitted in this report.

The following table gives a summary of the facts relating to the flow of the several streams and the amount of arable and irrigable lands in the districts described above:

Name of stream.		Estimated volume of flow during irrigating season. (Feet per second.)	Square miles of irrigable land.	Acres of irrigable land.
Virgin River		—	30	19,200
Kanab Creek		15	2¹⁄₂	1,600
Paria River		40	6	3,840
Escalante River		—	6	3,840
Fremont River		269	38	24,320
San Rafael River		1,118	175	112,000
Price River		189	11	7,040
Minnie Maud Creek		16	3	1,920
Uinta River		1,825	285	182,400
Ashley Fork		—	25	16,000
Henrys Fork		—	10	6,400
White River		1,468	75	48,000
Browns Park	Green River	—	10	6,400
Below Split Mountain Cañon		4,400	50	32,000
Gunnison Valley		—	25	16,000
Grand River		4,860	40	25,600
Total		—	791¹⁄₂	506,560

CHAPTER X.
LAND GRANTS IN AID OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS.

By Willis Drummond, Jr.

The land grant system in favor of internal improvements has become a well settled policy of this Government, and has attained not only a social but a political importance.

Like other American institutions its growth has been rapid, and donations of that character now cover millions of acres of the public domain. Of grants for railroads, wagon roads, and canals alone, however, will this chapter treat, and no reference other than necessary to a proper examination of the question will be made to concessions whose terms place the lands under specific disposal by the States, such as those for the establishment of schools, reclamation of swamp lands, etc.

The majority of grants, therefore, coming within our notice will be those in aid of railroads, though many have been made in favor of wagon roads and canals. The latter have, however, almost become things of the past, and are rapidly being superseded by the railway. More than one canal has given way to the more popular and general means of transportation, and it is safe to say that no further donations for canal purposes will be made, unless the circumstances should be such as to absolutely demand that means of conveyance. At any rate, they will not be made for purposes of general improvement.

The object of this chapter is to point out the origin, growth, character, and extent of these concessions. It is therefore necessary to inquire into the early donations for various purposes.

The first act making a donation in favor of internal improvements was approved on the 30th of April, 1802, and was entitled “An act to enable the people of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes.”

By the third proviso to the seventh section of that statute, “one-twentieth part of the net proceeds of the lands lying within the said State sold by Congress, from and after the thirtieth day of June next, after deducting all expenses incident to the same”, was granted and given to the said State (Ohio), and was to be applied to the laying out and making of public roads leading to the Ohio River, to the said State, and through the same, from the navigable waters emptying into the Atlantic. Such roads were to be laid out under the authority of Congress, with the consent of the several States through which they passed.

By an act approved March 3, 1803, the Secretary of the Treasury was directed to pay, to such persons as the legislature of the State of Ohio should designate, 3 per cent. of the net proceeds, as above, which sums were to be applied to laying out, opening, and making roads within said State.

These acts, I believe, are the first two touching public improvements through congressional aid. Of course there had previously been many donations of land in favor of various persons, but they were for services rendered the Government, or special preëmption privileges.

Legislation similar to the acts above referred to, was enacted until the year 1824, varying only in the extent of the proceeds granted.

By an act approved May 26, 1824, the State of Indiana was authorized to open and build a canal, and the right of way with 90 feet of land on each side thereof, was granted, subject to use and occupancy for the purposes specified. Nothing, however, was done under that act by the State; and on the 2d of March, 1827, it was superseded by an act of greater extent. On that day two acts were passed giving to Indiana and Illinois, respectively, certain lands in aid of the construction of canals, the first to connect the navigation of the Wabash River with the waters of Lake Erie, and the second to connect the waters of the Illinois River with those of Lake Michigan. A quantity of land, equal to one-half of five sections in width on each side of said canals, was granted, reserving to the United States each alternate section. The canals were to remain public highways for the use of the Government, free from toll or other charge whatever; were to be commenced in five years, and completed in twenty years, or the States were bound to pay to the United States “the amount of any lands previously sold”, and the titles of the purchasers under the States were to be valid.

As soon as the lines of the canals were fixed and the selections of land were made, the States had power to sell, and give fee simple title to the whole or any part of the lands.

These may, properly, be considered the initiatory concessions of lands in favor of internal improvements.

As stated, a grant for right of way had been made, but that right was solely one of use and occupancy. In this case the right of the States to sell became absolute upon the selection of the lands. To be sure, they were liable to repay the Government the price received by the sale of any of the lands, but the titles of their purchasers were to be in “fee”; and by such right of disposal they were enabled to realize at once on their grant, and thereby secure a speedier construction of the canals.

On the same day (March 2) there was also granted to Indiana a certain strip of land formerly held by the Pottawatamie Indians, or the proceeds from the sale thereof, to be applied in building a road from Lake Michigan, via Indianapolis, to some convenient point on the Ohio River.

On the next day (March 3) an act was approved granting to Ohio one-half of two sections along the entire line of a road to be constructed from Sandusky to Columbus.

By an act approved May 23, 1828, a grant of 400,000 acres of “the relinquished lands” in certain counties in Alabama was made in aid of the improvement of the Tennessee and other rivers in that State; and in case that amount of “said relinquished lands” could not be found unappropriated, the necessary quantity could be selected from another section of the State. Provision was made for the sale of the lands, at the minimum price, but in case said lands or the proceeds thereof were applied to any purposes other than that for which they were granted, the grant was to become null and void.

In this grant we find the first provisions for indemnity if the grant was not full by reason of prior sales or disposals by the Government. There, if the lands were not to be found “in place”, selections “in lieu” could be made from another county.

Grants like the one just referred to were made from time to time, differing but little in their character and extent.

By an act approved March 2, 1833, the State of Illinois was authorized to apply the lands granted by the act of March 2, 1827, for canal purposes, to the construction of a railroad instead; and the same restrictive impositions were continued.

This is the first act looking to the construction of a railroad through the assistance of land donations.

The railroad system was then but in its infancy, and the few miles built had been constructed by private means.

It is proper to add, however, that the State did not avail itself of the privilege granted, for it subsequently built a canal.

An act approved March 3, 1835, granted, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad by a corporation organized in Florida, the right of way through the public lands over which it might pass, thirty feet of land on each side of its line, and the right to take and use the timber for “one hundred yards” on each side for the construction and repair of said road; it was also granted “ten acres of land at the junction of the St. Mark’s and Waculla Rivers”, the point where said road terminated. This was the first right of way grant in favor of railroads, the previous grant having been for a canal.

Following this came an act approved July 2, 1836, granting the right of way “through such portion of the public lands as remain unsold”, not to exceed 80 feet in width, to the New Orleans and Nashville Railroad Company. The first section of that statute required that a description of the route and surveys should be filed in the General Land Office within sixty days after the survey. The second section granted for depots, watering-places, and workshops, essential to the convenient use of the road, certain plats of land, not exceeding five acres in any one spot, nor nearer than fifteen miles to each other.

The third section gave the company the right to take from the public lands earth, stone, or timber necessary for the construction of the road; and provided that unless the work was commenced within two years after the approval of the act, and completed within eight years thereafter, the grant should “cease and determine”. It provided, moreover, that if the road should be abandoned or discontinued, even after its completion, the grant was to “cease and determine”.

So far as can be learned, this road was never completed. It is inserted so fully for the purpose of showing the gradual growth of the system.

Next to this came a grant to the East Florida and other railroads, similar in general terms to those previously referred to. It required, however, the companies to file, with the Commissioner of the General Land Office, maps showing the location of their roads. This was to be done within six months after such locations. I am unable to find that any of those roads were ever constructed. Certainly, no evidence thereof was ever furnished the General Land Office.

A grant similar to the one to the New Orleans and Nashville company was made by act of March 3, 1837, to the Atchafalaya Railroad and Banking Company in Louisiana.

Many grants of like character and extent were made from time to time, as also donations in favor of various other internal improvements. The greatest of these latter, however, were the grants in aid of improving the navigation of the Des Moines River in Iowa, and the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers in Wisconsin, which were approved August 8, 1846.

The first of these made a grant to the then Territory of Iowa, for the purpose of improving “the navigation of the Des Moines River from its mouth to the Raccoon Fork (so called), in said Territory”, of “one equal moiety, in alternate sections, of the public lands (remaining unsold, and not otherwise disposed of, encumbered, or appropriated), in a strip five miles in width on each side of said river, to be selected within said Territory by an agent or agents to be appointed by the governor thereof, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States”. The second section provided that “the lands hereby granted shall not be conveyed or disposed of by said Territory, nor by any State to be formed out of the same, except as said improvements shall progress; that is, the said Territory or State may sell so much of said lands as shall produce the sum of thirty thousand dollars, and then the sales shall cease until the governor of said Territory or State shall certify the fact to the President of the United States that one-half of said sum has been expended upon said improvement, when the said Territory or State may sell and convey a quantity of the residue of said lands sufficient to replace the amount expended, and thus the sales shall progress as the proceeds thereof shall be expended, and the fact of such expenditure shall be certified as aforesaid.”

Section 3 declared that the river should forever remain a public highway for the use of the Government, free from toll or other charge whatever; and provided that the Territory or State should not dispose of the lands at a price less than the minimum price of public lands.

The grant to Wisconsin for the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers, though approved the same day, was somewhat different from the Des Moines grant. It provided that “there be, and hereby is, granted to the State of Wisconsin”, upon the admission of Wisconsin as a State (which, by the way, had been provided for by an act approved two days before), “for the purpose of improving the navigation of the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers in the Territory of Wisconsin, and of constructing the canal to unite the said rivers, at or near the portage, a quantity of land, equal to one-half of three sections in width on each side of said Fox River, and the lakes through which it passes from its mouth to the point where the portage canal shall enter the same, and on each side of said canal from one stream to the other, reserving the alternate sections to the United States, to be selected under the direction of the governor of said State, and such selection to be approved by the President of the United States”. The rivers, when improved, were to remain forever public highways for the use of the Government, free from toll; and the sections reserved to the United States were not to be sold for less than $2.50 per acre.

By the second section, the legislature of the State was to accept the grant and fix the price at which the lands were to be sold (at not less than $1.25 per acre), and adopt such kind and plan of improvement as was for the best interests of the State.

The provisions for the sale of the lands were the same as in the Iowa grant, except that the sum to be realized by such sales was fixed at $20,000.

Section 3 required the work to be commenced within three years after the admission of the State, and to be completed within twenty years, or the United States was to be entitled to receive the amount for which any of the lands may have been sold; the titles in the purchasers from the State were, however, to be valid.

The language employed in this statute was more definite than that used in the Des Moines grant, and in it is to be found the first provisions respecting the increase in price of the reserved sections.

Probably no grant of this character has received such widespread notoriety as the one for the improvement of the Des Moines River. It is owing, no doubt, in a great degree to the numerous conflicting decisions by the Executive Departments touching the extent of the grant. The Hon. R. J. Walker, Secretary of the Treasury (under whose supervision the Land Office then came), decided on the 2d of March, 1849, that the grant extended above the tributary of the Des Moines River commonly known as the Raccoon Fork. The Land Office soon thereafter passed from the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and was placed as one of the bureaus of the Home or Interior Department. The Secretary of this lately established branch of the Government (Hon. Thomas Ewing) decided on the 6th of April, 1850, that the grant did not extend above the Raccoon Fork. From that decision the State of Iowa appealed to the President, who laid the matter before the Attorney-General. That officer (Hon. Reverdy Johnson), on July 19, 1850, expressed an opinion confirmatory of the decision of Secretary Walker. The Secretary of the Interior, however, being determined in his views, did not adopt the opinion of the Attorney-General, and the Commissioner of the General Land Office wrote, under date of 26th September, 1850, to the President, reviewing and objecting to the opinion of Mr. Johnson. The President, having been again applied to by the State of Iowa to determine the matter, referred the whole question to the Attorney-General (then Hon. J. J. Crittenden). That officer, without delivering an opinion on the merits of the case, expressed the belief that the President ought not to interfere, but should leave such questions to the proper officers. The then Secretary of the Interior (Hon. A. H. H. Stuart) thereupon decided that the grant did not extend above the fork, but subsequently decided to approve the selections for lands above the fork. Attorney-General Cushing, on the 29th of May, 1856, expressed the belief that on the merits of the case the grant was limited to the Raccoon Fork, but as Secretary Stuart had approved selections above that point, such practical enforcement of the grant had better be continued. The view of Mr. Cushing was subsequently maintained by the Supreme Court of the United States in Railroad Company vs. Litchfield. (23 Howard, page 66). By the act of Congress approved July 12, 1862, the grant was extended to the northern boundary of the State, so as to include the alternate odd numbered sections lying within five miles of said river, upon the following conditions: The lands were to be held and applied in accordance with the provisions of the original grant, except that the consent of Congress was given to the application of “a portion thereof” to aid in the construction of the Keokuk, Fort Des Moines and Minnesota Railroad, in accordance with the provisions of an act of the general assembly of the State approved March 22, 1858.

It is well to state that the work of improving the river was abandoned, and the railroad was constructed instead.

Without examining the numerous right of way and other lesser grants, I desire to direct attention to what is generally considered the first railroad grant. Reference is made to the donation by the act of September 20, 1850.

By that statute a grant was made to the State of Illinois of “every alternate section of land designated by even numbers, for six sections in width on each side of” the road and branches therein provided for. The road to be built was from the southern terminus of the Illinois and Michigan Canal to a point at or near the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, with a branch of the same to Chicago, and another via the town of Galena, in Illinois, to the town of Dubuque, in Iowa.

The second section provided that should it appear that the United States had, when the lines of said road and branches were definitely fixed, sold any part of any section thereby granted, or that the right of preëmption had attached to the same, it should be lawful for any agent or agents (to be appointed by the governor of the State) to select so much land as would be equal to the tracts lost within the granted limits. This “indemnity” was to be selected within fifteen miles of the road and branches.

The third section provided that the sections and parts of sections which by the operation of the grant remained to the United States within six miles on each side of said road and branches, should not be sold for less than the double minimum price when sold.

Section 4 provided for the disposal of the lands, and declared that the road should remain a public highway for the use of the Government free from toll or other charge.

The fifth section declared within what period the roads should be completed, and provided that in the event of a failure on the part of the State to comply with the conditions of the grant, it was “bound to pay to the United States the amount which may be received upon the sale of any part of said lands by said State”. The title of the purchasers was to be valid, but the tracts not sold were to revert and revest in the United States.

Section 6 said that the mails were to be transported at all times at such price as Congress might direct.

By the seventh section the grant was extended, on the same terms and conditions, to the States of Alabama and Mississippi, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a road from Mobile to connect with the first above named road.

While this was not the first concession of lands in favor of railroads, it may properly be considered the initiatory measure of the present system. It granted specific sections instead of one-half of a certain number of sections; provided in positive terms for “indemnity” for lands lost to the grant; designated the manner in which the lands should be disposed of; increased the price of the reserved sections within the “granted” limits; provided for reversion in case of default, and virtually established a form of grant which was differed from but little in succeeding donations. It was the first railroad grant that became effective, for of all previous ones none appear to have been developed. The roads are now known as the Illinois Central and branches, and the Mobile and Ohio.

For the following two years no grants of importance were made, until by an act approved June 10, 1852, a donation was made to the State of Missouri for the construction of certain roads therein, now known as the Hannibal and Saint Joseph, and the Missouri Pacific, Southwest Branch. This grant was similar in character and extent to that to Illinois, save two sections—one providing for the disposal of the lands, and the other directing the Secretary of the Interior to offer at public sale, from time to time, at the increased price, the “reserved” or Government sections. The section respecting the disposal of the lands is as follows: “That the lands hereby granted to said State shall be disposed of by said State in manner following, that is to say: that a quantity of land, not exceeding one hundred and twenty sections on each road, and included within a continuous length of twenty miles of said road, may be sold; and when the governor of said State shall certify to the Secretary of the Interior that said twenty miles of road is completed, then another like quantity of land, hereby granted, may be sold; and so from time to time until said road is completed; and if said road be not completed within ten years, no further sales shall be made, and the lands unsold shall revert to the United States.”

With the exceptions stated, and the omission of the clause requiring the State to reimburse the Government for lands sold, the grants are identical.

That act was followed by an act approved February 9, 1853, making, under like conditions and impositions, a similar grant to Arkansas, in aid of certain roads in that State. In this, however, the clause or section directing the Secretary to “offer” the lands was omitted.

For the next three years Congress seems to have been quite as liberal in donations for other purposes, but no grants were made in aid of railroads, unless note be made of a grant to Minnesota by act of June 29, 1854, which was repealed in August following.

By that act there was granted to the Territory of Minnesota, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad from the southern line of said Territory, via Saint Paul, to the eastern line of the Territory in the direction of Lake Superior, “every alternate section of land designated by odd numbers for six sections in width on each side of said road within said Territory”; but in case it should appear that the United States had, when the line of the road was definitely fixed, sold any section or any part thereof granted, or that the right of preëmption had attached to the same, then it should be lawful for any agent or agents to be appointed by the governor of said Territory, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, to select lands from alternate sections within fifteen miles of the road to make up the deficiency. The lands granted were to be applied to the construction of the road only. Section 2 increased the price of the “reserved” tracts.

Section 3 provided that the lands should be disposed of by the legislature for the purposes aforesaid and were not to inure to the benefit of any company then constituted or organized. The road was to remain a highway, as in previous grants; and the lands could not be sold until they had first been “offered” at the increased price.

By section 4 no title was to vest in said Territory or patent issue for any part of the lands until a continuous length of twenty miles of said road had been completed; and when the Secretary of the Interior was satisfied that any twenty continuous miles of said road had been completed, then patent was to issue for a quantity not exceeding one hundred and twenty sections of land; and so on from time to time until the road was completed. If the road was not completed within ten years no further sales could be made, and the lands remaining unsold were to revert.

By an act approved August 4, 1854, the act of June 29, 1854, was repealed; and although four grants have been declared forfeited, for failure of the grantees to perform the required conditions, this is the only one which Congress has in terms repealed.

It is to be regretted that subsequent legislation was not as devoid of ambiguity. Had it been, much embarrassment might have been saved the Government. I refer particularly to that clause or section respecting the vesting of title and the manner in which the State was to acquire rights under the grant. By the terms thereof no patents were to issue except as the work of building the road progressed.

By the omission of such language from the grants subsequently made from time to time to as late as 1862, the Department of the Interior believed that the duty of “disposal” was properly in the States charged with executing the trusts; and in all the earlier grants, immediately upon the location of the roads and determination of the limits of the grants, certified, in whole, the lands to which the companies would ultimately have been entitled had the roads been completed as required. At that time there was but little doubt that all of the roads would be rapidly constructed; but the civil conflict very naturally put a stop to such extended improvements, and to-day about twenty railroads remain uncompleted, and the lands certified to the States for their use and benefit exceed by 1,058,295.86 acres the lands actually earned by the portions of the several roads constructed.

Out of the act of June 29, 1854, and the repealing statute a very interesting question arose, which received, ultimately, the consideration of the Supreme Court. A suit was brought in trespass by Edmund Rice against the Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Company, for cutting timber on a tract of land in Minnesota. The company, in its defense, set up title under the granting act aforesaid; to which plaintiff replied, reciting the repealing statute. On demurrer by the company, the question as to whether an interest had vested under said grant was thus fairly presented to the Supreme Court. That body decided, after elaborate review of the whole case, that the act of August 4 was “a valid law”, and that no interest, beneficiary or otherwise, had vested under the said grant.

In 1856, at different times, various grants were made to the States of Iowa, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Mississippi, and on the 3d of March, 1857, to Minnesota.

An examination of these grants—say the one to Iowa, it being first of the series—shows that, with the exception of the fact that the sections granted were designated by odd instead of even numbers, they were similar to the Missouri grant of 1852. The change there inaugurated was owing to the fact that certain even sections in each township had been previously given to the several States for school purposes, and in a grant embracing a large territory the difference to the railroad grants caused thereby would be considerable. From 1857 until 1862 Congress seems to have been otherwise engaged, for I am unable to find that any acts were passed during that period touching railroad grants.

By an act approved July 1, 1862, a new departure was taken. Certain persons were created into a body corporate under the title and name of the “Union Pacific Railroad Company”. The object thereof was the construction and maintenance of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean.

They were granted the right of way through the public lands to the extent of two hundred feet in width on each side of the line of road, together with the necessary grounds for stations, buildings, workshops, etc. They were also granted in aid of the construction of the road “every alternate section of public land”, designated by odd numbers, to the amount of five alternate sections per mile, on each side of the road; and all lands which had been disposed of or reserved, and mineral lands, were excepted.

Sections 5 and 11 of the act related to the issuance of bonds by the United States. Section 7 required the company to file a map of its general route, and directed the Secretary of the Interior to thereupon withdraw the lands within fifteen miles of such line.

Various other roads were provided for upon the same conditions, now known as the Central Pacific, Central Branch of the Union Pacific, Kansas Pacific, and Sioux City and Pacific.

As it is not the purpose of this inquiry to look into any provisions except such as relate to land donations, I will not pursue the sections respecting the issuance of bonds, payment of interest, etc. But, before proceeding further, it is proper to notice the changes inaugurated by that act.

In the first place, the grant was to a corporation direct, and not to a State in trust for one.

Second. It was not confined to any particular State or section, but was transcontinental in character, extending in this case more than half across our country.

Third. It was a grant ten miles in width on each side, instead of six, as in previous grants, and no provision was made for indemnity.

Fourth. It provided for the filing by the company of a map of its general or designated route (before definite location of its line); and upon the filing thereof the lands became legislatively reserved or withdrawn.

By an act approved July 2, 1864, this act was amended in several particulars, and instead of “five” sections “ten” were granted, thereby increasing the limits from ten to twenty miles on each side of the roads. The term “mineral land” was construed not to include “coal and iron land”.

By section 19 of this latter act a grant was made to the Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company, for the construction of a road from the Missouri River to some point not farther west than the one hundredth meridian of west longitude to connect with the Union Pacific road, of ten alternate sections per mile on each side of its line of road. It has been decided that this company was not confined to any limit, but could go far enough to secure the quantity granted, and it is the only railroad whose grant is not confined to lateral limits. By a proviso to the twentieth section, however, the company received no bonds.

The rapidity with which the Union Pacific road was constructed was surprising, and the whole progress of the work displayed a spirit of energy seldom seen in an undertaking of that character. The most positive achievements, however, were those of the Central Pacific Company. The construction of that road over the Sierras is considered by professional authorities as one of the greatest results of engineering. It crossed the maximum summit, of 7,042 feet above the sea, within one hundred miles of the Pacific tide waters, requiring a distribution of ascent really scientific to render it practicable, and, by using a minimum radius of 573 feet, secured, comparatively speaking, a direct alignment.

The two roads were completed and a junction effected May 10, 1869, and the initial transcontinental line was thereby finished.

By an act approved March 3, 1863, there was a grant made to the State of Kansas to aid in constructing certain railroads therein, now known as the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé; Leavenworth, Lawrence and Galveston, and Missouri, Kansas and Texas. It was of every alternate section of land designated by odd numbers for ten sections in width on each side of said roads. Indemnity was provided in ten additional miles and, except as to extent, it was not unlike the Iowa grant.

On the 5th of May, 1864, similar grants were made to the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin, and on the 12th of May to the State of Iowa. Various other grants followed of like character, differing only in few respects, to Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Kansas; as also grants for wagon roads. The latter were similar in terms to the railroad grants, save that three sections on either side of the roads were given instead of six or ten. The Northern Pacific was created July 1, 1864, and was very much like the Union Pacific grant, except in extent, being double the quantity through the Territories, with provision for “indemnity”. The Atlantic and Pacific and Southern Pacific grants were made by act of July 27, 1866; the Denver Pacific by act of March 3, 1869; the Southern Pacific (branch line) and Texas and Pacific by act of March 3, 1871.

Many of the grants made in early years were enlarged, and the time for their completion extended; but thus far only four grants have been declared forfeited. At present, however, about twenty grants have “lapsed” by reason of non-compliance with the terms of the granting acts, requiring completion within prescribed periods, and recommendations have been made urging proper legislation.

Neither time nor space permit an extended examination of every grant, but sufficient has been considered to point out the origin and growth of the system.

We have seen that the first donation was one-twentieth part of certain proceeds derived from the sale of lands; then ninety feet of land, followed soon by one-half of five sections per mile on each side; then by six sections; then by ten, and finally by twenty sections per mile on each side of the road.

If the lands granted, or in other words embraced within the limits of the grants, could be found available, the companies, not including those for canals or wagon roads, would receive, provided each built its road and complied with the laws, more than two hundred and fifteen million acres. That quantity if embraced in one compact body, would form an area of more than three hundred and thirty-five thousand square miles, or a tract of land more than seven times as large as the State of Pennsylvania, and only about six thousand miles less than the area of the thirteen original States. But, in fact, the grants will not realize near that quantity, and the estimate, as made by the Land Department, is only about one hundred and eighty-seven million acres.

By the aid of those grants, however, about fifteen thousand miles of road have been constructed. Those roads have been the means of developing vast fields of magnificent territory, and securing to the people many lesser lines built by private capital.

The various grants have been the subject of much explanatory, amendatory, and confirmatory legislation, and have also received numerous interpretations by the different courts. Of the latter, I deem it proper to refer only to the more important rulings of the Supreme Court which bear upon the fundamental principles underlying the whole system.

In nearly all grants, except the Pacific, provision has been made for indemnity in case it appeared, when the lines of the roads had been definitely fixed, that the United States had sold, disposed of, or reserved any of the sections or parts of sections contained within the grants. The theory has heretofore existed that “indemnity” was allowed for all tracts which might not be found subject to the operation of the grant; and selections have been permitted in lieu of such disposed of or reserved tracts.

A recent decision, however, casts some doubt upon the correctness of this theory. The question came up in a case from Kansas, under the act of March 3, 1863, and the court declared:

“We have before said that the grant itself was in præsenti, and covered all the odd sections which should appear, on the location of the road, to have been within the grant when it was made. The right to them did not, however, depend on such location, but attached at once on the making of the grant. It is true they could not be identified until the line of the road was marked out on the ground, but as soon as this was done it was easy to find them. If the company did not obtain all of them within the original limit, by reason of the power of sale or reservation retained by the United States, it was to be compensated by an equal amount of substituted lands. The latter could not, on any contingency, be selected within that limit. * * * It would be strange, indeed, if the [indemnity] clause had been intended to perform the office of making a new grant within the ten mile limit, or enlarging the one already made. Instead of this, the words employed show clearly that its only purpose is to give sections beyond that limit for those lost within it by the action of the government between the date of the grant and the location of the road. This construction gives effect to the whole statute, and makes each part consistent with the other.”

If it be thought, however, that such was not the intention of the legislators who framed the statutes, consolation can be found in the construction given to the clause inserted in every grant, substantially as follows: “And the said road shall remain a public highway for the use of the Government, free from toll or other charge upon the transportation of troops or other property of the United States.”

It is declared by the Supreme Court that the purpose of that clause was to allow the Government the right to place its locomotive engines and cars upon the railroad tracks, and to use such tracks as a public highway. The court say: “We are of opinion that the reservation in question secures to the Government only a free use of the railroads concerned; and that it does not entitle the Government to have troops or property transported by the companies over their respective roads free of charge for transporting the same.”

The section providing for the disposal of the lands, recited in full in the Missouri grant of 1852, has been construed as vesting in the State the right to sell one hundred and twenty sections of land, contained within a continuous length of twenty miles at any place along the grant, even though the road contemplated was never built; and the title acquired by purchase from the State is valid. And the clause with which the section referred to ends, to the effect that if the road be not completed within a certain time the lands shall revert to the United States, has been declared inoperative without further action by the Government, either legislative or judicial, looking to an enforcement of the reserved right.

Fears have been awakened as to the power to ultimately control these corporations, on account of the enormous extent to which they have expanded; but, as has been said by an able writer, “this evil, however, if it be such, will probably work its own cure.”

Be that as it may, their influences have been felt by all, and their benefits have extended to the remotest sections of our country. They have proved a bond between the eastern and western States—anxiously sought for by Washington when the lateral limits of the United States were less than half what they are at this time. They have united the Pacific with the Atlantic, and the Rocky Mountains of the west with the Alleghanies of the east. They have dispelled all ideas looking to the removal of the seat of Government, for they have put in direct communication the people of Oregon with the people of Maine. From ocean to ocean requires but days, where only a few years ago it required weeks.

In the past, long lines of moving wagons groaned beneath their loads of adventurous families, who at night, within the corral, seated themselves around the blazing camp fire, fearful of the dangers to which they were exposed. But the present has forgotten them. In their stead the ponderous wheels of frequent trains, moving with a speed surpassing that of the deer, traversing the valley and mountain, carry forward their loads of living freight; and, in place of dangerous encampments, provide means of sleep and refreshment, and afford the comforts of luxurious homes. The railway has brought to our doors the harvest of our fields; handed to our mints the vast resources of our mines, and opened to us direct communication with the older worlds. Its arms have extended into a hundred vales and over a hundred mountains, grasping in their embrace manifold evidences of civilization and prosperity.