OCR Text |
Show WHOSE PUBLIC LANDS? 23 and unconstitutional. On the other hand Senator Jacob Collamer of Vermont assailed the "grudging illiberality" of the new states to the old and Senator John Bell of Tennessee and Justin Smith Morrill argued that the western states had been treated with great generosity in the distribution of the public lands and it was time that the older states got some small benefit.54 When the new measure reached the voting stage one sees somewhat the same division that was reflected in the vote on the Bennett bill. New England was solidly favorable-28 to 0 in the House, 9 to 0 in the Senate; the Middle Atlantic states voted 38 to 16 in the House and 4 to 0 in the Senate; the Old South was strongly in opposition; and the public land states, and Texas, voted against- 27 to 43 and 8 to 15. The idea of sharing lands within their states either with eastern states or their assignees was still regarded most unfavorably.55 Buchanan's veto delayed the measure but in 1862 it was easily put through despite great opposition in the West; the amount per Representative and Senator in Congress was increased to 30,000 acres.56 Thus New York State became entitled to receive scrip for 990,000 acres, Pennsylvania for 780,000 acres, Ohio for 630,000 acres. Altogether 18 non-public-land states received scrip for 5,250,000 acres; three states in which the public lands were exhausted-Ohio, Indiana, Illinois- received scrip for 1,500,000 acres; and five public land states of the South-Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi -which seceded received 900,000 acres in M Cong. Globe, 35th Cong., 1st sess., April 20, 1858, p. 1895; 35th Gong., 2d sess., Feb. 1 and 7, 1859, pp. 722, 856; 37th Cong., 2d sess., May 22, 1862, p. 2275; and 40th Cong., 1st sess., March 26, 1867, p. 347. 85 The vote of the Representatives and Senators by states is given in Paul W. Gates, The Wisconsin Pine Lands oj Cornell University (Ithaca, N. Y., 1943), p. 20. b*Cong. Globe, 35th Cong., 2d sess., Feb. 26, 1859, pp. 1412, 1414; 12 Stat. 503. For the state-by-state vole in 1862 see Gates, op. cit., p. 22. scrip rather than land when they were restored to the Union, though they still contained an abundance of public land. The greatest anomaly in the act was the donation of 180,000 acres in scrip toTexas, which possessed its own huge supply of public lands. A total of 7,830,000 acres in scrip was thus distributed. Was the distribution fair? The older states certainly had no reason to complain. On the other hand it annoyed the West that Massachusetts, for example, received the equivalent of 360,000 acres while Missouri, which was eight times larger, received only 330,000 acres, or that Minnesota received the same grant that tiny Rhode Island was given.57 The withdrawal from Congress in 1861 of the Southern Representatives, who were mostly strict constructionists, made it easier for the Federal government to assist internal improvements in the West. No longer was it necessary to use the public lands as an indirect device to provide Federal subsidies for canals, railroads, and later for education. The change can be seen in proposals for building a ship canal around the Falls at Niagara. Before 1861 it was thought that only a land grant could accomplish the objective. After the withdrawal of the Southerners a land grant was no longer talked about. Instead an outright cash appropriation was proposed. True, no action was taken to appropriate money for this enterprise but the opposition to it was based on grounds other than constitutionalism. Although the constitutional straight]acket was loosened, the donation of public lands or the income derived from them continued to be a favorite device to give aid to education and to assure some direct benefits to the old states. A scattering of bills continued to be offered proposing, among other things, land grants to each state to aid in the support of women's colleges and a donation of 2 million acres for the benefit of public schools in the 57 A summary of all the land grants to states, including the A & M grants is available in the GLO Annual Report, 1932, pp. 45 ff. |