OCR Text |
Show 26 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT patient advocacy by Morrill, a speech by Burnside that fills 15 columns of the Congressional Record, and speeches by Hoar and Blaine maneuvered the bill into such a situation that few Senators dared vote against it, for they would be voting against aid to education in which all professed to believe. Senators dubious about the bill for one reason or another had tried to make it innocuous by loading it down with amendments and when they failed, absented themselves from the final vote. It was a triumph for Morrill that 41 votes were cast for the measure and only six from the most confirmed states' rights Senators against. At the time, few could have foreseen that the West would succeed in carrying a counter proposal that would provide for the use of the net income from the public lands for reclamation development in the far western states. It was notable, however, that with the exception of the two Senators from Colorado, all the Senators from the states to be so greatly benefited from later Federal subsidy to reclamation abstained from voting for Morrill's bill.62 Tighter House rules made it possible to bottle up the Senate bill in committee and the movement to use the proceeds from public land sales for public education in all states thus failed. Morrill and Blair were not discouraged and continued their efforts, year after year. They were ably supported by a series of agricultural conventions called in part to amass support for further aid to agricultural education and to provide grants for the financing of agricultural experiment stations. In 1887 came the first fruits of this long-sustained effort to give further government 62 The Senators from California, Oregon, Kansas, and Nebraska abstained from voting; the Nevada Senators had not taken their seats when the vote was held. Of the other public land states both Senators from Minnesota, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, and Illinois and one each from Iowa, Mississippi and Louisiana voted favorably. It was, however, an East-inspired measure. Cong. Record, 46th Cong., 3d sess., Dec. 15, 17, 1880, pp. 147, 227, 229. aid to agriculture through appropriations from the proceeds of public land sales. In that year, Congress adopted the Hatch Act (sponsored by William Henry Hatch of Missouri), which authorized appropriations of $15,000 out of the proceeds of public land sales, for agricultural experiment stations in each state and territory. Thus, harking back to Clay's measures of 1832 and 1841, a modest form of distribution designed to benefit all states was adopted. The Appropriation Act of 1888, however, provided the money out of unearmarked funds in the Treasury, thereby cutting off the relationship with public land sales.63 Perhaps the small victory which the older states gained in 1887 encouraged Senator Henry Blair who had assumed leadership in the movement to divert the income from public land sales to a general education fund. He devoted many hours in 1890 to reading letters and telegrams from educational leaders in all parts of the country supporting his measure, but members of Congress seemed to be tired of the issue and he got nowhere with it.64 Morrill was more realistic than Blair: realizing that support for general aid to public schools by the Federal government was waning, he wanted to salvage something from his long efforts to aid the A & M institutions, with which he was much more concerned than public schools. After all, New England had long since tackled its common school problem and had greatly reduced illiteracy. If the balance of the country would not give the necessary number of votes, why continue the battle? Instead, Morrill proposed that an appropriation of $15,000 yearly be made to each state and territory for its land grant institutions; the money was to come from the proceeds of 63 Act of March 2, 1887, 24 Stat. 441 and Act of Feb. 1, 1888, 25 Stat. 32. 64 So long and tedious were some of Blair's speeches that they read at times almost like a filibuster. See numerous speeches in Cong. Record, 51st Cong., 1st sess., 1890, esp. pp. 1996 ff. |