| OCR Text |
Show GRANTS TO STATES ON ADMISSION TO UNION 303 that California was asking land "far exceeding any grant that was ever made to any other new state."54 After one of the longest and angriest debates on record, in which the pro-slavery Senators and Representatives, a minority of both Houses, virtually halted the business of Congress while they spun out theoretical discussions, as farfetched as that of Pierre Soule, concerning the danger that California might assume ownership of the public lands within its borders, Congress finally was permitted to vote on a bill to admit California. On August 13, 1850, the Senate passed the measure by a vote of 34-18 and on September 7, the House adopted it 150-56.55 The act contained a tighter disclaimer clause than the usual one for other states. California was admitted on the "express condition" that there should be no interference with the primary disposal of the public lands, that the state should "pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to, and right to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned," should never tax the public lands nor tax the property of nonresidents higher than that of residents. The pro-slavery element in Congress became so emotional and the attacks upon the peculiar institution by the anti-slavery leaders so sharp that Congress made no effort at the time to specify the grants it would allow California and instead added an amendment to the measure providing that "nothing herein contained shall be construed as recognizing or rejecting the propositions tendered in the ordinance of the convention."56 Hostility to the admission of California as a free state and the way in which Cali- 64 App., Cong. Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., June 24, 1850, p. 963. Soule's argument that Douglas tried to meet, concerning the certainty that California would acquire full ownership of all the public lands within its borders if it was admitted under the proposed legislation of 1850, is in ibid., pp. 960-67. 55 Cong. Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., pp. 1573, 1772. 56 Act of Sept. 9, 1850, 9 Stat. 453. fornians went about creating their state and banning slavery, together with the feeling that its rich endowment in gold made liberality toward it less necessary, may account for the fact that of all public land states it was dealt with in the most niggardly manner. In fact it was not until 1853 that California was assured its share of the public lands.57 True, it was the first state to be given two sections for public schools, though Oregon had been promised two, and California was given 6,400 acres for public buildings, and 46,080 acres for a seminary (less than Florida).58 California did not receive salt springs and adjacent sections, 5 percent of the net proceeds from land sales, direct grants for railroads (a small grant of 231,000 acres was quickly revoked) or wagon roads as Minnesota, Kansas, and Oregon had, or the double allotment of land for internal improvements or the four sections in each township that it had asked for. What bothered Californians the most was that unlike Oregon, New Mexico, and all other territories acquired from other countries, its residents were not allowed the same free grants. Also, Californians were distressed that Congress delayed setting up a commission to adjudicate the Spanish and Mexican land claims until 1851 and until 1853 before providing for the survey of public lands and the establishment of land offices. Furthermore, they had good reason to complain that no public lands were open for sale until 1857 and that preemption on unsurveyed lands was allowed only for a limited time whereas in Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Kansas, and Nebraska Territories preemption on unsurveyed lands was early made permanent. 57 10 Stat. 244. 58 One of the many oddities of land legislation is that Wisconsin, as admitted by the Act of Aug. 8, 1848, was to have only one school section in each township (as provided for in the Enabling Act of Aug. 6, 1846) whereas Oregon by its Organic Act of August 14, 1848, just 6 days after the signing of the Wisconsin measure, was to have two sections. |
