OCR Text |
Show AN INCONGRUOUS LAND SYSTEM 455 widely as possible among the people, and should be disposed of either under the preemption or homestead laws, or sold in reasonable quantities, and to none but actual occupants. . . ." They also urged that in aiding public improvements the proceeds from the sale of land, not the land itself, should be offered. Railroad land grants were finally ended in 1871 but before that date their opponents had endeavored to include in the later grants a homestead clause requiring that the lands be sold in quarter-section tracts at $2.50 an acre to settlers only. Though included in some later grants, this clause was disregarded as being meaningless unless the General Land Office and Congress were prepared to compel the railroads to abide by it. In 1872 and again in 1876 both Republicans and Democrats in their national conventions declared that the public lands should be held for settlers and expressed opposition to further grants of land to railroads. Both parties took essentially the same stand in 1880, 1884, and 1888, but the West was now demanding more. Its position was reflected in the Greenback Party platform of 1880 which called for the forfeiture of railroad land grants which had not been earned by construction or the owners of which had not conformed to the requirements of the law, and it demanded that the forfeited lands be held for settlers only. Both Republicans and Democrats adopted similar statements in 1884 while the Greenback Party urged the prohibition of alien ownership of land. By 1888 the more advanced parties were calling for land limitation, something Greeley had urged in 1862, the exclusion of aliens from ownership of land, exemption of homesteads from execution for debt or taxes, and the single tax.40 This quick summary of party platform statements on 40 Edward Stanwood, History of the Presidency (Boston, 1898), summarizes the platforms of all the parties. land questions reflects the effort of politicians to meet the increasing demands of the West for land reform. Hostility to railroads was a new phenomenon in the West. Earlier, in the fifties, every effort had been made to move Congress to grant lands for railroads no matter how dubious the projects might be, and scores of cities, towns, and counties, and some states not previously affected by the mania for state construction, had voted large sums to assist the construction of railroads. In the fifties the State of Missouri contributed $23,701,000 to railroads and local governments extended $8,335,000 in further aid. In Illinois local governments lent railroads $22 million, in Wisconsin $7,250,000, in Minnesota Territory $2,250,-000, and in Iowa $7 million.41 The tide of public opinion began to turn against the railroads in the late sixties, and reached its height in the seventies. Among the factors accounting for this reversal of attitude was the failure of some companies to build their lines; others diverted their lines from routes originally suggested; some railroads withheld their lands from sale and development; there was resentment against their pricing and collection policies, and against the fact that the railroads were not paying taxes on their unsold lands and were discriminating against the small shipper in both service and rates. The West, or a considerable body of thought in the West, now turned against the railroads and demanded that no further grants be made to them, that further restrictions be placed in measures 41 Harry Pierce was one of the first to study municipal, town, and county aid to railroads in his Railroads of New York. A Study of Government Aid, 1826-1875 (Cambridge, Mass., 1953). A valuable study is Kathleen Bessie Jacklin, "Local Aid to Railroads in Illinois, 1848-1870" (Master's thesis, Cornell University, 1957) . Carter Goodrich has brought together the statistical summaries of government aid in Government Promotion of American Canals and Railroads, 1800-1890 (New York, 1960) . |