CHAPTER III

FEDERAL LAND GRANTS FOR THE SUPPORT OF UNIVERSITIES

We have noted that at the time when the early American statesmen were shaping the policy of the national government in regard to the support of higher education, Virginia, Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire had recently entered upon a policy of land grants for the support of colleges and universities, while in Massachusetts and Connecticut this system was century-old and thoroughly established.

A delegate from one of these states first suggested to Congress the expediency of reserving part of the western lands for the support of higher education. In 1783, in moving the acceptance by Congress of the cession of lands by Virginia, Colonel Bland of that state proposed that out of every one hundred thousand acres there should be reserved for the use of the United States ten thousand, the profits of which should be devoted to the payment of the civil list of the United States, the erection of frontier forts, the founding of seminaries of learning, and the surplus, if any, to the building and equipping of a navy. It is worthy of remark that Virginia had used public land for all of these purposes except the last. The exact attitude of Congress toward this proposition we have no means of determining, for the matter was referred to a committee and never came to a vote.2

But this we may say with certainty: there was in Congress at this time no general interest in the matter of federal land grants for the support of higher education, for when the Ordinance of 1785 was under consideration and land reservations for various purposes were proposed, no man suggested that public land should be devoted to the encouragement of universities. The influence which was to establish this policy came, not from within the national legislature, but from without. In the preceding chapter reference was made to the organization of the Ohio Company. The promoters of the new movement were interested in the western lands, not merely as a profitable investment, but as a home for themselves and their children, for many of them were planning to remove to the newer New England west

1 Bancroft, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States, appendix, 312-313; Journals of Congress, 8: 199. George Bancroft, on page 312 of the appendix of the work referred to, states that Bland's motion was made on June fifth. This is evidently not the correct date, for in the Journals of Congress for June 4, 1783, vol. 8: p. 199, there appears the following statement: "The committee, to whom was referred a motion of Mr. Bland for accepting the cession of territory made by the legislature of the commonwealth of Virginia report, etc." 2 Journals of Congress, 8: 199.

of the Alleghanies. Many of them were college-bred men. They were about to place a barrier between themselves and the cultural advantages of the East. Under the circumstances we should expect them to seek to acquire the means wherewith to create new centers of culture within reach of their prospective homes. Moreover, they knew that the venture on which they were embarking would be successful from the financial point of view just to the extent to which they could make the new region attractive to possible emigrants from the northern states, men to whom educational advantages would be certain to appeal.

Of the three directors, Rufus Putnam, Samuel Parsons, and Manasseh Cutler, the first had been a member of the Massachusetts legislature when it added to the land endowment of Harvard University; the second was a graduate of this very University; and all were residents of one or the other of the two states that for a long time had followed the policy of making land grants for the support of their great educational institutions.

Only one of these men, however, appears to have taken an active part in securing a land grant for a university as a condition of the purchase which the company was negotiating. In connection with the study of the school lands we have seen how Manasseh Cutler, as agent of the Ohio Company in the purchase of land from Congress, demanded the donation of four townships within the area to be purchased, for the support of a university, and, finally, after meeting a great deal of opposition, succeeded in wringing from Congress a grant of half this amount.

If we may trust the memory of the central figure in this transaction when, in a letter to his son thirty-one years later, he comments upon the part he bore at the time of the application to Congress for the purchase, it was Cutler alone who had "an idea of asking for such grants." His assistant in the negotiation, however, Sargent, another man trained at the land-endowed university of Massachusetts, is given credit for having extended his cordial aid in surmounting the difficulties in the way.*

As noted in a former chapter, this was the first step toward the inauguration of a federal policy of granting lands for the support of universities. While the immediate reason for the grant was the insistent demand of Cutler and the pressing financial necessities of Congress, of which he took advantage in driving his bargain, surely we may say that back of these immediate circumstances, suggesting the plan to Cutler and making it seem not altogether new and revolutionary to the members of Congress, was the almost universal prevalence of land grants for some purpose, as well as the dedication of public land to this particular purpose by the majority of the states.

The second grant of United States land for the promotion of higher

3 Cutler, Life, Journals, and Correspondence of Manasseh Cutler, 1: 191-192.

4 Ibid., 2: 321.

education was made a few weeks later in connection with the sale of a large tract of land to John Symmes. The same conditions as had been given to Cutler and Sargent were asked and allowed, except that only one township was granted for the support of a university."

Both of these were grants not to the land companies, but in effect to the future state, it being especially provided that they were "to be applied to the intended object by the legislature of the state.” As both the Ohio Company's purchase and the Symmes purchase were within the limits of the state of Ohio that state fell heir to three townships of university land. The two contracted for by Cutler were selected in 1795. The third was definitely secured in 1803 by a grant which took the place of the one in the Symmes purchase.s

So far, however, there was nothing to indicate that Congress had adopted the university land grant as a part of its policy. The incidents mentioned above were merely the carrying-out of the contracts to which it had become a more or less unwilling party in 1787. But at the opening of the next century a step was taken which showed that Congress looked upon these grants as precedents. In 1804 the secretary of the treasury was directed to locate a township of land for the use of a seminary of learning in each of the three land districts of the then territory of Indiana, which included the entire Northwest Territory, except the state of Ohio. So far as we can learn from the incomplete records of this period the measure met no opposition in Congress. 10 The reserved townships ultimately went to the states of Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan.

From this time on land grants for the support of universities can be looked upon as part of the federal land grant policy. Every public land state admitted after this time has received a grant for the use of a "seminary of learning" or a "state university."

It is proper at this point to consider the unique case of Tennessee. By the act of 1806, more fully examined in the foregoing chapter, Congress required Tennessee to set apart 100,000 acres in one tract for the use of two colleges, one in east and one in west Tennessee, and 100,000 acres for the use of academies, one in each county in the state." Forty years later, when the lands in the western division were ceded to the state, the condition was that $40,000 out of the proceeds should be set apart for a college at Jackson.12

In the further consideration of these land grants special attention will be paid to the following matters: the time and the amount of the grant, the selection of the lands, and the extent of national control.

7 Knight, Land Grants for Education in the Northwest Territory, 117.

8 Laws of the United States, 3: 542-543.

Ibid., 3: 598.

10 Annals of Congress, 8 Congress, 1 session.

11 Laws of the United States, 4: 40.

12 Statutes at Large, 9: 66.

Unwilling to entrust the territorial legislatures with the disposal of the university lands Congress has not, as a rule, granted such lands to territories. It has, however, been anxious to see the universities of the future states secure good lands and has therefore resorted to the same expedient as in the case of the school lands, reservation before the best tracts had been disposed of by sale or private entry, followed by transfer of title at a later period. This practice has been departed form in only five cases, California, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, and Colorado. The first of these, a full-fledged commonwealth clamoring for admission to the Union before Congress had had time to say that it might be a territory, called for a grant of university lands and not for a reservation; the other four were perhaps forgotten in the turmoil of civil war and reconstruction. In nearly every instance the reservations have been made before the territory became a state.18

15

14

Only five times has Congress granted university lands to territories. In 1836 the territory of Florida was authorized to sell one-half of the land reserved for a university. In 1850 Congress granted two townships to the territory of Oregon, which then also included the present state of Washington. This was perhaps an oversight, for four years later Congress changed the grant to a reservation.16 It is almost needless to say that this could not alter the character of the original grant. In 1881 two townships were granted to each of the following territories: Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Arizona. This act certainly transferred title to the university lands to these territories. The intention, however, was not to make the grant immediately available, for it was provided that the lands should be for the use of the universities upon the admission of the territories to the Union.1 In 1898 two townships reserved in 1854, sixty-five thousand acres of non-mineral land, and all the saline lands in New Mexico were granted to the territory for the use of a university.18 Ohio also secured title to the university lands while still a territory. The circumstances have been explained above.

The enabling act or the act admitting to the Union has been chosen as the proper measure in which to transfer or confirm title to the university land. Only Louisiana,19 California,20 and Nevada21 have had to wait for their first grant until after their admission. Several states, however, have received additional grants at a later period.

The two townships of land reserved "for the purposes of a university" in the tract sold to the Ohio Company in 1787 became the precedent that

13 Laws of the United States; Statutes at Large.

14 Laws of the United States, 9: 433.

15 Statutes at Large, 9: 499.

16 Ibid., 10: 305.

17 Ibid., 21: 326.

18 Ibid., 30: 484-485.

19 Laws of the United States, 7: 605-606; House Miscellaneous Documents, 13 Congress, 2 session, no. 18, 3-4, C. S., 544.

20 Statutes at Large, 10: 248.

21 Ibid., 14: 85.

was followed in determining the amount of subsequent grants to the states. Many states, to be sure, have received additional grants, but in every case there has been a reason for departing from the rule.

It is also proper to mention that in 1819 certain members of Congress sought to secure for each state in the Union a grant of 100,000 acres for university purposes. But the committee on public lands vigorously opposed the measure, on the ground that the lands would all have to be located in western states, that settlement might be impeded by the withholding of the land from sale, and that the value of the public lands might be diminished.22 Taking the states up for consideration in the order of their admission to the Union we find that Ohio received three townships, the three granted for university purposes in the two great land sales of 1787. Louisiana received two townships. Indiana received two townships at its admission to the Union. In 1806 one of these was given by the territorial legislature to Vincennes University and 4,166 acres of this township were sold. The remainder was taken away from the first grantee in 1822 and given by the legislature to the State Seminary at Bloomington, which later became the University of Indiana. In 1845 the trustees of Vincennes University laid claim to the unsold lands and to the funds derived by the state from the lands sold. In order to protect the occupants of the land from litigation the state permitted itself to be sued. After many years the matter was settled by the Supreme Court of the United States in favor of Vincennes University.28 In the meantime Congress, in response to the appeals of Indiana, came to the assistance of the state university, first, by granting to the state for its use 4,166 acres to take the place of the lands sold by Vincennes University; and, second, by the grant of a township, when the Supreme Court decided adversely to the interests of the state institution.25 Indiana has thus received three townships and an extra 4,166 acres for university purposes. In addition Vincennes University received a grant of several thousand acres in 1873.20

The next state, Mississippi, presents an unusual situation. While it was still a territory Congress granted a township of land to Jefferson College, a private institution of learning located in Mississippi.27 The township selected fell within the territory of Alabama when the territory of Mississippi was divided. In 1819, however, when Congress made its grant of university lands to Mississippi, it looked upon the township granted to Jefferson College as a grant to the state and, consequently, gave but one additional township.28 This condition of affairs was called to the attention

22 State Papers, 2 Congress, 13 session, no. 97, C. S., 22.

23 Indiana v. Trustees of Vincennes University, 14 Howard, 268.

24 Statutes at Large, 10: 14.

25 Ibid., 267.

26 Ibid., 17: 614.

27 Laws of the United States, 3: 551-552; 4: 377-378.

28 Ibid., 6: 374.