CHAPTER VI FINAL DEVELOPMENT AND PASSAGE OF THE The second half of the nineteenth century opened with two main points concerning a Pacific railway still at issue: what should be the route followed, and who should build it. The latter point, however, was soon to be settled in favor of private enterprise, assistance being furnished by the government. Propositions for a great national railway soon practically ceased and within two years the Whitney plan, which was all but national in its essence, appeared for the last time. Resolutions passed by the legislature of California and presented by Mr. Gwin of that state constitute one of the latest expressions favoring a purely national way.1 THE WHITNEY BILL: 1851-52 In 1852 the House committee on roads and canals introduced a bill on the plan proposed by Asa Whitney and recommended' it for passage holding it to be "the only constitutional plan for the accomplishment of this vastly important work perhaps for ages to come."2 Very briefly, the bill proposed to sell to Whitney a strip of land sixty miles wide from Lake Michigan or the Mississippi river to the Pacific, for which he would pay ten cents an acre upon the completion of the road. Whitney would get his funds from the sale and settlement of the lands as he progressed. Rates would be made on a cost basis and the mails be carried free of charge.3 The friends of the bill were able to make little progress. 1 Cong. Globe, 1850-51, p. 132. * Rep. of Com., 1851-52, no. 101. 2 For details of the bill see ibid.; Series 3: 409; reprint, vol. I, p. 243. or Bul. of U. of W., Econ. and Pol. Soi The committee admitted that there were a few persons who desired the government to undertake the work, but stated their belief that this would never be sanctioned by Congress or the people. In the Senate, Mr. Rusk (Tex.) of the committee on post office and post roads reported a modified Whitney bill, the modification consisting in a second route to extend from a point on the Mississippi north of Memphis via the Rio del Norte to San Diego or San Francisco. The proposed beneficiaries in the case of the second route were S. L. Seldon, R. T. Scott, and associates. Mr. Gwin gave notice that when the bill came up he would move to strike out the name of Asa Whitney and of every other individual named in it. It was not brought up again. GROWING PROMINENCE OF THE SOUTHERN ROUTE At about this time Mr. Freeman (Miss.) of the House committee on public lands argued for a so-called Atlantic and Pacific railroad, bringing the matter up in connection with a proposed land grant to Mississippi. West of the Mississippi the road would extend from Vicksburg to Shreveport and thence via El Paso del Norte to San Diego. By making a grant of land to the states and territories to be traversed Congress would "not only perform a bounden duty to those infant republics, but avoid the objection of establishing a system of internal improvements by the Federal government.' This measure came to nothing. One gets the impression that at this time the southern interests with their arguments for a southern route and in opposition to Whitney's plan were most active in Congress." Of such a tenor were memorials from the territory of New Mexico and a railway convention held at Little Rock, Ark., on July 4, 1852. The letter stated that it was universally conceded that the work was too great for private initiative unless a reasonable profit were guaranteed; and proposed a plan according Cong. Globe, 1851-52, p. 941. 5 Ibid., p. 1271, append., 9286. See e. g., speech by Howard (Tex.) in Cong. Globe, 1851-52, p. 776. "Sen. Misc., 1852-53, no. 36. to which the federal government would guarantee 5 per cent., on the cost, a maximum sum being stipulated.o PACIFIC RAILWAY BILLS IN 1853; APPROPRIATION FOR SURVEY The debates of 1853 were characterized by a crystalization of conservative and constitutional objections, while the probable necessity for a grant of funds, supplementing or replacing lands, was more clearly seen. A bill "authorizing the construction of a railroad and branches; for establishing a certain postal communication between the shores of the Pacific and Atlantic, within the United States; for the protection and facilities of travel and commerce, and for the necessary defense of the country" was introduced by Senator Gwin. This bill, which was a rather immense attempt to satisfy all the conflicting sectional interests, provided for a main line from Fulton, Ark., to San Francisco with branches to Dubuque (or Chicago), St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans, and Matagorda; and an Oregon branch was to extend northward from California. Funds were to be provided through a land grant of alternate sections twenty miles on each side in California and the territories, the construction to be carried on by contractors in the territories and by the states. By a later amendment, in Texas, where there were no public lands, $12,000 a mile was to be paid. If any state should not undertake its part of the construction of the road before the end of one year, the president, for the federal government, should-with the state's consent-construct the road, as in the territories. The chief objections raised against this bill were the greatness. of the project-its "magnificence," and its unconstitutionality. Moreover, Mr. Brooke (Miss.) and others believed the road could not be built from a land grant alone and proposed a substitute which authorized the secretary of the treasury to prepare $30,000,000 of interest bearing "Atlantic and Pacific Post-road stock," to be turned over to a properly organized and incorpor Ibid., no. 5. ated company in instalments as the road was constructed. The route would be determined by the company and was not to pass through any state without its consent, but any state which refused consent would be denied the benefit of any grant of lands thereafter. Various concessions and privileges were to be enjoyed by the United States in return, and the right to purchase the road after twenty years was reserved. This company appears to be the same as the Atlantic and Pacific railroad, referred to above in connection with the prominence of southern routes, and a New York corporation. It probably made more progress toward the organization and financing of a Pacific railway company than had been made before this time; and, in 1853, in spite of a money stringency, the sum of $12,800,000 was subscribed by Robt. J. Walker, Dr. Newcomb, and others.10 The substitute was objected to as creating a vast private monopoly and as being without sufficient safeguards for the government, and it was not accepted. Sectional interest was more directly aroused by the amendment offered by Mr. Chase (O.) to the effect that the railway should be built on the most direct and feasible route between San Francisco and some point on the Missouri not above Kanesville, Ia., nor below Independence, Mo.;11 and another by Mr. Bell (Tenn.) which indirectly favored a southern route.12 Neither was carried. 11 Finally, a Senate select committee having been appointed to take under consideration the whole subject, it reported the socalled Rusk bill, being a modification of the Gwin bill, and this Rusk bill was made the special order. As Mr. Geyer put it, the committee had before it various plans: "One of them looked toward the construction of this road out of the National Treasury, under the superintendence of the National Government; another proposed to make a road by the intervention of Cong. Globe, 1852-53, p. 314. It will be observed that a grant of money would probably profit the builders of a road more and more according to its shortness and so would lead a company to choose the southern route while a land grant would, other things being equal, have the opposite result. 10 Hunt's Merchants' Mag., 29: 462 (1853). 11 See ibid., p. 420. 12 Ibid., p. 341. |