PREFACE

In the preparation of this monograph valuable assistance has been received from many sources. It will not be possible to acknowledge all of these favors separately, but they are nevertheless remembered with gratitude.

Most of all I am indebted to Professor William A. Schaper, of the Department of Political Science of the University of Minnesota. The investigation was begun at his suggestion and pursued for four years under his supervision, which has been a constant source of inspiration. I am indebted to him for numerous valuable suggestions in regard to the form and subject matter of the monograph and for guidance in locating source material. I cannot overstate what I owe to his assistance.

Among other members of the faculty of the University of Minnesota to whom I am indebted for valuable suggestions, I wish to mention especially Mr. Cephas D. Allin and Mr. J. S. Young, of the Department of Political Science.

Most of the material has been found in the Library of the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota State Library at St. Paul, the Minnesota State Historical Library at St. Paul, and the office of the State Auditor. The help received from the staffs of these libraries and from State Auditor Iverson and his assistants is gratefully acknowledged.

Funds granted by the legislature for the prosecution and publication of research work have made it possible to place the results of this study at the disposal of those interested.

May 1, 1913.

MATTHIAS NORDBERG ORFIELD

INTRODUCTORY

It has been a practice of the United States government for a little more. than a century to make land grants to the new states, either at the time of their admission to the Union or subsequently. If these grants had been unrelated they would scarcely be worthy of study, but they are bound up with one another in such a way that the land grants to one state can not be fully understood without a thorough study of all the preceding grants. The practice has gradually developed into a well-defined policy, never departed from save in the case of states in which the federal government owned no public lands, and consequently had none to give, such as Maine, Texas, and West Virginia. It does not follow that the land grants to a state admitted to the Union in 1910 were the same as to one admitted in 1803 or in 1850. But there is traceable an unmistakable process of evolution. The land grants to California in 1853 or to Arizona in 1910 took the form they did largely because of the half-century or century of precedents.

How did there come to be a federal land grant policy? How did that policy develop into its present form? How have the states administered their heritage? It is the purpose of this dissertation to answer these questions.

The first question will necessarily take us back to a study of colonial land grants, for the antecedents of many of the more important features of the federal policy are to be found in the colonies or even in the mother country. The policy might conceivably be traced still further back, but this would lead us too far from the central theme.

In considering the second question it will be my purpose to show that the colonial land grants were an important factor in causing the national government to adopt a land grant policy, and to trace the evolution of that policy.

To give a complete answer to the third question would be much beyond the compass of such a work as this. The administration of the public lands will therefore be studied in detail in one state only, the investigation of the subject in the other states being confined to comparisons of the more important features. But that state will be a typical state, one which has received nearly all of the various kinds of federal land grants. Consequently, as the fairly uniform character of the federal land grants has brought to the various states nearly the same problems, the study of the administration of the public lands in this state will be, in a measure, a treatment of the subject in all.

Certain phases of the history of federal land grants have been worked

out by other men. Much of this work has been done well. But the only treatment of the subject as a whole is "The Public Domain," by Thomas Donaldson, which was published as a government document in 1883, and this is not accurate. For example, on page 217 Mr. Donaldson says: "The acts for the admission of all public-land States up to Nevada, gave to them all the salines not exceeding twelve in number in the respective States, together with six sections of land with each spring for school purposes and public improvements.'

There are six errors in this sentence. 1. Not "all public land states up to Nevada" received a grant of salt spring lands. Louisiana, Florida, and California did not. 2. "All the salines" not exceeding a specified number were not given in every case. Ohio received only certain springs that were named or located in the grant. 3. The maximum number of "salines" was not always "twelve." Illinois received all the springs reserved at the time of the grant, which was more than twelve. Indiana and Alabama were limited to six. 4. Two of the states, Ohio and Illinois, did not receive "six sections of land with each spring." 5. The grants were not "for school purposes." Congress did not state for what purpose the grants were made. 6. The grants were not "for public improvements."

It is especially unfortunate that Mr. Donaldson's errors sometimes reappear in the works of other men. On page 261 of his work on “The Public Domain," we find the following statement: "March 2, 1833, Congress authorized the state of Illinois to divert the canal grant of March 2, 1827, and to construct a railroad with the proceeds of said lands. This was the first Congressional enactment providing for a land grant in aid of a railroad, but was not utilized by the state." On page 360 of his doctor's dissertation, "A Congressional History of Railways in the United States to 1850," written at the University of Wisconsin, Lewis Henry Haney says: "In 1833 Congress first authorized the use of a donation of public land for railway purposes." This was not the first time Congress gave authority to use a land grant "for railway purposes." In 1830 the state of Ohio was authorized to use a canal land grant of 1828 for building a railroad to connect Dayton with Lake Erie. (See Laws of United States, VIII, page 282.) John Bell Sanborn, in his study of "Congressional Grants of Land in Aid of Railroads," another doctor's dissertation written at the University of Wisconsin, also appears to have overlooked the act of 1830, for it is not mentioned.