In the first grant of salt spring lands Congress itself selected the springs and designated what lands should go with them. The other grants prior to 1820 were also for the most part selected by the federal government." In 1820, in the enabling act of Missouri, the duty of selecting the springs and the land was conferred upon the state legislature.88 After 1857 this duty fell to the state governor. The lands granted in lieu of the swamp, salt spring, and internal improvement lands after 1889 were selected in the same manner as the university lands.

39

35 Ibid., 485; "Report Commissioner General Land Office," 1907, Reports of Department of Interior, Administrative Reports, 1, 162, C. S., 5295.

36 Statutes at Large, 36: 562-563, 573.

37 Laws of the United States, 3: 498; 6: 68, 294, 382.

38 Ibid., 6: 458; 9: 394-395; 10: 770; Statutes at Large, 9: 58.

39 Statutes at Large, 11: 167, 384; 12: 127; 13: 49; 18: 476.

During the first half of the nineteenth century Congress sought to exercise certain control over the leasing of the salt spring lands. Up to 1820 no state might lease such lands for more than ten years. States admitted after 1820 were allowed to make leases for a longer period with the consent of Congress. Wisconsin in 1846 and all states receiving the grant subsequently were given a free hand in disposing of the lands.*0

The control over the sale of the lands has followed a similar course; absolute prohibition for states admitted before 1820;41 from 1820 to 1845, prohibition, modified by the stipulation that the lands might be sold providing the consent of Congress should first be obtained;42 from 1846 to 1875, all restrictions withdrawn.43

The prohibition on the sale of the land was removed by subsequent acts. The first of these came in 1816, when Ohio was authorized to sell one section to build a court-house in Jackson County." Eight years later the state was allowed to sell the balance of the grant, the proceeds to be used for "literary purposes."45

The resulting fund, which ultimately amounted to $41,024.05, was made a common school fund in 1827. From 1835 to 1845 the interest was distributed to the common schools. After 1845 no distribution was made, and now the fund has disappeared.**

In 1832 Indiana was authorized to sell, the proceeds to be applied to "the purpose of education."47 The minimum price was fixed at one dollar and twenty-five cents an acre, but in 1852, when the best lands had been sold, this provision, at the request of the state, was repealed. The proceeds have been devoted to the support of common schools.**

48

Illinois was authorized to sell her lands by acts of 1828, 1831, 1832, and 1847. In the disposition of the proceeds the state was given a free hand.50 Missouri received permission to sell in 1831, the resulting fund to be applied "forever" "for the purpose of education in said state." The proceeds have been incorporated with the common school fund."1 Arkansas and Michigan were authorized to sell in 1847, and Iowa in 1862, without any stipulation as to the use of the proceeds.52

Except as indicated above there have been no limitations on the use of the proceeds derived from the sale of the salt spring lands. Of only one

40 Laws of the United States; Statutes at Large.

41 Ibid., 3: 498; 6: 69, 295, 383.

42 Ibid., 6: 458; 9: 394; 10: 770.

48 Statutes at Large, 9: 58; 11: 166, 384; 12: 128; 13: 49; 18: 475.

44 Laws of the United States, 6: 62.

45 Ibid., 7: 334.

46 Knight, "Land Grants for Education in the Northwest Territory," American Historical Association, Papers, 1: no. 3, 59-60.

47 Laws of the United States, 8: 643.

48 Statutes at Large, 10: 15.

49 Knight, "Land Grants for Education in the Northwest Territory," American Historical Association, Papers, 1: no. 3, 73-74.

50 Laws of the United States, 8: 117, 430, 517; Statutes at Large, 9: 182.

51 Swift, Public Permanent Common School Funds in the United States, 322.

52 Statutes at Large, 9: 182; 10: 7.

state, Missouri,5 has Congress required that the fund derived from the salt spring lands should be permanent, and in no case has there been any provision to insure the safe investment of the fund. The latter policy was not developed until long after the salt spring lands had passed beyond national control.

Reference has been made in former chapters to the trend during the last twenty-five years in the direction of greater and greater national control over school and university lands. It is surprising to find that the land grants in lieu of the swamp, salt spring, and internal improvement lands were not at once included in this movement. In many cases, it is true, no provision could be made for the permanence of the resulting fund, for by the very nature of the grant the fund could not be permanent. But, with this exception, it is by no means apparent why these lands should not have been hedged about with the same safeguards as the school and university lands.

Before the admission of Arizona and New Mexico there were only two restrictions on the disposal of these lands. In 1890 Idaho and Wyoming were forbidden to sell any of their lands for less than ten dollars an acre.54 Oklahoma in 1906 was prohibited from leasing any of its mineral lands except in a manner prescribed, with which we are already familiar.55 Not until 1910 did Congress perceive the inconsistency of its course. In the act

of that year for the admission of Arizona and New Mexico, all lands were put into one class in the matter of leasing and sale, exemption from mortgage, minimum price, and investment and safeguarding of the proceeds.56

CHAPTER V

THE PUBLIC BUILDING LANDS

From our study of colonial land grants we are familiar with the fact that in several of the colonies community land was given as sites for public buildings, such as churches, schools, and court-houses. The first federal land grants for public buildings were devoted to the same purpose. They were intended for capitol grounds. While it is impossible to trace the origin of the federal policy to the colonial precedents and while it is not improbable that there may be no well-defined connection, it is very likely that there were men in the Congress of 1816, when the first grant of this character was made, who were familiar with the colonial practice.

Indiana was the first state to receive this grant. Four sections of land were given, "for the purpose of fixing their seat of government thereon," Like the school, the university, and the salt spring grants, this grant was one of the considerations for the agreement on the part of the state not to tax United States land for five years after the day of sale.1

Every public land state except Ohio and Louisiana has received a grant of land for public buildings. But the purpose of the grant has been changed in one important respect. The first five states, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, and Missouri, received the grant in its original form, for a seat of government. Thereafter most of the new states received the grant, not for a seat of government, but to defray the cost of erecting the public buildings. The transition began in 1824, when the territory of Florida received one quarter-section of land for the "seat of government" but with authority to sell a portion of the grant in order to raise funds for public buildings. In 1827 another quarter-section was given, the first grant solely for a building fund. Two years later six more were added, four of these for the same purpose and two for the use of the future state. In 1831 ten sections were granted to the territory of Arkansas to erect a public building at Little Rock. In 1836, when the territory became a state, five additional sections were given for the same purpose." The last grant for the original purpose was made to Florida in 1845.8

In its original form the extent of the grant for a seat of government was limited by its purpose, generally to four sections, or four square miles, but varying in amount from two sections to Mississippi' to eight sections to the state of Florida.10 When the purpose of the grant was changed the amount was gradually increased. Arkansas11 and Michigan12 each received five sections at the time of their admission to the Union in 1836. This was increased to ten sections for Wisconsin 18 in 1846; twenty, for Nevada 14 and Nebraska 15 in 1864; and fifty, for Colorado 16 in 1875. After 1875 the amount of the grant has remained at fifty sections with the exception that Utah, owing to the arid character of its unappropriated lands, was given a double grant, and that the grant to Oklahoma took another form.

In 1893, by proclamation of President Cleveland, the Pawnee Indian Reservation, the Cherokee Outlet, and the Tonkawa Indian Reservation were opened to settlement, subject to certain reservations. Among these was one of section thirty-three in each township" for public buildings.18 This reservation was confirmed by Congress the next year.19 The land thus reserved was granted to Oklahoma when it entered the Union in 1906.20 It amounts to 274,228 acres and is the largest of the public building grants.

28

In 1864, in addition to the usual grants for public buildings, Congress began to give land for state penitentiaries. Nevada" received twenty sections and Nebraska fifty.22 In 1875 Colorado 23 received fifty sections for the same purpose. Two of the states admitted in 1889, Montana and South Dakota, instead of a land grant, each received the buildings and grounds of a United States penitentiary. The other two, Washington and North Dakota, each received an appropriation of thirty thousand dollars for penitentiary buildings. Of the six states admitted after 1889 the first three received penitentiary buildings," and the last two, land grants for this purpose.25 Oklahoma is the only state admitted during the last half-century for which there has been no provision of this kind. The grants to New Mexico and Arizona, however, strictly speaking, are not public building grants, for they were given in place of the swamp, salt spring, and internal improvement lands.

9 Ibid., 6: 374.

10 Ibid., 10: 767.

11 Ibid., 9: 394.

12 Ibid., 396.

18 Statutes at Large, 9: 58.

14 Ibid., 13: 32.

15 Ibid., 49.

16 Ibid., 18: 475.

17 Except in a few townships where section thirty-three had been disposed of for other uses.

18 Statutes at Large, 28: 1229.

19 Ibid., 71.

20 Ibid., 34: 273.

21 Ibid., 13: 32.

22 Ibid., 49.

23 Ibid., 18: 475.

24 Ibid., 26: 216, 223; 28: 110. Idaho and Wyoming received both penitentiary buildings and

land grants.

28 Ibid., 36: 562, 573.