LAND GRANTS IN AID OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS.
BY WILLIS DRUMMOND, JR.
The land grant system in favor of internal improvements has become a
well settled policy of this Government, and has attained not only a
social but a political importance.
Like other American institutions its growth has been rapid, and
donations of that character now cover millions of acres of the public
domain. Of grants for railroads, wagon roads, and canals alone,
however, will this chapter treat, and no reference other than necessary
to a proper examination of the question will be made to concessions
whose terms place the lands under specific disposal by the States, such
as those for the establishment of schools, reclamation of swamp lands,
etc.
The majority of grants, therefore, coming within our notice will be
those in aid of railroads, though many have been made in favor of
wagon roads and canals. The latter have, however, almost become things
of the past, and are rapidly being superseded by the railway. More
than one canal has given way to the more popular and general means of
transportation, and it is safe to say that no further donations for
canal purposes will be made, unless the circumstances should be such as
to absolutely demand that means of conveyance. At any rate, they will
not be made for purposes of general improvement.
The object of this chapter is to point out the origin, growth,
character, and extent of these concessions. It is therefore necessary
to inquire into the early donations for various purposes.
The first act making a donation in favor of internal improvements was
approved on the 30th of April, 1802, and was entitled “An act to enable
the people of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the
river Ohio to form a constitution and State government, and for the
admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the
original States, and for other purposes.”
By the third proviso to the seventh section of that statute,
“one-twentieth part of the net proceeds of the lands lying within the
said State sold by Congress, from and after the thirtieth day of June
next, after deducting all expenses incident to the same”, was granted
and given to the said State (Ohio), and was to be applied to the laying
out and making of public roads leading to the Ohio River, to the said
State, and through the same, from the navigable waters emptying into
the Atlantic. Such roads were to be laid out under the authority of
Congress, with the consent of the several States through which they
passed.
By an act approved March 3, 1803, the Secretary of the Treasury was
directed to pay, to such persons as the legislature of the State of
Ohio should designate, 3 per cent. of the net proceeds, as above, which
sums were to be applied to laying out, opening, and making roads within
said State.
These acts, I believe, are the first two touching public improvements
through congressional aid. Of course there had previously been many
donations of land in favor of various persons, but they were for
services rendered the Government, or special preëmption privileges.
Legislation similar to the acts above referred to, was enacted until
the year 1824, varying only in the extent of the proceeds granted.
By an act approved May 26, 1824, the State of Indiana was authorized
to open and build a canal, and the right of way with 90 feet of land
on each side thereof, was granted, subject to use and occupancy for
the purposes specified. Nothing, however, was done under that act by
the State; and on the 2d of March, 1827, it was superseded by an act
of greater extent. On that day two acts were passed giving to Indiana
and Illinois, respectively, certain lands in aid of the construction of
canals, the first to connect the navigation of the Wabash River with
the waters of Lake Erie, and the second to connect the waters of the
Illinois River with those of Lake Michigan. A quantity of land, equal
to one-half of five sections in width on each side of said canals, was
granted, reserving to the United States each alternate section. The
canals were to remain public highways for the use of the Government,
free from toll or other charge whatever; were to be commenced in five
years, and completed in twenty years, or the States were bound to pay
to the United States “the amount of any lands previously sold”, and the
titles of the purchasers under the States were to be valid.
As soon as the lines of the canals were fixed and the selections of
land were made, the States had power to sell, and give fee simple title
to the whole or any part of the lands.
These may, properly, be considered the initiatory concessions of lands
in favor of internal improvements.
As stated, a grant for right of way had been made, but that right was
solely one of use and occupancy. In this case the right of the States
to sell became absolute upon the selection of the lands. To be sure,
they were liable to repay the Government the price received by the sale
of any of the lands, but the titles of their purchasers were to be in
“fee”; and by such right of disposal they were enabled to realize at
once on their grant, and thereby secure a speedier construction of the
canals.
On the same day (March 2) there was also granted to Indiana a certain
strip of land formerly held by the Pottawatamie Indians, or the
proceeds from the sale thereof, to be applied in building a road from
Lake Michigan, via Indianapolis, to some convenient point on the Ohio
River.
On the next day (March 3) an act was approved granting to Ohio one-half
of two sections along the entire line of a road to be constructed from
Sandusky to Columbus.
By an act approved May 23, 1828, a grant of 400,000 acres of “the
relinquished lands” in certain counties in Alabama was made in aid of
the improvement of the Tennessee and other rivers in that State; and
in case that amount of “said relinquished lands” could not be found
unappropriated, the necessary quantity could be selected from another
section of the State. Provision was made for the sale of the lands, at
the minimum price, but in case said lands or the proceeds thereof were
applied to any purposes other than that for which they were granted,
the grant was to become null and void.
In this grant we find the first provisions for indemnity if the grant
was not full by reason of prior sales or disposals by the Government.
There, if the lands were not to be found “in place”, selections “in
lieu” could be made from another county.
Grants like the one just referred to were made from time to time,
differing but little in their character and extent.
By an act approved March 2, 1833, the State of Illinois was authorized
to apply the lands granted by the act of March 2, 1827, for canal
purposes, to the construction of a railroad instead; and the same
restrictive impositions were continued.
This is the first act looking to the construction of a railroad through
the assistance of land donations.
The railroad system was then but in its infancy, and the few miles
built had been constructed by private means.
It is proper to add, however, that the State did not avail itself of
the privilege granted, for it subsequently built a canal.
An act approved March 3, 1835, granted, for the purpose of aiding in
the construction of a railroad by a corporation organized in Florida,
the right of way through the public lands over which it might pass,
thirty feet of land on each side of its line, and the right to take
and use the timber for “one hundred yards” on each side for the
construction and repair of said road; it was also granted “ten acres of
land at the junction of the St. Mark’s and Waculla Rivers”, the point
where said road terminated. This was the first right of way grant in
favor of railroads, the previous grant having been for a canal.
Following this came an act approved July 2, 1836, granting the right of
way “through such portion of the public lands as remain unsold”, not
to exceed 80 feet in width, to the New Orleans and Nashville Railroad
Company. The first section of that statute required that a description
of the route and surveys should be filed in the General Land Office
within sixty days after the survey. The second section granted for
depots, watering-places, and workshops, essential to the convenient
use of the road, certain plats of land, not exceeding five acres in any
one spot, nor nearer than fifteen miles to each other.
The third section gave the company the right to take from the public
lands earth, stone, or timber necessary for the construction of the
road; and provided that unless the work was commenced within two
years after the approval of the act, and completed within eight years
thereafter, the grant should “cease and determine”. It provided,
moreover, that if the road should be abandoned or discontinued, even
after its completion, the grant was to “cease and determine”.
So far as can be learned, this road was never completed. It is inserted
so fully for the purpose of showing the gradual growth of the system.
Next to this came a grant to the East Florida and other railroads,
similar in general terms to those previously referred to. It required,
however, the companies to file, with the Commissioner of the General
Land Office, maps showing the location of their roads. This was to
be done within six months after such locations. I am unable to find
that any of those roads were ever constructed. Certainly, no evidence
thereof was ever furnished the General Land Office.
A grant similar to the one to the New Orleans and Nashville company was
made by act of March 3, 1837, to the Atchafalaya Railroad and Banking
Company in Louisiana.
Many grants of like character and extent were made from time to time,
as also donations in favor of various other internal improvements. The
greatest of these latter, however, were the grants in aid of improving
the navigation of the Des Moines River in Iowa, and the Fox and
Wisconsin Rivers in Wisconsin, which were approved August 8, 1846.
The first of these made a grant to the then Territory of Iowa, for the
purpose of improving “the navigation of the Des Moines River from its
mouth to the Raccoon Fork (so called), in said Territory”, of “one
equal moiety, in alternate sections, of the public lands (remaining
unsold, and not otherwise disposed of, encumbered, or appropriated),
in a strip five miles in width on each side of said river, to be
selected within said Territory by an agent or agents to be appointed
by the governor thereof, subject to the approval of the Secretary of
the Treasury of the United States”. The second section provided that
“the lands hereby granted shall not be conveyed or disposed of by said
Territory, nor by any State to be formed out of the same, except as
said improvements shall progress; that is, the said Territory or State
may sell so much of said lands as shall produce the sum of thirty
thousand dollars, and then the sales shall cease until the governor of
said Territory or State shall certify the fact to the President of the
United States that one-half of said sum has been expended upon said
improvement, when the said Territory or State may sell and convey a
quantity of the residue of said lands sufficient to replace the amount
expended, and thus the sales shall progress as the proceeds thereof
shall be expended, and the fact of such expenditure shall be certified
as aforesaid.”
Section 3 declared that the river should forever remain a public
highway for the use of the Government, free from toll or other charge
whatever; and provided that the Territory or State should not dispose
of the lands at a price less than the minimum price of public lands.
The grant to Wisconsin for the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin
Rivers, though approved the same day, was somewhat different from the
Des Moines grant. It provided that “there be, and hereby is, granted
to the State of Wisconsin”, upon the admission of Wisconsin as a State
(which, by the way, had been provided for by an act approved two days
before), “for the purpose of improving the navigation of the Fox and
Wisconsin Rivers in the Territory of Wisconsin, and of constructing the
canal to unite the said rivers, at or near the portage, a quantity of
land, equal to one-half of three sections in width on each side of said
Fox River, and the lakes through which it passes from its mouth to the
point where the portage canal shall enter the same, and on each side
of said canal from one stream to the other, reserving the alternate
sections to the United States, to be selected under the direction of
the governor of said State, and such selection to be approved by the
President of the United States”. The rivers, when improved, were to
remain forever public highways for the use of the Government, free from
toll; and the sections reserved to the United States were not to be
sold for less than $2.50 per acre.
By the second section, the legislature of the State was to accept the
grant and fix the price at which the lands were to be sold (at not less
than $1.25 per acre), and adopt such kind and plan of improvement as
was for the best interests of the State.
The provisions for the sale of the lands were the same as in the Iowa
grant, except that the sum to be realized by such sales was fixed at
$20,000.
Section 3 required the work to be commenced within three years after
the admission of the State, and to be completed within twenty years, or
the United States was to be entitled to receive the amount for which
any of the lands may have been sold; the titles in the purchasers from
the State were, however, to be valid.
The language employed in this statute was more definite than that used
in the Des Moines grant, and in it is to be found the first provisions
respecting the increase in price of the reserved sections.
Probably no grant of this character has received such widespread
notoriety as the one for the improvement of the Des Moines River. It
is owing, no doubt, in a great degree to the numerous conflicting
decisions by the Executive Departments touching the extent of the
grant. The Hon. R. J. Walker, Secretary of the Treasury (under whose
supervision the Land Office then came), decided on the 2d of March,
1849, that the grant extended above the tributary of the Des Moines
River commonly known as the Raccoon Fork. The Land Office soon
thereafter passed from the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and
was placed as one of the bureaus of the Home or Interior Department.
The Secretary of this lately established branch of the Government
(Hon. Thomas Ewing) decided on the 6th of April, 1850, that the grant
did not extend above the Raccoon Fork. From that decision the State
of Iowa appealed to the President, who laid the matter before the
Attorney-General. That officer (Hon. Reverdy Johnson), on July 19,
1850, expressed an opinion confirmatory of the decision of Secretary
Walker. The Secretary of the Interior, however, being determined in
his views, did not adopt the opinion of the Attorney-General, and the
Commissioner of the General Land Office wrote, under date of 26th
September, 1850, to the President, reviewing and objecting to the
opinion of Mr. Johnson. The President, having been again applied to by
the State of Iowa to determine the matter, referred the whole question
to the Attorney-General (then Hon. J. J. Crittenden). That officer,
without delivering an opinion on the merits of the case, expressed the
belief that the President ought not to interfere, but should leave such
questions to the proper officers. The then Secretary of the Interior
(Hon. A. H. H. Stuart) thereupon decided that the grant did not extend
above the fork, but subsequently decided to approve the selections for
lands above the fork. Attorney-General Cushing, on the 29th of May,
1856, expressed the belief that on the merits of the case the grant
was limited to the Raccoon Fork, but as Secretary Stuart had approved
selections above that point, such practical enforcement of the grant
had better be continued. The view of Mr. Cushing was subsequently
maintained by the Supreme Court of the United States in Railroad
Company _vs._ Litchfield. (23 Howard, page 66). By the act of Congress
approved July 12, 1862, the grant was extended to the northern boundary
of the State, so as to include the alternate odd numbered sections
lying within five miles of said river, upon the following conditions:
The lands were to be held and applied in accordance with the provisions
of the original grant, except that the consent of Congress was given to
the application of “a portion thereof” to aid in the construction of
the Keokuk, Fort Des Moines and Minnesota Railroad, in accordance with
the provisions of an act of the general assembly of the State approved
March 22, 1858.
It is well to state that the work of improving the river was abandoned,
and the railroad was constructed instead.
Without examining the numerous right of way and other lesser grants,
I desire to direct attention to what is generally considered the
_first_ railroad grant. Reference is made to the donation by the act of
September 20, 1850.
By that statute a grant was made to the State of Illinois of “every
alternate section of land designated by even numbers, for six sections
in width on each side of” the road and branches therein provided for.
The road to be built was from the southern terminus of the Illinois
and Michigan Canal to a point at or near the junction of the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers, with a branch of the same to Chicago, and another
via the town of Galena, in Illinois, to the town of Dubuque, in Iowa.
The second section provided that should it appear that the United
States had, when the lines of said road and branches were definitely
fixed, sold any part of any section thereby granted, or that the right
of preëmption had attached to the same, it should be lawful for any
agent or agents (to be appointed by the governor of the State) to
select so much land as would be equal to the tracts lost within the
granted limits. This “indemnity” was to be selected within fifteen
miles of the road and branches.
The third section provided that the sections and parts of sections
which by the operation of the grant remained to the United States
within six miles on each side of said road and branches, should not be
sold for less than the double minimum price when sold.
Section 4 provided for the disposal of the lands, and declared that the
road should remain a public highway for the use of the Government free
from toll or other charge.
The fifth section declared within what period the roads should be
completed, and provided that in the event of a failure on the part of
the State to comply with the conditions of the grant, it was “bound to
pay to the United States the amount which may be received upon the sale
of any part of said lands by said State”. The title of the purchasers
was to be valid, but the tracts not sold were to revert and revest in
the United States.
Section 6 said that the mails were to be transported at all times at
such price as Congress might direct.
By the seventh section the grant was extended, on the same terms and
conditions, to the States of Alabama and Mississippi, for the purpose
of aiding in the construction of a road from Mobile to connect with the
first above named road.
While this was not the first concession of lands in favor of railroads,
it may properly be considered the initiatory measure of the present
system. It granted specific sections instead of one-half of a certain
number of sections; provided in positive terms for “indemnity” for
lands lost to the grant; designated the manner in which the lands
should be disposed of; increased the price of the reserved sections
within the “granted” limits; provided for reversion in case of default,
and virtually established a form of grant which was differed from
but little in succeeding donations. It was the first railroad grant
that became effective, for of all previous ones none appear to have
been developed. The roads are now known as the Illinois Central and
branches, and the Mobile and Ohio.
For the following two years no grants of importance were made, until
by an act approved June 10, 1852, a donation was made to the State of
Missouri for the construction of certain roads therein, now known as
the Hannibal and Saint Joseph, and the Missouri Pacific, Southwest
Branch. This grant was similar in character and extent to that to
Illinois, save two sections--one providing for the disposal of the
lands, and the other directing the Secretary of the Interior to
offer at public sale, from time to time, at the increased price, the
“reserved” or Government sections. The section respecting the disposal
of the lands is as follows: “That the lands hereby granted to said
State shall be disposed of by said State in manner following, that
is to say: that a quantity of land, not exceeding one hundred and
twenty sections on each road, and included within a continuous length
of twenty miles of said road, may be sold; and when the governor of
said State shall certify to the Secretary of the Interior that said
twenty miles of road is completed, then another like quantity of land,
hereby granted, may be sold; and so from time to time until said road
is completed; and if said road be not completed within ten years, no
further sales shall be made, and the lands unsold shall revert to the
United States.”
With the exceptions stated, and the omission of the clause requiring
the State to reimburse the Government for lands sold, the grants are
identical.
That act was followed by an act approved February 9, 1853, making,
under like conditions and impositions, a similar grant to Arkansas, in
aid of certain roads in that State. In this, however, the clause or
section directing the Secretary to “offer” the lands was omitted.
For the next three years Congress seems to have been quite as liberal
in donations for other purposes, but no grants were made in aid of
railroads, unless note be made of a grant to Minnesota by act of June
29, 1854, which was repealed in August following.
By that act there was granted to the Territory of Minnesota, for the
purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad from the southern
line of said Territory, via Saint Paul, to the eastern line of the
Territory in the direction of Lake Superior, “every alternate section
of land designated by odd numbers for six sections in width on each
side of said road within said Territory”; but in case it should appear
that the United States had, when the line of the road was definitely
fixed, sold any section or any part thereof granted, or that the right
of preëmption had attached to the same, then it should be lawful for
any agent or agents to be appointed by the governor of said Territory,
subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, to select
lands from alternate sections within fifteen miles of the road to
make up the deficiency. The lands granted were to be applied to the
construction of the road only. Section 2 increased the price of the
“reserved” tracts.
Section 3 provided that the lands should be disposed of by the
legislature for the purposes aforesaid and were not to inure to the
benefit of any company then constituted or organized. The road was to
remain a highway, as in previous grants; and the lands could not be
sold until they had first been “offered” at the increased price.
By section 4 no title was to vest in said Territory or patent issue
for any part of the lands until a continuous length of twenty miles of
said road had been completed; and when the Secretary of the Interior
was satisfied that any twenty continuous miles of said road had been
completed, then patent was to issue for a quantity not exceeding one
hundred and twenty sections of land; and so on from time to time until
the road was completed. If the road was not completed within ten years
no further sales could be made, and the lands remaining unsold were to
revert.
By an act approved August 4, 1854, the act of June 29, 1854, was
repealed; and although four grants have been declared forfeited, for
failure of the grantees to perform the required conditions, this is the
only one which Congress has in terms repealed.
It is to be regretted that subsequent legislation was not as devoid of
ambiguity. Had it been, much embarrassment might have been saved the
Government. I refer particularly to that clause or section respecting
the vesting of title and the manner in which the State was to acquire
rights under the grant. By the terms thereof no patents were to issue
except as the work of building the road progressed.
By the omission of such language from the grants subsequently made
from time to time to as late as 1862, the Department of the Interior
believed that the duty of “disposal” was properly in the States charged
with executing the trusts; and in all the earlier grants, immediately
upon the location of the roads and determination of the limits of the
grants, certified, in whole, the lands to which the companies would
ultimately have been entitled had the roads been completed as required.
At that time there was but little doubt that all of the roads would be
rapidly constructed; but the civil conflict very naturally put a stop
to such extended improvements, and to-day about twenty railroads remain
uncompleted, and the lands certified to the States for their use and
benefit exceed by 1,058,295.86 acres the lands actually earned by the
portions of the several roads constructed.
Out of the act of June 29, 1854, and the repealing statute a
very interesting question arose, which received, ultimately, the
consideration of the Supreme Court. A suit was brought in trespass by
Edmund Rice against the Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Company,
for cutting timber on a tract of land in Minnesota. The company, in
its defense, set up title under the granting act aforesaid; to which
plaintiff replied, reciting the repealing statute. On demurrer by
the company, the question as to whether an interest had vested under
said grant was thus fairly presented to the Supreme Court. That body
decided, after elaborate review of the whole case, that the act of
August 4 was “a valid law”, and that no interest, beneficiary or
otherwise, had vested under the said grant.
In 1856, at different times, various grants were made to the States
of Iowa, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Mississippi, and on the 3d of March, 1857, to Minnesota.
An examination of these grants--say the one to Iowa, it being first
of the series--shows that, with the exception of the fact that the
sections granted were designated by _odd_ instead of _even_ numbers,
they were similar to the Missouri grant of 1852. The change there
inaugurated was owing to the fact that certain even sections in each
township had been previously given to the several States for school
purposes, and in a grant embracing a large territory the difference to
the railroad grants caused thereby would be considerable. From 1857
until 1862 Congress seems to have been otherwise engaged, for I am
unable to find that any acts were passed during that period touching
railroad grants.
By an act approved July 1, 1862, a new departure was taken. Certain
persons were created into a body corporate under the title and name
of the “Union Pacific Railroad Company”. The object thereof was the
construction and maintenance of a railroad and telegraph line from the
Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean.
They were granted the right of way through the public lands to the
extent of two hundred feet in width on each side of the line of road,
together with the necessary grounds for stations, buildings, workshops,
etc. They were also granted in aid of the construction of the road
“every alternate section of public land”, designated by odd numbers,
to the amount of five alternate sections per mile, on each side of the
road; and all lands which had been disposed of or reserved, and mineral
lands, were excepted.
Sections 5 and 11 of the act related to the issuance of bonds by the
United States. Section 7 required the company to file a map of its
general route, and directed the Secretary of the Interior to thereupon
withdraw the lands within fifteen miles of such line.
Various other roads were provided for upon the same conditions, now
known as the Central Pacific, Central Branch of the Union Pacific,
Kansas Pacific, and Sioux City and Pacific.
As it is not the purpose of this inquiry to look into any provisions
except such as relate to _land_ donations, I will not pursue the
sections respecting the issuance of bonds, payment of interest, etc.
But, before proceeding further, it is proper to notice the changes
inaugurated by that act.
In the first place, the grant was to a corporation direct, and not to a
State in trust for one.
Second. It was not confined to any particular State or section, but was
transcontinental in character, extending in this case more than half
across our country.
Third. It was a grant ten miles in width on each side, instead of six,
as in previous grants, and no provision was made for indemnity.
Fourth. It provided for the filing by the company of a map of its
general or designated route (before definite location of its line);
and upon the filing thereof the lands became legislatively reserved or
withdrawn.
By an act approved July 2, 1864, this act was amended in several
particulars, and instead of “five” sections “ten” were granted, thereby
increasing the limits from ten to twenty miles on each side of the
roads. The term “mineral land” was construed not to include “coal and
iron land”.
By section 19 of this latter act a grant was made to the Burlington
and Missouri River Railroad Company, for the construction of a road
from the Missouri River to some point not farther west than the one
hundredth meridian of west longitude to connect with the Union Pacific
road, of ten alternate sections per mile on each side of its line of
road. It has been decided that this company was not confined to any
limit, but could go far enough to secure the quantity granted, and it
is the only railroad whose grant is not confined to lateral limits. By
a proviso to the twentieth section, however, the company received no
bonds.
The rapidity with which the Union Pacific road was constructed was
surprising, and the whole progress of the work displayed a spirit
of energy seldom seen in an undertaking of that character. The most
positive achievements, however, were those of the Central Pacific
Company. The construction of that road over the Sierras is considered
by professional authorities as one of the greatest results of
engineering. It crossed the maximum summit, of 7,042 feet above the
sea, within one hundred miles of the Pacific tide waters, requiring a
distribution of ascent really scientific to render it practicable, and,
by using a minimum radius of 573 feet, secured, comparatively speaking,
a direct alignment.
The two roads were completed and a junction effected May 10, 1869, and
the initial transcontinental line was thereby finished.
By an act approved March 3, 1863, there was a grant made to the State
of Kansas to aid in constructing certain railroads therein, now known
as the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé; Leavenworth, Lawrence and
Galveston, and Missouri, Kansas and Texas. It was of every alternate
section of land designated by odd numbers for ten sections in width
on each side of said roads. Indemnity was provided in ten additional
miles and, except as to extent, it was not unlike the Iowa grant.
On the 5th of May, 1864, similar grants were made to the States of
Minnesota and Wisconsin, and on the 12th of May to the State of Iowa.
Various other grants followed of like character, differing only in few
respects, to Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota,
and Kansas; as also grants for wagon roads. The latter were similar in
terms to the railroad grants, save that three sections on either side
of the roads were given instead of six or ten. The Northern Pacific was
created July 1, 1864, and was very much like the Union Pacific grant,
except in extent, being double the quantity through the Territories,
with provision for “indemnity”. The Atlantic and Pacific and Southern
Pacific grants were made by act of July 27, 1866; the Denver Pacific by
act of March 3, 1869; the Southern Pacific (branch line) and Texas and
Pacific by act of March 3, 1871.
Many of the grants made in early years were enlarged, and the time
for their completion extended; but thus far only four grants have
been declared forfeited. At present, however, about twenty grants
have “lapsed” by reason of non-compliance with the terms of the
granting acts, requiring completion within prescribed periods, and
recommendations have been made urging proper legislation.
Neither time nor space permit an extended examination of every grant,
but sufficient has been considered to point out the origin and growth
of the system.
We have seen that the first donation was one-twentieth part of certain
proceeds derived from the sale of lands; then ninety feet of land,
followed soon by one-half of five sections per mile on each side; then
by six sections; then by ten, and finally by twenty sections per mile
on each side of the road.
If the lands granted, or in other words embraced within the limits of
the grants, could be found available, the companies, not including
those for canals or wagon roads, would receive, provided each built
its road and complied with the laws, more than two hundred and fifteen
million acres. That quantity if embraced in one compact body, would
form an area of more than three hundred and thirty-five thousand
square miles, or a tract of land more than seven times as large as the
State of Pennsylvania, and only about six thousand miles less than the
area of the thirteen original States. But, in fact, the grants will
not realize near that quantity, and the estimate, as made by the Land
Department, is only about one hundred and eighty-seven million acres.
By the aid of those grants, however, about fifteen thousand miles
of road have been constructed. Those roads have been the means of
developing vast fields of magnificent territory, and securing to the
people many lesser lines built by private capital.
The various grants have been the subject of much explanatory,
amendatory, and confirmatory legislation, and have also received
numerous interpretations by the different courts. Of the latter, I deem
it proper to refer only to the more important rulings of the Supreme
Court which bear upon the fundamental principles underlying the whole
system.
In nearly all grants, except the Pacific, provision has been made for
indemnity in case it appeared, when the lines of the roads had been
definitely fixed, that the United States had sold, disposed of, or
reserved any of the sections or parts of sections contained within the
grants. The theory has heretofore existed that “indemnity” was allowed
for all tracts which might not be found subject to the operation of the
grant; and selections have been permitted in lieu of such disposed of
or reserved tracts.
A recent decision, however, casts some doubt upon the correctness of
this theory. The question came up in a case from Kansas, under the act
of March 3, 1863, and the court declared:
“We have before said that the grant itself was _in præsenti_, and
covered all the odd sections which should appear, on the location of
the road, to have been within the grant when it was made. The right to
them did not, however, depend on such location, but attached at once
on the making of the grant. It is true they could not be identified
until the line of the road was marked out on the ground, but as soon as
this was done it was easy to find them. If the company did not obtain
all of them within the original limit, by reason of the power of sale
or reservation retained by the United States, it was to be compensated
by an equal amount of substituted lands. The latter could not, on any
contingency, be selected within that limit. * * * It would be strange,
indeed, if the [indemnity] clause had been intended to perform the
office of making a new grant within the ten mile limit, or enlarging
the one already made. Instead of this, the words employed show clearly
that its only purpose is to give sections beyond that limit for those
lost within it by the action of the government between the date of the
grant and the location of the road. This construction gives effect to
the whole statute, and makes each part consistent with the other.”
If it be thought, however, that such was not the intention of the
legislators who framed the statutes, consolation can be found in the
construction given to the clause inserted in every grant, substantially
as follows: “And the said road shall remain a public highway for
the use of the Government, free from toll or other charge upon the
transportation of troops or other property of the United States.”
It is declared by the Supreme Court that the purpose of that clause
was to allow the Government the right to place its locomotive engines
and cars upon the railroad tracks, and to use such tracks as a public
highway. The court say: “We are of opinion that the reservation in
question secures to the Government only a free use of the railroads
concerned; and that it does not entitle the Government to have troops
or property transported by the companies over their respective roads
free of charge for transporting the same.”
The section providing for the disposal of the lands, recited in full in
the Missouri grant of 1852, has been construed as vesting in the State
the right to sell one hundred and twenty sections of land, contained
within a continuous length of twenty miles at any place along the
grant, even though the road contemplated was never built; and the title
acquired by purchase from the State is valid. And the clause with which
the section referred to ends, to the effect that if the road be not
completed within a certain time the lands shall revert to the United
States, has been declared inoperative without further action by the
Government, either legislative or judicial, looking to an enforcement
of the reserved right.
Fears have been awakened as to the power to ultimately control these
corporations, on account of the enormous extent to which they have
expanded; but, as has been said by an able writer, “this evil, however,
if it be such, will probably work its own cure.”
Be that as it may, their influences have been felt by all, and their
benefits have extended to the remotest sections of our country. They
have proved a bond between the eastern and western States--anxiously
sought for by Washington when the lateral limits of the United States
were less than half what they are at this time. They have united the
Pacific with the Atlantic, and the Rocky Mountains of the west with
the Alleghanies of the east. They have dispelled all ideas looking to
the removal of the seat of Government, for they have put in direct
communication the people of Oregon with the people of Maine. From ocean
to ocean requires but days, where only a few years ago it required
weeks.
In the past, long lines of moving wagons groaned beneath their loads
of adventurous families, who at night, within the corral, seated
themselves around the blazing camp fire, fearful of the dangers to
which they were exposed. But the present has forgotten them. In their
stead the ponderous wheels of frequent trains, moving with a speed
surpassing that of the deer, traversing the valley and mountain, carry
forward their loads of living freight; and, in place of dangerous
encampments, provide means of sleep and refreshment, and afford the
comforts of luxurious homes. The railway has brought to our doors the
harvest of our fields; handed to our mints the vast resources of our
mines, and opened to us direct communication with the older worlds. Its
arms have extended into a hundred vales and over a hundred mountains,
grasping in their embrace manifold evidences of civilization and
prosperity.
INDEX.
Page.
Abbott, Mr., 62
_Abies amabilis_, 102
_Canadensis_, 100
_concolor_, 101
_Douglasii_, 100
_Engelmanni_, 101
_grandis_, 102
_Menziesii_, 101
_subalpina_, 101
_Acer grandidentata_, 103
Agricultural and timber industries differentiated, 18
resources of the Bear River drainage basin, 119
Jordan River drainage basin, 124
Weber River drainage basin, 121
Agriculture, Amount of precipitation necessary for, 2, 3
Influence of temperature upon, 2
in the Arid Region dependent upon irrigation, 40
in Utah dependent upon irrigation, 6
exceptions thereto, 6
limited by several conditions, 7
Utilization of the small streams in, 7
without irrigation, 3, 6, 50
_Aira cœspitosa_, 109
Alabama, Land-grants to, 179
Alkaline salts, 145
Amount of land a unit of water will supply, 7
Antelope Island, 63, 64
bar, 63, 67
Areal distribution of rainfall, 82
Area of irrigable land sometimes not limited by water supply, 85
Areas of standing timber, 15
to which larger streams can be taken, 7
which smaller streams can serve, 7
Arid Region, Boundaries of the, 1, 3
Extent of the, 5
Increase in water supply in the, 89, 91
Land system needed for the, 25
Mining industries of the, 88
Physical characteristics of the, 1
Precipitation of the, 48
Rainfall of the, 5
Arizona and New Mexico, Seasonal precipitation in, 56
Arkansas, Land grants to, 174, 179
_Artemisia_, 110
Ashley Fork, Irrigable lands of, 161
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railroad Company, Land grants to the,
178
Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company, Land grants to the, 179
Atlantic coast, Flow of the rivers of the, 76
Rainfall on the, 69
Barfoot, Mr. J. L., 59
Barton, Mr., 113
Basin, Colorado. (_See_ Colorado Basin.)
Great Salt Lake. (_See_ Great Salt Lake District.)
Range System, 94
Sevier Lake. (_See_ Sevier Lake District.)
Uinta-White. (_See_ Uinta-White Basin.)
Bear River, 117
City, 78
drainage basin, Agricultural resources of the, 119
Area of the, 119
Mean flow of the, 72
Beaver dams, Effect of cutting, 74
_Betula occidentalis_, 103
Bill to authorize the organization of irrigation districts, 30
pasturage districts, 33
Black Rock bench, 61
pillar, 59, 60
Bonneville Lake, 96
Book Cliffs, Orographic structure of the, 98
_Bouteloua oligostachya_, 108
_Bromus_, 109
Brown Cliffs, 98
Brown’s Park, Irrigable lands of, 162
Burlington and Missouri Railroad Company, Land grants to the, 178
Canals, Land grants in aid of, 166
Cañon Lands, Amount of irrigable land in the, 106
Coal lands of the, 106
Description of the, 105
of Utah, 94
_Carex Jamesii_, 109
Carrington Island, 62
Castle Valley, 105
Central Pacific Railroad Company, Land grants to the, 177
_Cercocarpus parvifolius_, 110
_Celtis occidentalis_, 103
Circle Valley, Amount of irrigable land in the, 137
Climate of the Colorado Basin, 151
Coal lands, 45
Disposal of the, 44
of the Cañon Lands, 106
of the Rocky Mountain Region, 19
Colony system, 28
Colorado Basin, Climate of the, 151
Elevation of the, 151
Irrigable lands of the, 150
Mean annual precipitation in the, 79
Orographic structure of the, 95
Source of the water supply of the, 152
Table of irrigable lands of the, 164
drainage area, 94
River, Principal tributaries of the, in Utah, 150
Conditions affecting the distribution of rainfall, 90
Coöperative labor necessary to the development of irrigation, 11
Critical period, 85, 138, 154
season, 116
Dakota, Precipitation of, 51
Denver Pacific Railroad Company, Land grants to the, 179
Desert drainage area, 94
Orographic structure of the, 95
Des Moines River, Land grant in aid of the improvement of the, 171
Distribution of rain throughout the year, 50
District, Great Salt Lake. (_See_ Great Salt Lake District.)
Sevier Lake. (_See_ Sevier Lake District.)
Division lines of pasturage farms, 22, 28, 37
of land by settlers, 38
Drainage area, Colorado, 94
Desert, 94
Modification of the conditions of, 73
of the Tavaputs Plateau, 96
Uinta Mountains, 96
Wasatch Mountains, 96
Utah, 94
Drummond, Willis, jr., on land grants in aid of internal improvements,
164
Dry farming, 50, 78
Duchesne River, Volume of flow of the, 160
Dutton, Capt. C. E., cited, 110
on the irrigable land of the Sevier Basin, 128
East Florida Railroad Company, Land grant to the, 169
Egg Island, 67
Engelmann, Mr., 102
_Erocoma cuspidata_, 108
Escalante River, Irrigable lands of the, 156
Volume of flow of the, 156
_Eurotia lanata_, 110
Evaporation by spreading of water, 74
Farmington pillar, 61
Farming without irrigation, 77
Farm residences, Grouping of, 22
unit for pasturage lands, 21, 28
Fencing of pasturage lands, 23
Fires in the timber region, 15, 99
Cause of, 17, 99
Protection from, 18, 99
Flood-plain lands, 88
Forests, Amount of rainfall necessary to the growth of, 15
Fox, Mr. Jesse W., 61, 113
_Fraxinus anomala_, 103
_coriacea_, 103
Fremont Island, 62, 67
River, Irrigable lands of the, 157
Tributaries of the, 157
Volume of flow of the, 157, 158
Gilbert, G. K., cited, 84, 110
on irrigable land of the Salt Lake drainage system, 113
on water supply, 57
Government right to use of subsidized railroads, 181
Grand River, Irrigable lands of the, 163
Volume of flow of the, 163
Grasses of the pasturage lands, 19
Utah, 107
Great Salt Lake, Accumulation of the water in, 58
Area of, 66, 73
Basin (_See_ Great Salt Lake District)
Causes of abnormal change of, 67
Desert, 66
Diagram showing rise and fall of, 64
District, 94
Amount of irrigable land in the, 107
Change in the climate of the, 68, 70
Description of the, 107
Irrigable lands of the, 113
Fluctuations in the rainfall of the, 70
Irrigation by large streams in the, 117
small streams in the, 126
Evaporation of the water of, 58, 72
History of the past changes of, 62
Increase and decrease of the size of, 58
Islands of, 62
Limited oscillation of, 59
Limit of wave action of, 65
Record of height of, 60
Rise and fall of, 59
Storm lines of, 65
Streams flowing into, 72
Green River, Irrigable lands of the, 162
Volume of flow of the, 162
Gunnison, Captain, 98
Valley, 105
Irrigable lands of the, 163
Hayden, Dr. F. V., 71
Henry Mountains, 105
Prof. Joseph, 46, 59, 62, 79
Henrys Fork, Irrigable lands of, 161
Illinois, Land grants to, 168, 172
Increase in water supply in the Arid Region, 57, 89, 91
of rainfall, 69, 91
Indiana, Land grants to, 166, 167
Internal improvements, Land grants in aid of, 165
Iowa, Land grants to, 169, 179
Irrigable and pasturage lands of Utah, 104
areas, Increase of, by storage of water, 12, 13
land, Area of, sometimes not limited by water supply, 85, 86
Extent of, increased by the use of springs, 9
in Utah, Amount of, 9
lands, 23
Amount of water required for, 84
Disposal of, 27
highly productive, 10
Important questions relating to, 81
Increase in the extent of the, 57
in Utah Territory, Table of, 111
of Southwestern Utah, 148
of the Colorado Basin, 150
Table of, 164
Great Salt Lake District, 113
Sevier Lake District, 134
valley of the Sevier River, 128
Irrigable lands of the, Virgin River, 153
of Utah, Distribution of the, 9
Selection of, 87
Situation of the, 6
Irrigating canals, Cost of, 125
methods, Improvement in, 8
season, 85
Irrigation, Advantages of, 10
Amount of water needed for, 114
used in, 141
companies, 40
Coöperative labor necessary to the development of, 11
Direct influence of, upon the inflow of Great Salt Lake, 75
Indirect influence of, upon the inflow of Great Salt Lake, 76
of pasturage farms, 21
Quantitative value of water used in, 81
Unit of water used in, 81
Isohyetal line of twenty inches, 2
Jordan River, 121
drainage basin, Agricultural resources of the, 124
Area of the, 125
Mean flow of the, 72
_Juncus Balticus_, 109
_Juniperus Californicus_, 103
_Virginiana_, 103
Kanab Creek, Irrigable lands of, 154
Ponding of, 154
Kansas, Land grants to, 178, 179
Pacific Railroad Company, Land grants to the, 177
Kimball, Mr. Heber P., 61
King, Mr. Clarence, 66
Lake Bonneville, 96
Utah, Function of, as a reservoir, 123
Land grants in aid of internal improvements, 165
Lands, Classification of, 43
Irrigable. (_See_ Irrigable Lands.)
of Utah, 93
and Idaho fertilized by water, 75
Physical features of the, 93
Pasturage. (_See_ Pasturage Lands.)
Land system needed for the Arid Region, 25
Leavenworth, Lawrence and Galveston Railroad Company, Land grants to
the, 178
Lower Columbia Region, 1
Precipitation of the, 49
Marshes, Drainage of, 74
Evaporation from, 74
Martineau, Mr. J. H., 113
Mean temperature by seasons for the San Francisco Region, 54
Method of determining the supply of water, 85, 86
Michigan, Land grants to, 179
Miller, Mr. Jacob, 61, 62
Mineral lands, 44
Disposal of, 44
not suited to agriculture, 44
Minnie Maud Creek, Irrigable lands of, 160
Volume of flow of, 160
Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Company, 176
Land grants to the, 174, 179
Mississippi Valley, Flow of the rivers of the, 76
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad Company, Land grants to the, 178
Land grants to, 179
Mitchell, Mr. John T., 59
Monopoly of pasturage farms, 22
Mountains, Henry, 105
Uinta. (_See_ Uinta Mountains.)
Wasatch. (_See_ Wasatch Mountains.)
_Negundo aceroides_, 103
Nevada, Mean annual precipitation in, 79
New Mexico and Arizona, Seasonal precipitation in, 56
New Orleans and Nashville Railroad Company, Land grants to the, 168
New York, Rainfall of the State of, 70
Ogden River, Measured volume of the, 120
Ohio, Land grants to, 166, 167
Ohio Valley, Rainfall of the, 70
Orographic structure of the Book Cliffs, 98
Colorado drainage area, 95
Desert drainage area, 95
Uinta Mountains, 97
Wasatch Mountains, 96
Pacific coast, Seasonal precipitation and temperature of the, 55
Panguitch Valley, Amount of irrigable land in, 136
Paria River, Irrigable lands of the, 155
Volume of flow of the, 155
Park, Dr. John R., 59
Pasturage farms, Division lines of, 22, 28, 37
Irrigation of, 21
need small tracts of irrigable land, 21, 28
lands, 19, 24, 104
Pasturage lands, Boundaries of, 19
Disposal of, 28
Extent of, 19
Farm unit for, 21, 28
Fencing of, 23
Grasses of the, 19
Monopoly of the, 22
partially supplied by scattered springs, 21
Situation of the, 6
_Phragmites communis_, 109
_Pinus aristata_, 100
_edulis_, 100
_flexilis_, 100
_monticola_, 100
_ponderosa_, 100
Pioneers, Enterprise and industries of, 41
Plateaus, The High, 94
Plateau, Tavaputs, 93
Yampa, 105
_Poas_, 108
Ponding, 12, 13
Ponds, Evaporation of the water of, 73
_Populus angustifolia_, 102
_monilifera_, 102
_tremuloides_, 102
Precipitation in the Region of the Plains, 52
Mean annual, in Colorado, 79
Nevada, 79
Utah, 79
Wyoming, 79
north of the Columbia River, 1
of Dakota, 51
Texas, 50
the Arid Region, 48
Region of the Lower Columbia, 49
San Francisco Region, 49
Sub-humid Region, 47
Precipitation, Seasonal, of the Pacific Coast, 55
Price River, Irrigable lands of the, 159
Volume of flow of the, 159
Provo River, 121
Public lands, How to acquire title to, 25
_Quercus undulata_, 103
Railroads, Land grants in aid of, 165, 168, 172
Rainfall, Areal distribution of, 82
Conditions affecting the distribution of, 90
Rainfall, Distribution of, throughout the year, 50
Increase of, 91
of the Arid Region, 5, 48
belt between Great Salt Lake and Wasatch Mountains, 6, 79
Sub-humid Region, 4, 47
of the western portion of the United States, 46
Rain gauge records, 1, 3, 91, 131
Deficiency of, 1
“Rainy seasons”, 25, 50
Ranges, Basin, 94
Records, Rain gauge, 1, 3, 91, 131
Region of the Lower Columbia. (_See_ Lower Columbia Region.)
of the Plains, Seasonal precipitation in the, 52
San Francisco. (_See_ San Francisco Region.)
Sub-humid. (_See_ Sub-humid Region.)
Renshawe, Mr. J. H., 113, 153
Reservoirs, 12, 13, 85, 144
River, Bear. (_See_ Bear River.)
Colorado. (_See_ Colorado River.)
Duchesne. (_See_ Duchesne River.)
Escalante. (_See_ Escalante River.)
Fremont. (_See_ Fremont River.)
Grand. (_See_ Grand River.)
Green. (_See_ Green River.)
Gunnison. (_See_ Gunnison River.)
Jordan. (_See_ Jordan River.)
Ogden. (_See_ Ogden River.)
Paria. (_See_ Paria River.)
Price. (_See_ Price River.)
Provo. (_See_ Provo River.)
San Rafael. (_See_ San Rafael River.)
Sevier. (_See_ Sevier River.)
Uinta. (_See_ Uinta River.)
Virgin. (_See_ Virgin River.)
Weber. (_See_ Weber River.)
White. (_See_ White River.)
Rivers, Land grants in aid of improvement of, 169
Rockwood, Hon. A. P., 113
San Francisco Region, Mean temperature, by seasons, of the, 54
Precipitation of the, 49
Rainy season of the, 54
Seasonal precipitation in the, 53
San Pete Valley, Amount of irrigable land in the, 138
Flow of the streams of the, 138
San Rafael River, Irrigable lands of the, 158, 159
Tributaries of the, 158
San Rafael River, Volume of flow of the, 159
Schott, Mr. Charles A., 46, 69
Seasonal precipitation and temperatures on the Pacific coast, 55
in Arizona and New Mexico, 56
Seasonal precipitation in the Region of the Plains, 52
San Francisco Region, 53
Selection of irrigable lands, 87
Sevier Lake Basin, 94
District, 94
Altitudes in the, 133
Amount of irrigable land in the, 106, 143
Climate of the, 131
Description of the, 106
Irrigable lands of the, 134
Physical characteristics of the, 130
Rainfall of the, 131
Rain gauge records of the, 131
River, Course of the, 129
Volume of flow of the, 139, 140
Irrigable lands of the valley of the, 128
Valley of the, 129
Sierra La Sal, 105
Sioux City and Pacific Railroad Company, Land grants to the, 177
Smithsonian Tables of Precipitation, 46, 69
Soil and subsoil, Complicating conditions of, 83
Conditions of, 82
Soils, 145
Southern Pacific Railroad Company, Land grants to the, 179
Springs, Opening out of, 74
Use of, in irrigation, 9
Stansbury, Captain Howard, 64, 65, 66
Island, 67
bar, 64, 67
Streams, Descent of, 88
flowing into Great Salt Lake, 72
Flow of, at different periods, 13
Increase in the volume of, 57
Measurement of, 86, 115
of San Pete Valley, Volume of flow of the, 140
of Utah, Fluctuations of the, 115
Practical capacity of, 85
small, Employment of, in irrigation, 7, 11, 12
Strong’s Knob, 67
Sub-humid Region, Boundaries of the, 3
destitute of forests, 4
Mean precipitation of the, 47
Rainfall of the, 4
Supply of water, Method of determining the, 85, 86
Table I. Precipitation of the Sub-humid Region, 47
II. Arid Region, 48
III. San Francisco Region, 49
IV. Region of the Lower Columbia, 49
V. Texas, 50
VI. Dakota, 51
VII. Season of precipitation in the Region of the Plains, 52
VIII. San Francisco Region, 53
IX. Mean temperature, by seasons, for the San Francisco Region, 54
X. Seasonable precipitation and temperatures on the Pacific coast,
55
XI. in Arizona and New Mexico, 56
of irrigable lands in Utah, 111
of southwestern Utah, 149
of the Colorado Basin, 164
Sevier Lake District, 144
of mean annual precipitation in Colorado, 79
Nevada, 79
Utah, 79
Wyoming, 79
Tavaputs Plateau, 93
Drainage of the, 96
Temperature dependent upon altitude and latitude, 2
Temperatures, Seasonal, on the Pacific Coast, 55
Texas and Pacific Railroad Company, Land grants to the, 179
Precipitation of, 50
The High Plateaus, 94
Thomas, Prof. Cyrus, 71
Thompson, Prof. A. H., cited, 86, 110
on the irrigable land of the Colorado Basin, 150
Timber, 98
Areas of standing, 15, 17
Cultivation of, 19
Destruction of, by fire, 15
growth dependent upon climatic conditions, 14
lands, 14, 23
Boundaries of the, 14
Disposal of the, 27
Situation of the, 6, 14
regions, 15
Extent of the, 16
Fires in the, 15, 17, 18, 99
Titles to public lands, 25
Uinta Mountains, 93
Drainage of the, 96
Orographic structure of the, 97
Uinta River, Irrigable lands of the, 160
Tributaries of the, 160
Volume of flow of the, 160, 161
White Basin, 93
Amount of irrigable lands in the, 105
Description of the, 104
Physical features of the, 160
Union Pacific Railroad Company, Land grants to the, 177
Unit of water supply, 8, 84, 115, 141
Method of determining the, 8
used in irrigation, 81
Utah, Amount of cultivated land in, 84
Church government in, 89, 128
Drainage of, 94
Forest trees of, 100
Grasses of, 107
Irrigable and pasturage lands of, 104
Lake, 123
Lands of, 93
Mean annual precipitation in, 79
Pasturage lands of, 104
Prevailing winds of, 68
Table of irrigable lands in, 111
Timber of, 98
Variety of crops cultivated in, 84
Watershed of, 94
Valley, Castle, 105
Circle, Amount of irrigable land in the, 137
Gunnison, 105
Irrigable lands of the, 162
of the Mississippi, 76
Sevier River, Amount of irrigable land in the, 144
Panguitch, Amount of irrigable land in the, 136
San Pete, Amount of irrigable land in the, 138
Flow of the streams of the, 140
Vasey, Dr. George, 108
_Vilfa_ (_Sporobolis_) _airoides_, 108
Virgin River, Irrigable lands of the, 153
Volume of water flowing in the streams, Determination of, 8
Wagon roads, Land grants in aid of, 166
Ward, Mr. L. F., 103
Wasatch Mountains, 93, 94
Drainage of the, 96
Orographic structure of the, 96
Wastage of water, 84
Water, Evaporation of, 13
Irrigating capacity of, 8, 84, 115, 141
Loss of, by evaporation, 87
Method of determining the supply of, 85, 115, 139
storing, 12
rights, 40
should inhere in the lands to be irrigated, 40, 41
supply, 57
affected by the cutting of timber, 75
farming, 73
grazing, 74
Economic bearings of the, 76
Increase in the, 57, 89, 91
Storage of, 116, 125, 144
used in irrigation, Quantitative value of, 81
Unit of, 81
Wastage of, 84, 142
ways rudely constructed, 8
Weber River, 119
drainage basin, Agricultural resources of the, 121
Area of the, 121
Mean flow of the, 72
White River, Irrigable lands of the, 162
Volume of flow of the, 162
Winds of Utah, 68
Wisconsin, Land grants to, 169, 179
Wyoming, Mean annual precipitation in, 79
Yampa Plateau, 105
Young, Hon. Brigham, 105
[Illustration: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U. S. GEOGRAPHICAL AND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION,
J. W. POWELL IN CHARGE.
MAP OF UTAH TERRITORY
REPRESENTING THE EXTENT OF THE IRRIGABLE, TIMBER AND PASTURE LANDS.
COMPILED AND DRAWN BY CHARLES MAHON, J. H. RENSHAWE, W. H. GRAVES AND
H. LINDENKOHL FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS
1878.
Miles
Note _This map has been constructed from atlas sheets of the U. S.
Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region with
additional material taken from the maps of the U. S. Geographical
Explorations and Surveys west of the 100ᵈᵗʰ Meridian, Lieut. Geo.
M. Wheeler, Corps of Engineers, in charge, the U. S. Geological
Exploration of the 40ᵗʰ Parallel, Clarence King, U. S. Geologist
in charge, and the U. S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the
Territories, F. V. Hayden, in charge_
EXPLANATION
_Irrigable Lands_
_Standing Timber_
_Area destitute of Timber on account of Fires_
_Rail Roads_
_Wagon Roads_
_Trails_
_Telegraph Lines_
_County Seats in Capital Letters._]
[Illustration: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOGRAPHICAL AND
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION J. W. POWELL, IN CHARGE.
MAP OF THE UNITED STATES
EXHIBITING THE GRANTS OF LANDS MADE BY THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT TO AID IN
THE CONSTRUCTION OF RAILROADS AND WAGON ROADS.
1878
For explanation see chapter on “Land Grants in aid of International
Improvements”
[The base chart was engraved for the Statistical Atlas of the United
States.]
Julius Bien. Lithographer]
Transcriber’s Notes
Errors in punctuation have been fixed.
Page 35: “the Commisioner” changed to “the Commissioner”
Page 52: “not greater han should” changed to “not greater than should”
Page 57: “very erroneneous” changed to “very erroneous”
Page 65: “needed to clense land” changed to “needed to cleanse land”
Page 68: “whatever manner in was disturbed” changed to “whatever manner
it was disturbed”
Page 108: “strongly akaline soils” changed to “strongly alkaline soils”
Page 162: “in the moutains” changed to “in the mountains”
Page 172: “of a “a portion”” changed to “of “a portion””