Democratic Sentinel, Volume 6, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 August 1882 — LAND-GRANT RAILROADS [ARTICLE]

LAND-GRANT RAILROADS

Speech of Hon. William S. Holman, of Indiana, In the House of Representatives, Friday, July 7,1882, “ Great estates destroy the spirit of patriotism In those who have everything and those who have nothing.”—.St. Pierre. The Home, in committee of the whole, hay" iDg under consideration the Sundry Civil Appropriation bill, Mr. Holman said : Mr. Cha rman, this bill of “ odds and ends,” which can find no appropriate place in any of the regular bills providing for the departments of Government, appropriates the upprecedent-» ed sum of $23,680,865.06, which might be reduced to $7,000,000 without impairing the efficiency of any department But there is a single item in the bill involving a oompara-tively-small expenditure to which I wish to invite attention. That item reads as follows : “ For surveying the public lands, $400,000.” The sum heretofore appropriated annually for that purpose has been $300,000. This in- • crease might excite attention, but upon exami-. nation I find that a system has recently grown up under cover of law enormously increasing the fund for tho survey of the public land under this system. Persons desiring the survey of a township of public land deposit the money to cover the cost of the survey in any Government depository and receive a certificate for the same, and these certificates are assignable and are received In the land offices as cash in payment for public lands, and the funds deposited are applied to the survey of public lauds. I learn from the last report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office that during the fiscal year 1881 the enormous sum of $1,804,166,47 was deposited under this system, which, added to the $300,000 regularly appropriated, made the sum es $2,104,166.47 available for the survey of the public lands. Thus a double fraud is perpetrated on the Government; the one in opening up facilities for the excessive profits incident to the Government surveys, and the other furnishing opportunities for capitalists to monopolize at a nominal price large bodies of the most valuable of the public lands. Now, -air, the Commissioner has called attention to this subject, and in his last report sets forth an order issued by him seeking to restrict tfis evil, the first paragraph.of which is in theso words: “To Surveyor General : In order to prevent, as lar as possible, the perpetration .of fra ads and fraudulent surveys, which have already assumed alarming proportions under tho system of deposits by individuals, it is hereby ordered.” And the Commissioner proceeds to set forth rules seeking to counteract as far “ as possible” these frauds, and the Commissioner recommends the repeal of the law under which these frauds are sheltered. Those facts are known, I presume, by all the members of the II mso, and are especially within the knowledge of tho Committee on Appropriations. After Ring thus informed of the existing evil by tho Commissioner of the General Land Office, the Committee on Appropriations, after appropriating $400,000 by this bill for the survey of the public lands, instead of repealing the law which authorizes these frauds, add the following provision: “ That no certificate issued for a deposit of money for tho survey of lands under section 2,403 of the Revbel Statutes and the act apE roved March 3, 1879, amendatory th r o', ihall e received m payment for lauds except at the land offi e in which the lands surveyed for which the depos t was made are subject to entry, and not elsewhere ; but this section shall not be held to impair or affect iD any manner deposits and contracts made under the provisions of said act prior to tho passage of this act” I concede that last clause is right. If by the provisions incorporat 'd in secli in 2,403 of the Revised Statutes, and the amendatory act, making (hose certificates assignable, parties have bocorae tho holders of these certificates, rendering it still more convenient to reach your public domain, why, of course, the Government is bound by it and must submit to that extent to the wrong done. But I protest against the other proposition, and still more I protest against what is omitted—a repeal of the law authorizing the fraud. What, then, is the effect of the provision? It is simply this, that the certificates of deposit shall only be received in payment for land in the land district in which the survey was made for which the money was deposited. Does that reach tho evil ? Does that put an end to or even limit those frauds? Not in the least. Some of these land districts exceed the territory of a great State, embracing millions of acres, and all that the provision of the bemniittoo does is to limit the operations of -these gentlemen who are surveying and monopolizing the most choice of your public lands to- the district in which tho deposit is made. I hardly tbiuk they would wish a larger field. I would now be vory glad to hear an explanation from my friend from New York [Mr. II scock] why this extraordinary state of things is permitted; why this legislation which authorizes the issue of these certificates is not repealed by this bill in conformity with the recommendations of the Commissioner of the General Lind Office. Mr. Hiscoek—lt is not claimed that there has been any abuse in this deposit system until the certificates were made assignable and receivable for the amount carried Upon their face in payment for public lands at any point or at any place. I do not understand that there is anything in the communication to which the gentleman refers that claims that there has been any fraud or irregiflarity in tins matter, or that the system has worked otherwise than well up to the point when these certificates wore made assignable, so that the men making the deposits of money were not compelled to take the land When it was once surveyed, but were given the option of selling the certificates and assigning thtm to other people to be located where ihoy pleased. Tnese certificates were made assignable in 188 L, I think. Mr. Holman—lt was in 1879. Mi-. ITiscock—They were made assignable in 1879 It is claimed that since then the abuse has crown up of depositing money for which c- nificates were issued, for tho solo purpose of furnishing biistnoss to the surveyors, and that therein consists the abuse. After fullconsultali hi w th the Land Office wo have repealed the assignability of these certificates. Mr- Holman—Whereabouts is that? Mr. Hiscock—To the extent that they must be 1 icated bv whoever holds them in the dist' ict of the Land Office in which the deposit was made. Mr. Atkins—And not in the township, as heretofore. Mr. Hiscock—They were originally required o bo located in the township. Mr. Holman—l think I understand the gentleman’s position, and he will excuse me if I do not permit him to consume any more of my time. This explanation is entirely unsatisfactory, and w 11 be found so by any gentleman who will examine the facts before the committee and the provisions of this bill; the clause I have read is the entire provision. The use es these certificates is not limited to the persons to whom they were issued; they are not limited at all, except that they shall be used In the land district where the deposit is made. It leaves he evil just exactly as it was. The statement of the Commissioner, in which he refers to the assignability of these certificates, is this: “Applications for surveys are fraudulently prepared by or through the instigation aud management of deputy surveyors, who, for the purpose of securing the contract for making the survey, either themselves or through friends advance the money for the deposit, thereafter sell and assign the certificates, and thus reimburse themselves and secure their profit from the surveying contracts.” And yet gentlemen must see that even if these certificates were not assignable the same evil, only slightly modified, would continue. What is most marked is that the Committee on Appropriations, and apparenlly with tjhi concurrence of the Committee on Public L inds, permit this momtrous wrong to go on of the survey of these lands beyond the public wants for the purpose of speculation, for that is what it means, just that, nothing less. I concede that theCommi-s onor of the Land Office complains of tnese frauds on account of the profitable surveying contracts thus obtained. That is not the main evil of which I complain. What lam condemning is—— Mr. Atkins—Will the gentleman allow me one word? Mr. Holman—Let me fin’sh my sentence. What I am condemning is that you allow the survey of these lands far beyond the demands of settlement; not so much that it enables the contractors who make the survoys to realize unreasonable profits, but for the other reason that is of much greater moment to the people of this country, that it enables meD with capital to monopolize your public lands, and speculate on the natural rights of your laboring people. Mr. Haskell —How can they do that? Mr. Holman—By buyiug the land at a nominal price. And that applies no less in the 8. at eg where the pre-emption law must be resorted to than in tho States where the lands are subject to public sale and private entry. lam prepared to show that even under the preemption laws men of capital speculate in your public lands. I now yield for a moment to the gentleman from Teunesse. Mr. Atkins—l only wanted to state that I thought the criticism of the gentleman on tbe Committee of Appropriations was rather unjust, because if he had been a member of Congress for the last four years preceding this be would have known that efforts were made to out flown this very appropriation, and it bad to l»d<H}slatiwfioe of foe estimate*, of tbe

wishes of the adm nistration as expressed through its estimates, and the opposition of the Western members of Congress on this floor. Mr. Holman—Certainly. We saw that in the Forty-fourth Congress. The bill as it passed the House proposed such a reduction m the compensation for surveying the public lands as to remove all motive for fraud. The amendment of the Senate could not be entirely overcoins ; and the sum of $300,009 had to be appropriated. The pressure then was almost as great as it is now to reach the public lands and exhaust them; they are now and have been for years a rich field for dishonest speculation. Bat, Mr. Chairman, the evil of which I complain is only a part of a general system. I wish in a brief way to oonrider the subject more broadly. The act which passed Congress on the 20th of May, 1862, known as the “ Homestead law,” was not only one of the wisest hut one of the most humane laws ever enacted—l had the honor myself to vote for it, and I feel an honorable pride in that vote. It was the first important law of civil government enacted by the great party which from that day to this has controlled this Government. It was the hope of the friends of that great measure that at a very early day all tbe public lands of the United States adapted to agriculture would be placed under its provisions, thus securing for all time the public domain for the benefit of the actual settler, the nation holding the lands only as a trustee for its landless people. The Republican party in its early vigor pointed to this law with commendable pride, not only as the fulfillment of a promise made to the people, bat as the evidence of the elevated statesmanship of its leaders. Andrew Johnson and other eminent representatives of Democratic principles had made a brave fight for the Homestead law and failed. The Republican party bad carried it through as its first measure of °*ThEty years ago, in the first gathering of its elements, the Republican party at Pittsburgh adopted this resolution: “ Itesolved, That the public lands of the United States belong to the people, and should not be sold to individuals, nor granted to corporations, .but should be held as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people, and should be granted in limited quantities, free of cost, to landless settlers.” ' It was greatly to tho honor of that party and the eminent statesmen who organized its forces tbat ten years after the adoption of that resolution the party fulfilled its early promise by tho enactment of tho Homestead law. It was an honorable beginning, but that great party twenty years ago, devoting for the coming ages the grand public domain of that dsv for homes far the landless and prosperous and happy firesides for all men who would assert the r ghts of labor, and that party of to-day, turning that bountiful gift of nature to mankind over to the grasping millionaire and the plundering spoilsman and using the power of Government to drive off the laboring man from the fields enriched by his labor and on which he was invited to enter by that very Homestead law for the benefit of incorporated power, is the most striking and humiliating contrast known to the history of free government. The facts which I shall present will show how tamely I have presented the case. The great parties' which had controlled the Government for three-quarters of a century had husbanded the public lands with jealous solicitude ; their poiicy at times seemed almost miserly. They did not underestimate the value of this great inheritance ; they saw in the fertile and boundless fields of the West the strong bulwark of the Republican institutions they were cherishing ; they saw in those fields the safetv of labor against the oppression of capitalized power; they felt and knew that while that refuge remained, while the strong arm and the brave heart of labor was sure of a freehold, a home, and a fireside against all the accidents of fortune the republic was secure. The monarchies which had held possession in North America, the English, the French and Spaniard, had granted' to favorites large estates in land. And why not? Such is the instinct of monarchy. Our fathers hoarded the public lands to secure homes for the people. They did not enact a homestead law, for the public treasury during a long period required the price, but lictle more than nominal, charged for public lands. It was no hardship, for there were no overgrown estates ; and hence poverty was almost unknown: Under this policy the great States stretching westward from the Alleghanies to the Mississippi and still onward were settled ; the general equality in wealth was maintained ; no princely estates; no cry for labor and bread. Up to the time the Republican party came into power not an acre of land had’ been granted by Congress to a corporation ; but the grants made by Congress to States for internal improvements and applied by the States to making of roads, canals and railroads amounts in the aggregate to 31,600,846 acres. This includes all of the grants made by Congress from tbe adoption of the Federal constitution on the 17th day of September, 1787, to the 4th day of March, 1861, when the party now controlling public affairs came into power, covering a period of seventyfour years. And here I present, sir, a table of the grants of public lands made by Congress since the Republican party came into power on the 4th of March, 1861, covering a period of twenty-one years—not grants made to States for public purposes subject to State control and State taxation, but made to corporations for the gain and profit of corporation! which are even now almost, if not entirely, above either State or Federal control.

[Hero Mr. Holman gives a table of railroads and the amount of land granted to each, showing lhat between 1862 and 1874 tbe enormous amount of 192,081,155 acres of the public domain was voted away by Congress to railroad corporations.] Thus while the old parties, Federalid, Democrat and Whig, had carefuliy guarded tho public laud through a period of seventy-four years against the countless schemes of proposed and pretended development and improvement, through which the designing and the crafty sotfgbt to reach them, and through lhat long period granted 31,600,846 acres to States for internal improvements, the Republican party in a period of fourteen years gave to railroad corporations 192,081,155.52 acres. All of these grants, aggregating 192,081,155.52 acres, were made between tbe 4th day of March, 1861, and tho 4th day of March, 1875, a period of fourteen years, for on the 4th day of March, 1875, the Democrati: pirty came into tbe control of this House, and since then no grant has been made, renewed or enlarged. And who can es'imate the fatal injury inflicted by this system on the integrity of the Eublic service ? Each grant has its own peculiar is’ory of national humiliation. Tho exhaustion of the public land is not the only evil of this system of land grants. In tbe many struggles to renew, enlarge and extend the grants, spectacles were presented on this floor which cannot be recalled without a sense of national humiliation and dishonor, when great stockholders of the corporations holding these grants, ntembers of this House, unblushingly attempted to vote in their own interest, and were arraigned before the bar of the House for the discreditable attempt. When the most fertile regions of the public domain had been reached and appropriated by these grants, and not till then, the minority of this House were able to check this corrupting policy. The time for the completion of these land-grant railroads has expired. The last grant, according to various laws creating the grants, expired on the 2d day of May, 1882. The time for the completion of the Northern Pacific railroad, with its enormous grant of 48,215,040 acres, expired on the 4th day of July, 1879. In ail of these gran's, except to the Northern Pacific, it is in substance provided that the corporations should complete a specified portion of their respective roads each year, receiving the lands accruing upon the completion of each section of twenty miles, and bhould complete their respective roads within a specified period, generally ten years, and upon failing to do so the lands remaining should “revert to the United States.” In some of these acts the language is still more specific and declares that upon such failure the act shall be “null and void,” and the remaining lands “ shall revert to the United States.” There is not the least ambiguity in the conditions to these grants, by which the corporation is entitled to a given number of sections of land on the completion of each section of twenty miles, and if there is a failure to complete the road within the period specified, the remaining land “ shall revert to the United States.” In the grants to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company the terms are different. The eighth section of the act is specific and unequ.vocal. It is as follows : “ Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, Tbat each and every grant, right and privilege herein are so made ani given to, and accepted by, said Northern Pacific Railroad Company, upon and subject to the following condition’s, namely : that the said company shall commence tlie work on said road within two years from the approval of this act by the President, and shall complete not less than fifty miles per year after the second year, and shall construct, «quip, furnish and complete the whole road by the 4th day of July, anno Domini, 1876.” There is no ambiguity in this language. Each and every grant, right and privilege herein is “given to, accepted by,” said company on the condition tbat the work shall be commenced within two years after the approval of the act (July 12, 1864), not leas than fifty miles a year ahali bo completed after the second year, and the whole road shall be constructed, equipped, furniahed and completed by the 4th day of Julf, 1876. Then follows the most unmeaning jum ale of words eyer hid in the verbiage of an act of Congress, written as if the crafty lawyer who drew it wished to create an ambiguity’on which a corporation might setup some pretense of a right not granted by the law. Here is this remarkable section: “Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That the United States make the several conditioned grants herein, and that the said Northern Pacific Railroad Company accept the same, upon the further condition that if the said company make any breach of the conditions hereof, and allow the same to continue for upward of one year, then, in such a case, at any time hereafter, the United States, by its Congress, may do any and all acts and things which may be needful the said***!?”* 0 inßnre * B P eed y completion of If Ibis corporation gains anything by this •wloi} i\ will fiijiy be wJi« » is sufficiently

powerful to order the interpretation of a law against the plainest dictates of common sense. It accepts the grant on the condition that its “ whole road ” shall be completed by the 4kh day of Jnly, 1876, Mid if it breaks its contract, then the United States may do what is neoessary “to insure a speedy completion of said road.” Well, suppose this corporation forfeited its lsnd grant by failing to complete its road by the 4th day of Jnly, 1879, for the time was extended by the joint resolution of May 7, 1866, to that date, without any other change in the conditions, and Congress declared, as it rightfully might and should, the remaining lands forfeited to the United States, certainly the Government might complete the road if it thought proper and had the constitutional power, or might regrant the lands for that purpose ; but does this ninth section confer a power or impose a duty on the United States ? Does it mean that Congress cannot declare the forfeiture under the eighth section without providing for the completion of the road? No, sir; it means simply that the United States might do exactly what it might have done if this ninth section had not been a part of the law. This corporation will have to be stronger than Congress or the Federal judiciary before it will be able to obtain a decision that the United States cannot declare the forfeiture under the eighth section until they assume the obligation tocomSlete the road under the ninth section. Peraps this corporation will have the effrontery to claim that under the ninth section if it forfeits the grant, then the United States are compelled to complete the road for its benefit And yet this extraordinary claim would not be more startling than the claim that if the corporation forfeited its rights then the United States were bound to provide for the completion of the road for the benefit of the United States. But happily the last section of the act leaves the whole subject under the control of Congress. It provides • “ Sec. 20. And be ii further enacted, That the better to accomplish the object of this act, namely, to promote the public interest and welfare by the construction of said railroad and telegraph line and keeping the same in working order, and to secure to the* Government at ail times (but particularly in time of war) the use and benefits of the same for postal, military End other purposes, Congress may at anv time, aving due regard for the rights of tho Northern Pacific Railroad Company, add to, alter, amend or repeal this act” The stump speech in favor of this imperial grant embodied in this last section, craftily framed as it is, will deceive no one ; it has but one meaning, and that is “ that Congress may at anv time, having due regard for tbe rights of said Nor hern Pacific Railroad Company, add to, alter, amend or repeal this act” In view of tho forfeiture whicn occurred of this grant on the 4th of July, 1879, what rights have that corporation which the United States are bound either in law or equity to regard ? It might have been fairly presumed that, as th( so corporations were entitled to patents for the 1 nd as each successive section of the road was completed, the land remaining when the period for the final completion of each road expire 1 would at once become a part of the pub--1 c dotna u ; but the Supreme Court holds otherwise, that the law vested in the corporation tho right to the land, that the condition of forfeiture for failing to complete the road within the” time specified was a “condition subsequent,” and hence an act of Congress was necessary to declare the forfeiture and restore the land to tho public domain. I present hero a statement of the several grants which have been forfeited. The last of these grants, that to the Texas Pacific Railroad Company, expired on tho 2d dav of May, 1882. [Mr. Holman here presents a table of land grants which have been forfeited by the failure of the corporations to complete their rc*f.a within the time specified by law. This table shows that the total number of acres embraced in these forfeited grants is 128,472,161 acres; lmgth in miles of railroads as definitely located, 12,080 ; numbor of miles of road completed before expiration of grants, 3,151.] It will he seen that this statement embraces many of the earlier grants and three of the great grants made within the fourteen years, many of the older grants.having been extended and . greatly enlarged within the last eighteen years!" These twenty-three grants embrace 128,472,161.13 acres. The aggregate length of ilie railroads for which these grants were made is 12,080 mdes, and the number of miles completed when the grants exp red 3,151 miles, so that a fraction over one-fourth of the roads was completed and tho companies were entitled to only their proportion of the 128,472,161.13 acres when the forfeitures occurred, aud in good faith and common honesty the rest of this enormous body of land reverted to the United States. Not a mile of some of theso railroads has been constructed up to this day. Tue following table shows the number of miles which had been constructed by each of tho great corporations above named when their grants expired, and the time of their expiration, including the Southern Pacific of California, i which is not embraced in the report of the i Commissioner of the General Land Office made to the House on the 28th day of March, 1882 (Hou-e Executive Document No. 144, first sossioD, Forty-seventh Congress): TABLE OF CERTAIN EXPIRED GRANTS. AC. ■ »r ii xil S.’S. | ? n, ” a, s * NAME OF RAILROAD • a ; 3 ’'S § : | : : s sj it •: I : ? \n A t'antic aud Pacific 42,000,fi00 2,426 July 4,’78 125 Texas Pacific 18 000.000 1,483 May 2,’82 181 Northern Pacific... 48,215,040 2,270 Juiy 4,’7y 531 Southern Pacific of California 5,511,264 522 July 4,’76 125 Tota’, 113,726,304 6,701 962 Thus it will be seen that four of these corporations, which received grants of the public | lands amounting in the aggregate to 113,726,304 j acres, a territory five times as large as the State ! of Indiana and 10,000,000 acres more, for the construction of 6,701 miles of railroad, hadcom- ! pleted only 962 miles of railroad when the ] grants expired, leaving over 96,000,000 acres of the grants now belonging to the public domain. But since the decision of the Supremo Court that these grants vest from the beginning in the corporations, and on the forfeiture of the grant an act of CoDgress is necessary to restore these lands to the public domain, the departments of the Government have treated those grants as still existing, notwithstanding the forfeiture. [Mr. Holman here exhibits a table condensed from the report of the Secretary of the Interior for 1880-81, showing in detail the condition of large numbers of these grants. We simply give the footings: Number of miles covered by grant?, 14,351; estimated number of acres granted, 179,922,528: acres disposed of, 14.310,204; receipts from sales, $68,905,473.31; estimated quantity of acres c ft granted land remaining unsold, 164,512,334.] This table presents matter well worthy of consideration. While the Government with seeming eagerness i 3 gotting rid of what remains of the public land and during the last fiscal vear disposed of 10,893,397 acres and received in cash $3,534,550, yet these corporations with their immense land grants, the larger portion of which in quantity were made in 1862- ’64r-’6s—and although the Union Pacific and its great branches were completed more than thirteen years ago and thus became the absolute owner of its grant—ave only sold off 14,310,204 acres and realized therefrom $68,995,479.31, and according to this table they stili hold in reserve 164,512,334 acres of their grants.

Yes, sir, those corporations are patiently waiting until the United States shall exhaust -all that remains of the public lands adapted to agriculture, for then their monopoly is complete and every laboring and landless man in the United States is at their mercy. But it will be seen that even the larger portion of the lands sold are sold to the members of these corporation? at the price of a fraclian under $5 per acre, si ill to be held for speculation. It is therefore not at all surprising that an irresistible pressure is brought to bear upon Congress to exhaust the public lands, that 21,788,011 acres should have been surveyed last year (a territory larger than the State of Indiana! and brought within the reach of monopolizing speculators. The pressure of these corporations is felt by every department of the Government, and the extent of their hold upon the public lands cannot be learned with certainty from the public records. Whoever, sir. shall carefuliy examine the foregoing tables taken from the official records will be startled by the discrepancies. In table No. 2 the grant to the Atlantic and Paciflc is stated at 42,000,000 ; in table No. 4at 49,244,803. In the report of the Commissioner of tne General Land Office before mentioned, of March 28, 1882, the grant to tho Southern Pacific of California is estimated St 5,511,261 ; no such grant appears in table No. 2. Iu table No. 4, the grant to the Northern Pacific is put down at 42,000,000, and in table No. 2 at 47.000,000, and many others equally startling. I suppose that in such enormous grants a few million acres more or less is considered a matter of no moment. Some of these statements seem to come from the Commissioner of the General Land Office and some from the Auditor of Rsilroad Accounts. The estimates are vague and will be still more so in the future, as will appoar, but the uncertainty will not reduce the grants. There is no branch of the pnblic service so poorly understood as those corporate grants; there is no field in which corruption can riot so secure, and no officers of the Government so beset by temptations as those connected with these grants. Contests are constantly arising t etween these corporations and the settlers on the public lands, but when in these contests, whether before the courts or tbe departments, and I may add before Congress, have these corporations tailed? By disingenuous provisions in the grants and tho “art of definition” these corporations are enabled to select their “indemnity land” ever a vast region of country, the Northern Pacifio in places to the utentof full lOUmilesin width. These “indemnity lands” are withdrawn from tie' ptiM e domain at the same time the lands vr*Ui>u Iho limits of foe grant are withdraws*'

and settlers over a vast region of country enter upon their homesteads at their peril. And so, Mr. Chairman, even at this early day the fruits of this land-grant railroad system begin to ripen in all their bitterness. Citizens, after years of fftbor on their homesteads under shelter of your homestead laws, driven out of their once cheerful homes apd from fields fertilized by tbe sweat or tneir patient labor; soldiers who upheld the banner of the Union on many a field of death, by craft and subtlety deprived of their rights in the cnblie domain; millions of acres of fertile land, by facile, adroit decisions secured to these corporations, even in excess of their grants, at the expense of bona fide settlers —millions of acres of land by heartless monopoly placed forever beyond the reach of landless and laboring men, the entire public domain permeated in every direction by grants the laws creating which are fall of subtle and disingenuous provisions framed for dishonest advantage, while the combined power of these corporations, with more tha*.' Kingly wealth, with lands sufficient to form more than eight great States within their grasp, a munificent gift of Congress from the rightful inheritance of labor, is molding the policy which will secure obedience to their commands, while the unshorn fields which once invited the labor of the landless now have written upon them the accursed word monopoly—not free lands for freemen, with the plow in the bands of the owner, but landlords and tenants, great estates and shivering poverty. No man who feels as a man is wont to feel .can contemplate the fruits of this system, its disingenuous methods, its corrupting practices* its arrogant and unblushing assertion of dishonest claims as against the just rights of the feeble, and the subserviency of official authority to its demands without blushing for his country. And here, Mr. Chairman, we stand at the close of this prolonged session. Matters of trivial concern nave occupied this great body. The greatest question before the American people cannot even obtain a hearing. Has the shadow of these great corporations fallen also upon this Capitol ? Does tne spirit that rendered these grants possible still stand m the way of abrogating them to the fall extent of the right? But what other results could have been hoped for? The great party which organized these corporations and gave them tho lands which belonged to the people have learned to lean upon them for support. A party whose main support is corporate power is not likely to speak in the interest of labor. If these forfeited lands are ever brought within the reach of the landless it will not be by the party which made these grants. If the people of this country wish to assert their rights against the domination of corporate power, thev mast change the administration of their affairs. The continuance of the Republcan party in the ascendency means the ascendency of powerful monopolies and that this generation shall see the utter ani complete exhaustion of the public lands, and with the public domain, sir, gots the last hope of labor and tho strongest piliar upon which this republic rests. Sir, is t here any parallel to this record ? Thirty years ago, in the first gathering of its elements at Pittsburgh, the party iu power resolved that the puulic lands should uot be sold to individuals or granted to corporations, but should be told as a “ saflred trust ” to secure homes for “ laudless settlers.” Twenty years ago the same party, on its first advent into power, passed the Homestead law and dedicated theso public lands I o the landless for free homes for freemeD, yet within a period, of fourteen years the same party gave to corporations 192,081,155.52 acresof these lands, authorized them to select the most fertilo of these lands almost without limit, and have so administered the laws making theso grants that bv artful interpretations these grants are so enlarged that the agricultural lands are almost exhausted, and in a very few .veara tho monopoly of lands by great corporations will be complete.

And now, when many of these corporations have, after repeated extension of the time for completing their railroads, finally forfeited a large portion of their grants, and only an act of Congress, the justice of which no man can question, is necessary to restore 96,000,000 of acres of these lands to the people, a ten-itory larger than the great States of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois combined, that act cannot be obtained. And. more than that, in this House as organized even the poor privilege of considering the subject cannot be secured. And why were not these railroad) completed within the time named in the respective grants ? The answer is obvious. These corporations have waited until our ever-growing population, pouring in teeming multitudes westward and southwestward into the new States and Territories, have by their labor in countless fields developed the value of these great grants reserved from settlement and made them the foundation for the bonds which are to construct the roads. The time for the completion of the Northern Pacific road was twice extended before it forfeited its grant on tho 4th day of July, 1879. The cost of constructing this road of 2,270 miles, as reported by the Auditor of Railroad Accounts, will be $75,000,000, and this corporation holds its land grant of 48,215,040 acres iu the fairest portion of the great West—land enough to complete its imperial railroad estate and leave princely estates to the railroad kings beside ! And yet in due course of time this road would have been built and paid for by the men who would have owned it, and the curse of land monopoly would uot have been written on the face of theso fair fields. It is said that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Knott) and his associates, the minority of the Judiciary Committee, will report in favor of restoring to the people the unearned and forfeited millions of this grant, but if they do they will get no hearing iu this House. And so, sir, the party which passed ihe Homestead law has not only granted to these corporations this vast body of the public lands, but has invested these corporations with such imperial powers that they defy your Government and hold these forfeited lands in defiance of the public will; and yet these lands, to the extent of more than 96,000,000 acres, in equity, justice, law and common honesty, belong to tho people of the United States. In this state of off lira is it all surprising that the leading public journal of the Pacific coast should indignantly sav that — “1 here is nothing in the history of any civilized nation so monstrous, so stupid, so infamous as the legislation whicli has turned over t heso more than imperial gifts of land to tho absolute ownership of a few bloodless, soulless, aspiring and brutal corporations. It is a direct bid for the establishment and perpetuation of a landed aristocracy in the United States as much more powerful than that of, Ireland as France is larger than Belgium, and as more able to defy the Government as an American Congress, restricted by a written constitution, is less able to cope with such a com! instion as the British Parliament, which may make and mend the unwritten constitution of the empire at its will. If Congress fails to restore this 83.674,478 acres of clearly forfeited land to the public domain, it will be guilty of a neplfct of duty that must plant the seed and at some future day—not so far off, either—bear the fruits of social and political revolution compared with which tbe late civil war was but a trifling episode.— San Francisco Chronicle, May 10, 1852.” The San Francisco Chronicle puts the number of acres forfeited lower than I do. but lam confident mv figures are not above the actual amount. This system is not only monopolizing the public land, organizing an intolerable landed aristocracy, robbing the laboring man who settles in good faith on the public lands of the fruits of his lalior, fostering corporations which invade all departments of government and decide their own claims, but now, as a natural result, compel a resort to the public treasury to remedy countless wrongs which their insatiable cupidity and extortions create. To illustrate this danger I call attention to Senate bill No. 1,492. which hss passed the Senate and now lies on the Speaker’s table ready for action. The Bens.te report states that on the 23d day of July, 1866. there were granted lands to the Denver and. St Joseph R«jh:oad Company m alternate sections to a width or twenty miles and indemnity i»nds. The company remained qniet from 1866 to March 28, 1870, and then filed a map x>f the location of tbeir road. On the 15th of April, 1870. the Secretary of the Interior withdrew the lands from settlement for the twenty miles width, but in'the meantime and up to April 15. 1870. the country had rapidly filled with settlers, entries had been made and patents issued by the United States to the settlers. In the language of the report: “The lands were sold and resold ; pre-emp-tors, settlers and owners improved the same, in many casus with valuable buildings, fences and orchards, and paying taxes thereon, increasing the value in some cases to S2O and $25 per acre.” And the first notice that these settlers had that the patents issued by the United States were no protection against a cl im of. a railroad company was the bringing of suits against them in the Federal court, promptly followed by a decision that the lands were embraoed by the grant to the corporation, and the settlers were turned out of the possession of lands improved by ten years of their labor, and this bill and report propose that there shall be paid out of the public treasury $2.50 per acre to each settler turned out of possession. If this Government shall attempt to remedy all of the injustice which this infamous system will inflict; if the Government shall make reparation for every act of robbery by the corporations it has organized and enriched, can any man tell how many millions annually will come from the public treasury? And can anv honorable man read even this brief narrative of one of the countless acts of fraud, dishonesty and extortion constantly occurring under this system without uttering an indignant protest against it? I admit tbat for the present there seems to be no remedy for the monstrous wrong that has been done, but the evil would be in some degree palliated by the exercise of the power which Congress unquestionably has of declaring the forfeiture of the vast body of land now within its reach. Here are more than 96,000,000 of sores of this land wrongfully withheld from the pnblio domain, granted without consideration to a few corporations | these corporation* bold

these lands by the «ame^qnertton«Me^mettod^ rrants are now owned by a few men whose onlr method, in affairs if the employment of wealth. Th«eisTio question, of the right of Congress tended re the forfeiture of these lands to the extent of these 96,000.000. This monstrous outrage on human rights can be remedied. These men wflf still hold .nH monopolize over 100,000,000 seres, bat these 96.060.000 can be reclaimed rightfully without even a question as to the justice of this set; that much at least, wrested from the jaws of nftmopoly mid dishonor; can be secured for free homes for free men. On the 16th dav of January, 1882,1 inJroduced House bill No. 2,876, to declare these grants where the corporations .Jailed within the time specified in the grants te fulfill the conditions forfeited and restoring the lands io the public domain, and on the 9th day of the same month I introduced House bill No. 2,752, to secure the remaining ppbMolands adapted to agriculture to actual settlers under the homestead laws. ITiese bills were referred to the Committee on Public Lauds. On . the 6th day of February, 4882, my colleague (Mr. Cobb) introduced Honse bill No. 3,606, to declare the forfeiture of these lands and restore them to the public domain. This bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee. Other bills have been introduced. More than six months have elapsed and tbe Committee on Public! Lands is as silent as death on these vital measures. The majority of tbe Judiciary Committee report ambiguously, but apparently in favor of letting itbe Northern Pacific alone, and by implication reafiirnung in part a grant long since dead in the State of Michigan. We are assured that the minority of that committee will assert the just’ claims of the people in unambiguous terms. I know it is customary to quiet the fears of our people by teferring' to (he large figures of our public lands in the Commissioner’s report, but if vou deduct the 369,529,600 acres or the ice fields of Alaska, the Rocky mountains, and the Sierras, and the vast arid and. sterile plains which skirt those mountains, all of which are embraced in the computation of the public lands, and-doduct over 200,000,000 acres in all of land grants yet to be filled—deduct all these and see bow the figures shrivel and how little is left. There are still in this House two members who were in the Congress which passed tbe Homestead law and voted for its passage—the gentleman from New York, then from Ohio [Mr. Cox], SDd myself. My friend from New York and myself at least have stood by that law from the beginning. Not an acre has been taken from the laboring men of this country by his vote or mine nor an acre given to a corporation. Every bill giving these vast millions to the favorites of Congress has at least met our earnest resistance. But the grants have been made, the public domain has been largely exhausted and monopolizing corporations have been organized with imperial powers which- fit fy the Government itself; motives and methods of corruption unknown until this policy was inaugurate! threaten our free institutions; vast estates have been created by act of Congress, and the free outlet of labor from the power of capital is rapidly closing. The shadow of a new power reßts upon this Capitol and the departments. It may be that Tor the time the people of this country will not fully appreciate the injury done to their institutions, DUt soonor or later anathemas deep and bitter will fall from the lips of poverty and wretchedness on these measures, which, under the perfidious mask of progress and development, will enrich the few but deprive multitudes of men and their wives and children of happy and prosperous homes.