Cornell University Library The original of tinis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924088428440 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 924 088 428 440 PAPERS AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION Volume I. NEW YORK & LONDON G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS S^e $mc!uibocIui $uss 1886 UN!VEHr X CONTENTS OF VOLUME I. I. — Report of the Organization and Proceedings of the American Historical Association, at Saratoga, September 9-10, 1884. By Herbert B. Adams, Secretary of the Association .... 5-44 II. — An Address on Studies in General History and the History of Civilization. By Andrew D. White, President of the Association, 1884-5 • • • 49~72 III. — History and Management of Federal Land Grants for Education in the Northwest Territory. By George W. Knight, Ph.D. (Univ. of Michigan) . 79-247 IV. — The Louisiana Purchase in its Influence upon the American System. By the Rt. Rev. C. F. Rob- ertson, Bishop of Missouri .... 253-290 V. — History of the Appointing Power of the President. By Lucy M. Salmon, A.M. (Univ. of Michigan) 299-419 VI. — Report of the Proceedings of the American His- torical Association, at Saratoga, September 8-10, 1885. By Herbert B. Adams, Secretary of the Association . ■ 42S~493 Index 495-502 iii American Historical Association, Organized at Saratoga, N. Y., September lo, 1884. President : JUSTIN WINSOR, Librarian Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Vice-Presidents : CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS, WILLIAM F. POOLE. President of Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. Librarian Public Library, Chicago, III. Secretary : Treasurer : HERBERT B. ADAMS, CLARENCE WINTHROP BOWEN, Associate Professor of History, yohns Hopkins No. 3SI Broad-way, New York. University, Baltimore, Md. Executive Council : (in addition to the above-named ofBcers) CHARLES DEANE, FRANKLIN B. DEXTER, Cambridge, Mass, Professor of American History, Yale College, New Haven, Conn. WILLIAM F. ALLEN, WILLIAM WIRT HENRY, Fro/tssor of History, University of Wisconsin, Richmond, Va. Madisony IVis, CONSTITUTION. I. The name of this Society shall be The American Histori- cal Association. II. Its object shall be the promotion of historical studies. III. Any person approved by the Executive Council may become a member by paying three dollars ; and after the first year may continue a member by paying an annual fee of three dollars. On payment of twenty-five dollars, any person may become a life- 2 American Historical Association. member exempt from assessments. Persons not residents in the United States may be elected as honorary members, and shall be exempt from the payment of assessments. IV. The ofificers shall be a President, two Vice-Presidents, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and an Executive Council consisting of the foregoing officers and of four other members elected by the Association. These officers shall be elected by ballot at each regular annual meeting of the Association. V. The Executive Council shall have charge of the general interests of the Association, including the election of members, the calling of meetings, the selection of papers to be read, and the determination of what papers shall be published. VI. This Constitution may be amended at any annual meeting, notice of such amendment having been given at the previous annual meeting, or the proposed amendment having received the approval of the Executive Council. LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. ♦ Life Members. *Adams, Charles Francis, Jr., Esq., 23 Court Street, Boston, Mass. Adams, Brooks, Esq., Quincy, Mass. Adams, Charles Kendall, President of Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. Adams, Professor George B., Drury College, Springfield, Mo. *Adams, Henry, Esq., 1603 H Street, Washington, D. C. Adams, Professor Henry Carter, Uni- versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. * Adams, Herbert B., Johns Hop- kins University, Baltimore, Md. Akins, Thomas B., D.C.L., Barrister at Law and Commissioner of Public Records of Nova Scotia, Halifax, N. S. *Alger, Hon. R. A., Detroit, Mich. Allan, Colonel William, McDonogh P. O., Baltimore Co., Md. Allen, J. M. Esq., Hartford, Conn. Allen, Professor W. F., Madison, Wis. AUinson, E. P., Esq., 429 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Anderson, Rev. Dr. Joseph, Water- bury, Conn. Andrews, Rev. Dr. William G., Guil- ford, Conn. Andrews, Professor Elisha Benjamin, Brown University, Providence, R. I. Andrews, Israel Ward, D.D., Presi- dent Marietta College, Marietta, O. Angell, James B., LL.D., President University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Appleton, Wm. S., Esq., care of C. U. Cotting, 9 Tremont Street, Boston, Mass. Archibald, the Hon. Sir Adams G. , K.C.M.G., Halifax, Nova Scotia. Armour, George A., Esq., 1932 Calu- met Avenue, Chicago, 111. Atkinson, Professor Wm. P., Mass. In- stitute of Technology, Boston, Mass. Babson, Hon. John J., Gloucester, Mass. Bagg, Dr. M. M., Secretary of Oneida Historical Society, Utica, N. Y. Baird, Rev. Charles W., D.D., Rye, Westchester Co., N. Y, Baird, Professor Henry M., Univ. of City of N. Y., New York City. *Balch, Thomas Willing, Esq., 1412 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Baldwin, C. C, Cleveland, O. Baldwin, Hon. Rufus J., Minneapolis, Minn. ♦Baldwin, Simeon E., Esq., 69 Church St., New Haven, Conn. *Bancrof t, Hon. George, Newport, R. I. ♦Bancroft, Hubert H., Esq., San Francisco, Cal. ♦Bancroft, Jane M., Fellow of His- tory, Bryn Mawr, Pa. Barrows, Samuel J., Editor the Chris- tian Register, 141 Franklin Street, Boston, Mass. ♦Barton, Edmund Mills, Esq., Libra- rian American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Mass. Baxter, James P., Esq., Portland, Me. Baxter, Hon. Witter J., Lansing, Mich. Beach, W. W., Esq., 131 Buena Vista Ave., Yonkers, N. Y. Beckwith, Hiram W., Esq., Danville, 111. Bell, Hon. Charles H., Exeter, N. H. Bemis, E. W., Ph.D., 35 Morgan St., Springfield, Mass. Bigelow, Hon. John, Highland Falls, Orange Co., N. Y. American Historical Association. *Bigelow, Melville M., Ph.D., 209 Washington Street, Boston, Mass. Birney, General William, 456 Louis- iana Avenue, Washington, D. C. Bishop, George R., Esq., 45 William Street, New York City. Blatchford, E. W., Esq., 70 N. Clin- ton St., Chicago, 111. Bliss, Colonel Alexander, Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D. C. Bliss, Charles M., Esq., Bennington, Vt. BoUes, Professor Albert S. {Banker's Magazine), 251 Broadway, New York City. Bonaparte, Charles J., Esq., No. i St. Paul Street, Baltimore, Md. Bourne, Edward G., Esq., Yale Col- lege, 36 E. D. Hall, New Haven, Conn. Bourne, H. E., Esq., Yale College, 36 E. D., New Haven, Conn. *Bowen, Clarence W., Ph.D., The In- dependent, 251 Broadway, New York City. *Bracl All Early Laws Framed with the same Object .... 108 Losses through Poor Investments and Dishonest Management . ill A Change to a Mode of Investing Which Has Many Arguments in its Favor 113- Swamp Lands 114, Wise Enactments and Good Management Secure a Large Fund from this Source for the Support of Education . . .116 B. — Seminary or University Lands. (a) Ohio. Disposition of the Ohio Company Seminary Lands . . .117 Ordered Leased for Ninety-Nine Years n8 Modification of the Law 119 A Few Sales Made 120 Litigation with the Lessees 120 Interference of the Legislature in 1843 . . . . . .121. iv Contents. Subsequent History of the Grant 122 The Third Township Granted for a Seminary Unwisely Disposed of 122 {b) Indiana. Territorial Legislation Gives the First Seminary Township to Vin- cennes University 124 The State Legislature Attempts to Revoke the Grant and Bestow it upon the State University 125 Disposition of the Land and Investment of the Fund ■ . .126 Litigation with Vincennes University 128 The State University Defeated but Obtains an Additional Grant from Congress 128 Subsequent Legislation 130 {c) Illinois. Bad Features of the Early Laws 132 Causes for Early Sales ^ . . 133 The Fund Diverted for Thirty Years from its Legitimate Object . 134 The Worst Managed Fund in the Northwest .... 135 An Additional Fund for a College 135 ( Constitution, Art. X., Sec. 2. " 9 U. S. Stat., 233. ' 10 U. S. Stat., 597. . PART II. STATE LEGISLATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE GRANTS. A,— SCHOOL AND SWAMP LANDS. In investigating the history of the management by the States of the various grants for schools, a study of the territory as a whole would present but a confused and unsatisfactory view of the subject. In one State the lands have been managed by local officers in the different town- ships, in another they have been controlled by one central authority, while in others they have been subject to the joint control of State and local ofKcers. Again, in some States the policy of leasing prevailed in the earlier days, while in others sales were ordered at the outset. Still further, different theories as to the investment of the resulting funds have obtained in different States. For these reasons a sepa- rate examination of the policy and legislation of each State becomes necessary, {a) OHIO. The sixteenth sections were not formally given to Ohio until her admission as a State, and until then no steps were taken to utilize them for school purposes. The territorial authorities, however, seem to have exercised a supervisory control over the reserved tracts, for in 1799 a measure was adopted " to prevent the committing of waste " on the school lands.' ' Education in Ohio, 13. [114] 42 lis] Northwest Territory. 43 /As Ohio was the first State coming into possession of an extensive land endowment for education, she could look to no older State for ideas concerning its management. /By the terms of the grant, in whatever way the lands were disposed of, only the income arising from them could be expended. The fund itself, whether kept in lands or turned into money, must remain intact forever. The constitution adopted in 1802 gave no directions for the management of this valuable trust. The task of devising a method of guarding and utilizing it was thrown upon the Legislature. In those early ■days the opinion seems to have been unanimous that educa- tional interests would be best promoted by leasing the lands and applying the rents to the maintenance of schools. Abstractly considered, this policy rests upon a solid founda- tion. /So long as public lands are abundant in a State — and they always are in a new State — -it would be vain to expect that men will pay a higher price for school lands than is demanded by the United States for lands of the same quality, unless more favorable terms of payment are offered for the former. If, however, they can be leased until the best public lands have been sold, this difficulty is avoided. They can then be thrown upon the market at higher prices, and thus produce a larger permanent fund. While the State is sparsely settled, fewer schools are needed, and the annual rents from the leased property afford some revenue for that purpose. In this method there are, however, certain practical difficulties to which attention will be called in sub- sequent pages. , The first General Assembly of Ohio, in April, 1803, ordered the school lands to be leased for periods varying from seven to fifteen years.' The object of the act was not an immedi- ate income, but, as the law itself declared, the improvement of the land, in order to make it productive of revenue in the future. The rent was not to be paid in money but by clear- ing a certain number of acres and planting trees. The business of leasing was entrusted to agents in the various counties and districts. The applicant who offered to make ' I Ohio Laws, 61. 44 Land Grants for Education in the [ii6 the improvements on a piece of land in the shortest time was to be given the lease. Comparatively few tracts were rented under this law. The long credit then given by the national government to purchasers of public lands placed them within the reach of many who would have been unable to make full payment at the time of purchase.' This fact operated against the tenant system until Congress adopted the cash policy in its sales. In 1805, lekses for a money rent were authorized. These were at first confined to the sixteenth sections." The town- ship trustees were vested with the power to lease these for not more than fifteen years, " to those who made the most advantageous proposals." The rent was to be " impartially applied to the education of the youths " in the township where the leased land was situated.' By the land laws of the United States the western territory was laid off into townships of a fixed size. When for civil purposes Ohio was divided into counties and the counties sub-divided into town- ships, it frequently happened that the boundaries of these civil townships did not coincide with those of the surveyed townships of six miles square. Section sixteen had been granted for the benefit of the inhabitants of each original surveyed township. In 1806 these latter townships were incorporated with power to elect three trustees and a treasurer " for the purpose of leasing and managing " the school lands on the terms prescribed in the previous law.* For several years these general provisions for the sixteenth sections remained unchanged. Many lands were leased, and 'Governor Tiffin said, in 1804:' "But few of the school sections are yet leased, and it is presumed for want of observing a more liberal policy, for when the means of acquiring a fee-simple to lands are so easy and almost within the reach of all, but few will Jje induced to improve lands not their own without sufficient compensation. " — 3 House Journal, 9. " It will be remembered that the school lands belonging to the Connecticut Reserve and the two military districts were not sections sixteen. The school legislation for each of these districts is entirely distinct from that applying to the rest of the State. ° 3 Ohio Laws, 230. ' 4 Ohio Laws, 66. Only those townships which contained twenty electors came within the provisions of the act. 117] Northwest Territory. 45 though the rent was small the constantly increasing value of the property afforded the prospect of a larger income after the expiration of the first leases. The Legislature next turned its attention to the school lands belonging to the Virginia Military Reservation. For some reason the provisions of the previous laws were not applied here. With the very first act the State entered upon an unfortunate and unwise course which was not abandoned until a considerable portion of the fund had been irrevocably lost to the people of the district. By a law of 1809 the lands were to be surveyed and "sold " at public auction at not less than two dollars per acre, and the costs of the survey and sale. These costs were to be paid in cash. On the remainder the purchaser was required to pay six per cent, interest " yearly, forever, subject, however, to alteration by any suc- ceeding Legislature, so as to enable the purchaser or pur- chasers to make such commutation as said Legislature may think expedient." ' The title to the land did not pass from the State. A lease for ninety-nine years, renewable forever, was given to the successful bidder. By the proviso in the law, the lease might be altered in favor of the lessee, but not in favor of the State. This was an evident attempt to force the school lands be- longing to the district upon the market by offering more favorable terms than those given by the United States on public lands. To purchase government lands the settler must pay one fourth of the purchase money immediately, and the balance within five years. To purchase the school lands at the same price per acre he needed only to pay the petty expenses of the survey. For the moneyless immigrant here was a grand opportunity. To the school fund on the other hand it meant loss and waste. As far as the State was concerned, to rent on these terms was equivalent to selling outright. Not a single advantage claimed for the leasing system in its application to school lands can be found in this. plan. Under a system of short leases any increase in the. value of the property inures to the benefit of the lessor, and ' 7 Ohio Laws, 109. 46 Land Grants for Education in the [118 enables him to demand higher rent on a subsequent lease. But a system of permanent leases, such as was set up by this law, deprived the schools forever of any benefit from the increased value, and gave the entire advantage to the lessee. The Legislature did not stop here. In the following year the law was so amended as to permit the lessee at the time of " purchase " to make a cash payment of ten dollars per quarter section in lieu of the costs of survey and the first five years' rent.' The rent thus commuted for ten dollars, even if the lands had been leased at the minimum valuation allowed by law, would have amounted to ninety-six dollars." As the result of these laws there are to-day under lease about ten thousand acres in this district at an annual rent of twelve cents per acre.' In 18 10 the governor expressed a mild doubt whether these laws were beneficial to the interests of the schools." Not till many years later, however, did any gen- eral opinion arise that such legislation was unwise. From the terms of these laws one would infer that the wants of the schools in the district were pressing, and that an immediate income was desired and needed for the educa- tion of the children. Great, then, is one's surprise at finding that the rents were not used for school purposes for twenty years after the first leases were given. ^ From 181 5 until 1829 the money lay in the State treasury, subject to the use of the State. For six years of that time it brought no in- crease, but in 1 82 1 the State began paying interest which was compounded annually.' In 1829 the fund was for the first time applied to the cause of education. The whole accumulated income was distributed over the Reservation, 1 8 Ohio Laws, 254. ^ Even this did not satisfy the lessees, for in 1820 they represented to the Legislature that they had not understood that rent was to be paid until the ex- piration of six years from the dates of their leases. The Legislature therefore absolved them from the payment of rent for another year, although the original act could hardly have been misunderstood. — 18 Ohio Laws, 71. ' Education in Ohio, 28. * " It will not be an unimportant inquiry whether the most effectual measures have yet been taken to render the . . . [school] lands in this State sub- servient to the purposes for which they were granted." — 9 Senate Jour., 8. ' 19 Ohio Laws, 146. Education in Ohio, 21. iig] Northwest Territory. 47 and an annual distribution was to be made thereafter of all rents accruing.' Had the lands lain idle until the rent was thus properly used, they could probably have been leased for twice the sum obtained in 1809 and 18 10.' The General Assembly of 1816 realized the improvidence of such perpetual leases. Repealing the previous laws they provided that thereafter the lands in this district should be leased to the highest bidder for ninety-nine years, but that in 1835 and every twenty years thereafter the lands should be revalued by appraisers appointed by the governor, and that the lessee should pay an annual rent of six per cent, on each valuation until the next was made." If fair appraisals could be ensured, a lease of this kind was even more advan- tageous than a shorter one, for to the good features of the latter it added the certainty of a permanent as well as in- creasing income. During the years in which the lands of the Virginia Mili- tary District were passing from the hands of the State, the general law of 1805-6, providing for the lease of sections sixteen for periods of fifteen years, remained in force. Its value, however, had been in a great measure destroyed by special legislation. Numerous acts authorized the trustees of particular townships to rent lands on special terms, for periods varying from ten to ninety-nine years, with and with- out provisions for revaluation, and always at a low rent. It is beyond doubt that these special laws were passed at the instance of interested parties, sometimes even of members of the Legislature themselves,* who desired to obtain lands on better terms than those offered by the general law. /It is equally certain that in most instances the lessees and ' 27 Ohio Laws, 51. ° In 1838 they were considered worth nine dollars per acre. — Report Supt. of Common Schools, 1838, 36. ' 14 Ohio Laws, 418. * " Members of the Legislature not unfrequently got acts passed and leases granted either to themselves, to their relatives, or to their warm partisans. One senator contrived to get by such acts seven entire sections of land either into his own or his children's possession ! ! " — Atwater, 253. This book is valuable, but many statements, except where based on indubitable evidence, are to be re- ceived with caution. 48 Land Grants for Education in the [i20 not the schools derived the benefit from this special legisla- tion.' In 1817, the General Assembly, following the wise plan adopted in the previous year for the Virginia Military lands, authorized the proper officials to appraise the sixteenth sec- tions still unleased and to lease them for ninety-nine years at a rent of six per cent, of the valuation, subject to revaluation every thirty-three years. Any section not rented at the appraised value within a year was to be leased to the highest bidder. The law applied also, with a change of executory officers, to the lands of the United States Military District." As amended in 1821 no land was to be leased which had been valued at less than one dollar (!) per acre. ' Still the revenue applicable to schools continued so small, that by 1820 a general conviction prevailed that something was wrong. Many lands had been leased, yet the schools were deriving little from them. Few as yet perceived the true causes of the trouble. Even the Governor failed to locate the prime cause, though he was of the opinion that low rents might be in a measure responsible for the small net income arising ! * The Legislature if they saw any waste in the fund did not attribute it to low rents, for in the face of the Governor's suggestion they authorized the cancellation of leases on the ground that the lessees were " laboring under great embarrassment in consequence of the present reduced ' ' ' The school lands have been in many instances leased out for different periods of time to persons who in numerous instances seem to have forgotten that these lands were given to the State for the support of education and for the benefit of the rising generation. . , . Shall we proceed on, legislating session after session for the sole benefit of the lessees of school lands at the ex- pense of the State ? " — From a report made to the Ohio House of Representa- tives in 1821. yi/« Edwards, 175 I Sumner, 122. » Ford, 79. 134 Land Grants for Education in the [206 too evident, and the law which authorized the sales con- tained an innocent provision constituting four of the State officers a board of commissioners to take charge of the money and invest it in " stocks or funds." ' Then by a separate act the Governor was instructed to borrow the school fund and the proceeds of the seminary lands at six per cent, per annum, the interest to be added to the princi- pal until needed.' / This last clause is the key to the whole plot. Here was a method of borrowing money without paying any immediate interest. At the end of each year the proper sum was added to the fund on the books and the whole reckoned as principal the next year. So long as the Legislature did not see fit to establish a college to take the benefit of the fund, so long would it be able to use the money and throw upon succeeding generations the burden of paying all the interest. In 1 83s it was provided that the interest instead of being added to the principal should thereafter be loaned to the school fund for distribution over the State.' This arrange- ment lasted until 1857, when finally the State Normal Uni- versity was established and the income of the fund given to it.' / Thus it appears that the first lands were sold twenty- eight years before the fund was applied to its proper use. For twenty-two years of that time the interest was " loaned" to the school fund, and the loan, amounting in 1857 to seventy thousand dollars, has never been repaid ; that is, from 1835 to 1857 the seminary fund was illegally diverted to the use of the common schools./ There may have been reasons why the schools should borrow money,° but there can be no valid ground for permitting a trust fund to be diverted from its true object with no thought of reparation. In 1861, the four and one half sections still unsold were given to the Illinois Agricultural College. They were soon disposed of for fifty-eight thousand dollars, or about twenty dollars per acre. The proceeds were mismanaged by the college, and in 1872 the State took steps through the ' Illinois Laws, iSaq, 158. ' Ibid., 118. ' Illinois Laws, 1835, 23.. * Illinois Laws, 1857, 300. ' See Pillsbury, cxxxiv. ■207] Northwest Territory. 135 courts to recover the fund on the ground that the college had not used it according to the terms of the grant ! The suit resulted in favor of the State, and on the judgment a quantity of land has been secured which has since been sold for nine thousand dollars. This sum should be added to the seminary fund, though it does not yet appear there on the books of the State.' The fund amounts to $59,838.72, and the annual income is $3,590.32." /This fund is fairly entitled to the distinction of having been the worst-abused educational trust fund in the North- west Territory. Other States have sold their lands at as low prices, and some have hurried the sales in order to afford an immediate income for the beneficiary of the trust ;/lllinois ' alone has sacrificed the lands thirty years before the bene- ficiary of the trust was created. Other States have borrowed the funds after the lands were sold ; Illinois alone has sold the lands in order to borrow the proceeds. Other States have lost portions of the principal and interest ; Illinois alone has by law used the income for other purposes than those intended in the grant. Had the lands been leased until 1857, when the grant was first legitimately used, and then sold, they would have produced a fund of more than eight hundred 1 thousand dollars.' In addition to the two townships one half of one per cent, of the proceeds of the sales of public lands within the State was given to the State for a college or university. The his- tory of this fund up to 1835 has already been related in con- nection with that of the school funds." In 1836 it was ordered that the interest instead of being added to the prin- cipal, as had been the custom, should thereafter, like the interest on the seminary fund, be loaned to the schools.' This continued until 1857, when the fund was given as an endowment to the State Normal University. 1 Hid. ^ Illinois School Report, 1882, cxliii. From 1839 to 1873 one twenty- fourth o£ the income was given to the State Deaf and Dumb Institute. ' The land sold in 1861 at twenty dollars an acre is claimed to have been no better than the remaining forty thousand acres which were sold in 1830-5 for one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. * Supra, 83-85. 'Illinois Laws, 1835, 23. 136 Land Grants for Education in the [20& It has been shown that the interest accumulating between 1835 and 1857 on the fund derived from the seminary lands was never repaid by the State or the school fund. The interest on the " one half per cent." fund the State has re- turned.' A portion of this back interest has been used in erecting buildings, while about thirty-four thousand dollars have been added to the principal. The fund now amounts to $156,613.32, affording an annual income of $9,396.80. Since 1877 the income of both funds has been equally divided between the two normal schools of the State." {d) MICHIGAN. By the act of Congress in 1804, already frequently alluded to, one township in the Detroit land district was reserved for a seminary of learning in the territory now under the juris- diction of the State of Michigan. By a treaty concluded at Fort Meigs, in September, 18 17, between the United States and various Indian tribes, three sections of land were granted to " the corporation of the college at Detroit," and full powers given to the corporation to sell them.' The " college at Detroit " was not then in existence, but was established in the following month,* under the authority and as a branch of the " Catholepistemiad, or University of Michigania," a cor- poration chartered by the territorial authorities in August, 1817.° In 1 82 1, before any of the lands were located, the authorities chartered the University of Michigan." The management and control of the seminary township given to the trustees was limited to the power of leasing the lands for seven years. The university was also made the legal succes- sor of the Catholepistemiad, and as such acquired the title to the three sections of land belonging to the college at Detroit. ' See Illinois Laws, 1861, 147. ' Pillsbury, cxxxv. ' 7 U. S. Stat., 166. * Its establishment was announced in the Detroit Gazette, October 24, 1817, — Ten Brook, 100. ' 2 Territorial Laws, Mich. , 104. The charter of this institution, besprinkled with strange provisions in stranger language, is a literary and legal curiosity. ° I Territorial Laws, Mich., 879. 209] Northwest Territory. 137 ' Steps were immediately taken to have the lands located The three sections were selected and patents were issued for~ them in 1824.' When the location of the seminary township came under consideration an unexpected difficulty arose. The law required the land to be selected from that to which the Indian title had been extinguished previous to 1804.'' No good complete township which met the requirement could be found. When this became known, the trustees petitioned Congress to take such action as would remove all obstacles in the way of a location of the lands.' In 1826 > Congress authorized them to select from any public lands in. Michigan an amount equal to twice the first reservation, in tracts of not less than a section each.' Thus, by the delay ia locating the township, Michigan secured better lands, and,, like the other States, twice the original amount. The trustees of the university at once appointed a com- mittee " to examine the country and to report fully their opinion in regard to the location of these lands." * As a re- sult of their investigations two sections were located in 1827" and reserved by the proper authorities at Washington.' These two sections lay along the bank of the Maumee River, and are now in the heart of the city of Toledo, in the State of Ohio, this region being then a part of the Territory of Michigan. The lands were exceedingly valuable even at that early day, and many attempts to purchase them were soon made by speculators. / In 1831 the trustees, under authority of Congress,' exchanged the most valuable half of them for a somewhat larger quantity of less desirable lands in the same vicinity. These latter were in 1836, by permis- sion of Congress,' sold back for five thousand dollars to the party from whom they had been originally received." At the time of this last transaction the original selection, exclu- - sive of improvements, was worth half a million dollars." The university, by parting with it six years too soon, received the paltry sum of five thousand dollars. / The motives which I Ten Brook, lo6. ° Adams, 2. ' 2 U. S. Stat., 277, Sees. 2 and 5. ' Ten Brook, 107. 'Jour. Territorial Council, 1824, 89. ' 6 U. S. Stat., 402. •4 U. S. Stat, 180. '/iU,62S. • Gregory, 60. "liU, 61. . 138 Land Grants for Education in the [210 led the trustees to dispose of these lands, worth more even then than all the rest of the grant, are difficult to understand, and especially so in view of the fact that special action of Congress authorizing the transfer and sale had to be ob- tained. The transaction has been and always will be regretted by all interested in the prosperity of the university. For the sake of presenting the whole history of the Toledo lands at once, we may look forward a few years. After the State of Ohio assumed jurisdiction over that region it seemed unadvisable for the university to retain the lands subject , to taxation by Ohio. ^ Accordingly the remainder of them were sold between 1849 ^'^'^ i^SS ^"^ '^'^ average price of nineteen dollars per acre. For all the university lands about Toledo, worth in 1859 two or three millions, but sev- enteen thousand dollars were realized by the institution.'/ This sale of the Toledo lands and that of the three sections reserved by the Fort Meigs treaty for about the same sum Avere the only ones made before Michigan became a State. The trustees, however, located twenty-three sections of the lands previous to 1836.' After the establishment of the State government the uni- versity was reorganized. The property and funds of the old board of trustees were turned over to the new regents of the institution. This property consisted of a lot and academy building in Detroit, purchased with the proceeds of the Fort Meigs lands and private subscriptions. The fund, as already stated, amounted to five thousand dollars. The university lands were vested in the Legislature by act of Congress in 1837.' The constitution declared that the proceeds should be and remain a permanent fund for the support of the uni- versity, and enjoined it upon the Legislature to provide for the improvement and permanent security of this fund.* As in the case of the school lands, so here, the first State Legis- lature directed the Superintendent of Public Instruction to make an inventory of the lands, to suggest methods of dis- ' For a complete history of these transactions, see Gregory, 59-64, or Ten Brook, 107-109. ° Ten Brook, log. ' Supra, 39. < Constitution, Art. X., Sec. 5. 2ii] Northwest Territory. 139 posing of them, and to report a system for the organization of a university.' The general policy advocated by the Superintendent with reference to all educational lands in the State ' has already been discussed. He estimated the university lands as worth certainly fifteen and probably twenty dollars per acre.' Having decided in favor of selling the lands, he urged that a limited quantity be offered at auction at a minimum price of at least fifteen dollars per acre.* The Legislature, after considering this report, placed the management and care of the fund in the hands of the Superintendent, and authorized him to sell at auction, at a minimum price of twenty dollars per acre, so much of the land as should amount to half a million dollars.' The pro- ceeds of the sales were to be loaned on the same terms as were provided for the school funds." During the year 1837, over one seventh of the entire grant was sold, at an average price of twenty-two dollars and eighty-five cents per acre, and the prospects seemed excellent for the speedy realiza- tion of the million dollars estimated as the value of the grant.' The effects of the crisis of 1837 soon blighted these hopes. The history of the university fund during the next few years shows the same troubles and disasters which were en- countered by the school fund. The sales fell off, many lands already sold under contract were forfeited by the purchasers, and the interest on many others was in arrears. The Legis- lature was urged to reduce the price of unsold lands, and to ' Mich. Laws, 1835-6, 49. ' Supra, 89 et seq. ' " It is not apprehended that the amount can, in any event, fall short of the lower estimate, while it is believed, judging from the decisions of the past and the indications of the future, that it will exceed the higher computation." — Sen- ate Jour., 1837, Appendix, 71. * ' ' Let the lands in the more settled parts of the State be thrown into market and sold to the highest bidder. What remains unsold might still be kept in mar- Icet to be sold as occasion should offer." — Ibid.fya. ' Mich. Laws, 1837, 209. ' Supra, 90. The purchaser was required to pay one fourth of the price in cash, and the remainder in instalments. This was subsequently changed to one tenth cash. — Mich. Laws, 1837, 316. ' Report of Supt. of Public Instruction, 1837, 71. 140 Land Grants for Education in the [212 adopt measures for the " relief " of those who had already- purchased. The history of the legislation on the subject from 1840 is almost identical with that pertaining to the school lands. The prices of both were reduced simultane- ously ; similar relief was given to purchasers, and the same general mischief was wrought by ill-advised law-making. Whatever was praiseworthy in the one case is equally so in the other, while in both the same criticisms must be offered. Before any general reduction of prices was made the university became involved in a contest with squatters who had settled upon lands in the western part of the State, which had been selected for the university in 1836,' and confirmed to the State for that purpose in 1837. The first threatenings of the struggle were manifested after the lands were located, but before the selections were confirmed. A petition was forwarded to the Governor and the Legislature, remonstrating against the selection of these lands on the ground that many of them had been occupied previously by settlers in the hope that Congress would pass a law giving all such settlers on public lands preemption rights." By the petitioners' own showing there was not then in existence a letter of law giving them a claim to the land. At the next session of the Legislature, the lands having in the meantime been confirmed to the State, the settlers insisted that their claims should be recognized, because they had settled on the lands before they had been selected for the university ; that the selections were not valuable, and that the interests of the university would not suffer by granting the settlers their rights. A legislative committee, after investigating the sub- ject was unable to say that the settlers had a shadow of legal claim, but, accepting the statement of interested parties, decided that the lands were not so valuable as many others in the State ° which might be selected in their place. On the recommendation of this committee the Legislature passed an act to release the title of the university to sixteen sections ' Ten Brook (p. 117) and Adams (p. 4) give this date erroneously as 1830. See preamble of Act of March 30, 1838, Mich. Laws, 1838, 115. ' Senate Jour., 1837, Document No. 15. ' Mich. Senate Doc3., 1838, No. 37, and House Docs., 1838, No. 35. 213] Northwest Territory. 141 of the land, provided Congress at its then present session would give the State authority to select other lands in their stead.' It does not seem probable that the university would have lost any thing had this exchange of lands taken place. Congress, however, did not give its assent to the proposition, and the claimants again returned to the attack. ^In 1839 ^ bill was introduced to authorize the sale, at one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre, of any university landS|Which could be shown to have been occupied previous to their location by the State. The regents of the university remonstrated against the passage of the bill, showing that the lands were worth at least twenty dollars per acre ; that the claims of the occupants were not only without legal foundation, but actually fraudulent, and that the bill would open the door to a host of equally fraudulent claims in the future." The remonstrance had no effect upon the Legislature, and the bill was passed. > Governor Mason refused his assent to it,, pointing out that such a disposition of the lands was a viola- tion of the terms of the trust, and that the bill had been pushed through " by a wholesale species of propagandism in search of adventurers to claim the public lands." ' This defeat of the settlers did not end the struggle. One more attack was made upon the Legislature, and in 1840 an act was passed authorizing the appointment of three commissioners to examine each claim, and if it appeared that the claimant had actually settled upon the land before it was selected for the university, to appraise the value of the property exclusive of improvements. The claimant was then ' Mich. Laws, 1838, 115. ' Senate Docs., 1839, No. 32. 'House Docs., 1839, 828. "The Congress of the United States 'have granted and conveyed these lands to the State, to be appropriated solely to the use and support of the University of Michigan.' The State has accepted these lands and the constitution enjoins ' that the Legislature shall take measures for their protection and improvement, and also provide means for the permanent security oi the funds of the institution.' These are the solemn conditions by which the State holds this sacred trust ; and yet, by one single enactment, you place all the lands thus held in trust in market at $1.25 per acre, no matter what their value, when located, or how claimed. , . . Can this be a faithful ad- ministration of the trust committed to us ? " 142 Land Grants for Education in the [214 permitted to purchase the land at this appraised value.' This law was purely a compromise in a matter where the legal right was entirely on the side of the State. By its operations over four thousand acres were sold at an average price of six dollars and twenty-one cents, at a time when other university lands sold for over twenty-four dollars an acre. The general impression has always existed that the greater part of the claims were utterly fraudulent, but after this interval of time it is impossible to determine the truth in the matter. As already stated, the same policy of reduction of price observed in the case of the school lands, was adopted for the university grant. In 1841 the minimum price of unsold lands was reduced to fifteen dollars," and in the next year to twelve dollars per acre." This last law also provided that the associate Judges should examine any lands already sold at twenty dollars per acre or over — that is, all lands sold previous to 1841 — and appraise their value in their actual condition at the time of sale. The difference between this valuation and the contract price was, as in the case of the school lands, to be credited to the purchaser. The reduction might be any amount not exceeding forty per cent, of the contract price. Under this law thirty-four thousand dollars were credited back to the purchasers in one year, the reduction being nearly forty per cent, in every case.' Up to the ist of January, 1843, t>y various relief measures and reductions of price, the amount contracted to be paid had shrunk from two hundred and twenty thousand to one hundred and thirty-seven thou- sand dollars.V If such measures were unwise and unneces- sary when applied to the school lands, they were doubly so in this case. / There was not the same necessity for a uni- versity, as for common schools, in the young State. If the lands would have sold at the higher prices by holding them a few years, and every thing indicates that they would, the true policy \yas to keep the price up. /A delay of a decade in the organization of a university cannot be of such moment ' Mich. Laws, 1840, loi. 'Mich. Laws, 1842, 45. '■■Mich. Laws, 1841, 157. * Joint Docs., 1843, 210. ° " The 13,000 acres of university lands, once sold for nearly $17 an acre, have dwindled down to 10,500, at an average price of less than $12.50." — Ibid., 219. 215] Northwest Territory. 143 as to offset a difference of half a million dollars in its per- manent endowment. In 1838 the regents applied to the Legislature for a loan of one hundred thousand dollars for the purpose of erecting buildings for the university. The application was successful, and the money was loaned to the university at six per cent, interest. Both principal and interest were to be repaid from the income of the university fund.' At that time it was ex- pected that the lands would sell rapidly, and that the income of the university would soon reach sixty or seventy thousand dollars, from which the loan could easily be repaid. From causes already noted the sales progressed, and the income increased, far more slowly than had been anticipated. The pay- ment of the interest on the loan absorbed the greater part of the annual income of the institution. In 1844 the Legislature relieved the embarrassments of the infant university by adopting a measure which accelerated the sales of land with- out any reduction in the price. This was accomplished by authorizing the receipt of certain outstanding State warrants in payment for lands. As these warrants could be bought in the market for about fifty cents on the dollar, the actual cost of the land to the purchaser would be but half the legal price. As the State accepted these warrants at par in such cases, and credited the full amount to the university fund, the latter suffered no loss. This law, however, indirectly authorized the eventual payment of the loan from the prin- cipal of the university fund.' This use of the fund was un- constitutional, as well as contrary to the terms of the grant. However, no objection was made to the provision, and in 1850 the State repaid itself the one hundred thousand dollars by deducting that amount from the fund of the university in its possession." Had the proceedings stopped here there would be no doubt that the university was relieved from all further obli- gation in the matter, as there could be none that the last > The State did not have the money in its treasury, and twenty-year bonds were issued to the amount required. — Mich. Laws, 1838, 248. 'Mich. Laws, 1844, 18, 117. 'Joint Docs., 1850, No. 2, pp. 11, 36 ; Ibid., 1851, No. 2, pp. 7, 32. 144 Land Grants for Education in the [216 action of the State was unconstitutional. In 1853, however, for reasons not necessary to note here, the Legislature or- dered the proper State officers to pay to the university, at stated intervals, " the entire amount of interest that may hereafter accrue upon the whole amount of university lands sold or that may be hereafter sold." ' That is, the State was to pay interest not only upon the amount of the fund then upon the books, and which the State in accordance with its established policy had borrowed, but also on the hundred thousand dollars deducted in 1850 in payment of the loan. So far as the university was concerned, this latter amount was thus made a part of the fund so long as the act remained in force. This arrangement continued until 1877," when, by authority of the Legislature,' one hundred thou- sand dollars were transferred back to the fund on the books of the State. Thus the fund to-day represents the actual proceeds of all the sales. Evidently the loan has not been paid out of the principal of the fund, and the records show no such payment from the income. It is not probable, how- ever, that the State, which has always been generous with its university, will ever demand repayment of the loan. When the land-office was established in 1842, the manage- ment of the university lands passed into the hands of the Commissioner. Since then the sales have continued unin- terruptedly. Many attempts have been made to reduce the price, but fortunately all have failed. The lands are all sold except two hundred and eighty-seven acres, and the fund amounts to $543,317.66.* The average price received per acre for the entire quantity sold is eleven dollars and eighty- seven cents,' or more than twice that received for any other educational grant in the Northwest Territory. ' Mich. Laws, 1853, 85. ' See Mich. Laws, 1855, 139 ; 1857,154; 1859,397. ' Mich. Laws, 1877, 290. This was a general law authorizing transfers be- tween different accounts on the books of the State preparatory to the adoption of a new system of keeping the accounts. No mention is made of this particu- lar transfer, and the law is no evidence of an intention to give the one hundred thousand dollars to the university. * Report, Supt. of Pub. Instruction, 1882, 18. ° Excluding the Toledo lands sold during the territorial days, the average is tUghtly over twelve dollars. 217] Northwest Territory. 145 {e) WISCONSIN. Congress made no reservation for a seminary in Wisconsin until 1838, when in response to a petition of the territory the usual seventy-two sections were set aside.' On the same day that the petition was framed by the territorial Legislature a law was passed establishing the " University of the Territory of Wisconsin." ' This law made no reference to any prospective land grant, nor were the lands applied to the benefit of the institution before Wisconsin became a State. Two thirds of the lands were located by special commissioners appointed by the Legislature in 1840,' and the remainder by similar officers appointed in 1846.* During the territorial days the trustees of the university organized as a board, but took no measures to establish and open the institution. The State constitution adopted in 1848 provided for the establishment of a State university " at or near the seat of government," and declared that the lands granted for a uni- versity should constitute a perpetual fund, the income of which should be given to the support of this institution.' The first State Legislature repealed or amended the law establishing the territorial university, and formally chartered the "University of Wisconsin at Madison."" In the same year an appraisal of the lands, together with all improve- ments made by occupants or claimants, was ordered.' About seven eighths of the grant was thus appraised. The values ranged from one dollar and thirteen cents to seven dollars and six cents per acre, the average being two dollars and eighty-seven cents." The report of the appraisers was presented to the Legislature, and in 1849 ^ l^w was passed providing for the sale of the lands at auction. The valua- tion set by the appraisers was established as the minimum price receivable, and previous settlers were given preemption ■ Supra, 40. ' Butterfield, 9. Institutions of the same name had been chartered in 1836 and 1837, but no attempt at organization was made in either case. ^Wis. Stat., 1839, 158. 'Constitution, Art. X., Sec. 6. * Wis. Laws, 1846, 99. « Wis. Laws, 1848, 37. ' /*J(/. , 123. •Butterfield, 50. Assembly Jour., 1850, 499, 500. 146 Land Grants for Education in the [218 rights at this price.' The proceeds, as in the case of the school lands, were loaned to individuals on real-estate mortgages. It is needless to enter again into the question of the best policy to be observed by a State in managing lands held in trust for higher education. If it is decided that the lands should be sold as soon as possible, no measure can be fairer than one which offers them at their appraised value, provided a fair appraisal can be obtained. There is reason to believe that the appraisal in Wisconsin was not entirely honest," though in some cases the prices fixed were high enough.' Many lands were sold during the first year, but the next Legislature held the sound opinion that it was better to accumulate a large fund, even though the sales were less rapid, than to sacrifice the lands for the sake of an immediate fund. The minimum price was accordingly raised to ten dol- lars per acre.* The sale of more than a thousand acres in the next twelve months at an average of over ten dollars showed the wisdom of the step. But the policy of the State had become firmly settled in favor of using trust lands to attract immigrants. These slow sales were contrary to that policy, and strong pressure was brought to bear on the Legislature to reduce the price again. The prominent argument used was, of course, that the interests of the university would be advanced by faster sales at lower prices and the more speedy accumulation of the fund.° The committee of the State Senate did not, however, favor a reduction, preferring to hold the lands until they should be worth the established price, as they must be sooner or later." The Legislature differed with the com- 'Wis. Laws, 1849, 149. ^ This is shown by the fact that the average appraised value of the sixteenth sec- tion school lands was $3. 66, while that of the university lands, which were selected lands and hence more valuable, was but $2.87 per acre. °See letter of Stoddard Judd in Assembly Jour., 1S50, 999. ^Wis. Laws, 1850, 144. 'The letter of Stoddard Judd, already cited, says: " I have no hesitation in giving it as my opinion that every interest of the State University . . . would be both now as well as hereafter promoted by an entire and total repeal of the law, " fixing the minimum price at ten dollars per acre. ? Senate Jour., 1851, 468. 219] Northwest Territory. 147- mittee, and reduced the price to seven dollars per acre, except where the land had been appraised at a higher value in 1848. Occupants were given preemption rights to pur- chase at the appraised value in all cases. All preemptors who had purchased lands at more than the appraised value were credited back all excess over that value.' " The effect of this legislation was to secure the university lands to preemptors at prices, on the average, far below the minimum- price as fixed by the law of 1850, or even that of 1851. Im- migration was thus encouraged, but at the expense of the vital interests of the university."" The mania for selling the lands had by this time taken such hold upon the State that any law which did not succeed in attracting purchasers at once was deemed a failure. The next Legislature, urged by various petitions and the advice of a committee,' adopted a new measure for hastening sales. The Governor was authorized to appoint commissioners to re-appraise the unsold lands. None were to be appraised at less than three dollars per acre, and the value as estimated by the commissioners was to be the minimum price." Under these provisions the lands were appraised, the greater part of them being valued by the commissioners, in pursuance- of the hint given in the law, at three dollars per acre. At these prices they were in great demand ' and were soon sold. The proceeds of the forty-six thousand acres amounted to about one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. While passing laws for selling the lands at low prices the Legislature, realizing the effect which such sales would have on the ultimate fund, petitioned Congress for seventy- two sections more for the university in lieu of the saline lands granted to the State in 1848 but never located.' As . already stated/ Congress complied with this petition in 'Wis. Laws, 1851, 419. 'Butterfield, 56. ^The committee concluded their report with the following opinion : " To en- sure the sale of any considerable portion of the university lands a further reduction in the price is necessary. As the law now stands none can be sold except on pre- emption for less than seven dollars per acre, which at present operates nearly as a, prohibition of sales." — Appendix to Journals, 1852, 202. . "u in W'S u M ^ nJ ^ 1 ^ ^s g !=-d CO vO 0^ r}- w CO CO S-3 « Wl m Vi Ul 0" i>-co" w" 4^ ■< ^ in CO vO ^„^ a ^ O^ M m CO ir> vO 8 mO u-> r^ m a vD -^vO M M & »^ in CO fl ^« ^ CO vO )-l " o'^o -o" VO N G^ CO CO c^ CT* Si N 1-1 m M Ph ^■ a ij ^^^-i_^ bcS 00 Ooo CO t-^ CD mvO !>■ m CO IT) en CO '^ w «&. a a?. •*i ^^ cooo r^ « CO moo o* -^ CO W « l-< M « CO in 3 S ■0 vO 00 vO t! S? feS c>o_ 0^ CO CT» -4J ° eo mO CO m" CT^ CT^ g£ M r- CT* IH CO « t^ cOvO vO N Tl- CO ft- CO cf CO CO Ci ^ ^ 13 CO r^ CO i-( CO r-~ m %o^^ r-- 1 Tt coo in ■* ■^ r-^ M CT» r^ « < M tn tfl K- - d rt « ui S u -31 c3 ^ CO r^o sis ?c3 CO t-i u P eo 10 u 3 <* CO J-. Cl^ - «,- " CI. rt •^6 ^ CO ^ E3 mco t 0<° r^vO cr"-*?" a W M m" in < . , • C3 c: c^ o.i Si ■.i 1 % 243] Northwest Territory. 171 P "■A < CO u U PQ 3^ a ^3 vO 1. -ji vd" <1 1^ y •— • >3 1 1 0^ r^ ■- B 5 c «j ■-3 |8 CO HI •§■ 1^ 1-1 a -s €@- 8 "S-s ft 1 -1 ^ ■c " c-g o> -t ,= " in m CI "^o rA d vd M — ^ r-^ ■* go. q o_ ^ 0^ sa era 0~ I-C tn c^ CO £2 i-i B M i-T ^^ m' i5a d •5 111 u 0) sal aj ^ ■^ ^ • u H 10 M M 00 ■«t M = ^a r^ w r* 1-1 vO ^!^ M d^ in K 2 s vO f^ o% w 't 10 n" h" d^ m' J) I- M u-i in in r^ « ^ vO_ <5^ m" w" in CO 1 •c^ . « C1:: •*■ 1/1 M in s!^ I-. xno r^ CO r1<^ CO w d -f in tn CO r-^ ^ r-. Tf T? -f rC OQ CO 0" f r t^ m iDvO 1-- 1- I- hD n w CO N <:i~ h" CO i-^ ^ 3 p! .s -2:5 J ?, ^ 'in ]=: u 0.55 s ^ ^■■3 Cfi " ^ j2a <] 3 ri hj 5-^ f.r. w "■;;, iz; -=H kJ CO Q W pq < i nj Pi pj ej CO u d > ti \n ,J-^ W t ^ >i ca B J3 tH •d ■5 .3 p OJ . . S E ■3 h 0) ' :9 •l* 1 a w 1 l_ QJ U] bj a ^3 s 1.5 dj 3 ■ '5 s s dj K> II _ •a ■3 j5 < ^ W 3 > ■3 s " § 1? a 1 !>i s ■g-s - l_ .a scn u 4) t3 m ■^1 a=5 ^ 3 '0 (4- g : (/2 1 :fi P<;?; u ^ «o n N .* u 00 « m M J-H CO m •f g •t ►tj p tn^ d d do S ?j 8 w M (U — TtO CO O' E VT) >o fj in r^ ^ •a •^ OJ 't- 6 N CO * ^ * £ M r^ -+ CO ■3 OS>ti5 O J; 'S a nt bi) .2 to g 2 :3 8 H CJ w 3 a ^ 5 3 245] ^ist of Authorities. 173 FULL TITLES OF BOOKS REFERRED TO IN THIS PAPER. Adams : "Historical Slcetch of the University of Michigan," by Charles K, Adams. Ann Arbor, 1876. Annals of Congress : The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, from 1789 to 1824. Washington, 1834-1856. Atw.'^ter : " A History of the State of Ohio, Natural and Civil," by Caleb Atwater. Cincinnati, 1838. Bancroft: "History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States," by George Bancroft. 2 vols. N. Y., 1S82. BUTTERFIELD : " History of the University of Wisconsin from its First Or- ganization to 1S79," by C. W. Butterfield. Madison, 1879. Campbell: "Outlines of the Political History of Michigan," by James V. Campbell. Detroit, 1876. Chase : Statutes of Ohio and of the Northwest Territory Adopted or En- acted from 1788 to 1833. . . . Illustrated by a Preliminary Sketch of the History of Ohio ; edited by Salmon P. Chase. Cincinnati, 1833-35. Congressional Debates : Register of the Debates in Congress from 1824 to 1S37. Washington, 1824-1837. Democratic Review. 31 vols. Washington and New York, 1837-1852. Document A. 46ih Congress, 1st Session, Exec. Doc. No. 47. Part 4. (Report of Public Land Commission, 1880.) Document B. 30th Congress, ist Session, Senate Doc, No. 2. Document C. 30th " 2d " i Reports, No. 130. Document D. 31st " ist " Senate Reports, No. 19. Document E. 35th " ist " 2 Reports, No. 261. Document F. 31st " Ist " 2 Reports of Com., No. 335. Document G. 31st , " ist " Senate Reports, No. 127. Education in Ohio : "A History of Education in Ohio," prepar-ed by authority of the General Assembly. Columbus, iS;6. Edwards : " History of Illinois from 1778 to 1833, and Life and Times of Ninian Edwards," by Ninian W. Edwards. Springfield, 1870. Ford: " History of Illinois," by Thomas Ford. Chicago, 1854. Gerhard: " Illinois as It Is ; 1856," by Fred Gerhard. Chicago, 1857. Globe : The Congressional Globe, containing the Debates and IVoccedings of Congress from the 23d to the 42d Congress. ^Yashington, 1S35-1873. Gregory: "School Funds and School Lav/s of Michigan," by John M. Gregory, Superintendent of Public Instruction. Lansing, 1S59. HiLDiiETii : "Pioneer History" ; Being an Account of the First Examina- tions of the Ohio Valley and the Early Settlement of the Northwest Terri- tory, by S. P. Ilildreth. Cincinnati, 1S4S. Howard : Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States. Illinois Laws : See Laws. Indiana Laws : See Laws. Indiana. Reports : Reports of Cases Determined in the Supreme Court o£ Indiana- 174 List of Authorities. [246 Jefferson : " The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," edited by II. A. Wash- ington. Washington, 1853-54. Journals : Use has been made of the journals of the various sessions of Con- gress and of the State Legislatures ; abo of the journals of Constitutional Conventions. The reference given in each case is sufficiently descriptive. Journals of Congress : Journal of Congress, containing the proceedings from Sept. 5, 1774, to Nov. 3, 17S8, published by order of Congress. 2d edition. 4 vols. Washington, 1823. Julian: "Political Recollections, 1840 to 1872," by George W. Julian. Chicago, 1883. Laws : Use lias been made of the Session Laws of each State ; also of volumes containing territorial laws passed prior to the admission of each State ; in all about three hundred volumes. The reference given in each case is sufficiently descriptive. Michigan Laws : See Laws. Morse: " Thomas Jefferson," by John T. Morse, Jr. [American Statesmen.] Boston, 1882. N. A. Review : North American Review. Boston and New York, 1815- 1804. Ohio Laws : See Laws. Ohio Reports : Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. PiCKERi.Ntf: "The Life of Timothy Pickering," by Octavius Pickering. Boston, 1S67-1873. PiLLSiiURY : " Sketch of the Permanent Public School Funds of Illinois," by W. L. Pillsbury. Published in lilinois School Report for 1881-2. PooRE : " The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of United States," compiled by Ben : Perley Poore. Wash. ington, 1877. Public Lands : " Public Lands ; Laws, Instructions, and Opinions." Part I. Laws; Part II., Instructions and Opinions. Washington, 1838. Reports : Frequent use has been made of the annual and special reports of State officers and legislative committees. The reference given in each case is sufficiently explicit. Salisbury: "Historical Sketch of Normal Instruction in Wisconsin, 1846- 1876," by Albert Salisbury. Madison, 1876. Schools of Indiana : " The Indiana Scliools and the Men Who Have Worked in Them," edited by James II. Smart. Published by the State Board of Education. Cincinnati [1S76?]. Shearman: "System of Public Instruction and Primary School Law of Michigan." Prepared by Francis W. Sheaiman, Superintendent of Public InstiTiction. Lansing, 1852. Smith : " Historical -Sketches of Education in Michigan," by W. L. Smith. Lansing, iS8i. (Also found in the Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Michigan, for 1880.) State Papers ; American State Papers ; Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States from the 1st Session of the ist to 247] ^i^^ of Authorities, 175 the 2d Session of the 38th Congress, inclusive. Folio. Washington, 1S32-1861. These documents are arranged in ten classes. Those referred to in this paper are " Public Lands," 8 vols., and " Miscellaneous," 2 vols. Statutes : See Laws. Sumner : " Andrew Jackson as a Public Man," by William Graham Sumner. [American Statesmen.] Boston, 1882. Ten Brook : " American State Universities and the University of Michigan," by Andrew Ten Brook. Cincinnati, 1875. U. S. Laws : Laws of the United States to 1839. 9 vols. Bioren and Duanc. Washington. U. S. Statutes : Statutes at Large of the United States of America, 1789-1873. 17 vols. Little, Brown, & Co. Boston, 1845-1874. Walker : " History of Athens County, Ohio," by Charles M. Walker. Cij»- cinnati, lS6g. ' Whitford : " Historical Sketch of Education in Wisconsin," by W. C Whitford. Madison, 1876. Wisconsin Laws : See Laws. --/the LOUISIANA PURCHASE INFLUENCE UPON THE AMERICAN SYSTEM PAPERS AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. I. No. 4 THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE IN ITS INFLUENCE UPON THE AMERICAN SYSTEM A PAPER PRESENTED TO THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, SEPTEMBER 9, 1 885 Right Reverend C. F. ROBERTSON, D.D. BISHOP OF MISSOURI NEW YORK & LONDON G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS S^t ^nicheiboctier f^xtis 1885 COPYRIGHT BY AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION 1885 Press of G. P. Putnam's Sons New York THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE IN ITS INFLUENCE UPON THE AMERICAN SYSTEM. Having my residence in a portion of the Union which was never under the British flag, but was acquired in that large accession of territory secured to this country from France at the beginning of this century, I am naturally interested in the transaction itself, and in the marked results which it has left upon our American system. In this interest I am well assured that all students of our country's history, who seek for the causes of the present in the past, will largely share. That this addition to our national domain was not an in- significant one, may be in part inferred from the fact that it added to the United States a territory nearly four times as large as that comprised in the original thirteen United colo- nies ; and, according to the last census, had in it a popula- tion of nearly one-fourth of that of the entire country. - The acquisition of the Louisiana territory was not caused by the pressure of population in the older portions of the country, crowding out the frontiers, and compelling expan- sion. The regions west of the AUeghanies were in any part only sparsely settled, and in the greater portion the Indian titles were not extinguished, and many parts were unex- plored. / At the same time, the enormous productiveness of the soil about the settlements in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennes- see was making necessary an outlet more convenient than the laborious journey to the East across the mountains. Given a soil like that of the great interior valley of this 253] 5 6 The Louisiana Purchase in its 1^54 country, and it would be but a question of time when pos- session of the mouth of the Mississippi River would be de- manded and conceded to this country. A full understanding of the great value of this outlet was had by Spain and France ; and therefore the varied forms of hindrance inter- posed by them to our acquisition of the possession of it are natural and intelligible. They knew that the power which controlled the mouth of the river must inevitably become the dominant factor on this hemisphere. The steady, inex- orable pressure of Anglo-Saxon force among the upper waters at length thrust out all opposing European power at its outlet. The needs of Napoleon and the fear of England were the exigencies in Europe which were the immediate occasion of the cession ; but the result would have been the same within a short time, even without this emergency. The cession of the vast territory west of the Mississippi was but an accident. The main object sought was an un- controlled and uninterrupted passage out of the river, and a market for the teeming products of the Mississippi valley. Talleyrand almost thrust ' into our indifferent hands the regions to the west of the great river. All that our minis- ters insisted upon was the island of New Orleans, to the east, and at the mouth of the river, where could be the place of deposit and port of transshipment of our goods. In the carelessness as to the value and possession of the vast trans- Mississippi region, and in the difficulty of compassing the price which Napoleon asked, Mr. Livingston, our Minister in Paris, even suggested to Mr. Madison that, if only New Orleans and the Floridas could be kept, the purchase-money to be paid might be realized by the sale of the territory west of the Mississippi River, along with the right of sovereignty, to some power in Europe, whose vicinity we should not fear." The knowledge that the purchase of the territory was actually possible, and the details as to the amount and manner of purchase, only reached President Jefferson, and ' Gayarre : " Span. Dom.,'' p. 502. " Gayarre ; " S. D ," p. 5og. 25S3 Influence upon the American System. 7 the people of this country, after the transaction had been completed. ' There was deep agitation on the subject, and insistence here. Mr. Monroe was sent over by the President to join Mr. Livingston, the better to conduct the delicate business. He reached Paris, however, only after the matter had been virtually closed. Napoleon was as changeable as a girl. Every day his mood varied. It had been the dream of his life to establish a transatlantic empire. He was watch- ing the news from London where the war-clouds were gather- ing, and did not wish to lose a sale for Louisiana, and cause it to fall into the hands of the British, who had a fleet in the Gulf of Mexico ready to fall upon it, in case that hostilities should be declared. In twenty days after he gave his con- sent to the sale, the convention was signed, with all the particulars concerning the amount to be paid, and when and how it should be paid. The Ambassadors, knowing the temper in America, had to take the risk that their work would be ratified at home. The purchase was a transaction for which in this country there had been no precedent. While it marked a vast acces- sion to the national domain and strength, still there were interests which conceived that they were injured by the pur- chase, and which, therefore, raised objections to it. Mr. Jefferson ' admitted that the purchase and annexation were unauthorized, and even proposed an ex-post-facto amendment of the constitution, to give sanction to the measure. He wrote', "The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations into the Union. The Executive, in seizing the fugi- tive occasion which so much advances the good of the country, has done an act beyond the Constitution. The Legislature, in casting behind them metaphysical subtleties, and risking themselves like faithful servants, must ratify and pay for it, and throw themselves on their country for doing for them unauthorized what we know they would have done, had they been in the situation to do it." At the same time, ' Adams : " Federalism of New England," p. 54. ' Jefferson's Works, i v. , p. 500, etc. 8 The Louisiana Purchase in its [256 Mr. Jefferson observed that the less that was said about any- constitutional difficulty the better, and that it would be de- sirable for Congress to do what was necessary in silence. Mr. Monroe had written from Paris that there was reason to believe that, if the thing were to be done over again, it could not be obtained, and that if the least opening was given, the French would declare the treaty void. For this reason Mr. Jefferson thought that, whatever Congress should deem it necessary to do, should be done with as little debate as possible, and particularly so as respecting any constitutional difficulty. The general position of Mr. Jefferson in regard to the Constitution required him to hold that Congress possessed no residuary powers, only such as were distinctly created by that instrument. At the same time he knew that nothing must be said that would give France a pretext for retracting. And so he wrote to Mr. Breckenridge, the Senator from Kentucky, and sent the draft of a proposed new article of the Constitution : " Louisiana, as ceded by France to the United States, is made a part of the United States," and asked him to desire the presence of every friend of the treaty on the first day of the session, in order that it might be quietly and expeditiously passed ; and to send private letters for this purpose especially to the Senators of all the western States. But Mr. Breckenridge ' held to the inherent right of the United States to acquire territory, and so no constitu- tional amendment was proposed. The terms of the treaty were ratified by Congress, and Louisiana, as ceded by France to the United States, was made a part of the United States, with a provision that its white inhabitants should be citizens, and stand on the same footing with other citizens in analox gous situations. As to the territpry, however, lying north of an east and west line drawn through the mouth of the Arkansas River, no new State was to be established out of it, until the action of Congress should be had. Even after the purchase it was not known what had been bought. The tract extended vaguely off to the north, and ' Mag. Am. Hist., Aug. 1885, p. igg. Jefferson's Works, iv., 498. 257] Influence upon the American System. 9 toward the South Sea ; but, for scores of years afterward, there was very Httle idea of all that it included. There were very few white people living in the purchased territory then. There were some settlements on the lower Mississippi in the Teche country, and along the Red and Washita rivers ; a few at the mouth of the Arkansas. Farther up, there were the settlements at New Madrid, St. Genevieve, and St. Louis. As for those on the Missouri River, the explorers, Lewis and Clarke, reported, a few months after the purchase, that they left the last establishment of the whites at La Charette, only fifty-four miles from the mouth of the river.' Almost all the whites who lived in the territory were French, and mainly from Canada. There was a natural disposition, directly after the purchase, to ascertain somewhat more clearly what had been acquired. As the treaty of purchase was signed on the 30th of April, during the same summer Mr. Jefferson planned the expedition under Meriwether Lewis and William Clarke, to explore the course of the Missouri River, cross the Rocky Mountains, and follow the waters of the Columbia to the Pacific Ocean. They started from St. Louis in the spring of 1804, and, having accomplished their task, returned in Sep- tember, 1806. In the summer of 1804, the exploration of the Washita River was made by Mr. Dunbar, of Natchez, by order of the President. In August, 1805, Captain Zebulon Pike started up the Mississippi to discover its source. He was absent about eight months. In July, 1806, after his return, he started with a party up the Missouri River, and then up the Osage, crossing over to the Arkansas and the Red. By mistake he passed the Spanish frontier into New Mexico, was taken prisoner, and in July, 1807, was conducted out to the American posts at Natchitoches.' Later, the publication of the journal of this expedition, with its descrip- tion of the interior of New Mexico and Texas, was a strong inducement to the removal of many to these regions. By means of these surveys a very great increase was had ' Lewis and Clarke Exp. , i., 7. ' Pike's Journal, Voy. Sources Ark. , p. 202. lo The Louisiana Purchase in its [258 in the knowledge of the natural features and resources of the vast region that had been acquired. Later still, other expeditions were set on foot. In 18 19, Major Long was directed to ascend the Missouri River, for the purpose of exploring the regions west of the Rocky Mountains. In the same year, General Cass, Governor of the Northwestern Ter- ritory, with the assistance of Mr. Calhoun, then Secretary of War, sent Mr. Schoolcraft to explore the sources of the Mis- sissippi River with greater exactness than had been possible by Captain Pike. The boundaries of the territory v/ere not fully determined for a number of years. The northwestern angle of the territory of the United States, at the time of the purchase, was the point at which a line stretched due west from the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods would strike the Mississippi River.' The next step was taken in the treaty of 1818, when it was declared that the boundaiy line between this country and Canada should be a line drawn due south from the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods, until it should intersect the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, and then should follow that parallel to the Stony, or Rocky, Mountains. It was furthermore agreed that any country that might be claimed by either party on the northwestern coast of America, westward of the Stony Mountains, should be free and open for the term of ten years, without prejudice to the citizens of the two powers. In a convention, dated on the sixth of August, 1827, the provisions of the treaty of 181 8 were extended for an indefi- nite period, either party to give twelve months' notice of its intention to annul or abrogate the same. At this point the matter rested, until the treaty of 1846, which carried on the boundary along the forty-ninth parallel, from the Rocky Mountains to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island, and thence south through the middle of the said channel, and of Fuca Straits to the Pacific Ocean. To the southwest, the boundary was not settled until the ' Treaties U. S., p. 276. 259] Influence upon the American System. \\ treaty was ratified with Spain, on the twenty-second of February, 18 19,' when the hne was fixed, as beginning, at the Gulf of Mexico, at the mouth of the Sabine River, in the sea, continuing north along the west bank to the thirty- second degree of north latitude, being the northwest corner of the State of Louisiana; thence due north to the Red River, following the same westward to longitude one hun- dred degrees west from London, and twenty-three from Washington ; thence crossing the Red River, and running due north to the Arkansas River ; thence along the southern bank of the same to its source in latitude forty-two north, and thence by that parallel of latitude to the South Sea. If the source of the Arkansas was found to be north or south of latitude forty-two, then the line was to run north or south to that degree, and thence along that line to the South Sea. By the charter of Louis XIV.," the country purchased to the north included all that was contiguous to the waters that flowed into the Mississippi. Consequently its northern boundary was the summit of the highlands in which its northern waters rise. By the tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht, France and England agreed to appoint commis- sioners to settle the boundary, and these commissioners, as such boundary, marked this summit on the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude.' This would not carry the rights