.i . - sa ffjr - 1 wr- <
8 The Conservative *
KAIMtOAI ) IAN1 > GKANTS.
Eorron OP THE CONSEKVATIVE :
I have read with much interest your
article upon "Railroad Land Grants"
n the United States together with the
letter of Mr. Stuy vesant Pish relating
to the Illinois Central grant and your
editorial reply thereto. Finding serious
inaccuracies in your article regarding
the amount of lands granted to the
Chicago , Burlington & Quincy , and
all the companies to which lauds were
granted in the state of Iowa , and more
serious inaccuracies regarding the
values of the lands , I was led to make
a brief investigation of the entire series
of quoted statietics. Some of these in
quires have been made of the land de
partment at Washington , and , where
opportunity presented , of the officials of
the several railroad companies.
With your kind permission , I will
call attention to some of the results of
my inquiries , in the interest of truth ,
and because of the importance of the
subject , and from the fact that a vast
deal of misinformation has been written
and circulated in regard to it.
Quantity of Lands Granted.
Your article states : "The gross area
of the lands given , which have not been
forfeited by failure to comply with the
conditions of the contracts is 244,261
square miles , " which would be 156-
327,000 acres ; and comparison is then
made of this great area with the areas
of the 13 original states , and of various
states in this country and Europe in a
way calculated to impress the average
citizen with the "lavish manner" in
which the public domain has been
given away to favored corporations.
I do not find that this quantity of
lands , nor anything approximating it ,
has been granted. The total amount
of lands certified or patented to rail
road companies by the government up
to June 30 , 1890 , was 86,748,635 acres.
Several hundred thousand acres of
patented lauds have lapsed , or have
been reconveyed to the United States
or deducted from the original grants
under supreme court decisions. The
Burlington road lost about 10 per cent ,
of the lands patented to it in Iowa , by
reason of conflict with the swamp land
grant and other causes. The following
tabular statement of the Iowa grants
will serve to illustrate the great dis
crepancy between your figures of [ the
quantity granted to the five companies
in that state and the correct statement :
lowu Lund Grunts.
Actual
"Conservative" Figures. Acreage.
Roads. Acres Granted.
Burlington 048,045 358,424
Rock Island 1,201,181 550,103
St. Paul 1,530,000 872,053
North Western 1,032,803 050,597
Dubuque & Sioux City
( Illinois Central ) 1,220,003 44-1,101
Total 0,004,252 2,082,028
The figures of actual acerage granted
are taken from the sworn , reports of the
companies to the state authorities.
These grants are all closed. There are
no more lands to be received by any of
the companies. In the same way , 48
of the grants are virtually adjusted
and closed and no more lauds can
possibly bo received by those companies.
Your article gives the Atlantic &
Pacific road as 1,654 miles long and its
land grant as 25,275,820 acres. Vice
President Kenna says :
"A small portion of the Atlantic &
Pacific railroad was constructed in
Missouri and the eastern part of the
[ udian Territory prior to 1875 , but the
amount of laud earned under this con
struction was exceedingly small , as
there were no public lands in the Indian
Territory and most of lands in the
state of Missouri had been previously
settled upon. Consequently , it is en
tirely fair to disregard all portions of
ihis line except the 560 miles in New
Mexico and Arizona , which were con
structed and are now operated by the
Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company , it
having purchased at foreclosure pro-
eedings the railroad and land grant of
the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Com
pany.
"It is difficult to conceive where the
writer obtained his information that the
Atlantic & Pacific railroad was ever
1,654 miles in length. As above stated ,
the line in New Mexico and Arizona is
560 miles in length , and about 125 miles
in Missouri and the Indian Territory
were constructed.
"The statement that the land grant
consisted of 25,275,820 acres , is far from
the fact. By reason of the losses in
cident to prior locations , Mexican grants ,
Indian reservations , etc. , the total
amount the Atlantic & Pacific company
and its successors will finally receive ,
will be less thau one-half the acreage
stated. "
Your article gives the Union Pacific
grant as 20,181,944 acres The total
quantity patented to the company is
20,900,459 acres.
The Northern Pacific road will never
receive within 5,000,000 acres of the es
timated area of its grant. The land
grant of the Chicago , Milwaukee & St
Paul is stated in your article as 8,524-
022 acres. The land commisioner of
that company , in the adjustment pro
ceedings , has reported a shortage of
2,080,000 acres in their grants , and says ,
"not exceeding 1,000 acres are still to
be obtained , and these are mostly con
tested. "
Withholding From Patent to Escape
Taxation.
The article in question states that a
practice prevails among railroads to
only procure patents for lands for which
a sale can be obtained at good prices
"The advantage to the company of this
method is obvious. So long as the land
is nominally public land , it cannot be
assessed for local taxes. When , how
ever , the title passes into the hands
of the company , this exemption comes
to an end. Unpatented , the laud rests
as an asset which can be carried in
definitely without trouble or expense. "
I am at a loss to understand how this
dea originated. Such a practice may
have obtained in exceptional cases , but
certainly not for the reason stated to
avoid taxation. The lands are subject
to taxation when surveyed , and the
natter of surveying is entirely within
lie control of the government. The
railroads have deposited over $1,700,000
; o reimburse the government for the
cost of survey of lands.
The vice-president of the Atlantic &
Pacific says : "For years the requests
of this company for patents were refused
) y the department , and as a consequence
quence , the opportunity of selling lands
was lost. "
Explanation of the Discrepancy.
There is a natural and very reason
able explanation of how the writer of
the article may have been deceived as
to the quantity of lands. He says :
'The grant made to the Illinois Central
was the bnsis upon which nearly all of
; he government grants were founded ,
tt provided that the company was to
receive all even sections within six
miles of the road , " etc. But the act of
congress only granted to the railroads
the "public lands" within the desig
nated limits. No land to which any
title or claim of right in others attached
at the date when the grant took effect
was "public land , " and therefore no
such land passed or was granted to any
railroad company. In older states , a
large part of the lands within the dpsig-
nated limits had been previously "enter
ed" or filed upon or settled with military
bounty land warrants , or under pre
emption certificates or patents. Be
sides , there are many cases of prior
Mexican grants , swamp land grants , In
dian and military and forest reserva
tions and other deductions , which have
operated to materially reduce the
quantum of these grants.
Owing to the amount of unsurveyed
lands , it is impossible for any one testate
state at this time with accuracy , what
is the total acreage granted. The last
railroad grant was made nearly 80
years ago. Lands which have not yet
been even surveyed , probably possess
little money value. Statements of
quantity , under such circumstances ,
must necessarily bo estimates only.
Based upon the best information at
command , it is my opinion that the
amount of land of an appreciable money
value , granted to all the railroads of the
United States , will not exceed 90,000,000
acres.
Value of the Railroad Lund Grants.
Your article states :
"So far as .the western and southwestern -
western < railroad companies are con ?