THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 103 



adjacent to railroads never completed. The House of Representatives 

 generally took the second position, favoring a forfeiture of all lands 

 unearned in the time specified in the granting act, while the Senate 

 refused to forfeit more than just the land never earned. The difference 

 between these two propositions was very great, for the House view 

 meant the forfeiture of over 54,000,000 acres, while the Senate view 

 involved the forfeiture of only about 5,000,000 acres. ^*^ After years of 

 debate and squabbling, the House finally accepted the Senate view.^*® 

 The forfeiture of these grants was extremely important in its bear- 

 ing on the public lands, including timber lands, but in Congress the 

 question of conservation was not the main question at stake. This was 

 clearly shown by the fact that forfeiture — a conservation policy — 

 was most strongly opposed by the men from the East, especially New 

 England, where conservation always received its strongest support. 

 The line-up on the question of forfeiture did not indicate that the 



I eastern men loved conservation less, but perhaps rather that some of 

 them loved the railroads more. Some of them were perhaps considering 

 the interests of constituents who owned stock in these railroads ; some 

 doubtless owned shares of the stock themselves ; some were employed 

 as railroad attorneys ; and some doubtless merely had the conserva- 

 tive, capitalistic point of view which has more generally characterized 

 the East. 

 Some logic and justice there was, it is true, in the position taken by 

 the Senate. The government had permitted the railroads to continue 

 construction after the expiration of the term of the grant, without 

 declaring any forfeiture of the remainder of the grant, or indicating 

 in any way that the offer of lands was no longer available. The govern- 

 ment had not declared its attitude toward the unearned grants, had 

 stood by while the railroads extended their lines ; and now it might 

 well have seemed unfair to declare a forfeiture of the land, even though 

 it had been "earned" after the expiration of the time limit. 



On the other hand, it is certain that some of the grants and various 

 extensions of time had been secured fraudulently, that some of the 

 grants were entirely too generous, and that some of the railroads had 

 dealt most unfairly with the government and with the people. Fur- 



147 Cong. Rec, July 5, 1888, 6013: H. R. 2476; 50 Cong. 1 sess. 

 i« Stat. 26, 496. 



