The “ Land Oivner" Theory of Land Grants. 
309 
Briefly summarized, the provisions of the bill, which served 
as a model for future acts, were as follows: The alternate even- 
numbered sections for six miles on each side of the road were 
granted to the state, to be used in aid of a railroad. Deficien¬ 
cies within these six mile limits were to be made up from lands 
not more than fifteen miles from the road. Lands were to be 
used only as the work progressed and for no other purpose. 
The lands left the government within six miles of the road 
were not to be sold for less than the double minimum, $2.50 
per acre. Property of the United States was to be transported 
free and the whole road was to be completed within ten years. 
These provisions were largely a result of the political theories 
of the time regarding internal improvements and the public 
lands. The words " internal improvements ” had been sufficient 
to frighten any politician since Jackson’s veto of the Maysville 
road bill in 1830. Then the great value of the public domain, 
" the heritage of the people, ” had long been impressed on Con¬ 
gressmen. It was manifestly impossible to grant the public 
lands to aid the construction of a railroad. To obviate this 
difficulty, to enable the United States to both eat and keep its 
cake, the “ land owner ” theory of the grants was evolved. This 
theory was as follows: The United States, a great land owner, 
has large tracts of unsalable land. Acting as a prudent land 
owner it will donate half of these lands to a railroad, the con¬ 
struction of which will render the remaining half salable, and, 
by doubling the price of the remaining lands, will lose nothing by 
the transaction. 1 2 This was not internal improvements —even the 
logical Calhoun could find no hint of such a thing in the plan. 1 
Some of the ideas of the time in regard to transportation are 
shown by the restriction of the indemnity limits to fifteen 
1 “ The Federal Government is a great land-holder; it possesses an ex¬ 
tensive public domain. . . . We may bestow them [the public lands] 
for school purposes, or we may bestow a portion of them for the purpose 
of improving the value of the rest.” Lewis Cass, Globe, 1st Sess., 30th 
Cong., App., p. 536. 
2 “ I do not think that there is a principle more perfectly clear from 
doubt than this one is. It does not belong to the category of internal im¬ 
provements at all.” Ibid., App., p. 537. 
