312 
Sanborn—Railroad Land Grants. 
discussion, by a vote of 95 to 92. Party lines were sharply 
drawn in this vote, the Democrats being 26 for the bill and 87 
against, and the Whigs 66 for the bill and 4 against. 1 The 
Senate refused to take up the bill, by a vote of 22 to 23, there 
being 15 Whig votes for consideration and 1 against, while the 
Democrats voted 6 for and 20 against. 2 It seems to me that if 
this bill could have become a law, as would have been the case 
but for the Democratic opposition to a “ general ” system of in¬ 
ternal improvements, the question of railroad land grants would 
have been solved much better than it actually was. 
In spite of opposition a number of grants were made. In 
1852 there was one to Missouri, 3 and at the second session of 
that Congress a further grant to Missouri and one to Arkansas. 4 
In 1854 a grant was made to the territory of Minnesota, 5 but 
this was repealed soon after. The reason for its repeal well 
shows the peculiar idea that these grants were not made to 
corporations. As it passed the House the bill had forbidden a 
grant of the lands by the state to any corporation then exist¬ 
ing. By a slight change, made after engrossment, this pro¬ 
hibition was partly removed. When this change was discovered 
the law was repealed, as such a grant to a corporation was 
considered unconstitutional. 6 The repealing bill passed the 
Senate as a “ rider ” to a private bill, objection having been 
made to its consideration in its original form. 7 
By 1856 land grants were gaining in favor and the constitu¬ 
tional scruples against; them seem to have weakened. 8 The first 
session of the thirty-fourth Congress passed acts granting lands 
in aid of railroads to seven states. 9 The discussion of the Iowa 
1 Vote on the third reading of the bill. There were also 3 Free-Soil votes 
for and 1 against the bill. Ibid., 1603. 
3 Senate Journal , 1st Sess., 32d Cong., 660. 
3 10 Statutes at Large , p. 8. 
4 Ibid., p. 155. 
5 Ibid., p. 302. 
6 Globe, 1st Sess., 33d Cong., 1888-89, 1891, 2091. For validity of re¬ 
peal see Rice v. Minn. <fe N. W. R. R. Co ., 1 Black, 358. 
1 Globe, 1st Sess., 33d Cong., 2172-2178. 
8 See speech of Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, Globe , 1st Sess., 31th Cong., 
1328-9; and amendment by Mr. Letcher, of Virginia, Ibid., 1915. 
9 Donaldson, pp. 269-270. 
