These figures are the best possible answer to the Democratic cry that Republicans have "wasted the public domain."

Comparison of Results Accomplished.

was issued upon information and plans prepared by a former Republican Secretary of the Interior, the Hon. A. M. Teller of Colorado.

ure Bills.

Still another claim is that Democrats in

Other things should be considered in re- Congressional Action on Land-Grant Forfeit. gard to these grants. One is, the benefits that have accrued to the country from them; the other, that the grants made by the Republicans were almost entirely for great national purposes, vastly benefiting the country in its entirety, whilst the grants made by Democrats were almost entirely to subserve local interests, and have accomplished but little even to that end. The 39,393,389 acres of swamp land patented to the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri, have been almost wasted by these States, doing them little if any good. The grants to fortyseven railroads made by Democrats have given less than 6,000 miles of railway, whilst the grants made by the Republicans have given the country five grand trans-continental lines, with their various branches, aggregating over 20,000 miles.

Congress have forfeited, and thus restored to entry, an immense territory of unearned land-grants. This claim is as false as the others. Representative Lewis F. Payson of Illinois effectually disposes of that claim in a speech delivered by him in the House of Representatives on July 28, 1888. In that speech he showed that every Republican in the House had voted for each of these forfeiture bills, and that no credit was due to any political party, as a party, for their passhow that the only opposition to any of sage. Judge Payson omitted, however, to these measures came from Democrats, who in the 49th Congress defeated the forfeiture of the lands granted to the Gulf and Ship Island Railway made in 1856, although not a dollar's worth of work had been done on the proposed railway in the thirty years that had elapsed since the passage of the granting act. He shows, however, from the record, that he, a Republican, introduced the bills to forfeit the lands of the Oregon Central, the Texas Pacific, the Atlantic and Pacific, Land Grant Forfeitures of and the seven Southern roads contained in Democratic Claims - Land Commis- the table given below; and these bills cover sioner Stockslager's absurd State- the entire forfeitures except 300,000 acres. ment-Congressional and Presidential Action on Land Forfeiture Bills -The credit due to the Republicans.

PART III.

Falsity

Another claim made by Democrats is, that they have restored to the public domain vast areas of land; but when this claim is tried in the alembic of truth by the cold logic of facts and figures, it is found to be as baseless as most other Democratic assertions.

Fifty, eighty, even a hundred, million acres are the amounts claimed by different individuals as restored by the Executive order issued in August, 1887, revoking the indemnity withdrawals made for the benefit of certain railroads specified in a circular issued Sept. 6, 1887.

As a matter of fact, less than one-tenth of the smallest figure named above was restored by that order, because the railroads were not entitled, and did not claim, that all their losses within the original grant lines amounted to more than 5,000,000 acres, and the whole area of the land set aside for indemnity purposes, and claimed to be restored, did not amount to more than 30,000,000 acres, and only the one-half of that was reserved for railroad purposes. The claims of Land Commissioner Stockslager in his circular of May 12, 1888, that 28,000,000 acres of indemnity land had been "restored," is proven by these figures to be absurd. Besides which, it is a

The table prepared by Judge Payson of the lands forfeited by Congress is as follows:

Congressional action on land-grant forfeiture bills.

and in the 49th Congress, when he was the settlements by the construction of some work like this. acknowledged leader of his party, defended his act and vote. In the course of his remarks he said:

Why, sir, in 1862 a grant had been made to certain parties; yes, to any parties or anybody who would build a railroad to California and tie it fast onto the Union. Nobody under that legislation put a spade in the ground or built any road. Two years afterward, and after we had tried in vain to obtain the building of the road under the first grant, it became apparent to all that the capital of the country would not take the risk of the enterprise. It substantially declared the capital of the country will not stand second; if you, the representatives of the people, want the railroad built, the Government must take the second place and the first risk.... The gentlemen charged with legislation then (the majority) were on the other side of the Hall. They were especially charged with, or took to themselves, the control of legislation affecting the conduct of the war. They said from the other side, this grant has been made and offered to the capital of the country and is yet unaccepted. Nobody will under this offer build a road to the Pacific Ocean. I was just out of the army, a Union man. Then, as now, in California there was a bright intelligent people, largely Southern men, with big brains and big hearts, whose sympathies and aspirations were with the South, and they desired to cast their fortunes with the South also. Men of the North wanted to tie them onto the North. Halfway between

...

...

us and California were a people alien to us in religion,

and in every thing unfriendly. The question was presented, or believed to be presented, here, Will we tie people of California on with iron bands and bring them near to us, or take the risk, by refusing to do so, of

allowing them to unite with the South, as many of their

leading men desired to do?

There was no party vote upon the grants to the Atlantic and Pacific, or to the Texas Pacific. All these great trans-continental railways were aided with land or money, not as partisan measures, but because the representatives of the people and the States, irrespective of party, believed that their construction would be of benefit to the country, and that they would not be built unless the aid was granted.

It is true that the Republican party was in power when these grants were made and these roads built, and if it were possible to blot out all the past, leaving only these completed railways, with the results that have followed their construction, as the sole record of the existence of the Republican Party, that alone would entitle it to the undying admiration of the country.

PART II.

Land Grants by Democrats, compared with Land Grants by Republicans.

trolled the policy of the country. Numerous Prior to 1861 the Democratic party congrants of land were made anterior to that year for the construction of railways and for other purposes. An examination of the Statutes shows that prior to March 4, 1861, there had been made the following grants:

I agreed with those who wanted to bring them near to us by enabling us to get near to them, and, as I remember, after some effort to get it amended, voted for it, and, as I always do, assume whatever re sponsibility belongs to me. At that time it appeared to me to be the right thing to do, and none of the wise critics of to-day know that it was not the right thing to do. And at that time, while I believed I was tying on California (for the Pacific road bill was then a war measure), many of those who now regard that legisla tion as a betrayal of people's interests were beating about the bush and very uncertain on every public question of that time. With lights before us to-day, it is a very easy thing to talk of grants to great corporations. The grant was an invitation to the capital of the country, an invitation to invest in what was be- Grants for railroad purposes lieved to be a mest hazardous enterprise, probably never to be undertaken by anybody, but of great national interest.

The same year (1864) the grant was made to construct the Northern Pacific, the vote on the passage of that bill in the House was 74 yeas to 20 nays, and among the votes in its favor were those of the following Democrats: Allen of Illinois, Baldwin of Missouri, Boyd, Coffroth, Eden of Illinois, Eldridge of Wisconsin, Heall, King, Knapp, Lazier, McAllister, Nelson, Noble, Odell, Pruyn, J. B. Steele, W. G. Steele, Sweat, Voorhees of Indiana, and Ward. Several Republicans voted against the bill. In the Senate the bill passed without a division, and, in discussing it, the late VicePresident Hendricks said:

The bill before the Senate proposes to encourage the construction of a very important railroad to connect the waters of Lake Superior with the waters of the Pacific Ocean. Everybody can see at a glance that it is a work of national importance. It proposes to grant lands in a northern latitude where, without the construction of a work like that, the lands are comparatively without value to the Government. No person acquainted with the condition of that section of the

country supposes that there can be very extensive set

Grants prior to 1861, to
States.

wagon-road pur

.ровев ...
Grants for canal purposes....
"river-improvement

purposes.

Grants as swamp lands.....

Total anterior to 1861

acres...

Grants since 1861 to States
and Corporations.
Grants for railroad purposes.
wagon-road pur.

66

"

poses....
Grants for canal purposes.
"river-improvement

purposes...

Grants for railroads to corpo

rations

Totals since 1861 -acres.

30,470,920 23,105,468

251,354 251,354

3,901,190 3,901,190

1,406,211 1,406,211 70,455,975 56,455,468

106,485,632 85,119,680

17,775,625 11,360,368

2,530,380 1,782,731 699,635 699,635

1,975,593 1,975,593

163,643,944 13,454,111 186,624,177 29,272,437

These figures show that under laws passed by Democrats eighty-five million acres of land have been certified or patented to States for such purposes, while, under the laws passed by the Republicans, less than thirty million

These figures are the best possible answer to the Democratic cry that Republicans have "wasted the public domain."

Comparison of Results Accomplished.

was issued upon information and plans prepared by a former Republican Secretary of the Interior, the Hon. A. M. Teller of Colorado.

ure Bills.

Still another claim is that Democrats in

Other things should be considered in re- Congressional Action on Land-Grant Forfeit. gard to these grants. One is, the benefits that have accrued to the country from them; the other, that the grants made by the Republicans were almost entirely for great national purposes, vastly benefiting the country in its entirety, whilst the grants made by Democrats were almost entirely to subserve local interests, and have accomplished but little even to that end. The 39,393,389 acres of swamp land patented to the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri, have been almost wasted by these States, doing them little if any good. The grants to fortyseven railroads made by Democrats have given less than 6,000 miles of railway, whilst the grants made by the Republicans have given the country five grand trans-continental lines, with their various branches, aggregating over 20,000 miles.

Another claim made by Democrats is, that they have restored to the public domain vast areas of land; but when this claim is tried in the alembic of truth by the cold logic of facts and figures, it is found to be as baseless as most other Democratic assertions.

Fifty, eighty, even a hundred, million acres are the amounts claimed by different individuals as restored by the Executive order issued in August, 1887, revoking the indemnity withdrawals made for the benefit of certain railroads specified in a circular issued Sept. 6, 1887.

As a matter of fact, less than one-tenth of the smallest figure named above was restored by that order, because the railroads were not entitled, and did not claim, that all their losses within the original grant lines amounted to more than 5,000,000 acres, and the whole area of the land set aside for indemnity purposes, and claimed to be restored, did not amount to more than 30,000,000 acres, and only the one-half of that was reserved for railroad purposes. The claims of Land Commissioner Stockslager in his circular of May 12, 1888, that 28,000,000 acres of indemnity land had been "restored," is proven by these figures to be absurd. Besides which, it is a

Congress have forfeited, and thus restored to entry, an immense territory of unearned land-grants. This claim is as false as the others. Representative Lewis F. Payson of Illinois effectually disposes of that claim in a speech delivered by him in the House of Representatives on July 28, 1888. In that speech he showed that every Republican in the House had voted for each of these forfeiture bills, and that no credit was due to any political party, as a party, for their passhow that the only opposition to any of sage. Judge Payson omitted, however, to these measures came from Democrats, who in the 49th Congress defeated the forfeiture of the lands granted to the Gulf and Ship Island Railway made in 1856, although not a dollar's worth of work had been done on the proposed railway in the thirty years that had elapsed since the passage of the granting act. He shows, however, from the record, that he, a Republican, introduced the bills to forfeit the lands of the Oregon Central, the Texas Pacific, the Atlantic and Pacific, and the seven Southern roads contained in the table given below; and these bills cover the entire forfeitures except 300,000 acres.

The table prepared by Judge Payson of the lands forfeited by Congress is as follows:

PART IV.

those of the people of the United States, demand that these grants should be adjusted at the earliest possible date and the lands now withdrawn not needed to satisfy grants restored to entry, and that the proper force The System of Land-Grant Forfeitures of competent clerks should be provided for such suggested by Republicans, not Demo- purpose. crats Recommendations of LandCommissioner Drummond and Judiciary Chairman Reed.

-

There is a proverb that a certain class of individuals should have long memories; and the Democrats who are taking to themselves so much credit for forfeiting land grants should remember that proverb.

What Republicans have recommended, and when.

The Hon. Thomas B. Reed, a Republican Congressman from Maine, in the 47th Congress, submitted a report from the Judiciary Committee in which he said, referring to the recommendations made in their report:

It will be seen from the foregoing that the committee grants as have not been in any way utilized. When af. have adopted the rule of advising the forfeiture of such ter a long lapse of time, no attempt has been made to earn the grant, it has seemed as if it should be withdrawn.

These citations are sufficient to establish the fact that the system of forfeitures was not only aided by Republican members of Congress, but was suggested by Republican Exec

Mr. Willis Drummond, a Republican Commissioner of the General Land Office, on January 15, 1874, held "That, if any por-utive officers. tion of the road had been constructed in time, it would, upon a proper showing to that effect, be entitled to an amount proportionate to the number of miles so constructed," and "recommended the restoration to entry, by formal revocation on the part of Congress (that is, forfeiture), of the portion of the grant not earned."

Mr. N. C. McFarland, another Republican commissioner of the General Land Office, in a letter dated March 27, 1882, transmitted to Congress by the Hon. S. J. Kirkwood, a Republican, Secretary of the Interior, on March 28, 1882, said:

The interests of settlers within the limits of these grants, the interests of the railroad companies and

Thus every claim made by the Democrats, as to their having recovered lands for the government, is absolutely false, and so proven from the records. This Administration is entitled to "credit" for one act in regard to the Public Lands. It has tied up the titles to thousands upon thousands of homesteads, where the settlers are reclaiming the virgin soil from its native wildness and making it produce exuberant crops of grain. charged these settlers with being land-thieves, and has taken advantage of every technicality to prevent them from securing titles to the homes they have created by their labor. For that much, it is entitled to claim all the "credit" the people will choose to give it.

It has

CHAPTER XI.

Pensions and Bounties.

"The system of direct taxation known as 'internal revenue' is a war tax, and so LONG AS THE LAW CONTINUES, the money derived therefrom should be... made a fund to defray the expenses of the care and comfort of worthy soldiers disabled in the line of duty in the wars of the Republic, and for the payment of such pensions as Congress may from time to time grant to such soldiers. - Democratic National Platform, 1884. [Re-affirmed,

1888.]

"While carefully guarding the interest of the principles of justice and equity, it [the Democratic party] has paid out more for pensions and bounties to the soldiers and sailors of the Republic than was ever paid before during an equal period." — Democratic National Platform, 1888.

"The gratitude of the Nation to the defenders of the Union cannot be measured by laws. The legislation of Congress should conform to the pledge made by a loyal people, and be so enlarged and extended as to provide against the possibility that any man who honorably wore the Federal uniform shall become an inmate of an almshouse or dependent upon private charity. In the presence of an overflowing treasury it would be a public scandal to do less for those whose valorous service preserved the Government. We denounce the hostile spirit shown by President Cleveland in his numerous vetoes of measures for pension relief, and the action of the Democratic representatives in refusing even a consideration of general pension legislation. We demand appropriations for the payment of just pensions to our soldiers." -Republican National Platform, 1888.

"IT IS BETTER TO TRUST THOSE WHO ARE TRIED THAN THOSE WHO PRETEND."

more evident than in the impudent claim recently set forth that "the Democrats in Congress have done more for the soldiers than the Republicans have." Let us exam-known as the "additional bounty act," under In 1866 the Republicans passed what was 529.81. which the soldiers have been paid $71,154,