Landmarks of Tompkins County, New York : including a history of Cornell University, Part 37

Author: Hewett, Waterman Thomas, 1846-1921; Selkreg, John H
Publication date: 1894
Publisher: Syracuse, N.Y. : D. Mason
Number of Pages: 1194

USA > New York > Tompkins County > Landmarks of Tompkins County, New York : including a history of Cornell University > Part 37

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

Third, that the liberal education offered in 1858, at our colleges, appeared almost exclusively for the instruction of the professional classes, that is to say, for ministers, lawyers and doctors only ; while obviously the greatest number of our people, or all those engaged in productive and industrial employments, were unprovided for, though hungering for some appropriate higher education.

Existing colleges then had more faith in discipline than in usefulness, and sur- rendered little time to the teaching of the practical sciences. It struck me, however, that these would do the greatest good to the greatest number and open a larger field to a liberal education. With these views, my first bill was introduced and passed both Houses in 1858. Instruction in the sciences, agriculture and the mechanic arts was made to lead, but without excluding the classics. It was to be the instruction of a college. I do not remember of any assistance in framing my bill prior to its intro- duction.

One slight amendment only was made, and that by the Senate, where the bill was earnestly supported by Senators Wade, Crittenden and Pearce. After its introduc- tion Colonel Wilder, of Massachusetts, president of the National Agricultural Society, and Mr. Brown, president of the People's College, New York, and others, worked to encourage members to vote for the Bill. My own speech was about the only one in

367

CORNELL UNIVERSITY.

favor, while there was some outspoken opposition and a report by Cobb, of Alabama, against it. The bill was vetoed by Buchanan, though favoring a measure that would provide for a professorship of Agriculture for a college in each State. Mr. Sickles, a personal friend of Buchanan, then, as now, a member of the House, hav- ing heard of a coming veto, left the House in haste to see and persuade the President to approve the bill. Upon his return he told me that he was too late, and that Senator Slidell of Louisiana had got the ear of the President. Of course I patiently waited for a change of administration, and in 1862 again pushed the bill, but for a larger endowment of lands. Senators Harlan, Pomeroy and Wade cared for the bill in the Senate. Most of the State Legislatures had passed resolutions in its favor. There never was a doubt about the approval of Lincoln. I do not think he had any relations with Buchanan, who soon left for Pennsylvania.

The value of the land granted to colleges was largely diminished by the great amount of bounty land and railroad land grants competing for a market at the same time. Only one college had a Cornell to husband its resources.

For the proper equipment of the Land Grant Colleges the original endowment was soon found to be too small, and for many years various bills were introduced by me to obtain a supplementary grant.

Success finally crowned these efforts in 1890. Professor Atherton, of Rutgers College, now President of Pennsylvania Agricultural College, and Major Alvord, of Maryland Agricultural College, rendered valuable aid in all of these supplementary bills.

Recognizing the education of the people as the noblest function of government, Mr. Morrill drew up independently a bill "Donating Public Lands to the several States and Territories which might pro- vide Colleges for the benefit of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts," which he introduced in the House of Representatives December 14, 1857, and asked that it be referred to the Committee on Agriculture, of which he was a member.

An opposition was immediately developed to the reference pro- posed, and it was moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Public Lands, which on the following day was done.

Mr. Morrill, in beginning his speech in behalf of the bill, stated that no measure for years had received so much attention in various parts of the country as this, so far as can be proved by petitions which have been received here froin the various States, north and south, from county societies and from individuals. He compared the efforts of the government to promote commerce, railroads, literary labor through the copyright, and to benefit mechanics by the patent system, and education through munificent grants, with the little done for agriculture. We are behind European countries in this regard, while far ahead of them in every other. He claimed that the prosperity of a nation depended,

368

LANDMARKS OF TOMPKINS COUNTY.

first, upon the division of the land into small parcels; and secondly, upon the education of the proprietors of the soil. Our agriculturists are, as a whole, seeking to extend their boundaries instead of promot- ing a higher cultivation of the soil. He showed by statistics of agri- cultural products that crops were decreasing in the East and South, and that agriculture as pursued was exhausting the soil. Foreign states support a population vastly larger per square mile than our own. Here we rob the land, and then the owner sells his land and flies to fresh fields to repeat the spoilation. The wave would some day be stayed by the Rocky Mountains, but shall we not prove unworthy of our patrimony if we run over the whole before we learn to manage a part? The nation that tills the soil so as to leave it worse than it found it, is doomed to decay and degradation. Agri- culture undoubtedly demands our first care. Our public lands are no longer pledged to pay the national debt. Who will be wronged by this bill? What better thing shall be done with our national domain? Since 1850 grants of lands amounting to 25,403,993 acres have been made to ten States and one Territory to aid more than fifty railroads. As prudent proprietors we should do that which would not only tend to raise the value of the land, but make agri- cultural labor more profitable and more desirable. Up to June 30, 1857, we had donated ungrudgingly to different States and Territories 67,136,572 acres of land for schools and universities. If this purpose be a noble one, as applied to a territory sparsely settled, it is certainly no less noble in States thickly populated. He defended the constitu- tionality of the bill and claimed that Congress had a plain and absolute right to dispose of the public lands at its discretion. Some statesmen have denounced our land system as a prolific source of corruption, but what corruption can flow from agricultural colleges? "The persuasive arguments of precedents, the example of our worthiest rivals in Europe, the rejuvenation of worn out lands which bring forth taxes only, the petitions of farmers everywhere yearning for a more excellent way, philanthropy supported by our own highest interests, all these consid- erations impel us for once to do something for agriculture worthy of its national importance."

Mr. Morrill then introduced an amended bill. A parliamentary struggle ensued, in which it was sought to lay the bill on the table, and in which Mr. Cobb opposed its passage upon the ground of uncon- stitutionality. Mr. Cobb sought also to show that the effect of the bill

369

CORNELL UNIVERSITY.

would be to give some States an advantage over others, under the ex- isting ratio of representation. He also objected to the exclusion of the Territories from the benefits of the bill, and held that the grants to railroads inereased the value of the public lands; but in this case the government would receive no equivalent.

On April 15, 1858, Mr. W. R. W. Cobb, of Georgia, reported back the bill, recommending that it do not pass. A minority report, signed by two members of the committee, Messrs. D. S. Walbridge, of Mich- igan, and Henry Bennett, of New York, was also presented. The reasons upon which the majority of the committee relied for the rejec- tion of the bill rested mainly upon the limitation of the powers of the Federal government by the Constitution. "The States had reserved to themselves all authority to act in relation to their domestic affairs, and these principles established the only solid foundation for the per- petuation of the Federal Union. Such is the symmetry of our gov- ernment, that its very existence depends upon its severe adherenee to the limitation of its duties. If the general government possessed the power to make grants for local purposes, without a consideration within the States, its aetion would have no limitation but such as policy or necessity might impose. Every local object for which local provision is now made would press for support upon the general gov- ernment, and would ereate demands upon it beyond its power to meet, and of necessity it would be driven into the policy which would inerease its mcans. As its expenditures are increased the revenue must be enlarged, and the general government, by the adop- tion of the poliey would levy taxes upon the people of the Union for the sake of the loeal interests of the States. Patron- age would be fatal to the independence of the States; with pat- ronage eones the power to control, as consequence follows upon cause. If the principle be admitted, what shall limit its application? The committee have failed to perceive how they could be justified in recommending a grant from the general government in support of agricultural sehools and in refusing one for any other purpose equally meritorious. The means of the general government are taken from the people. If you take it from the public lands, you give it money in the stead; if you destroy its revenue from that source, you must in- crease it in some other. The appropriation asked for is in lands; but your committee ean diseover in this regard no difference between an appropriation in lands or one in money; the effect is precisely the same

370

LANDMARKS OF TOMPKINS COUNTY.

in both cases. If the revenue from the public lands is destroyed, the deficiency must be met by taxes upon the people. The public domain belongs to all the people of the United States; their interest in it is common, and the government is but the trustee for the common benefit, limited in its actions over it to those powers conferred by the Constitution. It is a part of the public funds, and can be devoted to no purpose forbidden to the money of the Federal government.

As a landholder, the government may legitimately bear a share of the burdens imposed to create an improvement which shall enhance the value of its domain, and may contribute to that end, yet its aid must be limited within the extent which does not require taxation to effect it. It may, as a matter of power or right, contribute portions of the public lands to improve the value of the remainder, but even in this sound policy its duties toward the general welfare will limit it to a healthy and reasonable extent. The donation of section sixteen for the support of schools was an inducement to purchasers and en- hanced the value of the adjacent lands, the sale of which indemnified the government for the donation which it made. So, too, the donation of the salines The grants to the new States upon their admis- sion into the Union were upon conditions which more than indemnified the government. If the prayers of the petitioners were granted, pro- digious quantities of land would be thrown upon the market by com- peting venders, which would deprive it of marketable value. The very gratification of their wishes would destroy the object which they have in view. To make the grants would be to render them of but little avail. Congress, without a promise of pecuniary compensation, has no power to grant portions of the public domain, and, if it had, no policy could be more unwise than to grant it for the support of local institutions within the States."

The minority report, to which Mr. Morrill contributed, cited the fact that schools for instruction in scientific and practical agricul- ture had been established by most of the European governments; that in many countries of Europe the subject of agricultural education is incorporated with the publie administration, being often committed to the minister of public domains. Agricultural colleges had been estab- lished in various States, in part by private benevolence and in part by legislative act; also that agricultural professorships had been created in many colleges and universities. Of 5,371, 876 free male inhabitants of the United States in 1850, nearly one-half, or 2,389,013, were re-

371

CORNELL UNIVERSITY.

turned as farmers and planters, while in the professions of law, mcdi- cine and divinity, there were but 94,515 men employed. To educate these men for the learned professions there were 234 colleges, endowed with many millions of dollars, and two million dollars are actually expended every year in the education of 27,000 students. The main wealth of the country is in its agricultural products, which far exceed in value its foreign commerce. If a grant of land to aid in the con- struction of a railroad may be made for the benefit of all the States, by which the value and sale of the public lands is promoted, there is equal warrant for giving millions of acres to soldiers who have fought our battles.

The measure under consideration is in no sense a donation to the States; it will relieve them from no taxation, but will impose new duties and further burdens. It merely makes the States trustces for certain purposes which they may constitutionally and efficiently dis- charge. The United States will not part with its title to any lands save upon certain conditions, which are to be of perpetual and binding force. As the United States originally acquired their title to much of the public domain upon the stipulation that it was to be disposed of only for the common benefit of all the States, so it is believed that no grant has ever been made which will prove to be a more strict com- pliance with the terms than this now proposed, reaching, as it will reach, not only all the States, but a major part of the people of all the States, reaching them, too, in their persons and material interests and reaching them also for the common benefit of all the people. That our country necds all the aid likely to flow from a measure of such far- reaching consequences, the united testimony of all our agriculturists in all sections of our country loudly proclaims, and that it will prove wise and practical, the experience in our own and other lands happily already demonstrates. As each State would possess the sole control and man- agement of its proportionate fund, national power could not be held to interfere in local government. The constitutionality of such a law was maintained, and it was held that there was no limit to the uses and pur- poses to which the public domain may be applied, but the discretion of Congress; if the proposed grant is for the benefit of all the States, Con- gress has full power to make it, and the law-making power alone can judge of that fact.

The bill passed the House on the 22d of April, 1858, by a vote of one hundred and five to one hundred. Upon analyzing this vote,

372

LANDMARKS OF TOMPKINS COUNTY.

we find that the members from the Southern States, with few excep- tions, voted against the measure, while its main support came from the North. Certain members from the Western States also opposed it on the ground that their own States would suffer in growth and in population, and that the purposes of the Homestead Act would be defeated.

On April 22, 1858, the bill was presented in the Senate, and on the following day referred to the Committee on Public Lands. On May 6, 1858, Mr. Stuart, of Michigan, reported that the committee, after very carefully considering this question, had, in view of the existing circumstances, reported the bill back to the Senate without any recom- mendations for or against its passage. On May 19 the Senate pro- ceeded to the consideration of the measure, which, however, was stren- uously opposed, Mr. Pugh, of Ohio, saying: "We might as well make a test vote on that bill. It has never been favorably recommended by any committee of either House. Probably it is the largest proposition for the donating of public lands that has ever been made here. We cannot consider it at this time, and I think instead of wasting the precious hours that remain in discussing at great length a question, which, if it comes up, will be defeated, we may as well take a test vote on the question of taking up the bill, and I call for the yeas and nays." The bill was taken from the table by a vote of twenty-eight to twenty- four, Senator Yulee having sought to vary the motion so as to lay the bill on the table and thus dispose of it more effectively. Various motions were presented to proceed to the special order, to postpone the special order, and to take up other measures in place of the Land Grant Act for colleges. Mr. Stuart said: "I only desire to say that the friends of this measure do not intend to discuss it. It is a measure which ex- plains itself. The reading of the bill prepares every senator to vote upon it. I wish to protest against the authority of my noble friend from Alabama [Mr. Clay] as well as his historical statement [that this was a bill which the Democratic party of this country had been committed against for thirty years past]. I deny his authority to make party questions, and I deny his historical statement that this is a party question or has ever been made so. This is simply a proposition to grant less than six million acres, whereas it is but a short time, -in 1855,-since we passed the law under which there have been granted sixty million acres; that was done by a Democratic majority and ap- proved by a Democratic president." Mr. Mason, of Virginia, said:

373

CORNELL UNIVERSITY.

" The Senator would be mistaken if he expected the bill to pass with- out debate. It may be the policy of the senator and those who think with him to let the bill pass as smoothly as may be, but as far as I understand it, it is presenting a new policy to the country altogether, being a direet appropriation from the treasury for encouragement of schools of agriculture. I am not aware that it has been known so far to the legislatures of the country to make these general appro- priations through all the States. I shall deem it my duty, for one, to expose its character, as I look at it, fully to the people whom I repre- sent, and I presume that the disposition of other senators is to do the same thing." The Senate refused to consider the bill further. On the first day of the second session of the Thirty-fifth Congress, December 6, 1858, Mr. Stuart, who had charge of the bill in the Senate, gave notice that as soon as the Senate was full, he should ask for the consid- eration of the bill. On December 15 Mr. Stuart called up the bill. An attempt was made to postpone its consideration on account of the sickness or absence of members who were opposed to it. Upon the question of considering the bill the Senate was equally divided, the viee-president, Mr. Breckenridge, voted no, and the considera- tion was postponed. On December 16 the bill was again called up and made a special order for the following week. Upon the day desig- nated, the consideration of the measure was again postponed. On February 1 Senator Wade, of Ohio, moved to postpone all prior orders and to take up this bill, speaking with great energy in its favor. Among other things, he said: "This bill passed the House toward the close of last session. It came here so late that those who were opposed to it found it would be easy to talk it to death, and it will share the same fate now unless its friends support the motion to take it up in preference to other bills. Many senators here are instructed by their States to use their influenee to proeure the passage of the bill; I am one among that number." He also argued that it was time that something of this nature should be done by Congress for the benefit of agriculture.

The bill, as originally presented, provided that twenty thousand aeres of land should be granted to each State, for cach senator and repre- sentative in Congress to which the States were then respectively en- titled, making a total grant of 5,925,000 acres. It was sought to amend the bill by making the grant to the several States and Territories in the compound ratio of the geographical area and the representation of said States and Territories in the Senate and House of Representatives,

374

LANDMARKS OF TOMPKINS COUNTY.

after the apportionment under the census of 1860, provided that said appropriation be made after first allotting to each State and Territory fifty thousand acres. Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, said: "The census of 1850 shows that at that time there were over three millions of the people of the United States engaged in agricultural pursuits. Where is their representation on this floor? Non est. They are not here, only as they are represented by professional men." Various amendments were offered, some designed to make the quantity of land granted by the bill proportionate to the area of tillable lands in the State. An effort was also made to introduce a provision in the act as finally passed, that in no case shall any State to which land scrip may thus be issued be allowed to locate the same within the limits of any other State; but their assignees may thus locate said land scrip upon any of the appro- priated lands of the United States, subject to public entry.

Mr. Jefferson Davis reviewed the history of the acquisition of the public lands by the general government, and opposed the measure on the ground that the power to "dispose " of the lands did not imply that they could be given away. Previous grants of the public lands had been made to increase the value of the property and to promote the revenue of the United States. "So far as grants of land have been made to construct railroads, merely on the general theory that railroads were a good thing, the Federal government has violated its trust and exceeded the powers conferred upon it. Where a grant has been made of a certain portion of land to increase the value of the residue and bring it into cultivation, . . it rests on a prin-

ciple such as a prudent proprietor would apply to the conduct of his own affairs. Thus far it is defensible; no further. The land grants to the new States for education rest on the same general principle. The new States, sovereigns like the old, admitted to be equal, before taking both the eminent and useful domain, entered into a contract with the other States, that they would relieve from taxation the land within their borders while owned by the general government. This is the consideration for which land grants have been made to the new States; and a high price they have paid for all that has been granted for educational purposes."

Mr. Davis's views are not confirmed by the terms of the Ordinance of 1787. They are of interest now as those of a strict constructionist of the Constitution of that time, and in virtue of certain views of gov- ernmental and State rights which he later advocated.

375

CORNELL UNIVERSITY.

After further debate the vote was taken, with the result that twenty- five yeas and twenty-two nays were cast, being a majority of three for the measure. On the 16th of February a message was received from the House that it had concurred in the Senate amendments to the bill.

In the decision of this question, certain senators conscientiously maintained views based upon traditional interpretations of the Constitu- tion ; others, who opposed the measure, joined with the former through party affiliations, and certain senators from the South aeted in support of the measure contrary to the convictions of their constituents. Sen- ator Morrill gives the following additional ineident in the history of the measure : "It was reported that President Buchanan would veto the measure on aeeount of its unconstitutionality. When the bill had been in the hands of President Buehanan for some days, General Sickles of the House told me that there was some danger of the veto of the bill, and requested me to give him a copy of the speech, wherein I had shown that Buchanan, when a senator, had voted for an appropriation for a school for deaf mutes in Kentucky. He thought that this vote would preclude him from urging any constitutional objections against the agricultural college bill. He jumped on a horse and rode up to the president's, but soon came back, telling me that he was too late, that Senator Slidell, of Louisiana, had got the ear of the president and the bill would be vetoed." Among those who supported this law most actively in the House during its first passage were Representatives Morrill, Walbridge, Cochrane and others, and in the Senate, Senators Wade, Stuart and Collamer.

On February 24, 1859, President Buchanan sent a special message to the House of Representatives, vetoing this aet. After stating the provisions of the bill and the range of its application, he proceeded to set forth the objeetions to the measure, which he deemed to be both inexpedient and unconstitutional. His first objection was the great difficulty of raising sufficient revenue to sustain the expenses of the government. Should this bill become a law, the treasury would be deprived of the whole or nearly the whole of the income from the sale of public lands, which was estimated at five million dollars for the next fiscal year. The minimum price of government lands was one dollar and twenty-five cents, but the value of such lands had been re- duced to eighty-five cents by the issue of bounty land-warrants to old soldiers. Of the lands granted by these warrants, there were out- standing and unlocated nearly twelve million acres. This had reduced

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

Landmarks of Tompkins County, New York : including a history of Cornell University, Part 37

Author: Hewett, Waterman Thomas, 1846-1921; Selkreg, John H Publication date: 1894 Publisher: Syracuse, N.Y. : D. Mason Number of Pages: 1194

Author: Hewett, Waterman Thomas, 1846-1921; Selkreg, John H
Publication date: 1894
Publisher: Syracuse, N.Y. : D. Mason
Number of Pages: 1194