"Official Explorations for Pacific Railroads, 1853-1855." By George Leslie Albright, 1921.

Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum

Home

Exhibits

Chinese

History

FAQ's

Links

Rights & Permissions; Homework

© 2008 CPRR.org. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the User Agreement which permits personal use web viewing only; no copying; arbitration; no warranty.

"Official Explorations for Pacific Railroads, 1853-1855."
By George Leslie Albright, 1921.

Notes:

See the original book page images in the attached searchable pdf version for corrections to the automatically transcribed text, shown below.
Use your browser's commands to adjust the text size of the complete book shown below according to your preference.
See the Twelve Volume Pacific Railroad Survey Reports, and additional information about the Explorations and Surveys for a Pacific Railroad.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN HISTORY

HERBERT E. BOLTON

EDITOR

VOLUME XI

OFFICIAL EXPLORATIONS FOR PACIFIC RAILROADS

1853-1855

BY

GEORGE LESLIE ALBRIGHT, M.A.

Native Sons Fellow in Pacific Coast History

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

1921

EDITOR'S NOTE

Soon after the completion of the present monograph Mr. Albright went to Spain to engage in research as Native Sons' Fellow in Pacific Coast History. A few weeks after his arrival in Seville he contracted typhoid fever, to which he succumbed in November, 1916, at the age of twenty-four. In his death the University of California lost one of her most brilliant alumni, and the State one of her best and most promising young citizens. Through the demise of the author, the editing of his book fell entirely into other hands.

The immense value of the work being supported by the Native Sons is well attested by such results as those set forth in this book by Mr. Albright. The desirability of promoting here in the West a study of the part played by the "West in our nation's history is illustrated by a single sentence in Mr. Albright's monograph (p. 29) : "The men who dominated this session [of Congress], and who placed the necessity of a Pacific railroad above sectional feelings and party creeds, were Senators Gwin of California, Rusk of Texas, Borland of Arkansas, and Bell of Tennessee"—all but one being men from this side of the Mississippi. Besides setting forth for the first time a systematic history of an important episode in the process of welding the nation and linking it with the Orient, Mr. Albright's study adds to the list of notable American explorers such names as Stevens, Gunnison, Beckwith, Whipple, Parke, Pope, Emory, Williamson, and Abbot.

For funds to supplement those of the University and thereby make possible the suitable publication of this book, thanks are due to Mr. Edward E. Ayer, of Chicago, and to Mr. Horace M. Albright, of Yellowstone National Park.

PREFACE

An episode in the development of the trans-Mississippi West to which but scant attention has been given in any history is the Pacific railroad survey of 1853-1855. This great reconnaissance deserves attention as the first attempt of the government at a comprehensive, systematic examination of the vast region lying between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Ocean. It is not intended to minimize in any way the labors of the fur-traders, the travelers, and the earlier government explorers, of whom Emory, Stansbury, and Sitgreaves must stand side by side with Fremont. Through their efforts there existed a good general knowledge of the West; but when it was proposed to locate a transcontinental railroad, the dearth of accurate scientific information was well recognized. All preexisting knowledge was brought to bear upon a few routes which were advocated in definite plans. For that reason I have seen fit to discuss rather fully the different plans in order to show their intimate connection with the railroad explorations. My study has been based almost entirely upon the government documents, and an attempt has been made to study every document bearing upon the subject. The orthography of place names is usually that of the documents.

vn

CONTENTS

PAGES

Editor's Note.................................................................................................. v

Preface........................................................................................................ vii

CHAPTER I Introductory.............................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER II

Plans for Transcontinental Roads........................................................ 10

CHAPTER III

Preliminaries to the Explorations of 1853-1855............................ 29

CHAPTER IV

Stevens's Explorations between the Forty-Seventh and

Forty-Ninth Parallels.................................................................... 44

CHAPTER V

Explorations for a Central Rodte........................................................ 85

CHAPTER VI

Whipple's Explorations along the Thirty-Fifth Parallel........ 102

CHAPTER VII

Explorations for a Thirty-Second Parallel Route...................... 119

CHAPTER VIII

Explorations fob Routes in Califobnia and Oregon...................... 133

CHAPTER IX Conclusion.................................................................................................. 157

Bibliography.............................................................................................. 159

Index.............................................................................................................. 170

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY

A Direct Western Route to Asia.—The building of the Pacific railroad was the realization of the desire of almost four hundred years for a direct western passage to Asia. This desire expressed itself first in the search by sea for the mysterious Strait of Anian and for the Northwest Passage. With the occupation of the continent of North America the search was continued for a direct route by means of inland waterways. Every nation that was ever dominant over the interior was zealous for some means of establishing direct commercial intercourse with China and other countries of the Far East.

After the Sieur de la Salle had established himself at the Seigniory of St. Sulpice in 1668, his idea was, as his dispatches plainly show, that by following the Mississippi River to its source communication could be had with the waters of Oregon and the Pacific and the commerce of the Far East commanded by France through her province of Louisiana.¹ The name of this place, located at the Great Rapids of the St. Lawrence just above Montreal, was changed to La Chine and stands today as a memorial of La Salle's hope that the direct route to China lay in this direction.² Likewise, the explorations of the Verendryes, La Harpe, Du Tisne, and Fabry were primarily for the purpose of establishing an inland commercial route across the continent.

When the Spaniards came into possession of Louisiana the expansion westward along the inland waterways continued. The officials of the province were greatly interested in opening a route to the Pacific.³ Baron de Carondelet, governor-general

1 Winsor, From Cartier to Frontenac, 213.

2 Thwaites, A Brief History of Eocky Mountain Exploration, 22-23.

3 Houck, A History of Missouri, I, 330, note.

2 Explorations for Pacific Railroads

from 1791 to 1797, undertook, with the approbation and sanction of Charles IV, the project of discovering a practicable route across the continent by way of the Missouri River. For this purpose he encouraged Jacques Clamorgan to organize in 1794 a Spanish trading company, to which was granted the exclusive traffic for ten years with all Indian tribes of the upper Missouri. In addition, a gratuity of two thousand dollars was promised to the first person who should see the Pacific Ocean.⁴ This enterprise resulted in explorations far up the Missouri River.

The English, likewise, having failed in their long search for the Northwest Passage to Asia, turned their attention inland in search of a transcontinental route. After years of effort on the part of explorers of the Hudson's Bay Company, it remained for Alexander Mackenzie, of the rival Northwest Company, on his second attempt, to open an overland route to the Pacific in 1793. Although he reached the Pacific by means of the Tachouche Tesse, or Fraser River, he pointed to the Columbia as the only desirable route west of the Rocky Mountains. This was, without doubt, one cause of the long efforts made by the British Government, first, to make the Columbia River a boundary between the United States and Canada, open to both for navigation, and afterwards to obtain its free navigation. It was the desire of the British to establish an inland commercial route across North America.

The Americans meanwhile were not inactive in their desire to open up a commercial route to Asia. As early as 1783 Jefferson planned an expedition under the leadership of George Rogers Clark for the discovery of a path across the Rocky Mountains that would connect the Missouri River with the Pacific Tidewater.⁵ Failing in this Jefferson in 1786 while in

* Houck, 329-330; Bolton and Marshall, Colonization of North America, 402.

5 Thwaites, Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 1804-1806, VII, Pt. I, Appendix I.

Introductory 3

Paris prevailed upon John Ledyard, who had been in Cook's expedition to Oregon in 1778, to cross from Kamtchatka and open up a route from the west.⁶ Owing to Russian interference, Ledyard 's expedition was a failure. Expeditions begun in 1790 under General Henry Knox and in 1793 under the French botanist, Michaux,⁷ were alike failures. Even before the acquisition of Louisiana, Jefferson once more revived the idea of establishing an inland communication between the two sides of the continent, and sent out the well-known expedition of Lewis and Clark for that purpose. In his secret message to Congress on January 18, 1803, he states his desire to open a route to the Pacific, saying: "The commerce on that line [referring to the lakes and portages of the Hudson's Bay Company] could bear no competition with that of the Missouri, traversing a moderate climate, offering, according to the best accounts, a continued navigation from its source, and possibly with a single portage from the Western Ocean.... "⁸ The objects of the expedition are more definitely stated in his letter of credit to Lewis of July 4, 1803, in which he refers to it as: "...the journey which you are about to undertake for the discovery of the course and source of the Missouri, and of the most convenient water communication from thence to the Pacific ocean."⁹ The expedition was successful in finding a communication, but Jefferson did not remain in power to carry out the practical design.

Senator Benton, who for more than thirty years occupied a foremost position among the statesmen of the nation, as early as 1817 turned his attention to this subject, and conceived a plan for the establishment of a commercial route leading up the Missouri and down the Columbia rivers. He believed that Asiatic commerce might be brought into the valley of the

e Jefferson, Writings (Ford, ed.), I, 94-96. i Ibid., VI, 158-161.

⁸ Thwaites, op. oit., Appendix V.

9 Hid., Appendix XX.

4 Explorations for Pacific Railroads

Mississippi on that line, and wrote essays to support the idea. The gist of these essays¹⁰ was to show that Asiatic commerce had been the pursuit of all nations from the time of the Phoenicians and that America would be its final channel. He believed that such a route should be established immediately and with government aid. Being occupied with that idea he agitated it for many years; and from the hunters and traders of the west he sought information of the country with respect to capacity for settlement and especially as regarded mountain passes.¹¹

Development of the West.—To the popular imagination of the first half of the nineteenth century, the vast region lying west of the Mississippi River was the "Great American Desert."¹²This idea persisted and the desert long remained as a frontier despite the fact that as early as 1819 settlement had reached the bend of the Missouri, and trade had been opened up with Santa Fe and the interior provinces of Mexico.¹³ In 1843, an additional attraction was offered in Oregon, and another well worn trail was made from Fort Leavenworth along the Platte River, through South Pass, and down the Snake River into the Oregon country. Meanwhile, numerous exploring expeditions, official

¹⁰ Benton, Highway to the Pacific.

iifieport, 29 Cong., 1 sess., IV (491), no. 773; Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 sess. (1848-49), XX, 470.

12 This conception largely resulted from the observations of Major Stephen H. Long, who in 1819 and 1820 made explorations in this region and characterized it as '' wholly unfit for cultivation, and of course uninhabitable by a people depending upon agriculture for their subsistence ... the scarcity of wood and water, almost uniformly prevalent, will prove an insurmountable obstacle in the way of settling the country" (Thwaites, Early Western Travels, 1748-1846, XIV, 20).

Dr. James, the scientist of the Long expedition, rendered a similar unfavorable impression of the country: "... the want of timber, of navigable streams, and of water for the necessities of life, render it an unfit residence for any but a nomad population" (ibid., 20).

1³ By 1824 this trade had risen to such magnitude as to demand national protection ('' Extracts from the Speech of Mr. Benton in the Senate.... Session of 1824-25, in favor of opening a road from Missouri to Santa Fe, in order to reach the trade of New Mexico" in Benton, Highway to the Pacific, Appendix B).

Introductory 5

and unofficial, were making known vast regions beyond the Mississippi. To call them to mind it is only necessary to mention the names of Long, Pilcher, Bonneville, Walker, Smith, and Fremont. Later in the forties, the discovery of gold in California attracted emigration across the Nevada desert and along the Humboldt into the Sacramento Valley. Other trails of approach were soon opened up for easy entrance into the gold region.¹⁴With the conclusion of the Mexican War and the acquisition of California, a new territorial problem was presented, which was made more difficult by the existence of the barrier of the "Great American Desert" between the new settlements in the Far West and those of the old East.¹⁵ The trails leading into Oregon and California were inadequate, yet they "revealed the possibility and early necessity of railroad routes extending from ocean to ocean."¹⁶

Necessity of a Railroad.—At first the primary object of a railroad to the Pacific was to facilitate access to the opulent commerce of the Far East, which had been the golden vision of all ages and all nations. This was the aim of Whitney and all earlier advocates of a transcontinental route; every plan proposed was accompanied by a wealth of figures showing the commercial benefits to be derived from Asiatic trade. With the settlement of the Oregon boundary question and the acquisition of California in 1848, an additional incentive was provided for

i* The most traveled route was the northern, leading from the Humboldt along the Truckee River to its source in Truckee Lake and thence down the Yuba to Feather and Sacramento rivers. The southern route led from Independence, Missouri, to Santa Fe, thence to deviate in various directions: by the old Spanish trail around the north banks of the Colorado, crossing Virgin Biver to the Mojave River and Desert and through Cajon Pass to Los Angeles; through Arizona along the Gila; down the Rio Grande and westward across the Sonora table-land to Yuma (Bancroft, History of California, VI, 155-157 and notes).

is Paxson, '' The Pacific Railroad and the Disappearance of the Frontier in America,'' in American Historical Association, Annual Report, 1907, I 108.

i« Ibid.

6 Explorations for Pacific Railroads

the building of a means of rapid communication. This new territory on the Pacific must be adequately defended, and the cheapest and quickest means of defense was a railroad.¹⁷ The fear was often expressed that unless some connection be maintained with Oregon and California, it was hardly to be expected that they would continue as a part of the Union.¹⁸ Difficulties with England were believed possible by many statesmen, and in event of war it was feared that California and Oregon would be lost to her. The regular sea routes being cut off by the superior British navy, overland aid would arrive too late to be of service.¹⁹The fear of the British was greatly enhanced when, in 1851, a railroad was projected across Canada from Halifax to the Pacific, capital solicited, and a route surveyed as far as Quebec. With the spread of settlement on the Pacific Coast it became necessary for the government to transport thither materials for the building of forts, dockyards, arsenals, etc. It also became necessary that mails be carried more rapidly, more frequently and more cheaply.²⁰ These needs pointed to a railroad as an immediate national undertaking.

i' This argument was used in almost every speech in Congress in favor of a railroad to the Pacific from 1846 on. While discussion of the Oregon question was at its height, Eepresentative Pratt, in presenting "Whitney's first memorial, emphasized the necessity of a road "for the purpose of securing the American interests in the vast regions of Oregon, and promoting the capacities of our common country for warlike defence...." Cong. Globe, 28 Cong., 2 sess. (1844-45), XIV, 218; ibid., 30 Cong., 2 sess. (1848-49), XX, 472; S. Reports, 31 Cong., 1 sess., Ill (585), no. 439.

is Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 sess. (1848-49), XX, 381; ibid., 32 Cong., 1 sess. (1851-52), XXV, 932; ibid., 32 Cong., 2 sess. (1852-53), XXVI, 709; H. Misc. Docs., 31 Cong., 1 sess., I (581), no. 21.

^Cong. Globe, 32 Cong., I sess. (1851-52), XXIV, 2466; "Memorial of the Little Kock Railroad Convention," in S. Misc. Docs., 32 Cong., 2 sess. (670), doc. 5.

20 In 1848, the tariff for mail from San Francisco to Independence was fifty cents each on letters and twelve and one-half cents on papers, the time of transit being sixty days. In 1852 the government was paying to the Collins line of steamers $750,000 per annum for the transmission of a semimonthly mail by way of Panama to Oregon and California. It was estimated that the annual saving of expense to the government on all transportation, if a railroad were built, would amount to $62,750,000. Cong. Globe, 32 Cong., 1 sess. (1851-52), XXIV, 1272.

Introductory 7

But, notwithstanding the pressing need (1) of diverting the profitable commerce of the Orient into American channels, (2) of defending the newly acquired possessions on the Pacific, (3) of facilitating communication with them, (4) of forestalling the evident designs of England upon the Oregon country, and (5) of protecting emigrants from Indian depredations and fulfilling the treaty obligations made to Mexico to protect her from Indian ravages, no plan for the building of a railroad could be agreed upon because of local prejudices and jealousies, the avowed enmity of the eastern states to any measure that would increase the power of those of the West, and party scruples regarding state rights and internal improvements.

Growth of the Railroad Idea.—The question of the original conception of railroad communication between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans does not come within the scope of this study. Such was the progressive nature of the American mind and its disposition to grasp conclusions at the very moment that the original premises were presented, at least as far as enterprise was concerned, that the idea of a passage across the continent must have occurred to many with the first successful railroad projects in the United States. But the scheme of a railway to the Pacific was one of such magnitude that notwithstanding the general conviction of its vast importance and the ardent desire to see it undertaken, it was, for many years, but infrequently urged upon the consideration of the people lest it be looked upon as too visionary and too impractical.

The project was first systematically brought to the attention of the people in the middle forties by the constant lobbying of Asa Whitney. Prior to that time, however, there had been several isolated suggestions that had failed of fruition. As early as 1832 there appeared in the Ann Arbor Emigrant the first printed suggestion as to the advisability of a railroad from New York to

8 Explorations for Pacific Railroads

the mouth of the Columbia River.²¹ In 1834, Dr. Barlow of Greenville, Massachusetts, wrote articles proposing that the government construct a railroad to the Pacific Coast.²² During 1836-37, John Plumbe, a Minnesota engineer, advocated the building of a transcontinental railway system. As a result of his activities, the first public convention ever held to discuss the Pacific railroad project met in Dubuque, Iowa, on March 31, 1838. Resolutions were drawn up asking Congress to aid by appropriating funds, and in due time were laid before that body by the territorial delegate. The only action taken by Congress was to set aside sufficient funds for a survey from Milwaukee to Dubuque. Again, in 1840, a memorial was addressed to Congress and presented by Plumbe in person. But he was far ahead of his time and his efforts were wasted.²³

Even as late as 1846 the building of a railroad to the Pacific was regarded by most people as a vague chimera. This can be seen from the following comment made upon the proposal to extend a line of railroad from Charleston, South Carolina, to Natchez and on to the Gulf of California: "We are to be sure, first, that we have Oregon and California to work so largely upon. It is not our intention to dampen the ardor of those who appear to be so far beyond the age, knowing as we do that the enterprise and the resources of our people are without limit, and that the developments among us for the past few years have outstripped all calculation. We leave the Texas and California railway, then, as one of those achievements which is reserved for us at some other period, when we have conquered all the obstacles which obstruct our free intercommunication at home. Texas, we know, will soon be able to take care of herself; and California is at best a distant vision whose dim outlines only can be traced.' '²ⁱ

21 Carter, When Bailroads Were New, 227; Bailey, The First Transcontinental Railroad, 11-12.

22 Haney, Congressional History of Bailroads to 1850, 402-403.

23 Carter, op. cit., 227-228.

Bow's Commercial Review, January, 1846 (I, 23-24).

Introductory 9

By the early inhabitants of the Pacific territories, those who knew best the actual condition of the country west of the Mississippi, a railroad was likewise regarded as chimerical. The editor of the California Star, writing in 1848, while favoring any plan for a railroad, would "not consent to view 'this stupendous project' practicable, nevertheless, for a number of years to come.... The depredatory acts of intractable Indians, directly through whose country the route lies, is one of a series of obstacles to the actual execution of the work.' '²⁵

25 California Star, May 20, 1848 (II, no. 20).

CHAPTER II PLANS FOR TRANSCONTINENTAL ROADS

The man to whom most credit is due for the spread and national acceptance of the idea of a railroad to the Pacific is Asa Whitney, of New York. He embodied and reduced the indefinite schemes on the subject into something like system; and he gave them form and substance. He familiarized the American mind with the idea and taught that it should be regarded as a practicable measure. He conceived the first definite, matured plan, and pointed out the route to be followed, the means of construction, and the immediate necessity of the work. His proposal, first made public in 1844, was for more than eight years persistently urged upon the attention of Congress and the people, but was doomed, however, to failure in the end. The service of Whitney to the whole Pacific railroad project can best be shown by quoting from the report of the House Committee on Roads and Canals, to which one of his memorials had been referred: "Mr. Whitney has been unremittingly engaged, at his own expense, since 1841, in collecting information on the subject... and we are indebted to him for the origination of the project, for the maturity of the first plan, for the large amount of practical information he has brought to bear upon the subject, and for the awakening of public attention to its importance.' ^!1 The history and the importance of his plan will be more fully treated later.

Unofficial Plans for a Southern Route.—No sooner had Whitney's plan for a northern road from Lake Michigan to Oregon been presented to Congress² than numerous suggestions and

iff. Reports, 31 Cong., 1 sess., I (583), no. 140.

2 His first memorial was presented January 28, 1845, by Eepresentative Pratt of New Tork. Cong. Globe, 28 Cong., 2 sess. (1844-45), XIV, 218.

Plans for Transcontinental Roods 11

proposals were made for a southern route. Colonel Gadsden, president of the South Carolina Railroad Company, was among the first advocates of a strictly southern railroad. In a report made by him at the Memphis Convention, held in November, 1845, and of which John C. Calhoun was chairman, he recommended the enterprise as one not only practicable, but in the process of time as certain of execution. In his annual report for 1845 to the stockholders of the South Carolina Railroad Company, he again presented the subject, accompanied by a map exhibiting the intimate relation between the route of the road as suggested by him and those completed and in progress through the different states of the Union.³

Other early advocates of railroad routes through southern territory were Robert Patterson,⁴ editor of the Concordia Intelligencer, and Professor Forshey, of Louisiana. The route suggested by the latter was the one most in favor in the South. It traversed Louisiana from Vidalia to Lowe's Ferry on the Sabine, thence directly across Texas to the Rio Grande, at Presidio, thence to Monclova, and then by way of Parras to Mazatlan on the Gulf of California. The estimated length of this route was 1,491 miles and its estimated cost, $22,000,000.⁵

3 Be Bow's Commercial Beview, May, 1847 (III, 447); ibid., June, 1847 (III, 485): "In connection with these Atlantic railroad communications with Vicksburg, Grand Gulf and Natchez; crossing the Mississippi at one or all of these points, roads are already projected, looking further to the west, which, uniting on a common trunk, in the rapid progress of southwestern expansion and emigration, will, in time, be made to course through the new acquired territory of Texas, and by the Mexican provinces to a terminus at Mazatlan, in the bay of California, or, taking a more northerly direction by the valley of the Bed and Arkansas rivers, may easily pass by the southern gorges in the Stony Mountains, and find, in the course of events, certain, though slow, a more favorable location in the imposing Bay of San Francisco.''

* He urged the building of a railroad from Vidalia on the Mississippi Eiver to Alexandria on the Red, and thence continuing the road westward. Be Bow's Commercial Meview, March, 1846 (I, 281).

⁵ Hid., 475—483. It was urged at this time that the right of way through Mexican territory be demanded of that country. Two years later, by the treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, Article VI provided that by mutual agreement a railroad could be built on Mexican soil, but only within one marine league of the Gila Eiver.

12 Explorations for Pacific Railroads

A different southern line was proposed by General Houston. It was to run from Galveston to San Diego by way of the Gila Valley. This route, however, had the disadvantage of having its eastern terminus located too far south.⁶

Leaders of public opinion in the South held firmly to the view that any of the southern routes proposed was infinitely more practicable, desirable, and accessible to the country at large than that proposed by Asa Whitney from Lake Michigan "through cold and mountains, 2600 miles to the mouth of the Columbia River."⁷

Among those who early migrated to California by way of the southern routes, were some who recognized and advocated the feasibility of the construction of a railroad. The California Star of May 8, 1847, contains an article signed "Agricola," in which was delineated a route asserted to be entirely practicable for that purpose. The western terminus should be placed near the mouth of the San Joaquin River, about twenty miles above the Straits of Carquinas; the route should then follow the valley of the river to the south about five hundred miles, skirting the western shore of "Lake Buenavista."⁸ After crossing "a narrow ridge of low hills,'' the route was level and open to the Red, or Colorado River of the West. The valley of this river should be followed to that of the San Juan, thence up the latter to the Rio de la Plata. Following this river to its source about ninety miles from Abecu,⁹ thence to Abecu and along the river of that name (Chama) to the Rio Grande and thence to Santa Fe; the route was entirely practicable for a railroad. Prom Santa Pe to the Missouri, or to the Mississippi, several well-known routes were

8/6td., July, 1849 (VIII, 19-20). Houston urged his plan upon the attention of Congress, but it was received with little favor. Cong. Globe., 30 Cong., 2 sess. (1848-49), XX, 551.

7De Bow's Commercial Meview, February, 1847 (III, 147-148).

s Undoubtedly the "Laguna Grande de los Tulares," which lies to the north of the small Lake Buenavista.

⁹ Abiquiu.

Plans for Trams continental Roads 13

then available.¹⁰ It was generally conceded in California by persons possessing a knowledge of the country through actual observation, that the southern route had claim to manifold advantages and was superior to that through South Pass proposed by "Whitney, Wilkes, and others.¹¹

The Whitney Project.—Despite agitation in the southern states and in California for a southern route, the project of Asa Whitney was the only one long to receive the serious consideration of Congress and the national support of the people. He offered facts and figures to show the practicability of his route, the adequacy of the means proposed, and the immense commercial benefits to be derived. The fact that its western terminus was in the recently settled Oregon country gave it an added interest and desirability. Whitney's plan was first presented to Congress in January, 1845, but no definite action was taken concerning it by the House Committee on Roads and Canals to which it was referred. However, a favorable report was made by the committee,¹² which recognized the immense importance of the work and urged further investigation. In February, 1846, Whitney having meanwhile examined the proposed route for several hundred miles west of the Mississippi and found it entirely practicable,¹³ a second memorial was presented.¹⁴

Since Whitney's plan was received with such widespread favor and the means proposed were thought for so long a time

i» A route very similar to that of "Agrieola" was urged in 1848 by John Marsh, of San Jose, and its advantages over that proposed by Whitney pointed out. The California Star, May 13, 1848 (II, no. 19).

11 The California Star, May 20, 1848 (II, no. 20). The great immigration to California during 1849 and 1850 concentrated attention on other routes than the southern. Added information on all routes caused many in California to advocate the central as the most practicable, particularly as San Francisco would be its western terminus. Daily Pacific News, April 27, 1850 (I, no. 130).

12 H. Seports, 28 Cong., 2 sess. (468), no. 199.

is S. Docs., 29 Cong., 1 sess., IV (473), doc. 161. " S. Journal, 29 Cong., 1 sess. (469), 161.

14 Explorations for Pacific Railroads

to be the only constitutional ones, a paragraph may well be devoted to the details as presented in his second memorial. Whitney asked for a strip of land, thirty miles wide on either side of the line from Lake Michigan to the Pacific Ocean by way of South Pass, or, according to his estimate, a total of 77,952,000 acres. These lands were to be set apart and sold to him at the rate of ten cents per acre. Whitney proposed first, however, to survey and build ten miles of road at his own expense; then, if approved by the government, he would receive one half of the reserved lands, or a strip five miles by sixty in width, to reimburse himself and enable him to commence a new section of ten miles. This process was to continue for each ten mile section until the first eight hundred miles were completed. Whitney believed that the lands of the remaining distance were of too little value to defray the cost of construction. Accordingly, the remaining half of the lands of the first eight hundred miles were to be sold under government supervision and the proceeds applied to the completion of the railroad to the Pacific. By this means, the building of the road was closely connected with the sale and settlement of the public lands. Whitney estimated the cost of the road, including $7,800,000, the amount to be paid by him for the land, at $68,400,000. He advocated private ownership and operation, greatly restricted, however, and under adequate government control in the fixing of rates, etc.; mails and troops were to be transported free of charge to the government.

Whitney continually urged haste, for the desirable lands west of the Mississippi River were rapidly being occupied. In fact, he soon was compelled to change his proposed eastern terminus from Lake Michigan to Prairie du Chien, the good lands in Wisconsin Territory having been occupied.

Plans for Transcontinental Roads 15

It is not necessary to trace in detail the course of Whitney's plan in Congress.¹⁵ His second memorial, presented in 1846, was referred to the Senate Committee on Public Lands, the full and able report of whose chairman, Mr. Breese, of Illinois, was accompanied by a bill, as a form of law, to carry it into effect.¹⁶Despite the recognized importance of the measure, there was violent opposition made to the printing of the bill and the report. This opposition was led by Senator Benton, who characterized the bill as "ridiculous."¹⁷ His motives are easily discerned: he was interested in an isthmian canal scheme projects for which continually rivalled those for a Pacific railroad; also he was perfecting a plan which should have the eastern terminus of the Pacific railroad in his own favorite state, Missouri.

In the first session of the thirtieth Congress (1847-48), the select committee of the House, which had been appointed to consider the various memorials for a railroad to the Pacific, and to which Whitney's proposition had been referred, early reported a bill to set apart and sell to him a portion of the public lands.¹⁸The same committee, later in the session, made a more lengthy report, setting forth the great importance of the project and urging its adoption.¹⁹ At the same session it was referred to a select committee in the Senate, of which Mr. Niles, of Connecticut, was chairman, who, with the unanimous approval of the committee, reported a bill and urged its adoption.²⁰ Benton, as before, headed the opposition to the bill, saying: '' We must have surveys, examination, and exploration made, and not go blindfold into a scheme."²¹

is Whitney's plan has been dealt with in detail in many secondary accounts: E. V. Smalley (History of the Northern Pacific Railroad) devotes a chapter to his project and Haney (op. cit.) makes an exhaustive study of it from the sources.

is S. Ex. Docs., 29 Cong., 1 sess., IX (478), doc. 466.

it Cong. Globe., 29 Cong., 1 sess. (1845-46), XV, 1171.

isB. Journal, 30 Cong., 1 sess. (513), 755.

™H. Seports, 30 Cong., 1 sess., Ill (526), no. 733.

20 Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 1 sess. (1847^8), XVIII, 875.

21 Ibid., 1011.

16 Explorations for Pacific Railroads

While "Whitney's plan had been more or less gaining favor in Congress, he had been touring the country and explaining his project to state legislatures and numerous large public meetings. The effects of this widespread and systematic campaign were soon evident, for memorials and petitions began to pour in upon Congress, favoring his plan of construction. During 1847 and 1848, the state legislatures of Indiana, Rhode Island, Illinois, New York, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Michigan, in most cases by unanimous votes, passed resolutions declaring it "the only feasible plan for the accomplishment of the work," recommending its immediate adoption, and requesting their delegates in Congress to give it their prompt attention and support.²²

Public meetings held during the years 1846 to 1848 at Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, Terre Haute, Indianapolis, Dayton, Columbus (Ohio), Wheeling, Philadelphia, and Benton (Miss.), endorsed Whitney's project as necessary and practicable. The question was given calm and favorable consideration in the South as well as in the North.²³ Although a more southern route than that proposed by Whitney was desired by the southern people, at the same time the practicability and great commercial value of the latter was never doubted, and it was believed that in its plan and details it embraced the only constitutional mode of effecting the work.²⁴

The various petitions and memorials of state legislatures and public meetings were, in the first session of the thirtieth Congress (1847-48), referred to the Senate Committee on Public Lands, and a report was made June 26, 1848. No action was taken on

22 S. Misc. Docs., 30 Cong., 1 sess. (511), nos. 1, 4, 5, 18, 28, 29, 51, 58, 76, 77, and 124; S. Misc. Docs., 30 Cong., 1 sess. (523), nos. 17, 47, 55, 68, 75, etc.

23 Be Bow's Commercial Eeview, January, 1848 (V), 60. 2i Ibid., December, 1850 (IX), 601.

Plans for Transcontinental Roads 17

Whitney's plan, but the committee recommended the adoption of a joint resolution providing for a survey and exploration, under the direction of the Secretary of War, of one or more routes for a railroad from the Mississippi below the Falls of St. Anthony to the Pacific.²⁵ This seems to be the first recognition of the importance of thorough surveys before any plan of construction could be matured.

During the short session of the thirtieth Congress (1848-1849) that body was occupied in framing a bill for the government of California, to the exclusion of almost all other matters. When, however, Senator Niles wished to take up the Whitney bill and make it the special order for a certain day, he was opposed by Borland, chairman of the Committee on Public Lands. The latter emphasized the necessity of adequate surveys before either the government or private parties should undertake the work; and finally he secured an amendment to the Whitney bill authorizing the Secretary of War to cause surveys to be made on such routes as he might deem proper from the Mississippi River to the Pacific.²⁸ Senator Benton again expressed himself as opposed to Whitney's or any other private enterprise, and, later in this session, he introduced his proposal for a national central highway.²⁷

In March, 1850, the House Committee on Roads and Canals made a lengthy report, approving the plan and route of Whitney and a bill was reported to give effect to the views of the committee.²⁸ At the same session, the whole subject was referred to the Senate Committee on Roads and Canals, and again the adoption of Whitney's plan was recommended.²⁹

²⁵ S. Reports, 30 Cong., 1 sess. (512), no. 191. No action was taken, however, on the recommendation at this time.

2«Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 sess (1848-49), XX, 381. 27 Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 sess. (1848-49), XX, 472. 28S. Reports, 31 Cong., 1 sess. I (583), no. 140. 29 8. Reports, 31 Cong., 1 sess. (565), no. 194.

18 Explorations for Pacific Railroads

Whitney's great project was a failure, despite the many favorable committee reports and innumerable memorials urging its adoption by Congress. But for these he was more indebted to the great anxiety that prevailed throughout the country for speedy and cheap communication with the vast interests on the Pacific Coast, than to any merit pertaining to the location of the proposed road or the details of his scheme. As other plans and other routes developed, Whitney and his project became less and less popular. When, in the winter of 1851-1852, Whitney asked for the use of the Hall of the House of Representatives in order to explain there his project he was twice refused; and only by a bare two thirds majority were the rules finally suspended and permission granted him in January, 1851.³⁰ As opposition to Whitney's proposal became more widespread, petitions were addressed to Congress, asking that no act