TABLE 1.-Data on enforcement of terms of first Morrill Act by the States-Con.

1 Scrip bought by Mr. Cornell yielding later through resale $5,460,038 for institution. 2 $103,482 cash and $732,155 deferred payments on lands sold as of 1916.

The first State to accept the act was Iowa in September, 1862. Vermont, the home State of Representative Morrill, expressed acceptance in October and the State of Connecticut in December of the same year. As shown by the table, the act was accepted by 14 States in 1863, by 3 in 1864, by 1 in 1865, by 6 in 1866, by 4 in 1867, by 3 in 1868, by 1 in 1869, and by 2 in 1870. Within a period of eight years after the passage of the first Morrill Act, 37 States had agreed to accept and carry out its provisions for the establishment of the new type of college. At the time of the enactment, the Nation was in the throes of Civil War. A provision of the law specifically provided that no State in rebellion against the United States should be entitled to benefit by the act. The result was that none of the Southern States was able to comply with its terms until after the termination of the war in 1865. With the end of the struggle, however, these States lost no time in expressing acceptance and during the next five years all of them had agreed to receive the Federal land grants and organize agricultural and mechanical colleges. Ten

other States received the land grants under their enabling acts when they changed from the status of Territories and entered the Union. All of them were Western States, 1 accepting the act in 1879, 1 in 1888, 5 in 1889, 1 in 1890, 1 in 1898, and 1 in 1910. Oklahoma's land grant for the college. was made under a special act of Congress, its terms being accepted in 1890 while the Territory of Alaska received a similar special grant in 1929.

After the acceptance of the act, the next step was to receive the land grants from the Federal Government, dispose of the land or scrip, and create an endowment fund for the support of the institutions. As 27 States had practically no public lands within their borders, scrip was issued to them. The other 21 made selections of public lands in their own States and then proceeded to dispose of them. Under the terms of the law every State was entitled to 30,000 acres for each Senator and Representative in Congress with the result that the amounts varied to a considerable extent. The State receiving the largest grant was New York, the amount being 990,000 acres. Pennsylvania was second on the list with 780,000 acres, and Ohio was third with 630,000 acres. Illinois received the fourth largest amount with 480,000 acres and Indiana the fifth with 390,000 acres. The grants to the other States ranged from 350,000 down to 90,000 acres. There were seven States that received as little as 90,000 acres, the list including Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.

With the receipt of such large amounts of land and scrip, their disposal was no minor undertaking for the different State governments. It was necessary to decide upon the agency to assume the responsibility. In 16 States the regularly constituted State officials, such as governor, treasurer, or auditor, were charged with the sale of the land-grants while in 15 other States the work was turned over to a State board of land commissioners or a single State land commissioner. The board of trustees of the newly organized universities or colleges that were to receive the benefit of the endowment fund disposed of the grants in five States. A university or college fiscal agent was appointed in two other States to manage the entire sale of lands or scrip. The State sinking fund commission was assigned the work in one State, the State board of education in one, a special commission of university and school lands in four, a special commission of State officials in two, and the State surveyor general There were two States that sold their scrip through a special fiscal agent in New York City.

in one.

In the sale of the land and scrip, the practices of the States in the earlier days were at great variance. The standard Government prices for public lands at that time, as stated in the first Morrill Act,

was $1.25 per acre. But in order to receive the proceeds immediately, scrip and land were thrown on the market by some States without apparent regard of the price offered. Forced sales resulted and the value of public land rapidly declined. In other instances the land was withheld from sale with the result that higher prices were realized. Other States came into the possession of their grants in subsequent years when there was a scarcity of public lands and they were able to dispose of them at much larger figures. Twentyeight of the States sold their land or scrip at less than the standard price of $1.25 per acre while 18 States obtained prices ranging above this amount. The lowest price at which any State sold the grants was 41 cents per acre. Another State received only 44 cents, and a third 49 cents. There were eight additional States that disposed of the land or scrip at less than one-half of the regular Government price. The highest price received by any State was $6.22 per acre for the land grants and in the case of two others prices varying from $5 to $6 per acre were received. Two States secured between $1 and $5 and two between $3 and $4.

As a result of the widely different prices at which the land and scrip were sold to the States, the original endowment varied to a great extent. The total proceeds of the land-grant sale of Michigan amounted to $991,673, the largest of any of the States. Oklahoma received the second largest with $835,637, and California was third with $732,233. The total sale price of the land grants of 2 States was between $550,000 and $600,000, of 1 between $500,000 and $550,000, of 2 between $450,000 and $500,000, of 1 between $350,000 and $400,000, of 2 between $300,000 and $350,000, of 2 between $250,000 and $300,000, of 5 between $200,000 and $250,000, of 6 between $150,000 and $200,000, of 11 between $100,000 and $150,000, and of 6 between $50,000 and $100,000.

In the management of the endowment and in compliance with the act providing that the colleges should receive an annual interest yield of 5 per cent, the greatest confusion developed as a result of the various practices adopted by the different States with the result that interest was defaulted in some cases, a part of the principal used for illegal purposes, and, in a few instances, the funds were lost. The prediction of President Buchanan, however, in his veto of the initial land-grant act introduced in Congress by Mr. Morrill, that the States would lose control of the gift and that the Federal Government could not follow the grant into States and enforce the application of the funds to the intended objects was not borne out by history. Upon their attention being called to the failure to comply with the law, most of the States have voluntarily replaced losses and made up discrepancies. Benjamin F. Andrews, who con

ducted a special inquiry in 1918 into the land-grant college act of 1862 for the Office of Education, gives the following summary of the handling of the endowment funds by the States:

In general it was very difficult, well-nigh impossible, to carry out the exact letter of the law. A study of the detailed histories shows scarcely one State that has not, in some way, at some time been in default.

The principal lines of default have been a delay in investing the capital, or investing at less than 5 per cent, causing loss of income to the college; use of capital for other purposes than for the college; and finally the use of income for purposes not authorized by law. In general these defaults have been made good as soon as proper attention was directed to them.

Although defaults have been corrected, in the main or immediately upon being recognized, yet seldom have deficits been refunded or made up. Especially in the matter of loss of interest from lack of investment or from deficient interest return, it has been usual to replace the investment so as to obtain the required 5 per cent but to allow past losses to remain unsatisfied. In the method of obtaining the required 5 per cent on the vested funds several plans have been adopted.

First. In a large number of States, when it became evident that a continuous 5 per cent investment would be difficult to find, the fund was turned over to the State treasury and the State itself assumed the load of interest, the capital being considered as part of the irreducible State debt. This was done in Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Second. In other States the receipts from the sale of lands were turned in to the State treasury as fast as received and added either to the State sinking fund or to general State funds, no attempt at outside investment being made. In such cases the State issues certificates of indebtedness at a good rate of interest. Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio handled their funds in this way.

Third. Other States have invested funds at the best rate obtainable in the open market, and make up the difference between the rate obtained and the required 5 per cent by direct legislative appropriation. Maryland and Rhode Island handled the funds in this way.

Fourth. In Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin the legislature has authorized the governing board of the college to transfer funds from the other general college funds in order to make up the deficit in interest.

Fifth. In Illinois, North Carolina, and South Carolina, the fund has been lost by defalcation or dishonesty and has been restored by the legislature. A State bond for the amount has been issued in each of these States.

Since the original sale of the land grants many years ago, the endowment funds have been materially increased in a number of States through profitable investments, additions by the States, and replacements. Some of the States still retain lands included in the grants that have not yet been sold. In Part III, Business Management and Finance, is presented the present value of endowment of the landgrant colleges secured under the first Morrill Act as compared with the figures showing the original sale prices included in Table 1. The annual income received from the endowment is also shown in

Bulletin 1918, No. 13, Bureau of Education, Department of the Interior.

Part III. An example of the increase in the fund is found in the case of the State of New York, which disposed of its scrip to Ezra Cornell, founder of Cornell University. Under a refunding plan devised by Mr. Cornell, the scrip was held and later sold at an enormous profit, the total proceeds reaching $5,460,000. This constitutes a part of the Cornell University endowment and reserve fund at the present time.

A variety of plans were adopted by the State in organizing the new types of college to receive the income from the Federal land-grant endowment. The legislature of 28 States proceeded to establish entirely new State-controlled and State operated agricultural' and mechanical colleges. There were 15 States where State universities or colleges were already in operation at the time the Federal land grant was accepted. The income from the endowment was conferred upon these existing State institutions with the understanding that they were to organize colleges or departments of agriculture and mechanic arts in compliance with the terms of the first Morrill Act. In seven States an arrangement was adopted of designating private institutions to receive the annual yield from the endowment, with the stipulation that these private colleges introduce and conduct courses of instruction for the industrial classes and provide them scientific and practical education. Later three of these States converted the private institutions into State-controlled land-grant colleges while in the four other cases the States at a subsequent time organized their own land-grant colleges and withdrew the endowment income from the private institutions. Three Southern States organized both white and negro colleges of agriculture and mechanic arts and divided the annual income from the endowment received under the first Morrill Act between the two institutions, the purpose being to provide the new type of education to both races. Subsequently separate negro land-grant colleges were organized in 14 other Southern States.*

The organization of the colleges in the early days following the passage of the act and its acceptance represents in many States a period of doubt and discouragement. Where the States decided to turn over the annual yield from the land-grant endowment to State universities and colleges already in operation the necessity of chartering, organizing, and establishing new institutions was avoided. But in the other States where new colleges were organized, bitter conflicts developed in the State legislature over their location. As a result there was delay in the establishment of the colleges extending over considerable periods of time. In other instances the organization of the colleges were authorized through enactments by the State legislatures, but they did not actually come into existence until a

See Vol. II, Part X, Introduction and Historical Summary, Negro Land-Grant Colleges.