$B 17 SSO 
 
 
 THE EDUCATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 
 
 OF THE EARLY FEDERAL 
 
 LAND ORDINANCES 
 
 BY 
 
 HOWARD CROMWELL TAYLOR 
 
 SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS 
 
 FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 IN THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 ^eatf)tv^ College, (§olumljia ?Hnibersiitj> 
 
 NEW YORK CITY 
 1922 
 
EXCHANGE 
 
-,^.^/.'--J'^^^:-?P|.^ 
 
THE EDUCATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 
 
 OF THE EARLY FEDERAL 
 
 LAND ORDINANCES 
 
 BY ^ 
 
 HOWARD CROMWELL pTAYLOR 
 
 SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS 
 
 FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 IN THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 ^eac{)ers( College, Columbia Wini\itxsiitp 
 
 NEW YORK CITY 
 1922 
 
V 
 
 <3 
 
 z 
 
 7 
 
 Copyright, 1922 
 
 By 
 
 HOWARD CROMWELL TAYLOR 
 
 U.^.^*'^^.' 
 
 I 
 
s 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
 
 Acknowledgment is due to so many that it is impossible to 
 mention them all by name, but the writer's gratitude is none the 
 less sincere. He is especially grateful, however, to Professors 
 J. H. Coursault, W. W. Charters, and F. F. Stephens for their 
 inspiration and guidance while he was a student in the Univer- 
 sity of Missouri, and also to Professors Henry Johnson and W. A. 
 Dunning, of Columbia University. A special debt, which is 
 gratefully acknowledged, is due Professor Paul Monroe, of 
 Teachers College, for his sympathetic and helpful counsel and 
 encouragement, both in the class room and in connection with 
 this study. 
 
 H. C. T. 
 
 lU 
 
 400301 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 I. The Economic and Political Importance of the 
 
 Northwest i 
 
 II. Early Attempts to Frame an Ordinance for 7 
 THE Northwest 
 
 III. The Ohio Company 15 
 
 IV. The Ordinance of 1787 and the National Land 
 
 Policy 30 
 
 V. The Educational Significance of the Ordinance 
 
 OF 1787 38 
 
 VI. The Land Sales of 1787 and 1788 .... 54 
 
 VII. The Educational Work of the Early Settlers 67 
 
 VIII. Management of School Lands and Funds in 
 
 THE Northwest 82 
 
 IX. Later Applications of the Principle of Land 
 
 Grants for Education 103 
 
 X. Summary and Conclusions 114 
 
 Bibliography 126 
 
 Appendices : 
 
 A. The Ordinance of 1785 129 
 
 B. Powers to the Board of Treasury to Con- 
 
 tract FOR the Sale of Western Lands . . 133 
 
 C. Charter of American University. As Drafted 
 
 BY Dr. M. Cutler 135 
 
 IV 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 THE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL IMPORTANCE OF 
 THE NORTHWEST 
 
 The purpose of this study is to discover the educational signifi- 
 cance of the early federal land ordinances and to show how these 
 ordinances affected subsequent legislation with reference to edu- 
 cation and the development of the public school system in this 
 country. The problem suggests two less comprehensive but 
 more definite questions: (i) To what extent were these early 
 ordinances the work of land speculators? (2) Did the advocates 
 of these measures have any broad or clearly defined educational 
 policy in view? 
 
 In order to understand the early land ordinances it is necessary 
 to review briefly some of the historical background with reference 
 to the West and Northwest of the colonial period. Possession 
 of these lands, in so far as France and England were concerned, 
 was determined by the Seven Years' War. From that time on, 
 the settlement and government of this territory was one of the 
 important public questions. Some of the leading men of the time 
 were personally interested in these western lands and projects of 
 settlement in the frontier country. The correspondence of 
 Washington and Crawford throws some light on the question.^ 
 
 William Crawford lived in Pennsylvania, near the Virginia line 
 beyond the mountains. For fourteen years, 1 767-1 781, he and 
 Washington exchanged letters, largely concerning the land held 
 by Washington in the West. The correspondence shows that 
 Washington had employed Crawford to seek out quietly large 
 bodies of good land along the Kanawha and Ohio rivers. In all, 
 Washington accumulated more than thirty-two thousand acres. 
 In September, 1767, he wrote Crawford that he would join him, 
 as promised, in trying to secure land beyond the Proclamation 
 Line of 1763, because he felt sure that that measure was only a 
 blind to quiet the Indians and would soon be repealed.^ This 
 prolonged correspondence between Washington and Crawford 
 
 * Washington- Crawford Letters. 
 UHd. 
 
•I ? ' /^ ?«t ♦ . »• • 
 2 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 relates almost exclusively to the details of locating and surveying 
 the best lands available and to means of holding these lands 
 against squatters. Washington's holdings in the western coun- 
 try were valued by him at approximately one hundred thousand 
 dollars. He knew the West well and had great faith in its 
 future. It is not surprising that he was greatly interested in the 
 various plans of settlement and government of this region. 
 
 In 1774 Washington tried to form a company to develop the 
 connection between the Potomac and Ohio rivers.^ At that 
 time, the city of Baltimore opposed the plan because it was 
 feared that it would divert the western trade from Baltimore. 
 Before this plan took any definite shape the war began and the 
 scheme was abandoned for about ten years. With the surrender 
 of claims to the western lands by the various states, especially 
 the Virginia land cession of March i, 1784, interest in opening an 
 easy path for travel from tide-water to the Ohio country was re- 
 vived. Two of the terms of this cession are of special importance."* 
 One is the provision that these lands should be laid out into states, 
 which should be admitted to the Union on equal terms with the 
 original states. The other is the provision which reserved land 
 for the soldiers who had conquered the Northwest. Undoubtedly, 
 both of these provisions had their influence in the subsequent 
 legislation with reference to the political development of the West 
 and in the solution of the problem of paying the soldiers of the 
 Revolution. 
 
 The fundamental problem at this time, however, was an eco- 
 nomic one, in so far as the relation of the western country to the 
 Union was concerned. It was generally felt that before any plan 
 of political organization of the West could be put into operation 
 it was necessary to bind the back-country to the sea-board by 
 economic ties. Certainly the national leaders were aware of 
 this necessity. In the same month that Virginia ceded her west- 
 em lands to the Union Jefferson and Washington were in cor- 
 respondence concerning the development of a water connection 
 by way of the Potomac and Ohio rivers. Thus was Washing- 
 ton's plan of 1774 revived. 
 
 In a letter, dated March 15, 1784, Jefferson urged Washington 
 to undertake this work of development. He said: ". . . I 
 
 ^Sparks: Writings of Washington, IX, p. 31. 
 * Journals of Congress, IX, pp. 67 flf. 
 
Economic and Political Importance of the Northwest 3 
 
 am confident that would you either alone or jointly with any per- 
 sons you think proper be willing to direct this business, it would 
 remove the only objection the weight of which I apprehend."^ 
 And farther on in the same letter, he said: ". . . When you 
 view me as not owning, nor ever having a prospect of owning one 
 inch of land on any water either of the Potowmac [sic] or Ohio, it 
 will tend to apologize for the trouble I have given you of this long 
 letter, by showing that my zeal in this business is public and 
 pure." ^ It was Jefferson's opinion that Virginia should not under- 
 take to hold more territory than she could govern well, and, for 
 this reason, he believed that the western boundary of the state 
 should not extend beyond the mouth of the Kanawha.® 
 
 It appears that Washington was in full accord with Jefferson 
 with reference to what should be the policy of Virginia as regards 
 the development of the western territory. In reply to Jefferson's 
 letter, just quoted above, Washington wrote on March 29, 1784, 
 in part as follows: "My opinion coincides perfectly with yours 
 respecting the practicability of an easy and short communication 
 between the waters of the Ohio and the Potomac, of the advan- 
 tages of that communication and the preferences it has over all 
 others, and of the policy there would be in this state and Mary- 
 land to adopt and render it facile."^ While Washington also 
 believed that it would be wise for Virginia to relinquish her 
 claims to all lands beyond the meridian of the mouth of the 
 Kanawha he expressed some doubt as to the popularity of such a 
 policy and was of the opinion that it would meet with some op- 
 position. In this connection he said: ". * . . I am mistaken 
 if our chief magistrate will coincide with us in this opinion." ^ 
 
 As the months went by interest in the western question devel- 
 oped. Governor Harrison and the General Assembly were real- 
 izing that some definite action should be taken at once. Harri- 
 son and Washington had some discussion of the problem. On 
 the tenth of October, 1784, Washington wrote Governor Harrison 
 of Virginia as follows: "I need not remark to you, Sir, that the 
 flanks and rear of the United States are possessed by other 
 powers, and formidable ones, too; nor how necessary it is to apply 
 the cement of interest to bind all parts of the Union in indissoluble 
 
 ^ Old South Leaflets, VI, No. 127, p. 14. 
 
 « Ibid., p. 15. 
 
 ' Sparks: Writings of Washington, IX, pp. 31 ff. 
 
4 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 bonds, especially that part which lies immediately west of us, 
 with the middle states."^ In this same letter Washington ex- 
 pressed the opinion that "the touch of a feather" would turn the 
 people in the West in any direction. He favored immediate in- 
 ternal improvements to bind the Ohio Valley to the United States 
 and recommended to Governor Harrison the appointment of a 
 commission to survey the James and Potomac rivers from tide- 
 water to their sources. He showed in detail the great advan- 
 tages in distance, topography, and political conditions Virginia 
 had at that time, pointing out especially the fact that the British 
 still held the important posts at Detroit, Niagara, and Oswego, 
 which cut off New York from connection with the West. Wash- 
 ington further suggested in his letter to Governor Harrison that 
 the State of Virginia encourage private corporations to develop 
 the navigation of the James and Potomac rivers. 
 
 When the efforts of France to have the western boundary of the 
 United States fixed at the Alleghany Mountains in 1783 and the 
 subsequent plots and conspiracies to alienate the West from the 
 Union, fostered by France and Spain, are taken into account, 
 Washington's fear that the West might be lost unless strenuous 
 and immediate steps were taken to hold it was, beyond ques- 
 tion, well founded. The strong positions on the north held by 
 Great Britain made it easily possible for British influence to con- 
 trol and dominate the economic development of the Northwest 
 unless a direct and accessible connection between the Ohio coun- 
 try and the Atlantic sea-board was established. 
 
 The suggestion of Washington's as regards the encouragement 
 of private corporations to develop the James and Potomac rivers 
 was followed. The James River Company was incorporated by 
 an act of the Virginia General Assembly, January 5, 1785, 
 with a capital stock of five hundred shares at $200 a share. ^ 
 On the day before, January 4, 1785, the Potomack Company 
 was incorporated with a capital stock of five hundred shares at 
 $444 4/9 a share.^"^ By an act of the General Assembly, Washing- 
 ton was given fifty shares of stock in the Potomack Company 
 and one hundred shares of stock in the James River Company.^^ 
 In a letter to Washington, informing him of this action. Governor 
 
 * Sparks: Writings of Washington, IX, pp. 58-68. 
 » Hening: Statutes at Large, XI, p. 450. 
 1° Ihid., p. 510. 
 " lUd., p. 525. 
 
Economic and Political Importance of the Northwest 5 
 
 Harrison said: "As this compliment is intended by your country 
 in commemoration of your assiduous cares to promote her inter- 
 est, I hope you will have no scruples in accepting the present, 
 and there-by gratifying their most earnest wishes." ^^ 
 
 Washington was much perplexed by this gift. In his letter of 
 reply to Governor Harrison, January 23, 1785, he said: "No cir- 
 cumstance has happened to me since I left the walks of public 
 life, which has so much embarrassed me."^' He asked the Gov- 
 ernor to advise him as to whether he should accept the gift. In 
 the letter he said: "I will receive the full and frank opinions of 
 my friends with thankfulness."^^ 
 
 Washington became actively associated with these projects 
 of internal improvement and gave much of his thought and time 
 to them and though a large share-holder in these development 
 companies, due to the action of the General Assembly, Washing- 
 ton's interest was not selfish. He believed this work of opening 
 up the West to be of utmost importance. His attitude in the 
 matter is clearly revealed in his correspondence. He wrote to 
 Edmund Randolph, July 30, 1785, as follows: "Although it 
 is not my intention to derive any pecuniary advantage from the 
 generous gift of the Assembly of this State, in consequence of its 
 gratuitous gift of shares in the navigation of each of the rivers 
 Potomac and James; yet as I consider these undertakings of vast 
 political and commercial importance to the States of the Atlantic, 
 especially to those nearest the center of the Union, and adjoining 
 the western territory, I can let no act of mine impede the progress 
 of the work. I have therefore come to the determination to hold 
 the shares, which the treasurer was directed to subscribe for on 
 my account, in trust for the use and benefit of the public; unless 
 I should be able to discover, before the meeting of the Assembly, 
 that it would be agreeable to it to have the product of the tolls 
 arising from these shares applied as a fund, on which to establish 
 two charity schools, one on each river, for the education and sup- 
 port of the children of the poor in this country, particularly the 
 children of those men of this description who have fallen in the 
 defence of the rights and liberties of it." ^^ The closing paragraph 
 of this letter throws some light on the public interest in this mat- 
 
 12 Sparks: IX, p. 83. 
 
 " lUd. 
 
 " lUd., p. 86. 
 
 ^ Ibid., pp. 116-17. 
 
6 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 ter of opening up a waterway into the Ohio country. To quote: 
 "Perceiving by the advertisements of Messrs. Cabell, Buchanan^ 
 and Southall, that half the sum required by the Act, for opening 
 and extending the navigation of the James River, is subscribed, 
 and the twentieth of next month appointed for the subscribers to 
 meet at Richmond, I take the liberty of giving you a power to act 
 for me on this occasion. I would (having the accomplishment 
 of this navigation much at heart) have attended in person, but 
 the president and directors of the Potomac Company, by their 
 own appointment, are to commence the survey of this river in the 
 early part of next month; for which purpose I leave home to- 
 morrow."^® 
 
 While the companies were being organized for the development 
 of the navigation of the Potomac and James rivers the state leg- 
 islatures of Virginia and Maryland voted appropriations to build 
 jointly a road from the highest point of navigation on the Potomac 
 to the river Cheat or Monongahela and these two states jointly 
 applied to the legislature of Pennsylvania for permission to build 
 a road from Fort Cumberland to Youghiogany.^^ The Virginia 
 General Assembly also voted to open up the overland connection 
 between the highest point of navigation ont he James River and 
 the headwaters of the Kanawha River.^' Thus it appears that the 
 feeling of the economic importance of the West was becoming 
 general and public sentiment was finding expression in legislative 
 enactments in the states most vitally interested in the West. 
 
 1^ Sparks: IX, p. 117. 
 1^ Ibid., p. 91. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 EARLY ATTEMPTS TO FRAME AN ORDINANCE 
 FOR THE NORTHWEST 
 
 Not only were the states of Virginia and Maryland actively 
 interested in the economic development of the West, but Congress 
 more or less keenly felt the economic and political importance of 
 the Ohio Valley. With all of its inefficiency and impotence and 
 lack of strong, constructive leadership. Congress did some very 
 necessary and effective work in laying the foundation for the 
 Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the greatest monument to the Con- 
 gress for its service to the nation. 
 
 A commission was appointed by Congress to extinguish Indian 
 claims to the national lands by treaties with the Indians. The 
 Treaty of Fort Stanwix practically eliminated the Six Nations as 
 contenders for possession of the Northwest. This treaty was of 
 especial importance because of the great strength of the Six 
 Nations and also because of their strategic position at the very 
 gateway to the great Northwest. Washington wrote to Richard 
 Henry Lee, then president of Congress, and expressed great satis- 
 faction at the liberal cession of lands that had been gained by the 
 treaty. He gave voice to the hope that the Western Indians would 
 follow the example of the Six Nations and make as favorable terms 
 with the commission then on their way to Fort Pitt to treat with 
 them. In this same letter, ^ December 14, 1784, Washington 
 called Lee's attention to the movement under way in Virginia 
 and Maryland for the development of the James and Potomac 
 rivers as highways to the West, and in this connection he said : 
 "Would it not, at the same time, be worthy of the wisdom and 
 attention of Congress to have the western waters well explored, 
 the navigation of them fully ascertained and accurately laid down 
 and a complete and perfect map made of the country ; at least as 
 far westerly as the Miamies? . . . Would there be any im- 
 propriety, do you think, Sir, in reserving for special sale all mines, 
 minerals, and salt springs, in the general grants of land from the 
 United States? The public, instead of the few knowing ones, 
 
 * Sparks: IX, pp. 79-81. 
 
8 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 might in that case receive the benefits which would proceed from 
 the sale of them." Few men saw as clearly as Washington the 
 great importance of working out a definite policy of organization 
 and disposal of the western lands by Congress. Concerning this 
 he wrote to Lee as follows: "To hit upon a happy medium price 
 for western lands, for the prevention of monopoly on one hand and 
 not discouraging useful settlers on the other, will no doubt re- 
 quire consideration; but ought not, in my opinion, to employ 
 too much time before the terms are announced. The spirit of 
 emigration is great." 
 
 After the Treaty of 1783, the pressure of the westward move- 
 ment had greatly increased. Not only Washington, but mem- 
 bers of Congress and especially the people in the West felt the need 
 of some political organization of the territory beyond the moun- 
 tains. Sentiment in favor of nationalizing all western land was 
 becoming general. In 1781, Virginia, following the suggestion of 
 the New York Legislature ,2 opened the way for the solution of the 
 vexing problem of conflicting state claims to western lands by the 
 cession of her lands in the Northwest to the national government. 
 Later the terms of this act of cession were so modified as to retain 
 the Virginia Military Reserve, over which the State of Virginia 
 was to exercise no political control. (The deed as finally executed 
 is in the Journals of Congress for March i, 1784-^) 
 
 The terms on which this cession was made are of great im- 
 portance because they very definitely influenced the policy of the 
 national government in dealing with the lands acquired in the 
 Northwest, and by thus setting a precedent, materially affected 
 the general policy of the government in the organization of the 
 public domain into territories and states. In brief outline the 
 important terms of the cession are as follows: (i) The land was 
 to be laid out in states, with the size roughly designated. This 
 provision was subsequently modified at the request of Congress. 
 (2) The states formed were to have a republican form of govern- 
 ment and were to be admitted to the Union. (3) The United 
 States was to reimburse Virginia for the conquest of the North- 
 west. (4) The French-Canadian citizens within the bounds of 
 the cession were to be secure in their rights. (5) Not more than 
 one hundred fifty thousand acres were reserved for George R. 
 
 2 New York offered to cede her western lands in 1780. 
 ' Journals of the Continental Congress, IV, pp. 67 ff. 
 
Early Attempts to Frame an Ordinance for the Northwest 9 
 
 Clark and his officers and soldiers. The shape of this reserve was 
 definitely stated. (6) The United States was to grant other mili- 
 tary lands if those south of the Ohio River proved insufficient to 
 meet the legal claims of the soldiers of the Revolution against the 
 State of Virginia. The location of such lands was roughly speci- 
 fied. (7) All other land was to be for a common fund for all the 
 states. 
 
 Massachusetts and other states followed the example of Vir- 
 ginia and surrendered their claims to the Northwest. With the 
 extinguishment of the state claims to the Northwest, the necessity 
 of Congressional action in dealing with this territory became all 
 the more urgent. In the same month that the Virginia cession 
 finally became eff^ective a committee in Congress, composed of 
 Jefferson, Chase of Maryland, and Howell of Rhode Island, re- 
 ported the Ordinance of 1 784 for the organization and government 
 of the newly acquired territory. It was so drawn as to make ef- 
 fective the conditions stipulated in the Virginia cession. This 
 ordinance did not mention education. The original draft con- 
 tained a clause prohibiting slavery after 1800, but this was stricken 
 out by amendment to the ordinance, as revised by the committee, 
 and reported in April, 1784.^ The chief importance of this Ordi- 
 nance of 1784 is in the fact that it nationalized the Northwest. 
 While it was legally in effect until 1787, it was practically a dead 
 letter because no adequate provision was made for the sale of land 
 to actual settlers. 
 
 It evidently was thought by the committee which framed the 
 Ordinance of 1784, that Congress would make the necessary pro- 
 visions for the disposal of the lands. Jefferson wrote Madison, 
 April 25, 1784: "The minuter circumstances of selling the un- 
 granted lands will be provided in an ordinance already prepared 
 but not reported."^ Such an ordinance was eventually reported 
 by a committee of which Jefferson was chairman, but failed of 
 passage, six states voting against it.® The following year, May 
 20, 1785, there was enacted the well-known land ordinance which 
 provided for the survey and sale of the western lands. It con- 
 tained this provision: "There shall be reserved the Lot No. 16, 
 of every township, for the maintenance of public schools, within 
 
 < Old South Leaflets, VI, No. 127. 
 
 5 Univ. of Nebraska Sem. Papers: Jay A. Barrett: Evolution of the Ordinance 
 of 1787, p. 27; Bancroft: Hist, of Formation of Constitution, I, p. 356. 
 * Randall: Life of Jefferson, I, p. 400. 
 
I o Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 the said township." ^ The original draft of the ordinance as pre- 
 sented on April 26, 1785, provided for townships seven miles 
 square. It was so amended, May 20, 1785, as to provide for town- 
 ships six miles square, thus instituting the plan of congressional 
 survey that has been followed to the present time.^ Congress 
 made provision that these lands thus surveyed should be sold in 
 square mile tracts and by townships.^ 
 
 Washington had no high opinion of this plan of sale. He wrote 
 to William Grayson, in Congress, August 22, 1785, criticising the 
 disposition of Congress not to exercise the little authority they 
 possessed. He said in part: ''Instance your late ordinance re- 
 specting the disposal of the western lands, in which no state with 
 the smallest propriety could have obtruded an interference. No 
 doubt but the information of Congress from the back country is 
 better than mine, respecting the operations of this ordinance; but 
 I have understood from some sensible people, that, besides running 
 they know not where to purchase, the lands are of so versatile a 
 nature that, to the end of time, they will not, by those who are 
 acquainted therewith, be purchased either in townships or by 
 square miles." ^° Washington referred here to the curious com- 
 promise in the ordinance, due to the conflict between the New 
 England township idea and the southern preference for a smaller 
 unit. The ordinance provided that alternate townships should 
 be sub-divided into "lots" or sections of six hundred forty acres — 
 a square mile — and sold by sections. Thus one half of the town- 
 ships were to be sold entire and the other half were to be sold in 
 tracts of square miles. 
 
 Washington had stated to Hugh Williamson, in Congress, a few 
 months earlier, his ideas concerning a plan for the disposal of 
 western lands. The occasion for this expression on the part of 
 Washington was the Treaty of Fort Stanwix which quieted the 
 claims of the Six Nations to the Northwest. He wrote William- 
 son, March 15, 1785, as follows: "I thank you. Sir, for your ac- 
 count of the last Indian treaty. I had received a similar one 
 before, but do not comprehend by which line our northern limits 
 are to be fixed. Two things seem naturally to result from this 
 
 ' Journals of American Congress, IV, pp. 520-22. See Appendix A. 
 ^History of North America, IX: Geer: Louisiana Purchase and Westward 
 Movement, pp. 58-75. 
 
 • Journals of American Congress, IV, pp. 520-22. See Appendix A. 
 "Sparks: IX, p. 126. 
 
Early Attempts to Frame an Ordinance for the Northwest ii 
 
 agreement with the Indians; the terms on which the ceded lands 
 are to be disposed of, and the mode of setthng them. The first, 
 in my opinion, ought not to be delayed: and the second ought not 
 to be too diffusive. Compact and progressive seating will give 
 strength to the Union, admit law, and good government, and fed- 
 eral aids at an early period. Sparse settlements in several new 
 states, or a large territory of one, will have the directly contrary 
 effects; and while it opens a large field to land-jobbers and specu- 
 lators, who are prowling about like wolves in many shapes, will 
 injure the real occupiers and useful citizens and consequently the 
 public interest. 
 
 " If a tract of country, of convenient size for a new state, con- 
 tiguous to the present settlements on the Ohio, is laid off, and a 
 certain proportion of the land seated, or at least granted before 
 any other state is marked out, and no land is to be obtained beyond 
 the limits of it, we shall I conceive, reap great political advantages 
 from such a line of conduct, and without it we may be involved in 
 much trouble and perplexity before any new state will be well 
 organized or contribute anything to the support of the Union." ^^ 
 While there is nothing original in these ideas of Washington's, they 
 embody one of the sanest points of view developed as regards the 
 sale of western lands. The Ordinance of 1785 was a compromise 
 measure, and like nearly all compromises, was by no means perfect. 
 
 New England influence had great weight with the committee 
 that framed the ordinance and with Congress in its passage. 
 Tradition and precedent added weight to the influence of New 
 England. The colonial township surveys and the custom of 
 "township planting" of New England had proved more success- 
 ful than the southern plan of "indiscriminate locations," with 
 the inevitable over-lapping of surveys. When Grayson's com- 
 mittee first reported the ordinance, Rufus King, a leading member 
 of the committee, sent a draft of it to Colonel Timothy Pickering 
 and wrote him: "You will find thereby, that your ideas have had 
 great weight with the Committee who reported the ordinance." ^^ 
 On May 8, King again wrote to Pickering that they had been 
 forced to "give up the plan of townships so as to admit the sale 
 of one half of the townships In lots of a square mile." ^^ After the 
 
 " Sparks: IX, pp. 105-06. 
 
 12 Octavius Pickering: The Life of Timothy Pickering, I, p. 511. 
 
 "/6i<i.,p. 514. 
 
1 2 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 final passage of the ordinance, King wrote to Pickering: "All 
 parties who have advocated particular modes of disposing of this 
 western territory have relinquished some things they wished, and 
 the ordinance is a compromise of opinions." ^'^ 
 
 The conflicting ideas in the committee concerning the ordinance 
 were clearly set forth by Grayson, the chairman of the committee. 
 He wrote Washington as follows: "Some gentlemen looked upon 
 it as a matter of revenue only, and that it was true policy to get 
 the money without parting with inhabitants to populate the 
 country, and thereby preventing the land in original states from 
 depreciating. Others (I think) were afraid of interference with 
 the lands now at market in the individual states. Part of the 
 Eastern gentlemen wish to have the land sold in such a manner as 
 to suit their own people, of whom I believe there will be great 
 numbers, particularly from Connecticut. But others are ap- 
 prehensive of the consequences which may result from the new 
 states taking their position in the confederacy. They, perhaps, 
 wish that this event may be delayed as long as possible." ^^ 
 
 The advocates of the Ordinance of 1785 presented strong 
 arguments in its support. It was pointed out that congressional 
 surveys would disclose a great deal of valuable information con- 
 cerning the western lands; and would preclude "controversy on 
 account of bounds to the latest ages. " It was also urged that sur- 
 veys into squares were the least expensive because, in many cases, 
 only two sides of the square would be run. Sale by auction was 
 defended on the ground that it gave equal opportunity to those 
 not on the land. The sale by townships was advocated because 
 it would make an appeal to the prospective settlers from the New 
 England States. Especial emphasis was laid upon the provision 
 which dedicated section sixteen in each township to public educa- 
 tion. The chief advantage of this provision, according to its 
 advocates, was that it would promote compact settlement. ^^ As 
 regards this point, Grayson said: ". . . The idea of a 
 township, with the temptation of a support for religion and educa- 
 tion, holds forth an inducement for the purpose of purchasing and 
 settling together ; that the southern mode would defeat this end by 
 intruding the idea of indiscriminate locations and settlements, 
 
 "Octavius Pickering: The Life of Timothy Pickering, I, p. 516. 
 15 Bancroft: I, p. 425; Treat: The National Land System, pp. 32-33. 
 " Treat: p. 31. 
 
Early Attempts to Frame an Ordinance for the Northwest 13 
 
 which would have a tendency to destroy all these Inducements to 
 emigration which are derived from friendships, religion and 
 relative connections."^^ There seems to have been no clear con- 
 sciousness on the part of the committee or of Congress of the full 
 significance of this educational provision. Apparently, it was 
 viewed only as a selling point for the disposal of the western lands 
 in compact settlements. The thought of laying a permanent 
 foundation for a public school system seems not to have entered 
 into the discussion of the matter. 
 
 One point urged in favor of the Ordinance of 1785 was the ease 
 and simplicity with which title to land could be obtained. As one 
 of the advocates of the measure at the time expressed it: "The 
 present plan excludes all the formalities of warrants, entries, loca- 
 tions, returns, and caveats, as the first and last process is a 
 deed."^^ The importance of this feature of the ordinance can 
 scarcely be over-emphasized. It was a marked improvement on 
 the clumsy and inaccurate methods then prevalent in Virginia and 
 throughout the South. It set a precedent that has been generally 
 followed and which has done much to encourage the sale of public 
 lands. 
 
 Grayson pointed out another argument in favor of the ordi- 
 nance, which probably had great weight in bringing about its 
 final passage. It was the fact "that if the plan should be found 
 by experience to be wrong, it could easily be altered by reducing 
 the quantities and multiplying the surveys."^® 
 
 The problem of fixing the price of the western lands was one of 
 the most difficult. On the one hand the price had to be low 
 enough to be within the reach of the poorer classes, who were the 
 most likely to move into the West, and at the same time be high 
 enough to discourage speculators and land jobbers from buying 
 and holding the best lands. The difficulty was met in the Ordi- 
 nance of 1785 by the requirement that the lands be sold at public 
 auction, "provided, that none of the lands, within the said terri- 
 tory, be sold under the price of one dollar the acre, to be paid in 
 specie, or loan office certificates, reduced to specie value, by the 
 scale of depreciation, or certificates of liquidated debts of the 
 United States, including interest, besides the expense of the 
 
 1' Bancroft: I, p. 425; Treat: p. 31. 
 1* Treat: p. 32. 
 19 Ihid. 
 
14 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 survey and other charges thereon, which are hereby rated at 
 thirty-six dollars the township, in specie, or certificates as afore- 
 said, and so in the same proportion for a fractional part of a town- 
 ship, or of a lot, to be paid at the time of the sales; on failure of 
 which payment, the said lands shall again be offered for sale."^^ 
 It was believed that the poorer classes, especially in New England, 
 would unite to purchase a township. It was also thought that 
 the high initial cost would prevent speculation, but, if in spite of 
 this high cost, a speculator should buy lands, it would increase the 
 revenue of the land office which was by no means undesirable. 
 As a matter of fact, the high price not only effectively discouraged 
 speculators, but also kept legitimate settlers from taking up the 
 lands. This proved to be the weakest point in the Ordinance of 
 1785, and because of this weakness, the ordinance was of little or 
 no immediate usefulness in the development of the West. 
 
 The general policy for the survey and sale of the public domain 
 was sound, and due credit should be given to the framers of the 
 ordinance and to the Congress which made it effective. The 
 Ordinance of 1785 is the foundation on which has been built the 
 national land system of the United States. In its influence upon 
 subsequent events it stands second to no act of the Continental 
 Congress except, perhaps, the Ordinance of 1 787. The Ordinance 
 of 1785 was a land ordinance and its influence has been chiefly 
 upon land policies and legislation. Education was a minor con- 
 sideration in the ordinance and the mention of education in it 
 was merely incident to the sale of land under the plan embodied in 
 the ordinance. Regardless of the intentions of the committee 
 who framed the educational provision, or of the Congress which 
 permitted that provision to stand while striking out the similar 
 provision for the support of religion, that provision which re- 
 served "the lot No. 16, of every township, for the maintenance of 
 public schools, within the said township," set a precedent the 
 influence of which has been far-reaching in the development of the 
 policy of dedicating public lands to public education. 
 
 20 Journals of American Congress, IV, pp. 520-22. The ordinance is reprinted 
 as Appendix A. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 THE OHIO COMPANY 
 
 The Ohio Company, organized in 1786, was composed largely 
 of New England officers and soldiers of the continental army. 
 The purpose of this company is set forth in the articles of agree- 
 ment which were adopted in the organization of the company. 
 The preamble reads as follows: "The design of this association is 
 to raise a fund in continental certificates for the sole purpose and 
 to be appropriated to the entire use of purchasing lands in the 
 western territory belonging to the United States, for the benefit of 
 the company and to promote a settlement in that country." ^ 
 
 The history of the Ohio Company begins in the year 1776. Its 
 origin can be definitely traced to the resolutions of Congress of 
 that year, which granted land to certain officers and soldiers of 
 the continental army. These grants were supplemented by 
 further grants by Congress in 1780. The connection between 
 these early resolutions and the Ohio Company is found in (i) the 
 plans evolved during the year 1783 to pay the indebtedness to the 
 army, (2) the Officers' Petition, and (3) the Ordinance of 1785. 
 
 On January 6, 1783, a group of army officers addressed a peti- 
 tion to Congress,^ asking that something be done to relieve the 
 distress in the army by the adjustment of all dues. As Congress 
 took no definite action on this petition, later in this same year, 
 Colonel Timothy Pickering, General Rufus Putnam and other 
 officers developed a plan by which the debt to the army was to be 
 paid in western lands as provided for in the resolutions of Congress 
 of 1776 and 1780. Pickering wrote to Hodgdon, April 7, 1783, as 
 follows : ' ' But a new plan is in contemplation — no less than form- 
 ing a new state westward of the Ohio. Some of the principal offi- 
 cers of the army are heartily engaged in it. ' About a week since, 
 the matter was set on foot, and a plan is digesting for the purpose. 
 Enclosed is a rough draft of some propositions respecting it, which 
 are generally approved of. They are in the hands of General 
 Huntington and General Putnam for consideration, amendment, 
 
 1 Cuder: Life of Rev. Manasseh Cutler, I, p. 181. 
 
 2 Bancroft: I, pp. 77-81; copied from Journals of Congress, IV, p. 206. 
 
 15 
 
1 6 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 and addition. ... As soon as the plan is well digested, it is 
 intended to lay it before an assembly of the officers, and to learn 
 the inclination of the soldiers. If it takes, an application will then 
 be made to Congress for the grant and all things depending on 
 them."^ This draft which Pickering sent to Hodgdon, had the 
 following title: "Propositions for Settling a New State by Such 
 Officers and Soldiers of the Federal Army as Shall Associate for 
 that Purpose," and contained fifteen propositions.^ The most 
 important of these were the second, which provided that land 
 should "be assigned to the army to fulfill the engagements of the 
 United States by the resolutions of the i6th of September, 1776, 
 August 13th and September 30th, 1780"; the third, which pro- 
 vided for additional grants to those making actual settlement 
 within one year; the seventh, which provided that "all surplus 
 lands shall be the common property of the state and disposed of 
 for the common good; as for laying out roads, building bridges, 
 erecting public buildings, establishing schools and academies, de- 
 fraying the expenses of government, and other public uses"; 
 the eleventh, which was: "That a Constitution for the new state 
 be formed by the members of the association previous to their 
 commencing the settlement, two thirds of the associates present 
 at a meeting duly notified for that purpose agreeing therein. The 
 total exclusion of slavery from the state to form an essential and 
 irrevocable part of the constitution"; and the thirteenth, which 
 provided: "That the State, so constituted, shall be admitted into 
 the confederacy of the United States, and entitled to all the 
 benefits of the Union, in common with the other members thereof." 
 These propositions embodied a definite plan for the formation of 
 a new state, to be admitted to the Union on an equality with the 
 original states. It is evident that those who approved these 
 propositions were determined to fix the form of government under 
 which they were to live before moving into the new state. This is 
 shown in the provision for the adoption of an anti-slavery state 
 constitution before commencing an actual settlement. It is to be 
 noted, also, that the policy of using money derived from the sale of 
 public lands for the establishment of public schools was a definite 
 part of this plan. 
 
 3 Barrett: Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787^ p. 7, note i, copied from Pick- 
 ering: Life oj Pickering, I, p. 457. 
 
 < Cutler: I, pp. 156-59, printed in full. 
 
The Ohio Company 17 
 
 While the army officers were at work trying to devise some plan 
 for the settlement of claims of the army against the government, 
 Congress was not indifferent to this problem. Theodoric Bland 
 and Hamilton both wrote Washington for advice on this matter. 
 April 4, 1783, Washington wrote Bland at great length.^ He 
 said in part: "I fix it as an indispensable measure that, previous 
 to the disbanding the army, all their accounts be liquidated and 
 settled." He urged that Congress provide for at least one 
 month's pay before the army was disbanded. In closing, Wash- 
 ington said : " Upon the whole, you will be able to collect from the 
 foregoing sentiments what are the expectations of the army, that 
 they will involve complete settlement and partial payment, pre- 
 vious to any dispersion." Acting upon Washington's advice, on 
 June 5, 1783, Bland, seconded by Hamilton, introduced an ordi- 
 nance^ in Congress, for the payment of the army debt in western 
 lands. The chief points in this ordinance were: (i) "in lieu of 
 the commutation for the half pay of the army, and in lieu of the 
 arrearages due to the officers and soldiers, " thirty acres of land in 
 the Ohio country be granted for each dollar due, over and above 
 the bounties promised in the resolutions of 1776; (2) the territory 
 to be laid off in districts not exceeding two degrees of latitude and 
 three degrees of longitude, and each district to be laid off in town- 
 ships, the surveys at the expense of Congress; (3) each of the 
 districts shall, when it contains 20,000 male inhabitants, become a 
 state in the Union on an equality with the original states; (4) 
 "out of every one hundred thousand acres so granted there shall 
 be reserved as a domain for the use of the United States ten 
 thousand acres, each of which ten thousand acres shall remain 
 forever a common property of the United States, unalienable but 
 by the consent of the United States in Congress assembled; the 
 rents, shares, profits, and produce of which lands, when any shall 
 arise, to be appropriated to the payment of the civil list of the 
 United States, the erecting of frontier forts, the founding of 
 seminaries of learning, and the surplus after such purposes (if any) 
 to be appropriated to the building and equipping a navy, and to 
 no other use or purpose whatever"; (5) "lands so granted to the 
 officers and soldiers shall be free of all taxes and quit-rents for the 
 space of seven years from the passing this ordinance. " 
 
 5 Bancroft: I, pp. 302-07. 
 " Ihid., 312-14. 
 
1 8 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 In Bland's motion, the effectiveness of this ordinance was made 
 contingent upon the acceptance of the Virginia Cession and the 
 approval of the ordinance by the army. It never went into ef- 
 fect, but it is of some importance because it contained the provi- 
 sions for the formation of states and for the use of funds derived 
 from public lands for public purposes, especially for founding 
 schools. It is also significant for what it did not contain. No 
 mention is made of the form of state government to be set up or of 
 slavery. Historically this is known as the "Financiers' Plan." 
 It was broader than the plan of the New England officers who 
 wanted to fix upon the new states, which they purposed to estab- 
 lish, the institutions of New England. The purpose of the 
 "Financiers' Plan" was to make a settlement with the whole 
 army. The omission of provisions concerning slavery and the 
 form of state government was probably not unintentional. Any 
 provision concerning these two questions was likely to produce 
 controversy and some dissatisfaction. It is not unreasonable to 
 suppose that those who framed this ordinance believed it wise to 
 leave them untouched, and thus postpone their settlement to a 
 later day. The chief purpose of this ordinance was to reduce the 
 public debt ; to influence the political or institutional development 
 of the West was not its purpose. It therefore contained only 
 those provisions that were likely to meet with general approval 
 and be attractive to the army creditors of the United States. 
 
 In both the "Army Plan" and the "Financiers' Plan" there 
 was a provision for the use of public lands for the establishment of 
 schools. It seems that this was coming to be a generally accepted 
 policy. The connections in which these provisions for public 
 education occur are rather significant. In the "Army Plan" it 
 was stipulated that "all surplus lands shall be the common prop- 
 erty of the state and disposed of for the common good ; as for lay- 
 ing out roads, building bridges, erecting public buildings, establish- 
 ing schools and academies, defraying the expenses of government, 
 and other public uses." ^ Thus the establishment of schools and 
 academies was classed with the building of highways and bridges, 
 the erection of public buildings, and any other usual public ex- 
 pense. Evidently the use of public lands for educational pur- 
 poses was not considered revolutionary. In the "Financiers' 
 Plan" the provision for "founding of seminaries of learning" was 
 
 ' Cutler: I, p. 157. 
 
The Ohio Company 19 
 
 part of a broader provision for the use of revenue from public 
 lands for the payment of the civil list of the United States, erect- 
 ing frontier forts, and building and equipping a navy.^ The civil 
 list, frontier forts and seminaries of learning were given precedence 
 over the navy. Here again education was included with usual 
 and necessary expenses of government. 
 
 There is one important difference between the "Army Plan" 
 and the "Financiers' Plan " as regards the public domain. In the 
 "Army Plan " all surplus lands were to be the common property of 
 the state. The "Financiers' Plan" provided that out of every 
 hundred thousand acres so granted there should be reserved as a 
 domain for the use of the United States ten thousand acres, which 
 should "remain forever the common property of the United 
 States, unalienable but by the consent of the United States in 
 Congress assembled." ^ The one put the support of public educa- 
 tion from public lands under state control, the other placed the 
 control with the national government. This difference is not 
 surprising in the light of the fact that the "Army Plan " was drawn 
 up by those who expected to become citizens of the states formed 
 under the plan, while the ** Financiers' Plan" was the work of those 
 whose chief concern was the interests of the national government. 
 
 Neither of these plans became operative, but they were im- 
 portant steps in the process of developing a means to carry out the 
 promises of land grants to the army, made by Congress in the 
 resolutions of 1776 and 1780, and to liquidate the national debt 
 through the sale of western lands. The failure of these plans to 
 produce action in Congress moved some of the army officers to 
 make further attempts to secure the formation of a new state in 
 the Northwest. General Putnam, who had been active in promot- 
 ing the "Army Plan," was a leader in this new attempt. The so- 
 called "Officers' Petition " was drafted and signed by two hundred 
 eighty-five officers of the Continental line. This petition was not 
 long, and contained no very definite plans for the government of 
 the state to be formed or for the disposal of public lands for public 
 purposes. It simply asked that Congress mark out a tract or 
 Territory, in the Ohio country just west of Pennsylvania, sub- 
 sequently to be admitted as a state into the Union, and locate 
 therein the lands promised to the army by the resolution of 
 
 * Bancroft: I, p. 313. 
 « Ibid. 
 
20 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 September 20, 1776 and subsequent resolves, and that provision 
 be made for further grant of lands to such of the army as wished 
 to become adventurers in the new government. ^^ 
 
 General Putnam sent this petition to Washington, June 16, 
 1 783, with the request that he send it, with his endorsement to the 
 President of Congress. As has been pointed out, the petition was 
 silent as regards the details of government or the method of sur- 
 vey and disposal of the lands. The petitioners, however, had 
 very definite notions about these matters. In his letter to Wash- 
 ington, General Putnam said: "But I hasten to mention some of 
 the expectations which the petitioners have respecting the condi- 
 tions on which they hope to obtain the lands — this was not proper 
 to mention in the body of the petition." ^^ Chief among these 
 "expectations," which Putnam mentioned, were that the land 
 be surveyed into townships, six miles square, and that Congress 
 take necessary steps to prevent land monopoly. The only refer- 
 ence to education was incidental, and it seems to have been 
 taken as a matter of course that reservations would be made for 
 schools and other purposes. Putnam said: " The whole tract is 
 supposed to contain about 17,418,240 acres, and will admit of 756 
 townships of six miles square, allowing to each township 3,040 for 
 the ministry, schools, waste lands, rivers, ponds, and highways; 
 then each township will contain, of settlers' land, 20,000 acres, and 
 in the whole 15,120,000 acres." ^^ 
 
 On June 17, 1783, Washington sent the Officers' Petition and a 
 copy of Putnam's letter to the President of Congress, along with a 
 letter of endorsement.^^ He urged that Congress act favorably on 
 the petition on the ground that the army men would make an ideal 
 frontier population. He characterized the plan as the "most 
 rational and practicable scheme which can be adopted by a great 
 proportion of the officers and soldiers of our army." 
 
 Notwithstanding the reasonableness of the petition and its 
 strong endorsement by Washington, Congress failed to act upon 
 it. Nearly a year later, June 2, 1 784, Washington wrote Putnam ^* 
 that he had urged the matter on many members of Congress and 
 all had seemed favorably inclined, but had made the excuse that 
 
 ^° Bancroft: I, pp. 314-15. 
 
 " Cutler: I, p. 170. The letter is printed in full. 
 
 i2 76ti., p. 171. 
 
 " Bancroft: I, pp. 315-17. 
 
 " This letter is printed in full in Cutler: I, pp. 176-77. 
 
The Ohio Company 21 
 
 Congress could not cede the land because it did not belong to the 
 United States. He added that since that excuse had been made, 
 Congress had accepted the Virginia cession and had resolved to 
 lay off ten new states.^^ Here the matter rested for nearly two 
 years, to be revived by the formation of the Ohio Company. 
 
 The army had been disbanded in June, 1783, and the officers 
 and soldiers were dispersed. General Putnam was appointed one 
 of the surveyors to survey the first seven ranges, as provided for in 
 the Ordinance of 1785. He resigned this position and made a 
 contract with Massachusetts to survey ten townships in Maine. 
 General Benjamin Tupper, who had signed the Officers' Petition, 
 was then appointed, in Putnam's place, to assist in the survey in 
 Ohio. Putnam was not favorably impressed with Maine. He is 
 reported as saying of it: "That country in general is not fit for 
 cultivation, and when this idea is connected with the climate, a 
 man ought to consider himself curst even in this world, who is 
 doomed to inhabit there as a cultivator of the lands only."^^ 
 Tupper returned from the Northwest in 1785 and reported that: 
 "The lands in that quarter are of a much better quality than any 
 other known to the New England people; the climate, seasons, 
 products, etc., are in fact equal to the most flattering accounts 
 that have been published of them." ^^ 
 
 Tupper and Putnam decided to revive the scheme for a settle- 
 ment of army men in the Northwest. To this end they issued, 
 January 10, 1786, a circular with the title " Information." It was 
 addressed to "all officers and soldiers who have served in the late 
 war, and who are by a late ordinance of the honorable Congress to 
 receive certain tracts of land in the Ohio country, and also all other 
 good citizens who wish to become adventurers in that delightful 
 region." ^^ This circular proposed the formation of a company, 
 composed primarily of Massachusetts people, to make a settlement 
 in the Ohio country. In order to form the company, it was pro- 
 posed that all those interested should meet in their respective 
 counties, February 15, and elect delegates to meet in Boston on 
 March i, 1786, Such meetings were held and the delegates met 
 at the appointed time. Those present were Winthrop Sargent, 
 John Mills, Manasseh Cutler, John Brooks, Thomas Gushing, 
 
 ^ Washington referred to the Ordinance of April 23, 1784. 
 " Cutler: I, p. 179. 
 
 18 Ihid., pp. 179-80; printed in full. 
 
22 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 Benjamin Tupper, Crocker Sampson, Rufus Putnam, John Patter- 
 son, Jelaliel Woodbridge, and Abraham^ Williams. Of these 
 eleven, five had signed the Officers' Petition. A committee com- 
 posed of Putnam, Cutler, Brooks, Sargent, and Cushing, was ap- 
 pointed to draft articles of agreement. The committee reported 
 thirteen articles of agreement, ^^ which were adopted March 3, 
 1786, and the Ohio Company was thereby created. These 
 articles may be summarized as follows: Articles of Agreement 
 Entered into by the Subscribers for Constituting an Association 
 by the Name of The Ohio Company : 
 
 The design of this association is to raise a fund in continental certificates 
 for the sole purpose and to be appropriated to the entire use of purchasing 
 lands in the western territory belonging to the United States, for the bene- 
 fit of the Company, and to promote a setdement in that country. 
 
 Article i. The fund not to exceed $1,000,000 in continental specie 
 certificates, each share $1,000.00 in continental certificates and ten dollars 
 in gold or silver. 
 
 Article 2. The purchase shall be made in one of the proposed states, 
 northwest of the Ohio river, under the terms of the Ordinance of 1785, or 
 any other terms as good. 
 
 Article 3. There shall be five directors, a treasurer, and secretary. 
 
 Article 4. Holders of twenty shares shall constitute one grand division 
 of the company and elect an agent to act for them. 
 
 Article 5. The subscribers shall draw by lot for their lands. 
 
 Article 6. No one shall hold more than five or less than one share. 
 
 Article 7. The directors shall manage the affairs of the company. 
 
 Article 8. The agents shall appoint the directors, treasurer, and 
 secretary. 
 
 Article 9. The treasurer shall be under bond. 
 
 Article 10. The directors shall be under bond and shall divide the lands 
 by lot, among the agents, within three months after the purchase. 
 
 Article 11. The company shall proceed with the undertaking, even 
 though all the capital stock is not subscribed. 
 
 Article 12. The directors shall seek to obtain an ordinance of incor- 
 poration from Congress, or an act of incorporation in one of the states. 
 
 Article 13. All votes may be in person, or by proxy, in proportion to the 
 interest represented. 
 
 Subscription books were opened and the company met with 
 considerable success almost at once. On April 20, 1786, Dr. 
 Cutler wrote to Major Sargent: "The present prospects for 
 obtaining subscriptions in this part of the country so much 
 
 "Walker: History of Athens County, Ohio, pp. 48-50. The Articles are 
 printed in full in Cutler: I, pp. 184-86. 
 
The Ohio Company 23 
 
 exceed my most sanguine expectations, that I think we ought to 
 be cautious about admitting adventurers from the southward." ^^ 
 By the following March only two hundred fifty shares were 
 subscribed for, subscriptions having been retarded because of the 
 doubt that had arisen as to the ability of the company to obtain 
 sufficient land for a large collective settlement. A meeting of the 
 company was called at Boston, March 8, 1787, and three Direc- 
 tors, General Parsons, General Putnam and Dr. Cutler, were 
 appointed to apply to Congress for the private purchase of lands.^^ 
 Parsons and Putnam were in charge of the negotiations with Con- 
 gress. On March 16, 1787, Dr. Cutler wrote to Major Sargent: 
 "The high price at which Congress have set their lands . . . 
 operate much against subscriptions for the Company. ... A 
 large number of very considerable property . . . have as- 
 sured me that, as almost every kind of business is stagnated here, 
 they would become adventurers . . . and remove on to the 
 lands, provided they could be purchased on terms as advantageous 
 as those sold by this state. . . . But if Congress should pre- 
 fer surveying the lands at their own expense, I should not be 
 willing, at present, to offer more than half a dollar per acre. "^^ 
 Under the same date, he wrote a letter ^^ to Nathan Dane, a 
 member of Congress from Massachusetts, in which he expressed 
 the hope that Congress would make a private sale to the Ohio 
 Company, notwithstanding the land ordinance of 1 785. He 
 pointed out the fact that the high price at which Congress held 
 the lands in the West operated against their sale in competition 
 with the cheaper state lands. Either Dr. Cutler was unduly im- 
 pressed with the superiority of New Englanders to all other 
 Americans or he was playing upon the sectional pride of Mr. 
 Dane, when he wrote the following: "An immediate and great 
 settlement must be an object of consequence in the view of Con- 
 gress, and settlers from the northern states in which this company 
 is made up, are undoubtedly preferable to those from the southern 
 states. They will be men of more robust constitutions, inured to 
 labor, and free from the habits of idleness. . . . Many of the 
 subscribers are men of very considerable property and respectable 
 characters, who intend (for the Company will admit no other) to 
 
 20 Cutler: I, p. 189. 
 
 21 Ibid., pp. 191-92. 
 
 22 Ibid., p. 193. 
 
 23 Ibid., pp. 194-95. 
 
24 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 become residents in that country." In closing, Cutler very 
 shrewdly and gently brought political pressure to bear on Mr. 
 Dane. He said: "We should be happy in obtaining your in- 
 fluence in favor of the Company, and have the fullest confidence of 
 your readiness to second the wishes of so large a number of the 
 inhabitants of the New England States, so far as it is consistent 
 with the general interest of the Union." 
 
 General Parsons had presented a memorial to Congress for the 
 purchase of lands for the Company. Evidently he acted without 
 the full cooperation of General Putnam and Dr. Cutler. In a 
 letter to Major Sargent, dated May 30, 1787, they said, speaking 
 for the company: "We cannot, on any consideration, accede to 
 the location proposed by him (General Parsons) to Congress, as it 
 must defeat us in many of our most important views." ^^ It also 
 appears from this letter that they entertained some doubt as to 
 the attitude of the Massachusetts delegates in Congress towards 
 the Ohio Company, and also as to singleness of motives of General 
 Parsons. They said: "We think some caution may be necessary 
 in placing confidence, particularly with respect to members from 
 this commonwealth. . . . We likewise think it best, as there 
 seems to be ground to suppose General Parsons may have views 
 separate from the interest of this Company in his proposal for a 
 location, that he should have no information of our desire to have 
 it in another place until we have opportunity to converse with him 
 on the subject. "2^ 
 
 With the affairs of the Company moving slowly, and not always 
 in the right direction, it was decided to send Dr. Cutler to New 
 York to carry on the negotiations with Congress. He arrived 
 there on Thursday, July 5, 1787, with letters of introduction to the 
 leading members of Congress, government officials, citizens of 
 New York and Philadelphia. Dr. Cutler began work at once 
 seeing members of Congress and getting his papers in order pre- 
 paratory to making application to Congress for the purchase of 
 lands.^^ Tuesday, July 10, he dined with Colonel Duer, secretary 
 of the Board of Treasury. Among the guests were Samuel Os- 
 good, president of the Board of Treasury and Major Sargent, of 
 the Ohio Company. In his diary for this day Dr. Cutler 
 
 2< Cutler: I, p. 196. 
 
 * Ihid., pp. 196-97. 
 
 * Ibid., p. 229-30. 
 
The Ohio Company 25 
 
 recorded: "As Congress was now engaged in settling the form of 
 government for the Federal Territory, for which a bill had been 
 prepared, and a copy sent to me, with the leave to make remarks 
 and propose amendments, and which I had taken the liberty to 
 remark upon, and to propose several amendments, I thought this 
 the most favorable opportunity to go on to Philadelphia." ^^ He 
 set out the next day for Philadelphia, where he remained a short 
 tim.e. He was back in New York the following Tuesday, July 17, 
 and the next morning called upon General St. Clair, president of 
 Congress, and was in conference with the committee, which was in 
 charge of the petition of the Ohio Company. He ate dinner with 
 Mr. Hillegas, treasurer of the United States.^^ Thursday, July 
 19, Dr. Cutler called on members of Congress and was given a 
 copy of the Ordinance of 1787, which had been passed during his 
 absence at Philadelphia. Concerning this he recorded in his 
 diary : "Was furnished with the Ordinance establishing a Govern- 
 ment in the Western federal Territory. It is in a degree new 
 modeled. The amendments I proposed have all been made ex- 
 cept one, and that is better qualified. It was, that we should not 
 be subject to Continental taxation until we were entitled to a full 
 representation in Congress. This could not be fully obtained, for 
 it was considered in Congress as offering a premium to emigrants. 
 They have granted us representation, with right of debating, but 
 not of voting, upon our being first subject to taxation." ^^ The 
 question of these amendments suggested by Dr. Cutler, has pro- 
 voked considerable discussion. Their probable content and 
 significance will be taken up in the next chapter. 
 
 Dr. Cutler found that a strong opposition to his proposition had 
 developed during his absence. It is not improbable that the 
 good Doctor revised his opinion, expressed to Dane, as to the rela- 
 tive merits of the citizens of the northern states and the men 
 "from the southward." He found that the strongest advocates 
 of the Ohio Company were Grayson, R. H. Lee, and Carrington, 
 the delegates from Virginia, while among those who gave him 
 anxiety were the delegates from Massachusetts. On this point 
 Cutler made the following record: "As there are a number in 
 Congress decidedly opposed to my terms of negotiation, and some 
 
 2' Cutler: I, p. 242. The ordinance submitted to Cutler for criticism was 
 the Ordinance of 1787. 
 28 Ibid., p. 292. 
 2» Ihid., p. 293. 
 
26 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 to any contract, I wish now to ascertain the number for and 
 against, and who they are, and must then, if possible, bring the 
 opponents over. This I have mentioned to Colonel Duer, who 
 has promised to assist me. Grayson, R. H. Lee, and Carrington 
 are certainly my warm advocates. Holton, I think, may be 
 trusted. Dane must be carefully watched, notwithstanding his 
 professions. Clarke, Bingham, Yates, Kearney, and Few are 
 troublesome fellows.^^ They must be attacked by my friends at 
 their lodgings. If they can be brought over, I shall succeed; if 
 not, my business is at an end." ^^ 
 
 This same day, July 19, Congress passed an ordinance authoriz- 
 ing a sale to the Ohio Company, but on terms which were wholly 
 unsatisfactory to the Company. Dr. Cutler informed the com- 
 mittee that he could purchase lands from some of the states on 
 much better terms and preferred to do so, and thereupon proposed 
 to give up the attempt to buy of Congress and to leave New York. 
 He wrote in his diary, Friday, July 20 : "They appeared to be very 
 sorry no better terms were offered, and insisted on my not thinking 
 of leaving Congress until another attempt was made. . . . 
 They assured me I had many friends in Congress who would make 
 every exertion in my favor ; that it was an object of great magni- 
 tude, and (I) must not expect to accomplish it in less than two or 
 three months. . . . Colonel Duer came to me with proposals 
 from a number of the principal characters in the city, to extend 
 our contract, and take in another Company, but that it should be 
 kept a profound secret. He explained the plan they had con- 
 certed and offered generous conditions, if I would accomplish the 
 business for them. The plan struck me agreeably. ... I 
 was convinced it best for me to hold up the idea of giving up a 
 contract with Congress. . . . This appeared to have the ef- 
 fect I wished. The Committee were mortified, and did not seem 
 to know what to say, but still urged another attempt. . . . 
 Promised Duer to consider his proposals. ... I spent the 
 evening (closeted) with Colonel Duer, and agreed to purchase 
 more land, if terms can be obtained, for another Company, which 
 will probably forward the negotiations."^^ 
 
 Cutler was correct in his expectation that the business of the 
 
 »o Holton and Dane, Mass.; Clarke, N. J.; Bingham, Pa.; Yates, N. Y.; 
 Kearney, Del.; Few, Ga. 
 31 Cutler: I, pp. 293-94. 
 «2 Ibid., pp. 294-96. 
 
The Ohio Company 27 
 
 Ohio Company would progress more rapidly after his agreement 
 with Colonel Duer. The next day several members of Congress 
 called upon him and informed him that Congress was much more 
 favorable to his proposition, since they had learned that he was 
 inclined to cease his efforts with Congress. Cutler still affected 
 indifference and talked a great deal about the advantages of mak- 
 ing the purchase from one of the states. He finally told the mem- 
 bers of Congress that if Congress would accede to the terms he had 
 proposed, he would extend the purchase to the tenth township 
 from the Ohio and to the Scioto River inclusively, thereby enabling 
 Congress to pay about four million dollars of the national debt.^^ 
 This was on Saturday. Cutler, Duer, Sargent, and their friends 
 in Congress made personal efforts to win over those in opposition 
 to making the sale to the Company. The following Monday, 
 July 23, the proposition was debated in Congress and a better 
 ordinance passed, empowering the Board of Treasury to make a 
 contract.^^ The conditions of this ordinance were not wholly ac- 
 ceptable to Cutler and his associates, so they asked Congress, 
 through the Board of Treasury to make the desired changes. 
 Monday night. Cutler was in conference with Grayson and other 
 "members of Congress from the southward who were in favor of a 
 contract." The entry in Cutler's diary concerning this confer- 
 ence throws much light on the whole situation : " Having found it 
 impossible to support General Parsons as a candidate for Gover- 
 nor after the interest that General St. Clair had secured, and sus- 
 pecting that this might be some impediment in the way — for my 
 endeavors to make interest for him were well known — and the 
 arrangement of civil officers being on the carpet, I embraced this 
 opportunity frankly to declare that, for my own part, and ventured 
 to engage for Major Sargent, that if General Parsons could have 
 the appointment of the first Judge, and Sargent Secretary, we 
 should be satisfied, and I heartily wished his Excellency General 
 St. Clair might be the Governor, and that I would solicit the 
 eastern members to favor such an arrangement."^^ It was sug- 
 gested that Cutler be appointed one of the Judges, but, to the 
 surprise of the members of Congress, he declined to be considered 
 for any office. However, in the interests of the Ohio Company, 
 
 33 Cutler: I, p. 296. 
 ^ Ibid., p. 297. 
 36 Ibid., p. 298. 
 
28 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 he suggested that General Putnam be named as one of the Judges. 
 It is evident that the members of the Ohio Company were as 
 vitally interested in the political organization of the Northwest as 
 they were in the terms on which they purchased their lands. 
 
 On Thursday Cutler spent some time with General St. Clair, 
 who appeared very friendly, but told Cutler he must expect op- 
 position to his request for further changes in the conditions of sale. 
 St. Clair assured him, however, that he would use his influence to 
 have his terms accepted.^^ Cutler recorded in his diary for that 
 day: " I was now fully convinced that it was good policy to give 
 up Parsons, and openly to appear solicitous that St. Clair might be 
 appointed governor. Several gentlemen have told me that our 
 matters went on much better since St. Clair and his friends had 
 been informed that we had given up Parsons and that I had 
 solicited the eastern members in favor of his appointment."^' 
 St. Clair's biographer ^^ has denied the implication that General 
 St. Clair was induced to change his attitude towards the Ohio 
 Company by the promise of political support from New England. 
 General William Irvine, a member of Congress and a close per- 
 sonal friend of St. Clair's, wrote a letter from New York to Gen- 
 eral Richard Butler, July 19, 1787, in which he said: "The Presi- 
 dent^^ and myself arrived here last Tuesday morning, in time to 
 take our seats the same day, and make up, at the same time, nine 
 states. The inclosed Ordinance ^^ had passed two days before. 
 Who the officers of that government will be I have not heard nor 
 inquired." ^^ Beyond question, it seems strange that a close friend 
 of St. Clair's should not have heard of a movement on foot to make 
 him Governor of the Northwest Territory. Of course it is pos- 
 sible that the sentiment in favor of St. Clair developed between 
 the nineteenth and twenty- third of July, the day on which Cutler 
 said the appointment of the civil officers was "on the carpet." 
 
 Regardless of the causes, the opposition to Cutler's terms was 
 overcome. Even Kearney, whom Cutler characterized as "that 
 stubborn mule of a Kearney," ^^ was won over. Duer, Sargent, 
 
 36 Cutler: I, p. 301. 
 
 37 Ihid., p. 301. 
 
 38 W. H. Green in The St. Clair Papers, I, pp. 126-29. 
 
 39 General St. Clair was President of Congress. 
 *° Northwest Ordinance of 1787. 
 
 *^ Green: St. Clair Papers, I, p. 604. 
 <2 Cutler: I, p. 301. 
 
The Ohio Company 29 
 
 and Cutler decided to make one final attempt to get favorable 
 action in Congress, and in case of failure to abandon efforts until 
 the delegates from Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maryland 
 could be induced to attend Congress. On Friday, July 27, Cutler 
 packed his baggage, paid his respects to the members of Congress, 
 and told them he had little hope of obtaining a contract, but 
 would await the action of Congress that day before leaving."^^ At 
 half past three, he was informed that Congress had passed an- 
 other ordinance, meeting every demand of the Ohio Company, 
 and had authorized the Board of Treasury to close the contract. 
 In his diary for that day Cutler recorded : " By this Ordinance we 
 obtained the grant of near 5,000,000 of acres of land, amounting 
 to three millions and a half of dollars, one million and a half of 
 acres for the Ohio Company, and the remainder for a private 
 speculation, in which many of the principal characters in America 
 are concerned. Without connecting this speculation, similar 
 terms and advantages could not have been obtained for the Ohio 
 Company. Cutler left New York at once. The contract of the 
 Ohio Company with the Board of Treasury for 1,500,000 acres 
 was signed by Cutler and Sargent October 27, 1787.'^'^ On the 
 same day they signed another contract for the Scioto Company 
 with the Board, under which the Company was given the option 
 to purchase between 3,500,000 and 5,000,000 acres. 
 
 During the short period that Dr. Cutler was laboring with 
 Congress two measures of far-reaching importance were passed. 
 One was the Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of 
 the United States Northwest of the River Ohio, of July 13, 1787, 
 and the other was the Ordinance of July 2'j, which authorized the 
 contract with the Ohio Company and fixed the conditions of the 
 sale. The next two chapters will show the significance of these 
 measures for public education. 
 
 ^3 Cutler: I, p. 303. 
 *^ Treat: p. 50. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE ORDINANCE OF 1787 AND THE NATIONAL 
 LAND POLICY 
 
 The purpose of the ordinance of July 13, 1787, was to establish 
 a government in the Northwest Territory. It was not, strictly 
 speaking, a land ordinance, but it has become so inseparably as- 
 sociated, historically, with the ordinances for the sale of the fed- 
 eral lands in the Northwest that no discussion of the land ordi- 
 nances would be complete without showing the relation of this 
 governmental ordinance to the development of the federal land 
 policy. 
 
 The most essential point of contact between the land ordinances 
 and this ordinance for the establishment of a government in the 
 Northwest is to be found in the fact that the ordinance for govern- 
 ment contained certain fundamental principles which were 
 deemed, by Americans generally, to be absolutely necessary to hu- 
 man happiness and freedom. Without the incorporation of these 
 fundamental principles of government into the organic law of the 
 western territory no land ordinance, however attractive its terms, 
 could have been very successful in furthering the sale of lands and 
 promoting settlement in the back country. Among the govern- 
 mental principles that had become generally accepted by 1787 
 there were two of special significance. One was that the unoc- 
 cupied federal lands should be organized into states that should 
 eventually be admitted into the Union on an equality with the 
 original states of the Union. The other principle was that federal 
 lands should be used for the support of education. These points 
 have already been brought out more or less clearly in the preced- 
 ing chapters, but a brief review of the development of these prin- 
 ciples will not be out of place here. 
 
 It appears from the Journals of Congress, in a report of the 
 Committee on Lands, May i, 1782, that Great Britain had 
 contemplated the formation of a separate colony west of the Alle- 
 ghany Mountains at the time of the establishment of the Procla- 
 mation Line of 1763. The Committee report contained the 
 following with reference to the Virginia claims: " It appeared that, 
 
 30 
 
The Ordinance of lySy and the National Land Policy 31 
 
 in the year 1763, a very large part thereof was separated and 
 appointed for a distinct government and colony by the King of 
 Great Britain with the knowledge and approbation of the govern- 
 ment of Virginia."^ The Quebec Act of 1774 was further evi- 
 dence of the intention of Great Britain to separate, govern- 
 mentally, the country west of the Alleghany Mountains from the 
 sea-board colonies. The reasons for this policy of Great Brit- 
 ain's are of no consequence here. 
 
 After the break with England the idea of forming states in the 
 back country continued to grow. In 1779, Maryland had taken 
 her stand for nationalizing all the unsettled western lands and the 
 establishment of **free, convenient, and independent governments, 
 in such manner and at such times" ^ as the wisdom of Congress 
 should direct. The following year Congress resolved, October 
 10, that the lands ceded to the Union by the States should be 
 "settled and formed into distinct republican states," which should 
 "become members of the federal union, and have the same rights 
 of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the other states."' 
 About two years later, May i, 1782, a committee on lands, to 
 whom had been referred the state land cessions and petitions of 
 the early land companies, included in their report the following 
 resolution: "Resolved, That whenever the United States in Con- 
 gress assembled, shall find it for the good of the Union to permit 
 new settlements on unappropriated lands, they will erect a new 
 state or states, to be taken into the federal union, in such manner 
 that no one state so erected shall exceed the quantity of 130 miles 
 square, and the sam^ shall be laid out into Townships of the 
 quantity of about six miles square." * On the recommendation of 
 this committee Congress further resolved to make good all reason- 
 able engagements for lands to the officers and soldiers as soon as 
 such state or states were erected. 
 
 During the winter of 1782-83 the "Army Plan" and the 
 ^'Financiers' Plan" were developed. Both of these plans con- 
 tained as an essential feature the provision for the formation of a 
 new state. The thirteenth of the following September a com- 
 mittee in Congress made the following report, with reference to 
 
 1 Journal of the Continental Congress, XXII, p. 227. 
 
 2 Ibid., XIV. p. 622. 
 3/6i(/., XVIII,p. 915. 
 */W(/., XXIII.p. 231. 
 
32 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 Virginia cession, which was adopted: "That the territory so 
 ceded should be laid out and formed into states containing a 
 suitable extent of territory, not less than lOO nor more than 150 
 miles square, or as near thereto as circumstances will admit; and 
 that the states so formed should be distinct republican states, 
 and admitted members of the Federal Union, having the same 
 rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the other 
 states."^ The language here is almost identical with that of the 
 motion carried in Congress, September 6, 1780,^ and with the 
 resolution of October 10, 1780.^ The Virginia resolutions for the 
 cession of lands northwest of the Ohio, made January 2, 1781,^ 
 and the final deed of cession, accepted by Congress, March i, 
 1784,^ contained this same provision. 
 
 The next important measure in which was incorporated the 
 principle of forming new states out of the federal lands was the 
 ordinance of April 23, 1784. As was shown in an earlier chapter, 
 the enactment of this ordinance made necessary a better plan for 
 the sale of western lands. The next attempt of any consequence 
 to meet this need was the enactment of the land ordinance of 
 May 20, 1785. There was nothing in this ordinance concerning 
 the formation of states, but the absence of such provision may be 
 explained by the fact that the ordinance of 1784 had provided for 
 the formation of states, that should be admitted into the Union 
 on an equality with the original states. This ordinance was in 
 effect in 1785, and the land ordinance of May 20, of that year was 
 passed to supplement the ordinance of the previous year for the 
 government of the unoccupied federal territory. ^^ 
 
 From 1785 to 1787 various minor attempts were made to 
 change the provisions of government in the ordinance of 1784. 
 These attempts finally culminated in the famous Ordinance of 
 July 13, 1787. Just what the forces were which produced this 
 ordinance will be shown after a brief review of the development of 
 the principle that public lands should be used for the support of 
 education. 
 
 The origin of the system of land grants for education has been 
 
 * Cutler: I, p. 337, citing the Jour, of Cont. Cong, 
 « Jour, of Cont. Cong., XVII, p. 808. 
 
 ' Ibid., XVIII, p. 915- 
 
 * Hening: Statutes at Large, X, p. 564-67. 
 
 Ubid., XI, p. 571-75- 
 
 1° Barrett: Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787, p. 27. 
 
The Ordinance of lySy and the National Land Policy 33 
 
 traced by some^^ back to the mediaeval church foundations in 
 England. If all the facts were known, it is not impossible that 
 the beginnings of land grants for schools would be found in ancient 
 times. Church schools supported wholly or in part by the 
 revenue from church lands were old and well established institu- 
 tions in the days of Henry VIII.^^ The connection between these 
 mediaeval foundations and system of land grants for education, 
 which developed in America, is somewhat remote. It is probable 
 that the land foundations for church schools in England served as 
 a precedent in the early colonial period; but the differences be- 
 tween these foundations in England and the system which de- 
 veloped in America are so great that it is doubtful that any vital 
 connection existed. The policy of making land grants for 
 education in colonial times was almost exclusively a New England 
 policy and seems to have developed with the custom of " township 
 planting." The few charity schools that were founded in Virginia 
 and other southern colonies were perhaps more closely connected, 
 historically, with the English foundations for education than were 
 the early New England land grants for schools. The abundance 
 of land and the scarcity of other means of support are probably 
 sufficient explanations for the early New England land grants for 
 education. Almost from the very foundation of the Massa- 
 chusetts Bay Colony the General Court of the colony, as well as 
 the towns, made land grants for the support of schools.^^ By 1783 
 the policy of making land grants for education was established 
 throughout New England and in New York. 
 
 In the southern colonies the idea was prevalent that public 
 schools were charity institutions for paupers and dependents. 
 Washington gave expression to this common sentiment when he 
 declared to Randolph his intention to use the income from his 
 shares in the companies for the navigation of the James and 
 Potomac rivers to create a fund ''on which to establish two 
 charity schools, one on each river, for the education and support 
 of the children of the poor in this country, particularly the chil- 
 dren of those men of this description who have fallen in the de- 
 fence of the rights and liberties of it." ^^ 
 
 In 1671, the Lands Commissioners had inquired of Governor 
 
 ^^ Schafer: The Origin of the System of Land Grants for Education, pp. 7-10. 
 12 See Leach: English Schools at the Reformation. 
 
 1' Schafer: loc. cit. Schafer cites the original colonial and town records. 
 "Sparks: IX, p. 116. 
 
34 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 Berkeley, of Virginia as to what course was taken "about the in- 
 structing of the people, within your government, in the Christian 
 religion." ^^ Berkeley's memorable reply has made him notorious 
 in history. It was: ". . . I thank God, there are no free 
 schools nor printing, and I hope we shall not have these hundred 
 years; for learning has brought disobedience, and heresy, and 
 sects into the world, and printing has divulged them, and libels 
 against the best government. God keep us from both!"^^ As 
 far as free schools were concerned, the good Governor's devout 
 hope was practically realized. In 1771 free public schools were 
 unknown in Virginia except for charity. 
 
 It may be well to add in this connection that public sentiment in 
 Virginia in 1771 was not opposed to education as Berkeley had 
 been a century before. There is at least one case on record in 
 which Virginia adopted the policy of making land grants for edu- 
 cation. In 1780 the General Assembly reserved eight thousand 
 acres of lands in the county of Kentucky "for the purpose of a 
 publick school, or seminary of learning, to be erected within the 
 said county." ^^ It thus appears that land grants for education 
 were common in the northern colonies and not wholly unknown in 
 the South by the close of the Revolutionary War. 
 
 In the "Army Plan" for the payment of the debt to the officers 
 and soldiers this principle of land grants for schools was found .^* 
 It is interesting to note that this plan, so largely the work of New 
 Englanders, did not contain any provision for land grants for the 
 support of religion. From the earliest times in New England the 
 support of education had been almost invariably associated with 
 the support of the ministry, but in the "Army Plan" the school 
 lost its historic companion and became associated with highways, 
 bridges and public buildings. Although, under the more devout 
 leadership of Dr. Cutler, New Englanders in the Ohio Company 
 again advocated land grants for the support of religion along with 
 those for the support of education, it is possible that the omission 
 from the "Army Plan" of a provision for the support of religion 
 but fore-shadowed the inevitable separation of church and state- 
 supported schools in a democracy founded upon the principle of 
 separation of church and state. 
 
 " Hening: Statutes at Large, II, p. 517. 
 
 i«m(f., II, p. 517. 
 
 " Ibid., X, p. 287. 
 
 18 Pickering: Life of Timothy Pickering, I, p. 548. 
 
The Ordinance of 1787 and the National Land Policy 35 
 
 The "Financiers' Plan" of 1783 contained the provision for 
 land grants for the support of "seminaries of learning." ^^ Neither 
 religion nor slavery was mentioned in this plan. This plan was 
 presented by Bland, of Virginia, and the phrase "seminaries of 
 learning" is the same that had been used in the Virginia grant for 
 education in Kentucky in 1780. On the face of it this seems to be 
 a provision for the support of higher or secondary education, but 
 it is difficult to know whether those who advocated this measure 
 were consciously discriminating against lower schools or not. 
 It is probable that the expression "seminaries of learning" was 
 used to cover education in general, without any definite idea as to 
 the nature of the particular schools to be established. As the 
 plan was not adopted, what would have happened if a "seminary 
 of learning" had undertaken to do elementary or grammar school 
 work will never be known. However, it is doubtful if such pro- 
 cedure would have ever been questioned. 
 
 The next important step in the development of the policy of 
 land grants for education was in connection with the Officers' 
 Petition of June 16, 1783. The petition itself was silent on this 
 point, but Putnam's letter to Washington, which was sent to 
 Congress with the petition, referred to allowances in each town- 
 ship "for the ministry, schools, waste lands, rivers, ponds, and 
 high-ways." 20 Putnam and the other petitioners did not think it 
 necessary to urge Congress to make land grants for education. 
 It was taken for granted that Congress would do so. 
 
 The Ordinance of April 23, 1784,^1 was an ordinance for the 
 government of the federal territory, and therefore contained 
 nothing as regards the disposal of the lands. That question 
 was to be dealt with in a separate ordinance.^^ A committee 
 which was composed of Jefferson, of Virginia; Williamson, of 
 North Carolina; Howell, of Rhode Island; Gerry, of Massachu- 
 setts; and Read, of South Carolina ;2^ reported a land ordinance, 
 May 7, 1784.^'^ Three weeks later Congress voted to postpone 
 action on the committee report and nothing was done with it 
 until the following year.^^ 
 
 18 Bancroft: I, p. 313. 
 
 20 Cutler: I, p. 171. 
 
 21 Old South Leaflets, V. 6, No. 127. 
 
 22 Bancroft: I, p. 356. 
 
 2' Treat: p. 26, citing Jour, oj Am. Cong., IV, p. 416. 
 24 Bancroft: I, p. 158. 
 ^ Treat: p. 27. 
 
36 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 There was no provision, in this ordinance reported by Jeffer- 
 son's committee, for grants for education or reHgion. Gerry, the 
 Massachusetts member of the committee, sent a draft of the 
 proposed ordinance to Timothy Pickering. Gerry was not in 
 Congress when the ordinance was up for discussion in March, 
 1785, so Pickering sent his criticism of the ordinance to Rufus 
 King, one of the delegates from Massachusetts. Pickering's chief 
 objection to the ordinance was that it did not provide for grants 
 for education and religion. ^^ The only importance of this ordi- 
 nance reported in 1784, is that it was the one serious plan for the 
 sale of unoccupied federal lands which did not contain a provision 
 for land grants for education. This ordinance was never voted 
 upon by Congress. After much debate it was referred to a new 
 committee, composed of one member from each state, which un- 
 der the leadership of Grayson, ^^ of Virginia, completely revised 
 the ordinance. The report of this committee, after amendment, 
 became the Ordinance of May 20, 1785. 
 
 Pickering's influence with the committee was shown especially 
 in the provisions for land grants for education and religion in the 
 reported ordinance.^^ As has been pointed out in another con- 
 nection the provision for religion was stricken out by amendment 
 on the grounds that it connected the church with the state.^^ 
 There was no objection to the provision for land grants for educa- 
 tion. Bancroft says: "The reservation for the support of 
 schools, received a general welcome." ^^ This welcome may be 
 explained, not only on the grounds that these grants would assist 
 materially In the sale of the lands, but also by the fact that land 
 grants for the support of schools had come to be a generally ac- 
 cepted policy in 1785. 
 
 There remains but one other point for discussion in this review 
 of the development of the policy of granting lands for the support 
 of schools. That is the early attitude of the Ohio Company to- 
 
 ^ Pickering: Life of Pickering, I, p. 506. 
 
 27 Bancroft: I, p. 180. 
 
 28 See page 11 for Pickering's influence; also see Pickering: I, p. 511. 
 
 29 Bancroft: I, p. 18 1. On this point Treat says: "The question was put, 
 Shall the words stand? Five states favored retention, two opposed, two were 
 divided, and three were not sufficiently represented to cast a vote. As seven 
 states did not support the motion, it was lost, and the words stricken out, al- 
 though seventeen of the members present favored and only six opposed. If the 
 question had been put in a different way: Shall the words be stricken out? it 
 could not have carried." Treat: p. 36. See also, Cutler: I, p. 124. 
 
 30 Bancroft: I, p. 181. 
 
The Ordinance of I'/Sy and the National Land Policy 37 
 
 wards such grants. The Articles of Agreement, adopted for the 
 creation of the company, contained no definite statement of the 
 conditions on which the company would purchase lands. It seems 
 that the expectation was that the purchase would be made on the 
 terms of the Ordinance of May 20, 1785. The second of the Arti- 
 cles of Agreement stated that the funds of the company should be 
 "applied to the purchase of lands in some one of the proposed 
 states north-westerly of the river Ohio, as soon as those lands are 
 surveyed and exposed for sale by the Commissioners of Congress, 
 according to the ordinance of that honorable body, passed the 
 twentieth of May, 1785, or on any other plan that may be adopted 
 by Congress, not less advantageous to the company." ^^ In 1786 
 the Ordinance of 1785, which contained no provision for the sup- 
 port of religion, was satisfactory to the Ohio Company, but when 
 the opportunity came to make a more favorable contract with 
 Congress, the directors of the company secured the grant of, not 
 only section sixteen in each township for schools, but also the 
 grant of every section twenty-nine for religion and two whole 
 townships for a university. The significance of this contract of 
 the Ohio Company with the Board of Treasury will be treated at 
 length in the sixth chapter. 
 
 From the foregoing brief review it may be seen that the idea of 
 forming states in the unoccupied federal territory and the policy 
 of making federal land grants for education had become es- 
 tablished principles by 1787. These principles were given the 
 force of law in the governmental ordinance of 1784 and in the land 
 ordinance of 1785. Both were in effect in July, 1787, when the 
 Ordinance for the Government of the Northwest Territory was 
 enacted and when the contract with the Ohio Company was 
 authorized by Congress. The next problem is to show briefly 
 what forces were at work to produce this new ordinance for the 
 government of the Northwest and how that ordinance was related 
 to the policy of granting lands for the support of education.* 
 
 31 Cutler: I, p. 181. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE EDUCATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 
 ORDINANCE OF 1787 
 
 The work of revising the Ordinance of 1784, which was for the 
 government of the western territory, began in March of 1785 
 when Rufus King moved to commit a proposition to prohibit 
 slavery in the states that were to be formed under the Ordinance 
 of 1784.^ This motion carried and the proposition was thus com- 
 mitted to the Committee of the Whole House. Here the proposi- 
 tion rested, never to be called up again in Congress. 
 
 The following year, 1786, Congress again took up the question 
 of enacting a new ordinance for the government of the western 
 territory. Monroe wrote to Jefferson, May 11, 1786, as follows: 
 "In my last I mentioned to you that the propriety of the acts of 
 Congress founded on the condition of the acts of cession from the 
 states, fixing the limits of the states westward, was questioned. 
 A proposition, or rather a report, is before Congress, recommend- 
 ing it to Virginia and Massachusetts to revise their acts as to that 
 condition, so as to leave it to the United States to make what 
 division of the same future circumstances may make necessary, 
 subject to this provision: 'that the said territory be divided into 
 not less than two and not more than five states.' The plan of a 
 temporary government, to be instituted by Congress and pre- 
 served over such district until they shall be admitted into Con- 
 gress, is also reported." 2 Monroe was chairman of the com- 
 mittee which made the report on the form of government. The 
 other members of the committee were Johnson, of Connecticut, 
 King, of Massachusetts, and Kean and Pinckney, of South Caro- 
 lina.^ The report of this committee was made May 10, 1786. 
 
 1 Force: "The Ordinance of 1787 and Its History," in St. Clair Papers, II, 
 pp. 605 ff., and in Cutler: II, Append. D., pp. 410 ff. See also Pickering: I, pp. 
 512-13. 
 
 * Bancroft: I, pp. 502-03. Monroe was the leader in the movement to reduce 
 the number of states to be formed in the federal territory. See Barrett: pp. 
 33 ff. 
 
 3 Bancroft: II, p. 100; 5/. Clair Papers, II, p. 607; Cutler: II, Append. D., p. 
 410. 
 
 38 
 
The Edticational Significance of the Ordinance of i/8^ 39 
 
 The plan was to institute a system of colonial government similar 
 to that which had prevailed in America under British rule, with 
 the addition of the provision "that, when such districts shall 
 contain the number of the least numerous of the * thirteen original 
 states for the time being,' they shall be admitted into the con- 
 federacy."'* 
 
 No final action was taken on this report by Congress. Mem- 
 bers of the committee failed to return to Congress, so a new 
 committee, composed of Johnson, of Connecticut; Pinckney, of 
 South Carolina; Smith, of New York; Dane, of Massachusetts; 
 Henry, of Maryland ; was appointed to propose a plan of govern- 
 ment for the federal territory .^ It should be noted that none of 
 the men who had been the leaders in dealing with the problem of 
 forming a government in the federal territory was a member of 
 this committee. The majority of the committee were from the 
 North, and no Virginian was a member. On April 26, 1787, this 
 committee reported an ordinance for the government of the 
 Western Territory. It was read the second time, debated, and 
 amended, on May 9. The following day was set for the final 
 reading.* On the tenth of May, 1787, the final reading of this 
 ordinance was postponed. This ordinance provided a detailed 
 plan of government for the Western Territory. It is remarkable 
 for what it did not contain. It contained no anti-slavery provi- 
 sion; it was silent on religious liberty, rights of conscience, the 
 promotion of morality and education ; it contained no articles of 
 compact. 
 
 On the other hand it gave the governor, appointed by Congress, 
 power to prorogue and dissolve the General Assembly at his dis- 
 cretion ; the inhabitants were subject to taxation to pay the federal 
 debts and to maintain the federal government. The provision 
 that a new state should be admitted to the union whenever it 
 should "have free inhabitants as many as are equal in number 
 to the one-thirteenth part of the citizens of the original states, to 
 be computed from the last enumeration" made it increasingly 
 
 * Bancroft: I, p. 502, Monroe's letter to Jefferson, May 11, 1786. This letter 
 outlined the plan of government proposed. 
 
 ^ Force: "The Ordinance of 1787," in St. Clair Papers, II, p. 607, and in 
 Cutler: II, p. 412. 
 
 ^ This ordinance is printed in full in Force's History of the Ordinance of 178/, 
 in the St. Clair Papers, II, and in Cutler, II, also in Western Law Journal, V, 
 pp. 529 ff.; in Winsor: Narrative and Crit. Hist, of Amer., VII, p. 537; in Sato: 
 Land Question, pp. 92 ff.; in Donaldson: Public Domain, pp. 150 ff. 
 
40 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 difficult for a new state to gain admission to the union J This 
 provision was evidently born of the New England fear and jeal- 
 ousy of the potential power of large western states that were to be 
 forrned. This proposed ordinance seems to have suffered greatly 
 for the lack of the influence of the great leaders who had been ac- 
 tive in dealing with the western question. It scarcely seems pos- 
 sible that such a narrow and inadequate measure could ever have 
 become law. It was indeed fortunate that the motion to postpone 
 prevailed on the tenth of May, 1787. 
 
 The ordinance for the government of the Western Territory was 
 not revived until July 9, 1787. On that day it was referred to a 
 new committee, Carrington and R. H. Lee, of Virginia; Dane, of 
 Massachusetts; Kean, of South Carolina; and Smith, of New 
 York. The majority of this committee were from the South and 
 Carrington was chairman. This committee framed the Ordinance 
 of 1787, which became law on July 13, of that year.^ In brief out- 
 line the important provisions of this ordinance were as follows: 
 (i) estates of those dying intestate should be distributed equally 
 among the children of the deceased, and where there were no chil- 
 dren, equally among the next of kin; (2) the governor should be 
 appointed by Congress for a term of three years ; (3) the secretary 
 should be appointed by Congress for a term of four years; (4) 
 there should be a court of three judges, appointed to serve during 
 good behavior ; (5) the law-making power should be vested in the 
 governor and the judges, subject to Congressional veto, until the 
 organization of the General Assembly, which should thereupon 
 assume the law-making power; (6) a General Assembly, com- 
 posed of the governor, legislative council, and a House of Repre- 
 sentatives, should be formed as soon as there were five thousand 
 
 ' The text of the ordinance is not clear on this provision. If the clause "to 
 be computed from the last enumeration " meant the last enumeration before the 
 enactment of the ordinance, then the population requirement for admission was 
 definitely fixed and not unduly difficult. If this clause meant the last enumera- 
 tion before the admission of any state, the requirement became increasingly 
 difficult. Bancroft accepted this second interpretation and showed that Ohio 
 could not have been admitted until after 1820, Indiana after 1850, Illinois after 
 i860, Michigan after 1880, and Wisconsin probably never. See Bancroft: 
 II, p. 104. Force and his followers included this provision in the ordinance as 
 it went to final reading. Bancroft said it was stricken out by amendment. See 
 Bancroft: II, p. 105. 
 
 ^ The text of the ordinance may be found in U. S. Statutes at Large, I, pp. 
 51-53; Chase: Statutes of Ohio and Northwest Territory, I, pp. 66-69; Donald- 
 son: Public Domain, pp. 153-56; Force: History of the Ordinance of 1787, in St, 
 Clair Papers, II, pp. 612-18; Cutler: II, pp. 419-27; Barrett: pp. 81-89. 
 
The Educational Significance of the Ordinance of I'/Sy 41 
 
 free males of age within the district; (7) there should be a repre- 
 sentative, elected for two years, in the House for each five hun- 
 dred free males ; (8) the legislative council should consist of five 
 members, whose term of office was five years, who should be ap- 
 pointed by Congress from among ten persons nominated by the 
 House of Representatives ; (9) high property and residence quali- 
 fications for voters and office holders; (10) the articles of compact 
 which were : {a) a guarantee of religious liberty ; (6) a guarantee of 
 the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, trial by jury, common law 
 rights, property rights, and the non-impairment of private con- 
 tracts; (c) religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to 
 good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the 
 means of education shall forever be encouraged, and a guarantee 
 of good faith towards the Indians; {d) the territory should forever 
 remain a part of the United States, the inhabitants pay their just 
 part of the expenses of the federal government with taxes levied by 
 the General Assemblies or State Legislatures within the territory, 
 the navigable waters should remain free; {e) there should be not 
 less than three nor more than five states formed within the terri- 
 tory, and a state should be admitted into the union on an equality 
 with the original states as soon as it should contain sixty thousand 
 free inhabitants ; (/) the prohibition of slavery with the provision 
 for the return of fugitive slaves; (11) the repeal of the Ordinance 
 of April 23, 1784. 
 
 The Ordinance of 1787 was much more comprehensive and 
 thoroughgoing than any ordinance of government which had 
 preceded it. It contained certain fundamental principles that 
 have made it justly celebrated as an essential part of the broad 
 and sure foundation on which has been erected the American na- 
 tion. But as far as the greater part of this ordinance is concerned, 
 it had no connection with the development of the policy of land 
 grants for education, except in that it established a form of terri- 
 torial government which led to the rapid settlement of the un- 
 occupied lands and thereby made effective and useful the land 
 grants for public education. The third of the Articles of Com- 
 pact contained the only specific reference to education, and that 
 was couched in most general terms: "Religion, morality, and 
 knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happi- 
 ness of mankind ; schools and the means of education shall forever 
 be encouraged." 
 
42 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 There has been so much said and written in a spirit of contro- 
 versy with reference to the influences which produced the Ordi- 
 nance of 1787, that it is somewhat difficult to determine, with any 
 great degree of accuracy, its true significance. The provision in 
 the ordinance concerning the encouragement of education cannot 
 be correctly understood except as it is considered in its relation to 
 other fundamental principles in the ordinance. A brief analysis 
 of some of the evidence as regards the influences which produced 
 the ordinance will assist in its proper interpretation from the view- 
 point of education. 
 
 Among the earliest claimants of special credit in connection 
 with the Ordinance of 1787 was Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts. 
 Three days after the ordinance became law Dane said in a letter 
 to Rufus King: "When I drew the ordinance (which passed, a 
 few words excepted as I originally formed it) I had no idea the 
 states would agree to the sixth article, prohibiting slavery, as only 
 Massachusetts, of the eastern states, was present, and therefore 
 omitted it in the draft; but, finding the house favorably disposed 
 on this subject, after we had completed the other parts I moved 
 the article, which was agreed to without opposition. We are in a 
 fair way to fix the term.s of our Ohio sale, etc."^ It would appear 
 
 9 Bancroft' II, pp. 430-31. A letter from Nathan Dane to Rufus King, 
 New York, 16 July, 1787. As this letter of Dane's throws much light on the 
 passage of the ordinance it is herewith given as printed in Bancroft. "Dear 
 Sir: I am obliged to you for yours of the eleventh instant. With pleasure I 
 communicate to you what we are doing in Congress — not so much from a con- 
 sciousness that what we do is well done as from a desire that you may be ac- 
 quainted with our proceedings. We have been much engaged in business for 
 ten or twelve days past, for a part of which we have had eight states. There 
 appears to be a disposition to do business, and the arrival of R. H. Lee is of con- 
 siderable importance. I think his character serves, at least in some degree, to 
 check the public habits and lax mode of thinking of some of his countrymen. 
 We have been employed about several objects, the principal of which have been 
 the government enclosed and the Ohio purchase; the former, you will see, is 
 completed, and the latter will probably be completed tomorrow. We tried 
 one day to patch up M's p system of W. government; started new ideas and 
 committed the whole to Carrington, Dane, R. H. Lee, Smith, and Kean. We 
 met several times, and at last agreed on some principles; at least Lee, 
 Smith, and myself. We found ourselves rather pressed. The Ohio Company 
 appeared to purchase a large tract of federal lands — about six or seven 
 millions of acres — and we wanted to abolish the old system and get a better 
 one for the government of the country, and we finally found it necessary to 
 adopt the best system we could get. All agreed to the enclosed plan except A. 
 Yates. He appeared in this case, as in most others, not to understand the sub- 
 ject at all. I think the number of free inhabitants — 60,000 — which are requi- 
 site for the admission of a new state into the confederacy is too small; but, hav- 
 ing divided the whole territory into three states this number appears to me to 
 be less important. Each state, in the common course of things, must become 
 important soon after it shall have that number of inhabitants. The eastern 
 
The Educational Significance of the Ordinance of lySy 43 
 
 from this letter that Dane "admitted" that he was largely re- 
 sponsible for the Ordinance of 1787. Some writers have been led 
 to believe that Dane claimed to be the author of the ordinance.^*^ 
 Dane later stated that he never "claimed originality, except in 
 regard to the clause against impairing contracts, and perhaps the 
 Indian article, part of the third article, including also, religion, 
 morality, knowledge, schools, etc." ^^ Dane was a leading member 
 of the committee which framed the ordinance, presented in Con- 
 gress April 26, 1787, which on May 9, was amended and ordered to 
 final reading. As has been pointed out that ordinance con- 
 tained few of the important and far-reaching provisions of the 
 Ordinance of 1787. In view of this fact and other evidence which 
 will be presented in other connections, it is difficult to conclude 
 that Dane's influence on the Ordinance of 1787 was of any great 
 consequence. 
 
 Force, in his history of the Ordinance of 1787, gave Carrington 
 
 state of the three will probably be the first and more important than the rest, 
 and will no doubt be settled chiefly by eastern people; and there is, I think, full 
 an equal chance of its adopting eastern politics. When I drew the ordinance 
 (which passed, a few words excepted, as I originally formed it), I had no idea 
 the states would agree to the sixth article, prohibiting slavery, as only Massa- 
 chusetts, of the eastern states, was present, and therefore omitted it in the 
 draft; but finding the house favorably disposed on this subject, after we had 
 completed the other parts I moved the article, which was agreed to without op- 
 position. We are in a fair way to fix the terms of our Ohio sale, etc. We have 
 been upon it three days steadily. The magnitude of the purchase makes us 
 very cautious about the terms of it, and the security necessary to ensure the 
 performance of it. 
 
 "(The preceding extract was communicated to the New York Tribune, 31 
 Jan., 1855, by Charles King. Its authenticity is vouched for by Charles R. 
 King, the present custodian of the original.) " 
 
 1° Poole: The Ordinance of 1787. See also North American Review, CXXII, 
 pp. 259-60. Poole said that the Ordinance of 1787 was an essential part of the 
 plan of the Ohio Company. The fact that Dr. Cutler was in conference three 
 times within twenty-four hours with the committee which reported the ordi- 
 nance led Poole to believe that Cutler was responsible for the most important 
 provisions of the ordinance, and that he went to New York with the outline of a 
 scheme of government which had been approved by the Ohio Company. 
 Poole discredited Dane's claims because he had been on the committee which 
 reported the earlier ordinance that lacked the most important provisions of the 
 ordinance as finally enacted. Dane's interest in the development of Maine 
 also convinced Poole that he was not active in framing the ordinance for the 
 Northwest Territory. The mere fact that the ordinance was satisfactory to 
 Dr. Cutler and the Ohio Company was strong evidence to Poole that they were 
 responsible for it. He did not undertake to explain why Congress passed the 
 ordinance without a state dissenting. 
 
 1^ Barrett: p. 65 n. 2, citing a letter of Dane's to Webster from Mass. Hist. 
 Soc. Proc. 1867-69, p. 479. Barrett says that Dane did not mean to claim 
 originality for the provisions concerning religion, morality, knowledge and 
 schools. 
 
44 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 credit for much of the ordinance.^^ He said: "The reader, on 
 comparing this^^ with the plans previously reported by Mr. Jef- 
 ferson and Mr. Johnson, will see that most of the principles *on 
 which its wisdom and fame rest' were first presented by Mr. 
 Carrington."^^ There is little reason to doubt that Carrington's 
 influence on the ordinance was great. Certainly Dr. Cutler con- 
 sidered him of much greater consequence than Dane. But it is 
 futile to try to show that Carrington or Dane or any other one 
 man was the author of the Ordinance of 1787, or of any great part 
 of it. There is scarcely a new idea in the ordinance. Earlier 
 ordinances, colonial charters, state constitutions, and even the 
 Magna Charta itself, furnished precedents from which could be 
 gathered all of the fundamental principles contained in it. The 
 attempts to attribute authorship to particular individuals have 
 frequently been born either of sectional pride and prejudice or of 
 the spirit of controversy. It is generally agreed to-day that the 
 ordinance was the culmination of a process of development. Suf- 
 ficient evidence has been submitted to show that this is unques- 
 tionably true as regards the principles of establishing in the federal 
 territory independent states, to be admitted into the union on an 
 equality with the original states and of encouraging religion and 
 education. In the same manner it could be shown that the other 
 fundamental principles of the ordinance had gradually developed, ^^ 
 but such an undertaking is not within the scope of this work. 
 
 There is considerable evidence to show that the final form 
 which was given to the Ordinance of 1787 was due to influence and 
 pressure which was brought to bear upon Congress by the 
 Ohio Company. The evidence is about as follows: 
 
 The Army Plan of 1783 had contained the principles of estab- 
 lishing a state, encouragement of education, and total exclusion 
 of slavery. Putnam's letter in connection with the Ofhcers' 
 Petition of 1783 also suggested the support of education, while 
 the petition itself contained the idea of establishing a new state. 
 
 12 It would be interesting to know if Dane included Carrington among those 
 Virginians, whose "public habits and lax mode of thinking" would be checked 
 by the presence of R. H. Lee. 
 
 " The original ordinance with the amendments made July 12, 1787. 
 
 " Force: " The Ordinance of 1787, and Its History," in St. Clair Papers II, p. 
 412. Also in Cutler: II, p. 419. 
 
 Jefferson, Grayson, King and Lee have also been credited with the author- 
 ship of all or part of the ordinance. See Dunn: Indiana, pp. 177 ff. 
 
 ^^ For a full treatment of this point see Barrett: Chaps. 9 and 10. 
 
The Educational Significance of the Ordinance of 1787 45 
 
 Many of the men who were responsible for the Army Plan and who 
 signed the Officers' Petition became members of the Ohio Com- 
 pany. 
 
 The grandchildren of Dr. Cutler, in their Life of Rev. Manasseh 
 Cutler J have compiled what they termed "traditional testi- 
 mony" to show Dr. Cutler's influence on the Ordinance of 1787. 
 There is no way in which to corroborate this "traditional testi- 
 mony" directly. It is indirectly supported by Cutler's diary and 
 other evidence. It is here given for what it is worth. 
 
 "Dr. Joseph Torrey, of Salem, Mass., wrote to Judge Ephraim 
 Cutler, Jan. 30, 1847, as follows: 'At a recent professional call at 
 Hamilton (Dr. Cutler's home) Brother Temple produced large 
 files of Ohio documents, but I had time only for a hasty examina- 
 tion. I saw among these documents the Ordinance of 1787 on a 
 printed sheet. On its margin was written that Mr. Dane re- 
 quested Dr. Cutler to suggest such provisions as he deemed ad- 
 visable, and that at Dr. Cutler's instance was inserted what re- 
 lates to religion, education, and slavery. These facts have long 
 been known to me as household words.' " ^^ 
 
 It is rather curious that these are the provisions with which 
 Dane connected his own name. On one occasion Dane intimated 
 that he took the provision concerning morality and education from 
 the laws of Massachusetts.^^ In Dr. Cutler's diary is recorded 
 the fact that the ordinance was submitted to him for amendment 
 and that, as a result of his amendments, it was " in a degree new- 
 modeled." 
 
 The second bit of "traditional testimony" is as follows: 
 
 "Hon. Daniel Webster solicited and obtained the examination 
 of Dr. Cutler's journal. Subsequently, Temple Cutler wrote 
 to his brother Ephraim: 'Webster is now convinced that the 
 man whose foresight suggested some of these articles was our 
 Father.'" i« 
 
 In 1830, during the debate on the Foote Resolution in the 
 United States Senate, Webster delivered an eloquent eulogy of 
 Dane because of his great service rendered in connection with the 
 Ordinance of 1787. In view of this fact it would be interesting to 
 know just when Webster examined Dr. Cutler's journal. The 
 
 16 Cutler: I, p. 343. 
 1^ King: Ohio, p. 407. 
 18 Cutler: I, p. 343. 
 
46 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 quotation given above seems to indicate that before the examina- 
 tion Webster had believed that some one other than Dr. Cutler 
 deserved the credit for the ordinance, but after reading the jour- 
 nal, his convictions were completely altered. If this interpreta- 
 tion is correct, Webster unquestionably saw Cutler's journal after 
 he had eulogized Dane. 
 
 The last of the "traditional testimony" is as follows: 
 " Ephraim Cutler has left the following written statement of his 
 recollections : ' I visited my Father at Washington during the last 
 session he attended Congress (1804-5). . . . We were in 
 conversation relative to the political concerns of Ohio, the ruling 
 parties, and the effect of the (Ohio) Constitution in the promotion 
 of the general interests, when he observed that he was informed 
 that I had prepared that portion of the Ohio Constitution which 
 contained the part of the Ordinance of 1787, which prohibited 
 slavery. He wished to know if it was a fact. On my assuring 
 him that it was, he observed that he thought it a singular coinci- 
 dence, as he himself had prepared that part of the ordinance while 
 he was in New York negotiating the purchase of the land for the 
 Ohio Company, I had not then seen the Journal he kept while he 
 was in New York at that time.' In another written memoranda 
 Judge Cutler refers to the conversation with his father, and states 
 as the reason why this prohibition of slavery, as well as the rec- 
 ognition of religion, morality, and knowledge, as foundations of 
 civil government, were incorporated into the ordinance, and provi- 
 sion made in the land purchase for their support, arose from the 
 fact that 'he was acting for associates, friends, and neighbors, 
 who would not embark in the enterprise, unless these principles 
 were unalterably fixed.' "^* 
 
 Of course the original purpose of this "traditional testimony" 
 was to support the. claim that Dr. Cutler was the author of the 
 provisions of the ordinance enumerated by Ephraim Cutler. 
 Such a consideration is immaterial in this work. The chief con- 
 cern here is to find the relationship which existed between the 
 Ordinance of 1787 and land grants for education. Ephraim Cut- 
 ler recorded that Dr. Cutler inserted certain provisions in the 
 ordinance, including the provision for the encouragement of 
 schools and means of education, because he was acting for as- 
 sociates, friends, and neighbors, who would not embark in the 
 
 19 Cutler: I, pp. 343-44- 
 
The Educational Significance of the Ordinance of lySy 47 
 
 enterprise, unless these principles were unalterably fixed. Yet 
 the Ohio Company was organized to purchase lands under the 
 terms of the Ordinance of 1785 or on any other terms "not less 
 advantageous to the company "^'^ at the time when the Ordinance 
 of 1784 for the establishment of a government in the Western 
 Territory was in effect. At that time slavery was not prohibited 
 in the Ohio country and no provision was made for the support of 
 religion. It therefore appears that Dr. Cutler's associates in the 
 Ohio Company, for whom he was acting, had determined not to 
 ''embark in the enterprise, unless these principles were unalter- 
 ably fixed," subsequent to the organization of the Ohio Company. 
 This inconsistency may be more apparent than real. It is pos- 
 sible that the sentiment in the Ohio Company in favor of these pro- 
 visions might have grown to such proportions between March i, 
 1786, and July, 1787, that they were really indispensable to the 
 success of the company. It certainly is not improbable that Dr. 
 Cutler, who was familiar with the strong convictions of his as- 
 sociates as regards these principles, honestly believed them to be 
 indispensable when the new ordinance for the government of the 
 Northwest was pending in July, 1787. Without doubt he exerted 
 his influence as representative of the Ohio Company to have these 
 incorporated into the Ordinance of 1787. It is a matter of record 
 that the contract for the purchase of lands by the Ohio Company 
 contained the most liberal grants for education and religion that 
 had ever been made. This was done, notwithstanding the fact 
 that such a contract was contrary to the Land Ordinance of 1785, 
 which was the law at the time. 
 
 That there was a vital connection between the Ordinance of 
 1787 and the contract with the Ohio Company is not only strongly 
 suggested by foregoing evidence from the Cutler records, but is 
 practically proved by other evidence. Richard Henry Lee wrote 
 Washington, under date of July 15, 1787, as follows: "I have the 
 honor to enclose to you an ordinance that we have just passed in 
 Congress, for establishing a temporary government beyond the 
 Ohio, as a measure preparatory to the sale of lands. It seemed 
 necessary for the security of property among uninformed and 
 perhaps licentious people, as the greater part of those who go 
 there are, that a strong-toned government should exist and the 
 
 Part of Art. 2 of the Art. of Agreement of the Ohio Co. Cutler: I, p. 181, 
 
48 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 rights of property be clearly defined." '^^ Lee's estimate of the 
 worth of the New Englander as a pioneer was slightly lower than 
 Cutler's rating of settlers from the southern states.^^ It is not 
 unlikely that some members of Congress would have disagreed 
 with Lee on this point, but in so far as his statement that the 
 Ordinance of 1787 was enacted "as a measure preparatory to the 
 sale of lands" is concerned, it probably expressed the general senti- 
 ment of Congress. Lee was a warm friend of Dr. Cutler's, an in- 
 fluential member of the committee which framed the Ordinance of 
 1787, and a strong supporter in Congress of the Ohio Company's 
 proposition to purchase land. No man was in a better position to 
 know all the facts. The only sale of lands of any consequence that 
 was under consideration by Congress at the time was the pro- 
 posed sale to the Ohio Company. Lee's assertion that the ordi- 
 nance was a preparatory measure to the sale of lands certainly re- 
 ferred to the Ohio Company's proposition. His statement offers 
 a satisfactory explanation for the speed with which the ordinance 
 was drafted and brought to a final vote.^^ 
 
 In addition to Lee's letter there is Dane's letter to King, under 
 date of July 16, 1787,^^ which further indicates that the enactment 
 of the Ordinance of 1787 was largely due to the pressure brought 
 to bear by the proposed purchase of lands by the Ohio Company. 
 The following extracts from Dane's letter clearly show this: "We 
 have been employed about several objects — the principal ones of 
 which have been the Governments^ enclosed, and the Ohio Pur- 
 chase. The former you will see is completed, and the latter will 
 probably be completed to-morrow. We tried one day to patch 
 up M.'s p system of W. government. Started new ideas, and 
 committed the whole to Carrington, Dane, R. H. Lee, Smith, and 
 Kean. We met several times, and at last agreed on some princi- 
 ples, at least Lee, Smith, and myself. We found ourselves rather 
 pressed .2^ The Ohio Company appeared to purchase a large tract 
 
 21 Cutler: I, p. 367. 
 
 22 In a letter to Dane, Mar. 16, 1787, Cutler said: "Settlers from the northern 
 states, in which this company is made up, are undoubtedly preferable to those 
 from the southern states. They will be men of more robust constitutions, in- 
 ured to labor, and free from habits of idleness." Cutler: I, p. 194. 
 
 2' The ordinance was referred to the committee on July 9, was then drafted, 
 reported, debated, amended, and pushed to final enactment on July 13, 1787. 
 
 2< The letter is printed on page 42, footnote 9. 
 
 28 The Ordinance of 1787. 
 
 26 In Cutler: I, pp. 371-72 this letter is printed with a semicolon in place of 
 the period. Other minor differences will be found in Cutler's reprint also. The 
 
The Educational Significance of the Ordinance of lySy 49 
 
 of federal lands — about six or seven millions of acres — and we 
 wanted to abolish the old system and get a better one for the 
 government of the country, and we finally found it necessary to 
 adopt the best system we could get. ... I had no idea the 
 states would agree to the sixth article, prohibiting slavery, as only 
 Massachusetts, of the eastern states, was present, — but, . . . 
 after we had completed the other parts I moved the article, which 
 was agreed to without opposition. We are in a fair way to fix the 
 terms of our Ohio sale, etc. We have been upon it three days 
 steadily." Beyond question the ordinance for government and 
 the sale of lands to the Ohio Company were inseparably as- 
 sociated in Dane's mind. The whole tone of his letter is one of 
 haste and work done under pressure. From such an expression 
 as "we tried one day to patch up M's ^^ p system of W. Govern- 
 ment" it would seem that the committee scarcely realized the full 
 significance of the work they were doing. An ordinance for the 
 government of the western territory had been a serious problem 
 for years. Several committees had spent months trying to solve 
 it. There was little probability that a good ordinance could be 
 " patched up" In an afternoon. Yet as a matter of fact the com- 
 mittee's work was done in less than five days. This certainly bears 
 out Dane's statement that the committee was "rather pressed." 
 
 Dane was not a master of style and his writing frequently lacked 
 coherence. But the sentence: "The Ohio Company appeared to 
 purchase a large tract of federal lands — about six or seven millions 
 of acres — and we wanted to abolish the old system and get a 
 better one for the government of the country, and we finally found 
 it necessary to adopt the best system we could get" may not be as 
 incoherent as it at first seems. The appearance of the Ohio Com- 
 pany made a new system of government for the Ohio country 
 very desirable and the urgency of the case made it necessary to 
 propose the best ordinance that Congress could agree upon and 
 
 quotation given is copied from Bancroft: II, pp. 430-31. Both Cutler and 
 Bancroft cite the New York Tribune as a source. The reason for using Ban- 
 croft's text is that it is printed in the appendix, without comment or special 
 purpose, while the letter is used in Cutler's Life in the chapter dealing with Dr. 
 Cutler's influence on the Ordinance of 1787, in which the attempt is made to 
 prove the close relationship between the ordinance and the Ohio Company con- 
 tract. The text there used is slightly more favorable for that purpose than 
 that given by Bancroft. 
 
 27 Doubtless referred to the plan submitted by Monroe's committee the year 
 before. Cutler has: M. S. P. systems, etc. 
 
50 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 enact. Dane, himself, was not wholly satisfied with the ease 
 with which new states could be formed under the ordinance, but 
 hoped the influence of the Ohio Company would lead the first 
 state established to adopt New England politics. 
 
 On many points the testimony of Dane might well be questioned, 
 but where there is so much which corroborates him, it is not un- 
 reasonable to accept his statements at full value. Dane said the 
 sixth article of compact, which prohibited slavery, was added, on 
 his motion, after the rest of the ordinance had been approved by 
 Congress. There is little or no reason to believe that Dane was 
 the author of this article, or even that he acted on his own initia- 
 tive in introducing the article as an amendment, nevertheless the 
 context of the ordinance bears out his statement that it was not a 
 part of the original draft. The organization of territorial general 
 assemblies and the admission of new states into the union were 
 contingent upon certain fixed numbers of free male inhabitants. 
 These provisions clearly took into account the possibility of slavery 
 being introduced into the Northwest. The ordinance was thus 
 framed so that if the sixth article failed of passage, slaves could 
 not be counted for purposes of representation. If the article was 
 adopted, it could be added without necessitating further amend- 
 ment to the articles previously adopted. 
 
 Dane was surprised that the anti-slavery provision met with 
 favor in Congress, which was controlled by the South at the time. 
 There are two factors which help to explain this attitude of the 
 South. One was the anxiety on the part of the southern leaders, 
 Carrington, Grayson and Lee, to reduce the federal debt and 
 further the development of the country by making the sale to the 
 Ohio Company, which made them disposed to prohibit slavery in 
 the Northwest, as a special inducement to the members of the 
 Ohio Company. Carrington wrote Madison on July 25, 1787, as 
 follows: "We are trying to do something with our western ter- 
 ritory to make it useful to the purposes for which the United States 
 were vested with it. You have seen in the papers the scheme for 
 the temporary as well as perpetual government of it. A practical 
 measure for the sale of it, or rather by means of it, to redeem the 
 domestic debt, remains still to be agreed upon, and I fear the dif- 
 ficulties which have always stood in the way of this great object 
 are not yet to be surmounted. Colonel Lee joins Grayson and 
 myself with great zeal, but what will be the issue of our efforts I 
 
The Educational Significance of the Ordinance of 1787 51 
 
 know not." 2^ After the sale to the Ohio Company had been 
 authorized Carrington wrote a letter to Monroe, August 7, 1787, 
 in which, after outlining the terrns of the sale, he said : "This I hold 
 a great bargain for the U. S., as the land goes good and bad to- 
 gether, and it will be a means of introducing into the country, in 
 the first instance, a description of men who will fix the character 
 and politics throughout the whole territory, and will probably 
 endure to the latest period of time. This company is formed of 
 the best men in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and they will 
 move out immediately. I am about to join them with a few 
 shares; what think you of such an adventure? "^^ 
 
 The next day, August 8, Grayson wrote Monroe a lengthy ac- 
 count of the Ordinance of 1787 and of the contract with the Ohio 
 Company. A brief quotation from this letter will disclose the 
 second factor that induced the South to support the anti-slavery 
 provision. Grayson said: "The clause respecting slavery was 
 agreed to by the southern members for the purpose of preventing 
 tobacco and indigo from being made on the northwest side of the 
 Ohio, as well as for several other political reasons." ^° Here in- 
 deed is light on the attitude of the South. Grayson then out- 
 lined the terms of the sale to the Ohio Company and pointed out 
 that the proposed settlements would greatly increase the value of 
 Virginia's lands in the West. He remarked that other companies 
 were being formed and that eventually such sales would probably 
 extend to the Mississippi. Grayson certainly looked upon the 
 Ordinance of 1787 as a means to promote the sale of federal lands 
 and the development of the back country. 
 
 Due to the absence of General St. Clair, Grayson was the pre- 
 siding officer in Congress when the ordinance was debated and 
 passed, Carrington was the chairman of the committee which 
 framed the ordinance, and Lee was an influential member both of 
 the committee and of Congress. These three outstanding leaders 
 were in full agreement that the main purpose of the Ordinance of 
 1787 was to further the sale of lands, particularly to the Ohio Com- 
 pany. In fact the general agreement of all the evidence thus far 
 
 28 Bancroft: II, p. 436. 
 
 29 Bancroft : 1 1 , p. 436-37. Compare this liberal view of Carrington's towards 
 New Englanders with Lee's, and also with the expressed views of Dane and 
 Cutler towards southerners, 
 
 30 Bancroft: II, p. 437. The letter is printed in full. Many southern states- 
 men had consistently favored the prohibition of slavery in the Northwest. 
 
52 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 submitted shows clearly that the Ordinance of 1787 was enacted 
 primarily as a measure preparatory to the sale of western lands. 
 It is equally clear that the provision for education in the ordinance 
 was one of the special inducements which encouraged the purchase 
 of lands and settlement in the Northwest Territory. 
 
 It is neither possible nor necessary to prove that Dr. Cutler or 
 his associates originated the provisions in the ordinance concern- 
 ing property, inheritance, future government, prohibition of slav- 
 ery, encouragement of religion and particularly of education. 
 These had all been discussed both in and out of Congress for years 
 and many of them had become accepted principles of government. 
 The important fact is that the ordinance was framed and passed 
 with the knowledge and approval of the representatives of the 
 Ohio Company and they were unwilling to purchase lands without 
 the enactment of such a safe-guarding ordinance. Beyond ques- 
 tion the Ordinance of 1787 and the sale of the lands by contract 
 were closely associated in the minds of members of Congress. 
 With the passage of the ordinance Congress at once took up the 
 business of fixing the terms of a contract with the Ohio Company. 
 After two weeks of maneuvering in which politics and a financial 
 deal with a member of the Board of Treasury played no small 
 part. Cutler secured for the company the terms he had dictated to 
 Congress. 
 
 The full importance of the Ordinance of 1787 as an instrument 
 of government was not appreciated at the time, either by the 
 public or by the members of Congress. It received scant notice 
 in the leading papers of the day. Neither the New York Packet 
 nor the New York Daily Advertiser even so much as mentioned 
 the ordinance. It was printed without a word of comment in the 
 Pennsylvania Gazette, of Philadelphia, on July 25, 1787.^1 Pub- 
 lic interest was centered at that time on the Constitutional Con- 
 vention then in session at Philadelphia and the papers were giving 
 much space to its proceedings. The doings at New York of the 
 discredited Continental Congress were of no interest. The real 
 worth of the Ordinance of 1787 was not appreciated until after it 
 was in actual operation. Its fame was greatly increased in the 
 heated debates in subsequent years of sectional strife. To the 
 
 '1 These statements concerning contemporary newspapers are based upon 
 the examination of the files of these papers for June, July, and August, 1787, 
 in the Public Library of New York City. 
 
The Educational Significance of the Ordinance of 1787 53 
 
 men who voted for the enactment of the Ordinance of 1787, doubt- 
 less many of its provisions were too vaguely general to have much 
 meaning. Yet no provision, with the possible exception of that 
 which prohibited slavery, has exerted a more profound influence 
 on the life of the nation, than this: " Religion, morality, and knowl- 
 edge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of 
 mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be en- 
 couraged." This sentence was the cornerstone in the foundation 
 of the free public school system which has supplanted the private 
 and quasi-public academies and colleges and made possible the 
 development of an educated and useful citizenship in a rapidly 
 growing and expanding democratic society. It established a 
 precedent that has been an inspiration and a source of strength to 
 the advocates of public education, even to the present time. 
 No other one thing has contributed as much to the development 
 of the national policy of public education as has this provision in 
 the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.^^ 
 
 22 For a brief summary of the educational significance of the Ordinance of 
 1787 in the Northwest, see Moore: The Northwest Under Three Flags, pp. 328-29, 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 THE LAND SALES OF 1787 AND 1788 
 
 The Ordinance of 1785 was still in effect in 1787, but it had 
 failed to promote land sales, largely because of the restive state of 
 the Indians, the slowness of the surveys, and the cumbersome pro- 
 vision of the ordinance for sales in each of the thirteen states. 
 On the twenty-first of April, 1787, Congress changed this provision 
 of the ordinance and provided for the sale of lands at the seat of 
 the federal government, as soon as the land for the soldiers was 
 drawn in the states.^ Congress further amended the ordinance by 
 providing that lands might be sold on credit, the terms being that 
 one-third of the purchase price should be paid at the time of 
 purchase and the balance within three months. The provision 
 that no lands should be offered for sale until the first seven ranges 
 were surveyed was also changed so that sales could be made im- 
 mediately, although the survey of only four ranges had been com- 
 pleted. But even with these amendments the Ordinance of 1785 
 did not greatly increase the sale of lands. The Indians were still 
 uneasy or even hostile and the organisation of large companies 
 such as the Ohio Company and the proposed private sales by 
 contract tended to discourage the buying of lands at the public 
 sales. The important sales of these years, 1 787-1 788, were not 
 those made under the provisions of the Ordinance of 1785, but 
 those private sales made by contract, after the enactment of the 
 Ordinance of 1787. 
 
 The Ordinance of 1787 was an ordinance for government and 
 contained no provisions respecting the sales of lands. The ordi- 
 nance has become associated with the land question because of its 
 connection with the purchase of the Ohio Company and also 
 because of the means which were subsequently adopted for ful- 
 filling the requirements of the article in the ordinance concerning 
 the encouragernent of schools and the means of education. These 
 requirements were stated in the most general terms. The article 
 simply stated that "religion, morality, and knowledge, being nec- 
 essary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools 
 
 * Jour, of Congress, IV, p. 739. See also Treat: p. 44. 
 54 
 
The Land Sales of 1787 and 1788 55 
 
 and the means of education shall be encouraged. "^ The encour- 
 agement of schools and the means of education was thus made 
 mandatory, but by whom or by what means such encouragement 
 was to be given was not made clear in the ordinance. As this 
 provision was a part of the Articles of Compact "between the 
 original States and the people and states in the said territory," ^ 
 the presumption is that the obligation rested equally upon both 
 parties to the compact and the means for its fulfillment were left 
 to the discretion of these parties. The national government chose 
 to meet this obligation by the continuation of the policy of making 
 land grants for education. 
 
 Congress had already reserved for the maintenance of public 
 schools section sixteen in every township in the Northwest, sur- 
 veyed under the Ordinance of 1785. The slow progress of the 
 survey made the completion of the first seven ranges far distant 
 and the completion of the second seven ranges seemed to lie in a 
 dim and remote future. Therefore, after General Parsons pre- 
 sented the memorial of the Ohio Company for the purchase of 
 lands lying west of the first seven ranges and extending along the 
 Ohio to the Scioto river, Congress came to interpret the Ordinance 
 of 1785 as applying primarily to the first seven ranges. Under 
 these circumstances it was deemed advisable, especially by the 
 purchasers of lands west of the first seven ranges^ that definite 
 provisions be made for the encouragement of education in that 
 part of the Northwest Territory. 
 
 The relation of the Ordinance of 1787 to the ordinance authoriz- 
 ing the contract with the Ohio Company has already been ex- 
 plained. It was expected by the agents of the company, Cutler 
 and Sargent, that the general provision concerning education in 
 the ordinance for government would be supplemented by the 
 terms of the contract for the lands. Cutler submitted to Congress 
 the terms on which the Ohio Company would purchase lands. 
 These included the reservation of every section sixteen for educa- 
 tion, every section twenty-nine for religion, and. two complete 
 townships for a university. These last two provisions were the 
 ones which created in Congress such strong opposition to the Ohio 
 
 2 Article III of the Articles of Compact. 
 
 3 It is curious that Webster so valiantly and successfully attacked this same 
 fallacy in the State Rights doctrine and at the same time attempted to im- 
 mortalize Dane as author of the Ordinance of 1787. 
 
56 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 Company.* Cutler was on the point of giving up the attempt to 
 make the contract when he was approached by Colonel Duer, 
 Secretary of the Board of Treasury, with the proposition to extend 
 the purchase of the Ohio Company to include approximately 
 five millions of acres of land for another company,^ in which were 
 associated many of the "principal characters of America." Cutler 
 said that Duer enjoined him to profound secrecy and offered 
 "generous conditions" if Cutler would "accomplish the business" 
 for the company. « Cutler promised to undertake this additional 
 purchase and thenceforth the Ohio Company met with less op- 
 position. Congress enacted the ordinance authorizing the sale 
 on the terms which Cutler and Sargent had dictated. In his 
 diary Dr. Cutler has left the record that "without connecting this 
 speculation, similar terms and advantages could not have been 
 obtained for the Ohio Company." ^ Cutler's grandchildren under- 
 took to explain this agreement between Cutler and Duer. The 
 following quotation is their interpretation of the transaction : 
 
 "The injunction of secrecy was as to the fact of the increased 
 amount of land bjeing obtained for a separate company. The 
 "generous conditions" were, that if Dr. Cutler would secure, for 
 the entire amount of lands asked for, the support of the members 
 of Congress who had declared in favor of the Ohio Company grant, 
 Colonel Duer and his friends would undertake, with Cutler's 
 assistance, to obtain enough additional votes to pass the ordinance 
 for the purchase of the entire tract upon exactly the terms stated 
 in the Ohio Company's petition. This included the grants of land 
 for the establishment of a university and the support of the uni- 
 versity, which, next to the accomplishment of the purchase itself, 
 were the objects most desired by Dr. Cutler. 
 
 "Colonel Duer also agreed that Cutler and Sargent should have 
 for themselves, and such of their friends among the prominent 
 men in the Ohio Company as they chose to interest, one-half in- 
 terest in the proposed right of purchase, the sale of which he and 
 his friends would undertake to manage."^ 
 
 Dr. Cutler's diary throws no definite light on those "generous 
 conditions" beyond the fact that they were offered. His grand- 
 
 < See Treat: p. 51. 
 
 5 The Scioto Company. 
 
 « Cutler: I, p. 295. 
 
 7 Ibid., p. 305. 
 
 8 Ibid., pp. 494-95. 
 
The Land Sales of 1787 and 1788 57 
 
 children cite no authority as a basis for their interpretation of 
 those conditions. Apparently their conclusions were drawn from 
 the circumstantial evidence of the events that followed the agree- 
 ment between Cutler and Duer. On this basis the conclusions 
 seem to be wholly within reason. Certainly the facts, so far as 
 known, leave little doubt that the interests of the Ohio Company 
 were materially furthered by connecting them with the larger land 
 speculation of the Scioto Company. The terms which Cutler 
 proposed to Congress were granted in every detail, and in so far 
 as education is concerned, the ordinance which authorized the sale 
 of lands on these terms was of much greater importance than the 
 ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory. 
 
 This ordinance, as passed in Congress, July 23, 1787, authorized 
 the Board of Treasury to contract with any person or persons for a 
 tract of land which should be bounded : on the south by the Ohio 
 river from the mouth of the Scioto to the western boundary of the 
 seventh range of townships, surveyed under the Ordinance of 
 1785; thence north along this western boundary to the northern 
 boundary of the tenth township from the Ohio river; thence due 
 west to the Scioto ; thence south along the Scioto to the beginning. 
 The terms authorized were as follows:^ 
 
 1. The exterior lines were to be run by the United States and 
 plots furnished to the Board of Treasury and to the purchasers. 
 
 2. The purchasers were, within seven years after the comple- 
 tion of the exterior lines, to lay off the whole tract into townships 
 and lots according to the Ordinance of 1785, and make complete 
 returns to the Board of Treasury. 
 
 3. Section sixteen in each township was to be given perpetually 
 for the maintenance of public schools within the townships, as 
 provided in the Ordinance of 1785. 
 
 4. Section twenty-nine of each township was to be given per- 
 petually for the purposes of religion. 
 
 5. Sections eight, eleven, and twenty-six were to be reserved for 
 the future disposition of Congress. 
 
 6. Not more than two complete townships were to be given 
 perpetually for the purposes of a university, to be laid off by 
 the purchasers, as near the center as possible, the same to be of 
 good land, to be applied to the intended object by the legislature 
 of the state. 
 
 5 Printed in full in Cutler: II, pp. 427-29. 
 
58 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 7. The price was to be not less than one dollar per acre, not in- 
 cluding the reservations and gifts, payable in specie, loan office 
 certificates, reduced to specie value, or certificates of the liqui- 
 dated debt of the United States. 
 
 8. One- third of a dollar per acre was allowed as a reduction for 
 bad lands and incidental charges. 
 
 9. Military bounty rights could be offered in payment for the 
 lands up to one-seventh of the total purchase price. 
 
 10. Five hundred thousand dollars were to be paid at the time 
 of signing the contract, and the balance when the exterior lines 
 were run by the United States. 
 
 11. The purchasers were to give good security for the unpaid 
 balance. 
 
 12. The grant was to be made when the full purchase price was 
 paid. 
 
 Such were the terms of the ordinance as passed on July 23, 1787. 
 On July 26,1" Cutler and Sargent accepted these terms on condi- 
 tion that the following amendments were made : 
 
 1. The requirement of subordinate surveys by the purchasers 
 was not to be enforced in case of Indian interference. 
 
 2. One half million dollars should be paid when the contract was 
 signed, a second half million when the exterior lines were run, and 
 the balance in six equal payments, computed from the day of the 
 second payment. 
 
 3. The lands for the university should be near the center of the 
 first million and a half of acres purchased, in order to hasten its 
 establishment. 
 
 4. Upon making the second payment, the purchasers should 
 receive a deed to as much land as they had then paid for, the 
 term of further deeds to be agreed upon by the purchasers and the 
 Board of Treasury. 
 
 5. The lands should be considered as "good and sufficient 
 security" for the deferred payments, as required in the ordinance. 
 
 The Board of Treasury, to whom these amendments and condi- 
 tions were submitted by Cutler and Sargent, referred them to 
 Congress. The next day, July 27, 1787, Congress agreed to these 
 terms, with the further stipulation that the six equal deferred 
 payments should be made half-yearly with interest from the 
 
 1" Letter of Cutler and Sargent to the Board of Treasury, from Journals of 
 Congress, IV, Appendix, p. 17. Reprinted in full in Cutler: II, pp. 429-30. 
 
The Land Sales of lyS'j and 1788 59 
 
 completion of the exterior survey.^^ Three months later, October 
 27, Cutler and Sargent made two contracts on these terms, one for 
 the Ohio Company for 1,500,000 acres and the other for the Scioto 
 Company for about 5,000,000 acres. The price fixed in the ordi- 
 nance was one dollar per acre, but the deductions for bad lands 
 reduced this to two-thirds of a dollar. Certificates of indebted- 
 ness, which were acceptable for the purchase of lands, were worth 
 about twelve cents on the dollar at the time of these sales, and as a 
 consequence, the actual price agreed upon was about nine cents 
 per acre.^^ 
 
 The methods which were used to secure the enactment of the 
 ordinance authorizing these contracts and the ordinance itself 
 have been seriously questioned in recent years. Beyond question 
 the provisions of the ordinance were not in complete harmony 
 with the system of surveys and sales which was established by the 
 Ordinance of 1785. It has been said that these sales by con- 
 tract made necessary the suspension of the Ordinance of 1785.^^ 
 In a measure this was true. However, these private contracts did 
 not affect the application of the Ordinance of 1785 to the first seven 
 ranges. There is no doubt that the favorable terms which the 
 Ohio Company was able to offer under their contract seriously 
 interfered with the public sales of the lands lying within the first 
 four ranges, but there was no suspension of the Ordinance of 1785. 
 
 As has already been pointed out. Congress had come to believe 
 that the Ordinance of 1785 applied primarily to the first seven 
 ranges in the Northwest Territory. It should be noted, however, 
 that the ordinance which authorized the private sales recognized 
 
 " Cutler: II, p. 430. 
 
 12 For fuller treatment of this point see Geer: Louisiana Purchase and the 
 Westward Movement in History of North America, VIII, p. 97. Also Treat: 
 pp. 50 ff. 
 
 13 Speaking of the application of the Ohio Company for the private pur- 
 chase of lands, Treat says: "Under ordinary circumstances such a proposal 
 would doubtless have been rejected, for it called for the virtual suspension of 
 the Land Ordinance even before it had been tried; it sought the corporate owner- 
 ship of an immense area instead of the small holdings encouraged by the ordi- 
 nance; and by offering fifty cents an acre it would impair the approaching sale 
 of the four ranges. But these were no ordinary times." Treat: p. 48. 
 
 It should be noted that the nominal price paid in the contract, as finally 
 drawn, was one dollar per acre, the minimum price established in the Ordinance 
 of 1785. It is worth noting also that while the Ohio Company proposed to 
 purchase a vast tract of land, the articles of agreenient which created the com- 
 pany safeguarded against land monopoly and provided for the immediate sub- 
 division of the tract into small individual holdings. The Scioto Company and 
 its intentions were a "profound secret to Congress." 
 
6o Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 the validity of the Ordinance of 1785.^* In so far as the method 
 of sale was concerned the ordinances were in opposition ; as regards 
 the price of the lands they were substantially in agreernent, be- 
 cause it was scarcely probable that more than the minimum price 
 of one dollar per acre could have been obtained at public auction 
 for so large a tract of land. The system of surveys was practi- 
 cally the same. With respect to special gifts and reservations the 
 ordinance authorizing the sales by contract was supplementary to 
 the Ordinance of 1785 rather than in opposition to it. The reser- 
 vation of the sixteenth sections for schools was a provision of both 
 ordinances, but in the later ordinance two complete townships 
 were also given for the support of a university. The reservation 
 of the twenty-ninth sections for the support of religion, which had 
 been stricken from the Ordinance of 1785 by a legislative accident, 
 was made a part of the later ordinance.^^ But in the light of all 
 the facts this is merely a point of difference rather than a point of 
 opposition between the two ordinances. It is reasonable to con- 
 clude that Congress, neither in intention nor in fact, violated or 
 suspended the Ordinance of 1 785 in the act which authorized the 
 contracts for the sale of large tracts of land lying west of the first 
 seven ranges in the Northwest Territory. 
 
 The fact that Cutler and Sargent made two contracts with the 
 Board of Treasury, one for the Ohio Company and the other for 
 the Scioto Company, has already been stated. A brief sketch 
 of the Scioto Company and its relation to the Ohio Company is not 
 out of place here. The contract with the Ohio Company was for 
 the purchase of 1,500,000 acres. Colonel Duer made a loan of 
 $143,000 to the Ohio Company to enable it to make the first 
 payment. ^^ The other contract, which was for the Scioto Com- 
 pany, was in the name of Cutler and Sargent, "for themselves and 
 associates." It was not a contract for the outright purchase of 
 
 " In Cutler: I, p. 364, the position is taken that "the contract for sale of a 
 large tract of the lands to the Ohio Company was made in direct violation of 
 the Ordinance of May 20, 1785, although that ordinance was in force at the 
 time and remained so until July 9, 1788." This view is evidently based on a 
 misapprehension of many of the important facts involved. 
 
 ^5 This gift of section 29 for religious purposes is found only in the contracts 
 of Cutler and Sargent and of J. C. Symmes for the Symmes Purchase. For a 
 discussion of this point see Treat: pp. 281 ff. 
 
 1^ In Cutler: I, p. 497, is this statement: "As a consideration to the Ohio 
 Company for permitting the contract (for the Scioto Company) to be made 
 under cover of its petition, Colonel Duer advanced to it $143,000 in securities 
 to enable it to complete the first payment to the Board of Treasury. . . ." 
 
The Land Sales of 1787 and 1788 61 
 
 lands, but an option to purchase a tract of land, lying north of the 
 Ohio Company's tract, estimated at 3,500,000 acres, but which 
 later proved to contain approximately 5,000,000 acres. 
 
 Cutler and Sargent transferred their option to purchase to 
 Colonel Duer and his associates. The ownership of this option 
 was then divided into thirty shares; Duer held thirteen for himself 
 and associates, Cutler and Sargent held thirteen, and the four re- 
 maining shares were held jointly and were to be sold in Europe. 
 It was thought that these four shares would have a ready sale 
 among the foreign holders of the depreciated securities of the 
 United States. 
 
 Joel Barlow was sent to France in May, 1788. There he met 
 William Playfair, whom Barlow characterized as "an Englishman 
 of a bold and enterprising spirit" with "a good imagination." 
 Together they issued a "Prospectus for an establishment on the 
 Rivers Ohio and Scioto." It was based upon a report of Hutchins, 
 the Geographer of the United States, and upon Dr. Cutler's " Ex- 
 planation of the Map which delineates that part of the Federal 
 Lands comprehended between Pennsylvania, the rivers Ohio, 
 Scioto, and Lake Erie," a pamphlet which had been printed at 
 Salem in 1787. Play fair's imagination seems to have assisted 
 materially in making the prospectus attractive. With the aid of 
 this prospectus Barlow and Playfair succeeded in selling practi- 
 cally all of the lands controlled by the original option to the Com- 
 pany of the Scioto, which was organized in Paris for the purpose. 
 
 The checkered and disastrous career of the Scioto Company is of 
 no importance here.^^ Playfair collected all of the money and, for 
 some unexplained reason, refused to turn it over to Colonel Duer 
 who represented all of the holders of the option ; hence no payments 
 could be made to the United States. Barlow and Playfair sent a 
 band of settlers to America, but, through error, had given them 
 deeds to lands owned by the Ohio Company. The mismanage- 
 ment of the Scioto Company connected with the panic of 1792, 
 wrought the ruin of Colonel Duer and many of his associates, 
 including Colonel Richard Piatt, who was also treasurer of the 
 Ohio Company. To relieve the distress of the French immigrants 
 Congress finally, in March, 1795, made a special grant of 24,000 
 acres in what became Scioto County, Ohio. 
 
 1' For the history of the Scioto Company see Cutler: I, Chap. 2. A History 
 of the Scioto Purchase by E. C. Dawes. See also, Treat: pp. 58-59. 
 
62 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 When the facts concerning the secret agreement between Cutler 
 and Duer became known some of the members of the Ohio Com- 
 pany charged that Cutler and Sargent had transferred, without 
 consideration, the property of the Ohio Company when they sur- 
 rendered their option to Colonel Duer and his associates. Cutler 
 easily disproved this charge. But at best the whole transaction 
 presents a curious and somewhat sad spectacle. 
 
 Colonel Duer, as secretary of the Board of Treasury, was the 
 agent of the United States. Cutler and Sargent were openly the 
 agents of the Ohio Company, but secretly the agents of Duer and 
 his associates. In the grant of the option to Cutler and Sargent 
 by the Board of Treasury Duer was, to all intents and purposes, 
 making a contract with himself. Then there is Carrington's 
 statement, referring to the Ohio Com-pany: ''This company is 
 formed of the best men in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and 
 they will move out immediately. I am about to join them with a 
 few shares."^* There is no evidence that Carrington knew of the 
 secret deal between Cutler and Duer or that he was influenced in 
 favor of authorizing the contract with the Ohio Company by the 
 prospect of becoming a share-holder in the venture. No thought 
 of impropriety seems to have come to him on this score. It is not 
 improbable that other members of Congress were offered the op- 
 portunity to become share-holders in the company to which they 
 granted such favorable terms. It may be that they were number- 
 ed among the "principal characters in America." Without doubt 
 many facts connected with the passage of the ordinance which 
 authorized the private sales, and with the contracts between the 
 Board of Treasury and Cutler and Sargent would be condemned 
 to-day as disgraceful or even corrupt. But the men who partici- 
 pated in those transactions should be judged by the standards of 
 their time and not by the dictates of the public conscience of the 
 present. However, the concern here is not with how the contracts 
 were obtained, but with their effects upon education. Before 
 drawing any conclusions as regards this point a brief account will 
 be given of a third private land sale. 
 
 In August, 1787,^^ John Cleve Symmes petitioned for a purchase 
 of one million acres of lands lying between the Great and Little 
 Miami rivers, on terms similar to those granted to Cutler and 
 
 i» Carrington to Monroe, Aug. 7, 1787. In Bancroft: II, p. 437. 
 " Cutler: I, p. 403. 
 
The Land Sales of 1787 and 1788 63 
 
 Sargent. Symmes asked for only one township for an academy 
 instead of the two townships given to Cutler and Sargent for a 
 university. On the twenty-ninth of August Congress authorized 
 the Board of Treasury to make the sale.^® In October, 1787, 
 Congress resolved to give no more lands for seminaries or acade- 
 mies in connection with private contracts unless the purchases 
 were as large as that of the Ohio Company, and in some state 
 other than Ohio.^^ Almost a year later, October 15, 1788, 
 Symmes signed a contract for one million acres on the east side of 
 the Great Miami River. The terms of his contract were similar to 
 those granted Cutler and Sargent, but Symmes received no grant 
 for an academy .^^ Symmes proceeded to sell lands under contract, 
 but for some unexplained reason, he also sold lands lying beyond 
 his purchase. Four years later, April 12, 1792 ,2^ Congress cleared 
 the title to these lands by extending Symmes's contract to include 
 them. On May 5, 1792,2^ Congress made further concessions to 
 Symmes by permitting him to receive a patent to all the lands for 
 which he had paid and by making a donation of one township for 
 an academy. This last concession was made because of the en- 
 largement of the contract. In this way was renewed the policy of 
 making special land grants for higher and secondary education 
 which had been inaugurated in the contracts with Cutler and 
 Sargent. 
 
 Symmes again made sales beyond the limits of his purchase and 
 for several years petitioned Congress to permit him to complete 
 his original purchase for one million acres. Congress refused 
 these petitions because the lands were then selling for at least two 
 dollars an acre, while Symmes's contract called for only sixty-six 
 and two-thirds cents an acre.^^ 
 
 By these private sales to Symmes and to the Ohio and Scioto 
 Companies Congress had expected to dispose of more than six 
 
 20 Jour, of American Congress, IV, Appendix, p. 18. 
 2i/64(/., p. 802. 
 
 22 For a complete outline of the history of the Symmes purchase see the report 
 of the Attorney General of the United States in American State Papers, Public 
 Lands, I, No. 72. The following documents also relate to this purchase: I., 
 Nos. 23, 33, 34, 55, 70. 
 
 23 Annals of Congress, 17QI-93, III, p. 1357. 
 2* Ibid., p. 1374. 
 
 ^ There is nothing to show that Symmes intentionally sold lands which he 
 had not purchased. He seems to have been confused by the fact that his con- 
 tract called for 1,000,000 acres, within certain boundaries, but when the lines 
 were run it was found that the boundaries contained approximately 600,000 
 acres. 
 
64 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 millions of acres of land. The difficulties into which Symmes fell 
 and the failure of the Scioto Company, which also so involved the 
 Ohio Company that it was forced to ask for special concessions and 
 a reduction in its contract, decreased the actual sales to less than 
 1,300,000 acres, and Congress made donations of more than 100,- 
 000 acres to the Ohio and Scioto Companies, largely to protect the 
 actual settlers. As a business venture these sales by contract were 
 unsuccessful, but the United States was compensated for the 
 financial loss by the development of the Northwest which was 
 carried on by the settlers on the lands thus sold. 
 
 The great importance of these private contracts was in their 
 influence upon the national policy of land grants for special pur- 
 poses. The grant of every section twenty-nine for the support 
 of religion was a provision of these contracts, and the history of 
 these grants and of the forces which led Congress finally to 
 abandon this policy of making such gifts is not without interest, 
 but is out of place here. The influence of these contracts in shap- 
 ing the national policy of supporting public education by land 
 grants is of even greater interest and importance. As will be 
 shown in another connection, during the decade just after the 
 adoption of the Constitution there was grave danger that the new 
 government would abandon this policy which had been established 
 by the Congress of the Confederation. It was at that time that 
 the influence of these contracts was exerted in the firm reestablish- 
 ment of the policy of federal land grants for education. In the 
 proper place the means by which this influence was brought to 
 bear will be explained. It is sufficient here to summarize briefly 
 the provisions in these contracts which were of significance for 
 public education. 
 
 The two educational provisions in the contracts were (i) that 
 every section sixteen should be given perpetually for the main- 
 tenance of public schools within the township, (2) that not more 
 than two complete townships, near the center of the first million 
 and a half of acres, should be given perpetually for the purposes of 
 a university. The first of these was but a restatement of the pro- 
 vision of the Ordinance of 1785.2^ The Ordinance of 1785 had 
 
 ^ The clause in the contract reads as follows: "The lot No. 16, In each town- 
 ship or fractional part of a township, to be given perpetually for the purposes 
 contained in the said ordinance." That is, the Ordinance of May 20, 1785. 
 For the text of this contract see Cutler: II, 427-30 or Jour. 0} American Coft' 
 gress, IV, Appendix, pp. 17 flf. 
 
The Land Sales of ijSy and 1788 65 
 
 failed to promote the establishment of schools because it had not 
 greatly encouraged the sale and settlement of the western lands. 
 The contracts, especially that with the Ohio Company, led to im- 
 mediate, permanent and compact settlements and the early es- 
 tablishment of schools. Thus the practical demonstration of the 
 worth of the principle of federal land grants for education was due 
 to this private sale of lands by contract. 
 
 The second educational provision of the contracts was, in some 
 respects, more important than the first for the reason that it was 
 the first instance in which federal aid was given distinctly to higher 
 education. Such terms as "schools," "public schools," "aca- 
 demy," "seminaries of learning," had been used indiscriminately 
 for years, but in the contracts with Cutler and Sargent there ap- 
 peared the term "university." Among the concessions which 
 Congress made to Symmes in 1792 was the grant of one complete 
 township as a definite gift for the support of higher education. ^^ 
 The grants for higher education provided in these contracts were 
 the only ones made by the Continental Congress. It was not 
 until after 1800 that this policy was revived and the great impor- 
 tance of these early grants, which then served as a precedent, 
 was manifest. 
 
 In many respects the principle of granting a large tract of land 
 for the support of a university was far in advance of the older 
 principle of granting one section in each township for the main- 
 tenance of public schools within the township. The sphere of 
 usefulness of the university would necessarily extend far beyond 
 its immediate environment and its influence would be felt through- 
 out the territory or state. The policy of granting each section 
 sixteen for the support of education within the township was an 
 expression of New England principles of local government. Its 
 adoption in the Northwest Territory extended the New England 
 town school system and assisted in fixing upon the West the dis- 
 trict school with its virtues and all of its attending evils. The 
 struggle to perpetuate these virtues and to overcome these evils 
 belongs to a much later period in the history of education in the 
 United States. The great contribution which the early contracts 
 for the private sale of lands made to the development of the policy 
 of federal land grants for public education was that they led to the 
 
 2^ In 1787 Symmes had petitioned for a grant of one complete township for 
 an "academy." 
 
66 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 demonstration of the practicability of the policy by the actual 
 establishment of schools through the aid of such grants. In later 
 years these concrete examples of the worth of this system were of 
 far more weight in argument than any theory which could be 
 brought against it. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE EDUCATIONAL WORK OF THE EARLY 
 SETTLERS 
 
 It is a well-established fact that the promoters of the Ohio 
 Company and other large land speculators were in favor of land 
 grants for the support of both common schools and higher educa- 
 tion. In some cases the zeal for learning on the part of the 
 speculators may have been due to their desire to make their lands 
 as attractive as possible to prospective buyers. This is perhaps 
 true in the case of the promoters of the Scioto Company. Yet 
 there can be no question but that the members of the Ohio Com- 
 pany, especially those who were planning to settle in the Ohio 
 country, were deeply interested in education and looked forward 
 to the establishment of adequate schools and colleges in the 
 Northwest as a result of the generous land grants for the support 
 of education which were secured by the terms of the contract 
 between the Ohio Company and the government. 
 
 In general, the New Englanders who settled in the Northwest 
 were in favor of the establishment of schools. This is certainly 
 true of the better class of New Englanders, from which came so 
 many of the leaders in the new country. The New Englander's 
 love of local self-government, as expressed in township organiza- 
 tion, worked against the development of a sound and comprehen- 
 sive policy for the use of school lands, but on the whole. New Eng- 
 land influence in the Northwest was for education. 
 
 In so far as the Symmes purchase is concerned there is reason 
 to think that Symmes, himself, was anxious to have the school 
 lands used as soon as possible for the establishment of schools and 
 colleges. While it may be true, as Dr. Cutler said, that Symmes 
 had not thought of land grants for education until they were made 
 to the Ohio Company,^ nevertheless Symmes was careful to have 
 these grants included in his contract. The use to which these 
 school lands was put was determined by the settlers rather than by 
 the promoters who sold the lands and, as might be expected, there 
 
 * Cutler: II, p. 323. 
 
 67 
 
68 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 was no unanimity of purpose or opinion among the settlers. There 
 were, however, a great many strong advocates of education among 
 the early settlers in the Symmes purchase. 
 
 In all the early settlements in the Northwest Territory there 
 was a minority, at least, in favor of the immediate establishment 
 of schools. Many of the pioneers went into the wilderness with 
 the determination to build a civilization equal to that they left 
 behind them. Some even dreamed of founding a university that 
 would be to Ohio what Harvard was to New England ; but New 
 Englanders were not alone in their purpose to build schools and 
 colleges. Many settlers from the middle and southern states 
 were staunch friends of education and even Kentucky played an 
 important part in the founding of some of the earliest schools in 
 Ohio by furnishing educational leaders. The cause of education 
 had many active supporters who labored earnestly and faithfully 
 to make the most of the lands committed to them in trust for the 
 advancement of education. In order to appreciate the value of 
 the service rendered by these early friends of education and to 
 understand the reasons for the meagerness of the results of their 
 labors it is necessary to take into account some of the difficulties 
 which confronted them. 
 
 There were many among the early settlers who were indifferent 
 to the need for education and who cared nothing for the land 
 grants for schools and colleges. No doubt there were some who 
 were actively opposed to education, but these certainly consti- 
 tuted a very small minority. As will be shown later, indifference, 
 self-seeking, and greed for the school lands on the part of politi- 
 cians were the greatest and most dangerous enemies of education 
 in the early days of the Northwest Territory. 
 
 Chief among the obstacles to the development of schools was 
 the immediate need of making a living which every man had to 
 meet. Land had to be cleared, houses built, crops planted, and a 
 multitude of smaller but no less pressing tasks performed, all of 
 which combined, consumed the time and energies of the frontiers- 
 men. No matter how great the interest in education might have 
 been, such interest was necessarily of secondary importance. 
 Making a home was the first task of the pioneer. Schools, 
 churches, and other institutions had to wait until this first task 
 had been accomplished. 
 
 But making a living and founding a home were not the only 
 
The Educational Work of the Early Settlers 69 
 
 burdens of the early settler in the Ohio country. The settlements 
 were surrounded by hostile Indians who were ready to contest 
 every foot of advance of the white man into the wilderness. Ex- 
 posed to the constant danger of attack by the savages and af- 
 forded little or no protection by the national government the fron- 
 tiersmen were thrown upon their own resources to defend their 
 homes from destruction and their families from murder or a 
 slavery worse than death. Under such conditions there is little 
 wonder that schools received scant encouragement ; the wonder is 
 that so much was accomplished for education. ^ 
 
 Another factor that worked against the early establishment of 
 schools was the lack of means of support. As a general thing the 
 frontier people were poor. They usually had plenty of food and 
 clothes and the crude necessities of life, but rarely had surplus 
 wealth. Land was the chief source and form of wealth and land 
 was plentiful and cheap. The prices paid for government lands by 
 the Ohio Company and other speculators were probably as high or 
 higher than the value of the lands j ustified . The early land grants 
 for education seem of enormous value when considered in terms of 
 the value of those lands to-day, but they were by no means suf- 
 ficient to meet the educational needs of the early settlers in Ohio. 
 Even with the wisest management it would have been necessary to 
 supplement the revenue derived from school lands in order to 
 have established and maintained free schools. Unfortunately 
 schools lands never received the wisest management, but usually 
 the worst. This greatly increased the difficulties of the work of 
 founding schools by the early settlers. 
 
 There were other things besides the physical and economic con- 
 ditions of frontier life and the hostility of the Indians that retarded 
 the growth of schools. Among these was the small and scattered 
 population. There is much to be said of the importance of build- 
 ings and other physical equipment in the development of educa- 
 tion, but after all, the fundamental essentials of a school are pupils 
 and teachers. Of course there were children in the early settle- 
 ments, but even the larger settlements were so small that one 
 teacher could carry on all the work of education that was required. 
 In the out-lying districts schools were practically out of the ques- 
 
 2 Interesting accounts of early frontier life in Ohio may be found in Howe: 
 The Great West, I, Nos. 26, 27, 28, 30; also in Cuming's Tour, in Thwaites: Early 
 Western Travels, IV and in F. A. Mechaux's Travels to the West of the Alleghany 
 Mountains in Thwaites: Early Western Travels, III. 
 
70 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 tion so long as the danger from the Indians was present. At first 
 glance it looks as if it would have been easy to get teachers to sup- 
 ply the needs of these frontier settlernents, but as a rnatter of fact 
 it was difficult to induce competent teachers to venture from the 
 east into the wilds of the upper Ohio to work for the small salary 
 that could be paid. The Northwest in 1790 offered few induce- 
 ments to the ambitious schoolmaster.^ 
 
 The greatest hindrance to the early development of education 
 thrpugh the use of the congressional land grants was more funda- 
 mental than any of those yet mentioned. It was the lack of social 
 unity among the frontier settlements. The population was 
 small and widely dispersed, with settlement focused about a num- 
 ber of small villages scattered over the upper Ohio valley. The 
 common danger from the Indians was the strongest bond that 
 drew these settlements together, and even that was weak. Petty 
 jealousy and bitter rivalry were not uncommon among these 
 frontier communities* and, while aggressive hostility was not the 
 rule, active cooperation was rarely in evidence. 
 
 The lack of social unity was not only a characteristic of the Ohio 
 territory as a whole, but it was also manifest in each local settle- 
 ment. Frontier settlements were generally made up of emigrants 
 from various sections of the United States or from Europe, each 
 bringing with him his opinions and prejudices concerning educa- 
 tion as well as regards religion and politics. Even in those settle- 
 ments when New Englanders were in a large majority lack of 
 united effort was a great hindrance to the growth of schools. In 
 such cases the majority had little regard for the opinions of the 
 minority who therefore were opposed or indifferent to the plans of 
 the leaders. 
 
 The lack of unity of thought and purpose concerning education 
 within the frontier settlements was not due solely to the hetero- 
 geneous nature of their population in point of origin. They were 
 growing communities with a constant influx of people who had to 
 solve the first problems of frontier life, clear land and make a 
 home. Many of those who had already accomplished these tasks 
 were ready and anxious to rise to a higher plane of civilization and 
 culture by the development of political, religious and educational 
 institutions. These differences in ideals and purposes that grew 
 
 3 See Summers: History of Marietta, pp. 173 ff. Also Cutler: I, p. 435. 
 < King: Ohio, pp. 272-73, 283, 285. 
 
The Educational Work of the Early Settlers 71 
 
 out of the differences in economic status continued to be an impor- 
 tant check on educational progress throughout the period of rapid 
 growth of population in the Northwest. This can be seen clearly 
 in the management of the school lands in Ohio and other states 
 formed out of the Northwest Territory. Time alone could change 
 this condition and before time had done its work schools had suf- 
 fered great and irreparable loss. 
 
 All of the difficulties and hindrances that held back the early 
 development of schools under the policy of land grants for educa- 
 tion might be summarized and condensed into one fundamental 
 obstacle, namely, a lack of solidly united public sentiment in favor 
 of schools. Opinion ranged from positive opposition to education 
 to the highly impractical ideal of a great western university that 
 was so dear to some of the New England settlers. The failure to 
 transplant in all its dying glory the outworn system of higher edu- 
 cation which New England had inherited from Old England did 
 much to clear the way for the later educational progress of the 
 middle West. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the lack of 
 social consciousness of the need for schools served to obstruct the 
 efforts of the pioneers to establish and maintain schools through 
 the use of the congressional land grants for education. What 
 these early friends of education actually accomplished is at least 
 worthy of a brief review. 
 
 At the last meeting in Massachusetts of the Ohio Company, 
 March 9, 1788, the following resolution was adopted: "That the 
 directors pay as early attention as possible to the education of the 
 youth and the promotion of the public worship among the first 
 settlers, and for these important purposes they employ, if practi- 
 cable, an instructor, eminent for literary accomplishments and the 
 virtue of his character, who shall also superintend the first scholas- 
 tic institution and direct the manner of instruction, and enable the 
 directors to carry into execution the intention expressed in the 
 resolutions, the proprietors and others of benevolent and liberal 
 minds are earnestly requested to contribute, by voluntary dona- 
 tions, to form a fund to be solely appropriated thereto."^ The 
 first settlers on the lands of the Ohio Company were scarcely es- 
 tablished in their new homes before they took steps to carry out 
 the intent of this resolution. They built the first schoolhouse in 
 
 6 Cutler: II, p. 3. 
 
72 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 Ohio, a blockhouse at Marietta, in 1789.^ Major Anselm Tupper 
 was the first teacher in this school.^ The following year, 1790, the 
 Ohio Company ''appointed one hundred and fifty dollars" of their 
 funds for the support of schools at Marietta, Belpre and Water- 
 ford, and schools were maintained at all three points in that year.^ 
 
 The records are not clear as to the details concerning these early 
 schools. That they were elementary schools there is little doubt, 
 but as to the length of the school term, the course of study, tuition 
 charges or the salary of the teacher nothing definite is known. 
 Dr. Cutler left the record that Rev. David Story went out to Ohio 
 as a preacher in 1789 at a salary of five dollars a week and board. 
 The Ohio Company bore part this expense.^ It is not probable 
 that the schoolmaster was better paid than the preacher. Doubt- 
 less the donation of the Ohio Company was supplemented by 
 tuition fees, as was the custom on the frontier at that time. In 
 1790 John Reiley established a private elementary school at 
 Columbia, near Cincinnati, and maintained it successfully by 
 charging a small tuition fee.^^ 
 
 The first academy in Ohio was established at Marietta in 1797. 
 On April 29 of that year, the citizens of Marietta held a meeting 
 to consider the problem of maintaining schools. General Rufus 
 
 ^ Summers, in the History of Marietta, p. 173, gives 1788 as the date of 
 the first school. Dr. Cutler's letter to Gen. Putnam, under date of November 
 18, 1788, substantiates this statement. Certainly there was a schoolmaster in 
 Marietta in 1 788. The school building was opened the following year. See foot- 
 note No. 9 for extract from Cutler's letter. 
 
 ' D. C. Shilling: "Pioneer Schools and Schoolmasters," in Ohio Arch, and 
 Hist. Soc. Publ., XXV, p. 38. 
 
 ^ Ihid.; also in Hildreth: Pioneer History of Ohio, p. 261. 
 
 ^ Cutler: I, p. 435. From a letter of Dr. Cutler's to General Putnam, dated 
 Ipswich, November 18, 1788. In this letter is also the following: "Colonel 
 Piatt was so engaged while I was in New York, that I could not find the amount 
 of the fund for preaching and schools; there is, however, a considerable sum. 
 Colonel Tallmadge told me he had collected a considerable sum, which he should 
 pay into the treasury. I presume may be drawn at any time by order of the 
 Directors. 
 
 "Mr. Rogers has concluded not to return, and I wish the school may be 
 given to Mr. William Dodge, that he may be considered a Grammar Master, 
 but that he take scholars of every description at present. . . . 
 
 "I have requested Colonel Piatt to forward a sum, raised for the support of 
 preachers and schoolmasters, to the Directors at Muskingum, of 200 dollars 
 (if he has so much on hand) which will enable you to pay the preacher and 
 schoolmaster for the present." 
 
 ^° The custom was to organize a school of twenty to thirty pupils who paid 
 from $1.75 to $2.25 each per quarter. The schoolmaster "boarded around," 
 hence received approximately $60 and board and lodging per quarter. See 
 Lewis: History of Higher Education in Kentucky, p. 31 ; also "Pioneer Schools and 
 Schoolmasters," in Ohio Arch, and Hist. Soc. PubL, XXV, p. 41. 
 
The Educational Work of the Early Settlers 73 
 
 Putnam was chairman and Jonathan Meigs was clerk of the meet- 
 ing. A committee was appointed to devise a plan for carrying on 
 the work of education. ^^ The following Saturday this committee 
 reported a need for one thousand dollars and recommended that 
 this amount be raised by subscription. The report of the com- 
 mittee was adopted and subscriptions were solicited. General 
 Rufus Putnam headed the list with three hundred dollars and 
 others followed his generous example until the thousand dollar 
 mark was passed, eleven hundred and sixty-two dollars being 
 subscribed. ^2 The next week it was decided to name the institu- 
 tion the Muskingum Academy and a board of trustees was 
 formed. This board set forth the policy of the institution in 
 certain articles which they adopted. Among these were the fol- 
 lowing concerning education :^^ 
 
 Article 3. It shall be the duty of the preceptor to teach the pupils 
 reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, English grammar, and the Latin 
 and Greek languages; the different branches in which a pupil is to be taught 
 is to be signified to the preceptor by the parent or guardian of the pupil. 
 
 Article 5. It shall be the duty of the preceptor to cause some or all of 
 the pupils to learn select, entertaining and instructive speeches and dialogues 
 adapted to their several capacities and ages which they shall pronounce in 
 the Academy before such audience as may attend on the quarter day, 
 which shall be the last day of every quarter. 
 
 Article 8. The prices of tuition to be paid to the preceptor for each 
 quarter shall be: for reading and writing two dollars, for arithmetic, Eng- 
 lish grammar, the first rudiments of astronomy, and geography, two dol- 
 lars and fifty cents. Latin, Greek, and mathematics, three dollars. 
 
 The board further provided that a small fee should be charged 
 for repairs to the building and put upon the preceptor the obliga- 
 tion of teaching the children ' ' manners." School hours were from 
 nine to twelve and from two to five, except in winter when the 
 afternoon session was from one-thirty to four-thirty. 
 
 The Muskingum Academy opened in 1800 with David Putnam, 
 a graduate of Yale, as preceptor. The work of the academy grew 
 and progressed until 1830 when it became a department of the 
 Institute of Education. The other departments of this institute 
 were an infant school, a primary school, and a young ladies' semi- 
 nary. In 1833 the old academy or high school department of the 
 
 " W. W. Boyd: "Secondary Education in Ohio Previous to 1840," in Ohio 
 Arch, and Hist. Soc. Publ., XXV, p. 129. 
 ^2 Summers: History of Marietta, p. 173. 
 13 Boyd: loc. cit., p. 130. 
 
74 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 Institute of Education was chartered separately as the Marietta 
 Collegiate Institute. Two years later this institution was re- 
 chartered as Marietta College, under which name it has continued 
 to the present time.^^ 
 
 The story of the beginnings of education at Marietta and other 
 villages within the grant to the Ohio Company is fairly typical of 
 other frontier settlements. During the first decade, at least, the 
 educational work was confined to elementary and grammar schools. 
 The land grants for education were of little or no assistance, since 
 school lands were generally unrented and, in cases where they were 
 rented, they were rent free for the first five years. As a conse- 
 quence schools were supported by subscription and tuition. Al- 
 though the early settlers succeeded in establishing only a few 
 elementary and grammar schools during the first decade of their 
 residence on the frontier they were none the less interested in 
 higher education. 
 
 In September, 1788, Dr. Cutler was at Marietta and recorded in 
 his diary that a high hill west of the city was proposed as the site 
 of the University.^^ The following May the Board of Directors 
 of the Ohio Company instructed Dr. Cutler and General Putnam 
 "to make such application to Congress as they shall judge expe- 
 dient for procuring a charter for the University, and for the en- 
 couragement of learning in this settlement."^® Both members of 
 this committee had hopes of the early establishment of the Uni- 
 versity. On September 28, 1789, Cutler wrote to Major Sargent 
 that ** if Congress should be disposed to favor the establishment of 
 the University, I am confident it will have no inconsiderable in- 
 fluence on the spirit of migration from this part of the country. 
 I hope by the time your eldest son has completed his scholastic 
 studies the University will be in condition to admit him." ^^ The 
 next January General Putnam urged Dr. Cutler to meet him at 
 New York because "the state of our affairs at Marietta, the Presi- 
 dent's speech respecting education and other matters, as well as 
 the matters contained in our commission, require the immediate 
 attendance of us both at New York."^^ 
 
 "For a full account of Marietta College see I. W. Andrews: "Historical 
 Sketch of Marietta College," in Report of Common Schools in Ohio, 1885. 
 
 15 Cutler: I, p. 417. 
 
 w/6id., p. 445. 
 
 " Ibid., p. 449. 
 
 ^'Washington's address to Congress, Jan. 8, 1790, contained this concerning 
 education: "Whether this desirable object will be promoted by affording aids 
 
The Educational Work of the Early Settlers 75 
 
 The hope of this committee was deferred for some time. Indian 
 troubles became serious, immigration was checked, and the Ohio 
 Company fell into such serious financial straits that, in 1792, the 
 directors of the company addressed a memorial to Congress asking 
 for concessions as regards the company's contract.^^ Due to Dr. 
 Cutler's ability as a lobbyist this memorial was referred by the 
 House of Representatives to a committee which was chosen by 
 Cutler and his associates.^^ This committee reported on a bill 
 highly favorable to the Ohio Company. Seven hundred fifty 
 thousand acres were conveyed in fee simple to the company in 
 return for the $500,000 in Continental securities which the com- 
 pany had paid to the government, and two additional tracts, one of 
 214,285 acres and the other of 100,000 acres, were to be conveyed 
 on easy terms. The original reservations for education and reli- 
 gion were retained in the 750,000 acre tract but were not granted 
 in the two smaller tracts. ^^ The Ohio Company proceeded on its 
 own initiative to make these donations for religion and education 
 in these two tracts and later petitioned Congress to make good 
 these grants. This petition was denied. ^^ 
 
 The generosity of Congress had saved the Ohio Company from 
 bankruptcy and had left it in possession of the land grants for reli- 
 gion and education, although the company had failed to fulfil the 
 conditions on which these donations were made. As soon as 
 the affairs of the company were in a more settled condition and the 
 title to its lands was cleared the early settlers again took up the 
 proposition of establishing a university. The records of the Ohio 
 Company, under date of December 16, 1795, contain the following 
 resolution : 
 
 The reconnoitering committee having reported that townships number 
 eight and nine in the fourteenth range are the most central in the Ohio 
 Company's purchase and it being fully ascertained that the lands are of an 
 excellent quality: 
 
 Resolved, unanimously that the aforesaid townships number eight and 
 
 to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national 
 University, or by other expedients, will be well worthy of a place in the delib- 
 erations of the legislature." St. Pap. and Pub. Doc. 3rd Ed., I, p. 15. Putnam's 
 letter to Cutler is printed in Cutler: I, p. 451. 
 
 ^^ Annals of Congress, 1791-93, p. 494. 
 
 2° Cutler: I, p. 482, footnote. 
 
 21 Enacted April 21, 1792. Annals of Congress, 1791, p. 1363. Records 
 concerning discussion of this bill are on pp. 494, 540, 558 of the same volume. 
 
 22 Am. St. Pap. P. L., I, p. 236-37. This memorial was dated Jan. 16, 1796. 
 Final action was taken by Congress on Jan. 17, 1806. 
 
76 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 nine in the fourteenth ranges be reserved for the benefit of an University^ 
 as expressed in the original contract with the Board of Treasury.23 
 
 The work of surveying these townships was commenced im- 
 mediately, under the direction of General Putnam, but the affairs 
 of the projected "University" moved very slowly. Four years 
 later the territorial legislature appointed a committee, of which 
 General Putnam was chairman, to "lay off a town plot with a 
 square for the college. At that time the income from the Univer- 
 sity lands was estimated at approximately five thousand dollars by 
 General Putnam. ^^ 
 
 In the summer of 1799 General Putnam requested Dr. Cutler to 
 draw up a complete charter for a university and send it to him as 
 soon as possible.^^ In reply to this request Dr. Cutler drew up a 
 charter for a university, in which are set forth the aims and pur- 
 poses of higher education as conceived by the better class of New 
 England settlers in Ohio. Section one of this charter reads as 
 follows: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly (here insert the 
 
 23 C. L. Marlzolff : "Ohio University" in Ohio Arch, and Hist. Soc. Publ., XIX, 
 p. 418. In 1790 the Ohio Company had appointed a committee "to fix on the 
 two townships which the Directors, by the contract with Congress, are obliged 
 to set apart for the support of the University." Indians troubles prevented 
 the completion of this work. Jan, 10, 1795, the Directors of the company 
 resolved that the Committee appointed in 1790 for "the purpose of ascertaining 
 and designating the two townships reserved for the benefit of a University" 
 be requested to complete the work as soon as possible. Cutler: II, pp. 32-33. 
 
 2^ Ohio Arch, and Hist. Soc. Publ., XIX, p. 420. General Putnam wrote to 
 Dr. Cutler, under date of Feb. 3, 1799, as follows: "That you may have data on 
 which to make your calculations the following statement may not be useless: 
 
 "The two University townships contain 46,880 acres. Fortunately, I be- 
 lieve them to be the two best townships of land in the whole purchase. They 
 are all, or nearly all, taken up and settled, some in large and some in small tracts. 
 The settlement commenced two years ago next April. Among the settlers are 
 a number of New England people; men of considerable information, abilities, 
 and industry. The number of militia is about one hundred. They already 
 raise their own provision, have a corn-mill, etc. They none of them expect to 
 have the lands more than five years rent free from the time of settlement, and 
 the lowest permanent rent at which those lands can be put, on the average, I 
 conceive, cannot be less than twelve dollars per hundred acres, which gives 
 $5,529.60 annual income for the support of the University. And as to the 
 school and ministry lands, I suppose the whole quantity to be 62,700 acres, 
 some of which I suppose to be extremely valuable, as those at Marietta and in 
 some other townships; others, I know, are very poor, but after five years culti- 
 vation rent free, I will suppose them to rent at six dollars the hundred acres, 
 and then the amount will be 3,762 dollars — say one-half for schools and one- 
 half for the ministry. Although these estimates are below what I expect these 
 lands will be ultimately rented for, yet even such an income, well-applied to the 
 different objects for which it is intended will be of infinite advantage to these 
 settlements; and some means ought to be adopted as soon as possible for bring- 
 ing them into a state of improvement." Cutler: II, pp. 18-19. 
 
 2fi Cutler: II, p. 22. 
 
The Educational Work of the Early Settlers 77 
 
 style of the assembly), that there be a University instituted and 
 established, and forever to remain, within the limits of the tract 
 of land purchased by the said Ohio Company of Associates, by the 
 name of the American University, for the instruction of youth in 
 all the various branches of the liberal Arts and Sciences, for the 
 promotion of good education, piety, religion, and morality, and 
 for conferring all the degrees and literary honors granted in similar 
 institutions." 2^ 
 
 The territorial legislature created the university, Jan. 2, 1802, 
 with a few important amendments, adopting the charter furnished 
 by Dr. Cutler. The legislature changed the name of the institu- 
 tion from "American University" to "American Western Uni- 
 versity." More significant amendments to the original charter 
 were the ones which created a separate board for the management 
 and control of common school and ministerial lands and which 
 vested control of the board of trustees of the college in the state 
 legislature.-^ 
 
 Since the question of greatest public interest at this time was 
 the admission of Ohio into the Union, the affairs of the university 
 moved slowly until that question was settled. On February 18, 
 1804, the state legislature passed an act "establishing an univer- 
 sity in the town of Athens. "^^ By this act the name was changed 
 to Ohio University. 
 
 The board of trustees met for the first term in June, 1804, and 
 took over the management of the university lands. After twa 
 years the board had collected sufficient funds from rents to com- 
 mence to build and therefore let a contract for a brick building, 
 twenty by thirty feet, two stories high. After another two years, 
 on March 2, 1808, the board appointed a committee to report on a 
 system "for opening the academy, providing a preceptor, and, 
 conducting that branch of the Ohio University." ^^ This com- 
 mittee formulated a course of study of Latin, Greek, English, 
 mathematics, rhetoric, logic, geography, and natural and moral 
 philosophy, and selected Rev. Jacob Lindley as preceptor. The 
 University was opened and three young men enrolled. Thus began 
 the work of the Ohio University, the oldest institution for higher 
 
 * The charter is reprinted in full in Appendix C. 
 
 2' Dr. Cutler, in his charter, had placed the control of these lands in the hands 
 of the Trustees of the University. See Appendix C, Sec. IX. 
 28 Ohio Arch, and Hist. Soc. Publ., p. 422. 
 '• Ibid., p. 424. 
 
78 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 education in the Old Northwest and the first to be endowed with 
 funds derived from national land grants for education.^" 
 
 Any account, however brief, of the educational work of the 
 early settlers in the Ohio Valley would be incomplete without 
 some reference to the founding of Miami University, the second 
 higher institution of learning endowed by national land grants. 
 
 The story of the John Cleve Symmes Purchase has already 
 been related. After seven years filled with confusion and mis- 
 understandings concerning this purchase an agreement between 
 Congress and Symmes was finally reached. Letters Patent, is- 
 sued September 30, 1794, granting to Symmes and his associates 
 "all of the Great Miami river and extending from thence along the 
 river Ohio, to the mouth of the Little Miami river, and bounded on 
 the south by the said river Ohio, on the west by the Great Miami 
 river, on the east by the said Little Miami river, and on the North 
 by a parallel of latitude so as to comprehend the quantity of three 
 hundred and eighty- two acres of land with the appurtenances."^^ 
 
 The reservation concerning education in this grant reads as 
 follows: "It is hereby declared that one complete township or 
 
 2° Transylvania University was the first college founded west of the Alle- 
 ghany mountains. It was an outgrowth of the following act of the Virginia 
 General Assembly in 1780: "Whereas it is represented to the general assembly, 
 that certain lands within the county of Kentuckey formerly belonging to British 
 subjects, not yet sold under the law of escheats and forfeitures, which might at 
 a future day be a valuable fund for the maintenance and education of youth, 
 and it being the interest of this commonwealth always to encourage every 
 design which may tend to the improvement of the mind and the diffusion of 
 useful knowledge, even among its most remote citizens, whose situation a 
 barbarous neighborhood and a savage intercourse might otherwise render un- 
 friendly to science : Be it therefore enacted. That eight thousand acres of land, 
 within the said county of Kentuckey, late the property of Robert McKenzie, 
 Henry Collins, and Alexander McKie, be and the same are hereby vested in 
 William Fleming, William Christian, John Todd, Stephen Trigg, Benjamin 
 Logan, John Floyd, John May, Levi Todd, John Cowan, George Meriwether, 
 John Cobbs, George Thomson, and Edmund Taylor, trustees, as a free donation 
 from this commonwealth for the purpose of a publick school, or a seminary of 
 learning, to be erected within the said county as soon as the circumstances of 
 the county and the state of its funds will admit, and for no other use or purpose 
 whatsoever: Saving and reserving to the said Robert McKenzie, Henry Collins, 
 Alexander McKie, and every of them, and all and every person or persons 
 claiming under them, or either of them, all right and interest to the above 
 mentioned lands, or any part thereof to which they may be by law entitled, and 
 of which they shall in due time avail themselves, any thing herein contained 
 to the contrary notwithstanding." Hening: Statutes at Large, X, pp. 287-88. 
 
 Transylvania Seminary was established near Danville, Kentucky, in 1785, 
 was removed to Lexington in 1788, and rechartered as Transylvania Univer- 
 sity in 1798, at which time it was merged with the Kentucky Academy. Ven- 
 able: Literary Culture in the Ohio Valley, pp. 164-65. 
 
 '^Upham: "The Centennial of Miami University" in Ohio Arch, and Hist. 
 Soc. Publ., XVHI, p. 325. Am. St. Pap. Pub. Lands, I. 
 
The Educational Work of the Early Settlers 79 
 
 tract of land, of six miles square, to be located with the approba- 
 tion of the governor, for the time being, of the territory northwest 
 of the River Ohio, and in the manner and within the term of five 
 years aforesaid, as nearly as may be, in the center of the tract of 
 land hereinbefore granted, hath been and is granted and shall be 
 holden in trust to and for the sole and for the exclusive intent and 
 purpose of erecting and establishing therein an academy and other 
 public schools and seminaries of learning, and endowing and sup- 
 porting the same, and to and for no other use, intent or purpose 
 whatever." ^2 
 
 It is evident from this language that the intention was to dedi- 
 cate one township within the Symmes purchase to public educa- 
 tion and to safeguard against its misuse for any other purpose. 
 It is worthy of note, however, that this grant was not confined to 
 higher education, but permitted the establishment of schools of 
 any and every grade. It was generally held to be a grant for 
 higher education and was used for that purpose. 
 
 Because of the confusion in the sales of land under the terms of 
 the original contract between Symmes and the government no 
 township in one body was available within the bounds described 
 in the grant of September 30, 1794. As a consequence, the prob- 
 lem of locating a township that did not exist went unsolved for 
 several years. Finally, after Ohio entered the Union, a township 
 was located in the District of Cincinnati outside the bounds of the 
 original Symmes tract.^^ Congress authorized this procedure in 
 an act which modified the enabling act for the admission of Ohio 
 as a state into the Union .^'^ The location of the university was 
 postponed, probably to see if any opposition developed to the loca- 
 tion of the township for education outside the bounds of the 
 Symmes purchase. 
 
 In 1809 the legislature decided to take up the question again. 
 An act was passed creating Miami University, but the legislature 
 did not undertake to fix the location of this institution. A com- 
 mission was appointed and instructed to select a location "in such 
 part of the John Cleve Symmes Purchase as an eligible place can 
 be found." ^^ One of the commissioners failed to act and the other 
 
 ^^ Am. St. Pap. Pub. Lands, I, p. 67. The provision is the same as in the orig- 
 inal contract with Symmes of 1787. 
 
 33 Ohio Arch, and Hist. Soc. Publ., XVIII, p. 327. 
 
 3* Knight and Commons: History cf Higher Education in Ohio, p. 30. 
 
 » Ohio Arch, and Hist. Soc. Publ., XVIII, p. 328. 
 
8o Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 two proceeded to carry out the instructions of the legislature. 
 They finally agreed upon Lebanon as the place for the establish- 
 ment of the university. The legislature at its next session, re- 
 jected the work of this commission and fixed the location of the 
 university at Oxford. There was considerable criticism of this 
 act of the legislature, doubtless due to disappointment on the 
 part of the towns that had hoped to be chosen as the home of the 
 university. Cincinnati was especially active in opposition to the 
 decision of the legislature and tried for a number of years to have 
 the university removed from Oxford. 
 
 The political bickering which attended the founding of Miami 
 University seriously retarded its growth. Many were indifferent 
 on the question of higher education and some were in active op- 
 position to the university. The divided sentiment and personal 
 feeling that had been engendered during the controversy over the 
 selection of a location made it very difficult to get financial sup- 
 port for the university in Ohio. The friends of the college sent an 
 agent back to New England and through the Atlantic coast states 
 to solicit funds, but he met with little success. The first building 
 of the university was a log house costing one hundred fifty dollars, 
 in which a grammar school was opened in 1816. It was not until 
 1824 that the work of the university was raised to collegiate rank. 
 
 From one point of view the work for education of the early 
 settlers seems very small and inefifectual. The high hopes of the 
 promoters of the Ohio Company of Associates for the immediate 
 establishment of a great university in the wilderness fell far short 
 of accomplishment. A quarter of a century went by before there 
 was a graduate from a college in the Northwest. But in the light 
 of the difificulties these pioneers of learning had to surmount their 
 work appears heroic. The frontiersmen of the better class were 
 generally friends of education who labored patiently and well for 
 the cause of learning. The obvious and most important asset 
 available for the support of schools was the school lands. The 
 task of converting virgin soil into common schools and colleges was 
 by no means a small undertaking, nevertheless the early settlers 
 in the Ohio valley attacked the problem with the enthusiasm and 
 persistence so characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon pioneer and 
 blazed the trail for future educational progress. 
 
 In the earliest years of settlement, when the need of government 
 aid was greatest, the land grants for education were of least value. 
 
The Educational Work of the Early Settlers 8 1 
 
 It took years to develop these lands to the point where they could 
 produce very much revenue and in no event were the funds thus 
 derived sufficient to maintain public schools. The customary 
 tuition fees did little to improve education and were wholly in- 
 adequate in so far as higher education was concerned. Private 
 subscriptions were the chief means available for support of col- 
 leges and academies and raising endowments was no easier then 
 than now. The principle and policy of supporting education by 
 taxation was unknown on the frontier. The back-woods educa- 
 tors were guided by the educational theories and traditions of the 
 eastern states which were frequently ill-adapted to frontier condi- 
 tions. But notwithstanding all the hindrances that retarded the 
 progress of education, it certainly kept pace with the general 
 development of the frontier. The early settlers made good use of 
 the resources they had at their command for founding schools 
 and, while they developed no new theories of public education, 
 they kept alive the zeal for learning and created precedents in the 
 management and control of public schools that have had a far- 
 reaching influence upon subsequent educational theory and prac- 
 tice in the United States. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL LANDS AND FUNDS 
 
 IN THE NORTHWEST 
 
 It does not come within the scope of this work to treat at length 
 the question of the management of school lands and funds in the 
 Northwest. That phase of the history of national land grants has 
 been so admirably presented by others that nothing of value could 
 be added here.^ However, in order to show the full significance of 
 the national land grants for education it is necessary to present a 
 few facts as regards the various policies that developed for the 
 management of these lands. 
 
 In general, the national government surrendered the manage- 
 ment of school lands to state or local authorities. The chief con- 
 trol exercised by the national government was through the terms 
 of the original grants. By this means Congress determined in 
 each case into whose hands the management of school lands should 
 be committed. The act enabling Ohio to become a state, passed 
 April 30, 1802, provided "that section number sixteen in every 
 township, and where such section has been sold, granted or dis- 
 posed of, other lands equivalent thereto and most contiguous to 
 the same, shall be granted to the inhabitants of such township, for 
 the use of schools." ^ By this act control was vested in the in- 
 habitants of each township. The next year, after pressure had 
 been brought to bear from Ohio, a supplementary act was passed 
 by Congress, March 3, 1803, which set forth in detail certain 
 quarter townships in the United States Military Reserve and in 
 the Connecticut Reserve and one thirty-sixth of the Virginia 
 Military Reserve and of any Indian lands thereafter purchased 
 that should to be used for schools.^ This act also reserved one 
 township in the Cincinnati District for a university.^ Subse- 
 quently, on March 2, 1807, Congress set aside eighteen quarter 
 
 1 Knight presents an exhaustive study of this question in his History and 
 Management of Land Grants for Education in the Northwest Territory. Ac- 
 knowledgment is here made of the great assistance his work has been in con- 
 nection with this chapter. 
 
 2 U. S. Statutes at Large, II, p. 173; also in U. S. Land Laws, I, p. 85. 
 
 3 U. S. Land Laws, I, p. 88. 
 
 * Miami University was founded on this grant. 
 
 82 
 
Management of School Lands in the Northwest 83 
 
 townships and three sections in the Virginia Military Reserve in 
 lieu of the thirty-sixth part of the whole Reserve which had been 
 donated for education.^ The management of this tract was 
 placed in the hands of the state authorities. 
 
 After these land grants for education were made the national 
 government refrained from exercising any control over their 
 management so long as the terms upon which the lands were given 
 were observed. This became the established policy and on few 
 occasions has Congress attempted either directly or indirectly to 
 exercise control over land grants for education or the funds de- 
 rived therefrom. Only in cases of gross mismanagement and 
 violation of the terms upon which the donations were made has 
 Congress undertaken to interfere, and then with ill success. A 
 case in point is the attempt on the part of Congress to compel the 
 Illinois Legislature to comply with the terms upon which the 
 "three per cent fund" was granted.^ After several years *of 
 controversy between the state of Illinois and the national govern- 
 ment Congress practically surrendered the right to exercise any 
 supervision of school lands or funds by the repeal of the law which 
 required an accounting by the state to the Secretary of the 
 Treasury.'^ However, Illinois thenceforth applied the fund to 
 education. 
 
 While the influence of the national government upon the 
 management of land grants for education was exerted indirectly 
 through the acts of Congress which designated where the author- 
 ity for the management of these grants should be placed, by the 
 time the Northwest Territory was organized into states three dis- 
 tinct plans of management had been tried by Congress and a def- 
 inite policy developed. The first plan was that set forth in the 
 act enabling Ohio to become a state by which the land grants for 
 education in each township were made directly to the inhabitants 
 of the township. Congress made no provisions for the manage- 
 ment of these. The first constitution of Ohio stipulated that 
 "religion, morality, and knowledge, being essentially necessary 
 to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and 
 
 ^ U. S. Land Laws, I, p. 148. 
 
 • U. S. Statutes at Large, III, p. 430. When Illinois came into the Union 
 Congress provided that three per cent of the revenue derived from the sale of 
 public lands in Illinois should be donated to the state for education. The 
 legislature diverted this fund to other uses. See Knight: Land Grants for 
 Education, pp. 82-85. 
 
 ' U. S. Statutes at Large, IV, p. 431-32. 
 
84 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative 
 provision."^ Thus the school lands were given by Congress to the 
 inhabitants of each township for the encouragement of education 
 within the township, but the general control of education was 
 placed in the hands of the state legislature by the state constitu- 
 tion. As a matter of practice the legislature passed laws fixing 
 the general policy for the management of the school lands, but 
 turned over the actual management of the lands to the townships. 
 
 In 1804 Congress created the land districts of Vincennes, Kas- 
 kaskia, and Detroit and reserved section sixteen in each township 
 for education and one township in each land district for a "semi- 
 nary of learning."^ The title of these lands remained in the na- 
 tional government. When Indiana was admitted to the Union in 
 1816 Congress followed the precedent established in the admis- 
 sion of Ohio and gave every section sixteen to the inhabitants of 
 the township in which it was located and gave the seminary 
 township to the state. ^^ Two years later, upon the admission of 
 Illinois to the Union, Congress adopted the second plan for dealing 
 with the control of school land grants. By the act enabling Il- 
 linois to become a state Congress granted section sixteen in every 
 township to the state, for the use of the inhabitants of such town- 
 ship, for the use of schools.^^ 
 
 The difference between this plan and the first is in the fact that 
 the school lands were not granted to the inhabitants of each 
 township but to the state. The principle of using every section 
 sixteen for schools for the benefit of the inhabitants of the town- 
 ship in which the section was located was retained, however. In 
 Ohio and Indiana the management of the school lands was left to 
 the township; in Illinois the management was in the hands of the 
 legislature. In all three states the funds derived from the section 
 sixteen in any township had to be used for school purposes within 
 that township, so in practice there was very little difference be- 
 tween the first plan and the second. This second plan was im- 
 portant because it made easy the transition from the early plan 
 of township control of school lands to the final policy that was 
 developed. 
 
 8 Constitution of Ohio, Art. VIII, Sec. 3. In Chase: Statutes of Ohio,' I, p 
 82. 
 
 » U. S. Statutes at Large, II, pp. 277-83. 
 ^^Ibid., Ill, pp. 289-91. 
 "mVi., Ill, p. 430. 
 
Management of School Lands in the Northwest 85 
 
 In 1826 Congress set aside two townships or their equivalent in 
 the Territory of Michigan for the use of a university within the 
 territory. ^2 After a long and heated controversy with Congress 
 Michigan came into the Union in 1836.^^ The enabling act which 
 was finally accepted by the territory contained two important 
 provisions concerning education. By this act section sixteen in 
 every township was ** granted to the State for the use of schools." 
 The act further provided * ' that the seventy-two sections of land 
 set apart and reserved for the use and support of a university by 
 an act of Congress approved on the twentieth day of May, eight- 
 een hundred and twenty-six, entitled ' an act concerning a semi- 
 nary of learning in the Territory of Michigan,' are hereby granted 
 and conveyed to the State, to be appropriated solely to the use and 
 support of such university in such manner as the Legislature 
 may prescribe." ^^ 
 
 The provision concerning university lands does not differ 
 materially from the policy followed in the case of the states pre- 
 viously formed in the Northwest, but the provision as regards the 
 sections sixteen marked the beginning of a new and distinct policy 
 of the national government. Not only was the title to these lands 
 vested in the state, but the state was relieved of the necessity 
 of using each section sixteen for schools within the township in 
 which the section was located. This change created a state com- 
 mon school fund that could be used to build up a state school 
 system. The burden of New England local self-government was 
 removed, in part at least, from common school education and the 
 state legislature was free to make the most of the Congressional 
 land grants for educatiQn. 
 
 The act enabling Wisconsin to become a state, approved August 
 6, 1846,1^ contained provisions concerning education similar to 
 those in the enabling act for Michigan. At that time the plan 
 embodied in these provisions had become the established policy of 
 Congress. In theory this centralization of the management and 
 control of school lands in the hands of the state legislature was a 
 great improvement over the early decentralized plan of township 
 control which was applied in Ohio and Indiana. In practice the 
 
 »2 U. S. Statutes at Large, IV, p. 180. 
 
 " For a full treatment of this controversy see Utley and Cutheon: Michigatif 
 As a Province, Territory and State, II and III. 
 " U. S. Statutes at Large, V, pp. 59-60. 
 ^ Ibid., IX, pp. 56-58. 
 
86 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 results were not all that could be hoped for or expected. After 
 all, it was not so much a question of who should manage the school 
 lands but how they should be managed to fulfil the purpose for 
 which these grants were made. 
 
 In each of the territories or states in the old Northwest two 
 general plans of management of school lands were followed. la 
 each case the policy of leasing the lands was first pursued, only to 
 be discarded later to make way for the policy of selling the lands. 
 At first glance it would appear strange that the newer states 
 learned so little from the experiences of their neighbors. Two 
 facts explain this. First, the states passed through much the 
 same process of development, and in the early period of growth 
 leasing seemed to meet the needs of the time better than any other 
 plan, while later it seemed advisable to sell the lands to meet the 
 changed needs. Secondly, all five of the states in the Northwest 
 developed so nearly contemporaneously within such a relatively 
 short time that it was impossible to discern at such close range the 
 inherent strength or weakness in the policy of leasing or to foresee 
 the evils which were to grow out of the policy of selling school 
 lands. A brief sketch of the workings of these two policies will 
 assist in bringing out the significance of the land grants for educa- 
 tion. 
 
 The leasing system was first tried in Ohio shortly after that 
 state was admitted to the Union, thereby gaining title to the lands 
 reserved for education lying within her borders. By an act 
 passed April 15, 1803, the legislature provided the lands granted 
 for the support of schools in the several parts of the state should 
 "be let on lease for the purpose of improving the same and thereby 
 rendering them productive, that the profits arising therefrom may 
 be applied to the support of schools, according to the true intent 
 and meaning of the original donation." ^^ Under the terms of this 
 act the school lands lying in the United States Military Reserve 
 were to be leased for any term of years, not exceeding fifteen, and 
 the sections number sixteen, not already leased, in all other parts 
 of the state were to be leased for any term not exceeding seven 
 years. The lessee was required to clear and fence thirty acres in 
 every one hundred and sixty acre tract, plant crops and set out a 
 small orchard. The management of these lands was placed in the 
 hands of local agents, appointed by the governor, for each county 
 
 " Chase: Statutes of Ohio, I, p. 361-62. 
 
Management of School Lands in the Northwest 87 
 
 or district. The legislature further stipulated in this act that it 
 was the "special duty of the said agent, to inspect and inquire into 
 any waste or trespass" that might be committed on the school 
 lands and to prosecute the offenders. 
 
 It is evident that the purpose of this act was not to produce 
 revenue for schools but to improve the school lands. This was 
 probably as wise a policy as could have been followed at the time, 
 but it failed to accomplish its purpose. The United States was 
 offering an abundance of good land for sale on long time credit so 
 there was no particular reason for a person obligating himself for a 
 term of years to clear and improve school lands with no prospect 
 of being allowed to buy the land. As a matter of fact, very little 
 land was leased under this plan and it was abandoned at the end of 
 two years. 
 
 On Feburary 20, 1805, the Ohio legislature turned over to the 
 township trustees the management of sections sixteen and ordered 
 the trustees to lease that section in tracts of not less than eighty or 
 more than two hundred acres "to those who make the most ad- 
 vantageous proposals," for a period not longer than fifteen years.^'' 
 The trustees were given authority to require the lessee to make 
 whatever improvements they deemed proper. This more liberal 
 policy of leasing increased the number of tenants, but on such 
 terms as to produce little or no revenue for schools and not much 
 improvement to the school lands. The competition with the 
 cheap lands of the national government would have worked 
 against any policy of leasing that would have been in harmony 
 with the purpose for which the school lands were given. 
 
 In dealing with the school lands within the Virginia Military 
 Reserve the Ohio Legislature adopted a new policy which marked 
 the beginning of the transition from the system of leasing to the 
 policy of selling school lands. On February 17, 1809, the legisla- 
 ture enacted a law which created the offices of surveyor, register, 
 and treasurer.^^ The surveyor was ordered to run off all of the 
 quarter-sections reserved for school purposes within the Virginia 
 Military Reserve. The register and treasurer were instructed to 
 advertise and offer for sale to the highest bidder, at public auction, 
 all of these school lands by quarter-sections. The minimum price 
 was fixed at two dollars an acre and the proportionate part of 
 
 " Chase: Statutes of Ohio, T, p. 507. 
 " Ibid., pp. 620-22. 
 
88 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 the expense of surveying, advertising and offering the lands for 
 sale. 
 
 The conditions of sale, as set forth in the act, were as follows: 
 "There shall be paid to the treasurer, at the time of making the 
 purchase, such sum as may be found chargeable on each quarter- 
 section, for the expense of surveying, advertising and offering for 
 sale as aforesaid; and on the remaining sum, the purchaser, his 
 heirs or assigns, shall pay yearly and every year, forever, at the 
 rate of six per centum per year; subject, however, to alteration by 
 any succeeding legislature, so as to enable the purchaser or pur- 
 chasers to make such commutation as said legislature may think 
 expedient." ^^ 
 
 The act further provided that the register should "execute 
 deeds of lease for ninety-nine years, renewable forever," upon the 
 fulfilment of the conditions of the sale. While the title to the 
 land remained in State of Ohio the lease in perpetuity authorized 
 by this act was virtually a sale. Thousands of acres were leased 
 on these terms, creating revenue for education at the rate of 
 twelve cents an acre! 
 
 The injustice and utter folly of such law became apparent even 
 to the state legislature, so in 1816 a new law was enacted that pro- 
 vided that the lands should be leased for ninety-nine years, re- 
 newable forever, at a rental of six per cent of the appraised value 
 with the additional provision that the lands should be revalued in 
 1835 and every twenty years thereafter .^^^ The next year, Janu- 
 ary 27, 181 7, this plan was applied to all the sections sixteen. In 
 this case the rental was to be six per cent on the appraised value 
 of the lands, with a revaluation every thirty-three years.^^ 
 
 The precedent for this form of lease had been set by the trustees 
 of Ohio University in 1804. Acting under the instruction of the 
 legislature the trustees granted leases of the university lands for 
 ninety-nine years, renewable forever, at a rental of six per cent of 
 the appraised value, with the provision that the lands should be 
 revalued every thirty-five years. The next year, 1805, a sup- 
 plementary act was passed which did not contain the provision 
 concerning revaluation every thirty-five years. When the time 
 came for the first revaluation, the lessees contended that the act of 
 
 " Chase: I, p. 621. 
 ^^Ibid., II, pp. 993-95- 
 ^^Ibid., pp. 1026-30. 
 
Management of School Lands in the Northwest 89 
 
 1805 had repealed the act providing for revaluations. The 
 Supreme Court decided a test case in favor of the university, up- 
 holding the right to increase the rent on the basis of revaluation. 
 The lessees appealed to the legislature and that body declared it 
 had been the intent of the law of 1805 to repeal the provision con- 
 cerning revaluations and forbade the trustees of the university to 
 collect higher rent. As a result of this act the university now 
 receives less than five thousand dollars rent from landsworth more 
 than a million doUars.^^ In 1810 the legislature practically de- 
 stroyed the value of the land grants for a seminary in the John 
 Cleve Symmes purchase by an act which provided for perpetual 
 leases without revaluations. 
 
 In spite of the fact that the lessees of the lands of Ohio Univer- 
 sity eventually succeeded in evading the just provisions of the law 
 of 1804, the plan of leasing established by that law, and which was 
 later applied to all the sections sixteen by the law of 181 7, showed 
 promise of producing some revenue, at least, for education. This 
 promise was never fulfilled in fact for there was little increase in 
 the actual income from the school lands. Finally, in disgust 
 with the whole plan of leasing, the Ohio legislature followed the 
 advice of a commission, previously appointed to investigate the 
 whole question of school lands, and petitioned Congress, in 1824, 
 for permission to sell the school lands. ^^ The petition was 
 granted and thus ended the system of leasing school lands in Ohio. 
 
 The history of the system of leasing in the other states of the 
 old Northwest is very similar to that of Ohio, though by no means 
 as extensive. Next, both in time and in importance, is the history 
 of leasing in Indiana. In 1808 the territorial legislature of In- 
 diana gave the Courts of Common Pleas the authority to lease 
 school lands in the various counties for a period of not more than 
 five years. The lessee was required to clear ten acres of each 
 quarter-section held under lease.^^ In 18 10 the legislature gave 
 the courts power to lease the lands on whatever terms seemed 
 advisable, and the revenue derived from such leases was to be 
 used for the support of common schools according to the true 
 intent of the Act of Congress.^^ 
 
 22 For a detailed account of the leasing of the university lands see The History 
 of Higher Education in Ohio or Knight: Land Grants for Education. 
 
 23 Am. St. Pap. Pub. Lands, IV, p. 47. 
 
 2* Knight: Land Grants for Education, p. 64. 
 26 Indiana Territorial Laws, 18 10, p. 46, 47. 
 
90 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 At the time of this legislation Indiana was not a state and the 
 title to the school lands was vested in the national government. 
 As has been pointed out the act enabling Indiana to become a state 
 gave the school lands within each township to the inhabitants of 
 the township.2« The state legislature, therefore, had only general 
 supervision of the management of the school lands, except those 
 granted for a university. The first constitution of Indiana pro- 
 hibited the sale of school lands before the year 1820.^^ The first 
 state legislature passed an act which provided for the appointment 
 of a superintendent in each township whose business it was to 
 manage the section sixteen. He was authorized to lease school 
 lands **to the best advantage, for not more than seven years." ^^ 
 Cleared lands were to be leased for only three years. The next 
 year the legislature changed the terms of these leases to nine 
 years. 2^ 
 
 The policy of permitting the township trustees to fix the condi- 
 tions on which school lands were leased was largely expanded by 
 an act of the legislature, in 1824, which gave to the trustees of in- 
 corporated congressional townships the power to dispose of school 
 lands "in such manner as may seem most conducive to the best 
 interests" of the schools, with the restriction that no lands should 
 be sold.^° Thus, in trying to make effective the purpose of Con- 
 gress in granting the school lands to the inhabitants of each town- 
 ship, the Indiana legislature opened the way, by this law of 1824, 
 for as many systems of leasing as there were townships within the 
 state. In fact lands were leased on almost every conceivable 
 terms and, in some cases, on terms so absurd as to be almost be- 
 yond conception. 
 
 The legislature very soon saw the folly of this policy of grant- 
 ing such general powers to the township trustees, so the following 
 year, February 12, 1825, an act amending the law of 1824 was 
 passed which limited the term of school leases to ten years. ^^ No 
 other restrictions or safeguards were placed upon the leases 
 and, as a consequence, waste and mismanagement continued un- 
 checked. By 1827 Indiana had become so discouraged by the 
 
 26 U. S. Statutes at Large, III, p. 289. 
 
 27 Constitution of Indiana, Art. IX, Sec. I, Adopted 1816, in Revised Laws of 
 Indiana, 1824, p. 48. 
 
 28 Knight: Land Grants for Education, p. 65. 
 
 29 Laws of Indiana, 18 18, p. 302. 
 
 «" Revised Laws of Indiana, 1824, pp. 380-81. 
 " Laws of Indiana, 1825, p. 93. 
 
Management of School Lands in the Northwest 91 
 
 results of leasing that the legislature determined to follow the 
 example of Ohio and petition Congress for authority to sell the 
 school lands. This petition was granted by Congress in 1828.'^ 
 
 In Illinois the policy of leasing school lands was short-lived. 
 Nothing was done with the school lands until after the admission 
 of Illinois into the Union. The first legislature, in 18 19, instructed 
 the county commissioners in each county to appoint three trustees 
 for each township who should sub-divide and lease the section six- 
 teen for a period of ten years on the best possible terms. ^^ This 
 plan was continued with only slight modification until 1831 when 
 the legislature, without waiting for the consent of Congress, which 
 had been sought in 1829, authorized the sale of school lands.^^ 
 
 In Michigan nothing was done concerning school lands until 
 1824 when the territorial legislature petitioned Congress for 
 authority to manage them.^^ Four years later Congress vested 
 this power in the governor and council, with the restriction that no 
 lease should be granted for more than four years. ^^ The legisla- 
 ture immediately enacted a law by which township trustees were 
 authorized to lease the school lands for not more than three years, 
 the revenue to be applied "towards the pay of school teachers in 
 the said township.^^ In 1829 the office of Superintendent of Com- 
 mon Schools was created, but no superintendent was appointed. 
 Four years later the superintendent was authorized to lease the 
 school lands in those townships that had no trustees. Under 
 these early laws much of the school lands was leased.'^ 
 
 The state constitution adopted in Michigan in 1835 created the 
 office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction and provided 
 that "the proceeds of all lands that have been or hereafter may be 
 granted by the United States to this state, for the support of 
 schools, which shall hereafter be sold or disposed of shall be and 
 remain a perpetual fund; the interest of which, together with the 
 rents of all such unsold lands, shall be inviolably appropriated to 
 
 '2 U. S. Statutes at Large, IV, p. 298. Indiana applied for permission to sell 
 the school lands Feb. 27, 1827. Am. St. Pap. Pub. Lands, IV, p. 664. 
 
 33 Laws of Illinois, 1819, p. 108. 
 
 34 Laws of Illinois, 1830-31, pp. 172-76. On Jan. 22, 1829 the legislature had 
 authorized the sale of lands as soon as Congress gave consent. Laws of Illinois, 
 1828-29, p. 150. 
 
 ^Am. St. Pap. Pub. Lands, IV, p. 510. 
 
 ^ U. S. Statutes at Large, IV, p. 314. 
 
 " Knight: Land Grants for Education, p. 87, quoting Territorial Laws, II, 
 
 P- 695. 
 
 38 Knight: p. 88. 
 
92 Educational Significance oj Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 the support of schools throughout the state." ^^ The act of Con- 
 gress which enabled Michigan to become a state, passed in 1837, 
 granted the school lands to the state, to be used for schools with- 
 out reference to townships. ^° In the sarne year the state legisla- 
 ture authorized the state superintendent to sell the school lands at 
 not less than eight dollars an acre until the sales should total one 
 million five hundred thousand dollars.^^ By this first act con- 
 cerning school lands the first state legislature of Michigan aban- 
 doned, in theory at least, the policy of leasing school lands. 
 
 The experience of Wisconsin with the system of leasing school 
 lands was very similar to that of Michigan. In 1836 Wisconsin 
 was separated from Michigan and the following year the township 
 commissioners were given control of the school lands by an act of 
 the territorial legislature.^^ Two years later, 1839, a law was 
 enacted which created the office of school inspector in each town- 
 ship, who was to lease the school lands for a term of not more than 
 three years.^^ In 1840 the legislature placed the control of the 
 school lands back in the hands of the school commissioners of each 
 town and reduced the term of leases of school lands to two years .'^* 
 The only other change made in the system of leasing before Wis- 
 consin became a state was made in 1842 when the term of the 
 leases was changed to four years.^^ 
 
 The first constitution of Wisconsin created a permanent school 
 fund of the revenue derived from the sections sixteen and from the 
 five hundred thousand acres of land donated by Congress for in- 
 ternal improvements and five per cent, of all the sales of public 
 lands within the state.^^ This use of the grant of five hundred 
 thousand acres for internal improvements was contrary to the 
 terms of the Congressional grant and, therefore, could not become 
 effective without the consent of Congress. In 1848 Congress ap- 
 proved this provision of the state constitution.'*^ The state con- 
 s' Constitution of Michigan, Art. X, Sees, i and 2, adopted in 1835. In 
 Revised Statutes at Michigan, 1838, p. 42. 
 
 *o U. S. Statutes at Large, V, pp. 59-60. 
 
 *^Laws of Michigan, 1837-38, p. 210. This law also authorized the sale of 
 university lands to the amount of $500,000, at a minimum price of twenty dol- 
 lars an acre. 
 
 *2 Knight: p. 104. 
 
 « Statutes of the Territory of Wisconsin, 1839, p. 137. 
 
 ^ Laws of the Territory of Wisconsin, 1 839-40, pp. 80-84. 
 
 *^ Ibid., 1841-42, p. 46. 
 
 <° Constitution of Wisconsin, Art. X, Sec. 2. Adopted 1848. In Revised 
 Statutes of Wisconsin, 1849. 
 
 « U. S. Statutes at Large, IX, p. 233. 
 
Management of School Lands in the Northwest 93 
 
 stitution also created a board of commissioners composed of the 
 Secretary of State, the Treasurer, and the Attorney General, who 
 should manage and control the school lands. All lands were to be 
 appraised and offered for sale by this board .''^ By these constitu- 
 tional provisions the people of Wisconsin determined, before be- 
 coming a state, to abandon forever the policy of leasing school 
 lands. 
 
 The system of leasing school lands was tried in each of the five 
 states of the old Northwest and in every case it was discarded as a 
 failure. In Ohio where this sytem had the longest trial it seems to 
 have been the worst failure. Among the chief difficulties that at- 
 tended the leasing system was the problem of squatters on school 
 lands. Caleb Atwater, who was active in the political life of Ohio 
 at the time when that state abandoned the leasing system, re- 
 corded concerning squatters: 
 
 These occupants made no very valuable improvements, on these lands, 
 but they contrived, in time, to obtain various acts of our general assembly, 
 in favor of such squatters. Such acts increased in number every year, 
 until they not only cost the state, large sums of money for legislating 
 about them, but some entire sessions were almost spent, in such unprofit-- 
 able legislation. 
 
 In the meantime, scarcely a dollar was ever paid over to the people, for 
 whose benefit these lands had been given, by Congress. 
 
 Members of the legislature, not unfrequently, got acts passed and^ 
 leases granted, either to themselves, to their relations or, to their wamu 
 partisans. One senator contrived to get, by such acts, seven entire sections 
 of land into, either his own or his childrens' possession l^^ 
 
 This same writer asserts that the "perverse legislation" con- 
 cerning school land leases cost the state of Ohio at least one million 
 dollars between the years of 1803 and 1820.^^ This same pes- 
 simistic historian is the authority for the statement that very few 
 people were opposed to this policy during those years. As por- 
 trayed by Atwater the evils of the system of leasing were indeed 
 great. Perhaps he, who lived surrounded by these evils, lacked 
 historical perspective in passing judgment upon the system. It is 
 well to bear in mind that Atwater was a somewhat disgruntled 
 politician who had spent much time and some money in combat- 
 ing the evils of leasing, for which service he received scant praise 
 
 *• Constitution of Wisconsin, Art. X, Sees. 7 and 8, adopted 1848. In 
 Revised Statutes of Wisconsin, 1849. 
 
 <» Atwater: A History of the State of Ohio, p. 253. 
 "/&«<i.,p. 253. 
 
94 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 or thanks and little remuneration.^^ At best, the system of leasing 
 school lands was ineffective in producing revenue for the en- 
 couragement and support of education. Whether the change to 
 the system of sales was a great improvement is another question. 
 
 In brief, the adoption of the policy of selling school lands came 
 about in this manner, Ephraim Cutler, who was a member of the 
 Ohio General Assembly, introduced a resolution in December, 
 1 8 19, for the appointment of a committee on schools. The com- 
 mittee was appointed and Cutler was made its chairman. Later 
 he introduced a bill in the house of representatives providing for 
 the support of common schools. This bill passed the house but 
 was lost in the senate. 
 
 In December, 1821, a committee on schools and school lands 
 was appointed, with Caleb Atwater as chairman. This com- 
 mittee made a report pointing out the misuse to which the lands 
 had been put and recommended that the Governor be authorized 
 to appoint seven commissioners to report to the next general as- 
 sembly a system of education for common schools and to report 
 upon the condition of the fund set apart by Congress for the sup- 
 port of common schools. ^^ This report was adopted and the fol- 
 lowing May, 1822, seven commissioners were appointed, one for 
 each kind of school lands, namely: sections sixteen, Virginia 
 Military lands, United States Military lands, lands in the Ohio 
 Company Purchase, lands in the Symmes Purchase, Connecticut 
 Reserve lands, and Refugee lands.^^ 
 
 This commission worked faithfully, and, in December 1823, pre- 
 sented a report to the legislature recommending the establishment 
 of a common school system and the sale of school lands. The 
 legislature debated and fought over the matter and, as Atwater, 
 who was one of the commissioners, related it, "finally broke up in 
 a row and went home."^* The sale of the school lands and the 
 proposed common school system were issues in the election of 
 1824. The friends of these measures won at the polls and the 
 next legislature laid the foundation of the Ohio system of pub- 
 lic schools and petitioned Congress for permission to sell the 
 school lands.^^ 
 
 '^i Atwater: A History of the State of Ohio, p. 262. 
 
 ^ Ihid., p. 255. 
 
 " Ibid., p. 259. 
 
 " Ibid., p. 262. 
 
 s5 Chase: Statutes of Ohio, II, pp. 1466-68. 
 
Management of School Lands in the Northwest 95 
 
 As soon as Congress empowered the legislature to sell the lands 
 large quantities were sold at the last appraised value in these 
 townships which consented to the sale. Holders of permanent 
 leases were given the privilege of buying their lands at their orig- 
 inal valuation. ^^ This policy involved a great sacrifice of some 
 of the best school lands because lessees bought the best of the laiid 
 they held and refused to buy the poor land. After ten years of 
 this wasteful practice the state superintendent of common schools 
 finally prevailed upon the legislature to repeal the law in so far as 
 the purchase of leased lands in the sections sixteen were concerned. 
 The legislature still permitted the practice in the military re- 
 serves. In 1837 a law was passed permitting lessees to purchase 
 their lands at an appraised value fixed by three disinterested per- 
 sons.^^ This law came too late to be of any great benefit to educa- 
 tion: the damage was already done. 
 
 As has been pointed out, school lands could not be sold without 
 the consent of the township to which they were originally granted 
 by Congress. Some townships refused to sell their lands and con- 
 tinued to lease them. It became general for the funds in these 
 townships to be mismanaged, misappropriated and even em- 
 bezzled. The state superintendent and state auditor undertook 
 to recover these funds by suits and prosecutions, but after they 
 had gained a verdict in the courts the legislature frequently came 
 to the rescue of the guilty officials by passing relief bills. The 
 auditor said in his report of 1843: "there seems to be no end to 
 the plunder upon this fund. ... I have felt my energies re- 
 laxed by the facility with which relief bills have been gotten up, 
 and so often succeeded in the General Assembly. . . . The 
 lands have been squandered and the fund has been plundered until 
 it is now merely nominal in character." ^^ This report evidently 
 had some effect upon the legislature for a law was enacted which 
 placed the appraisal of school lands in the hands of a board con- 
 sisting of non-residents of the township, appointed by the Court 
 of Common Pleas. In 1845 a minimum price of five dollars an 
 acre was fixed by law and thenceforth Ohio has adequately safe- 
 
 66 Chase: III, pp. 1552-58. This is the law that authorized and fixed the 
 conditions of sales of school lands. Ohio Laws, Chap. 712, passed Jan. 29, 
 1827. 
 
 " Ohio Laws, XXXVII, pp. 78-79- 
 
 «^» Knight: p. 56, quoting Ohio Laws, XLII, p. 19. 
 
96 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 guarded the sale of school lands. But little land remained to be 
 safeguarded. 
 
 The change from the leasing to the selling of school lands 
 brought no better results in Indiana than it had in Ohio. On the 
 twenty-third of January, 1829, soon after Congress authorized the 
 sale of the lands in Indiana, the state legislature set a minimum 
 price of a dollar and a quarter an acre. Holders of leases could 
 not purchase their lands at the original appraised value, but were 
 compelled to bid at public auction.^^ The law of 1829 further 
 provided that the local commissioners should lend the money 
 derived from these sales at six per cent, interest on real estate 
 security for periods of three years. An investigation of the 
 school funds in 1841 revealed the fact that much of the funds had 
 been unwisely invested and, in some townships, wholly lost. Two 
 years later the legislature enacted a law which required that all 
 local funds be turned over to the county treasurer for investment 
 by him.^^ 
 
 A new constitution was adopted in Indiana in 1851. The next 
 year the legislature undertook to consolidate all school funds and 
 pro-rate the income among the townships on a basis of school en- 
 rollment. The townships which had conserved their land grants 
 for education fought this patently unjust plan on the grounds that 
 it violated the conditions of the original grant by Congress which 
 gave every section sixteen to the inhabitants of the township for 
 the support of schools within the township. The opponents of 
 this plan also contended that it was contrary to the state con- 
 stitution. The Supreme Court of Indiana upheld the contentions 
 of these townships and declared the act invalid.®^ 
 
 By an act of March 5, 1855, the legislature consolidated all 
 school funds except the township school lands into a common 
 school fund and intrusted the management of the township lands 
 to the county treasurer. This became the established policy in 
 Indiana except as regards unsold township lands which were 
 leased by the township trustees who were required by law to turn 
 over all rent money to the county treasurer .^^ j^ Ohio the state 
 borrowed all the funds from the townships; in Indiana the county 
 treasurer made loans to individuals at a rate of interest fixed by 
 
 ^^ Laws of Indiana, 1828-29, pp. 120-28. 
 *° Knight: pp. 69-70. 
 *^ Indiana Reports, VI, pp. 83-100. 
 *2 Laws of Indiana, 1855, pp. 161-83. 
 
Management of School Lands in the Northwest 97 
 
 the legislature. The seminary and university lands in Indiana 
 were managed by the legislature and, through mismanagement, 
 much of this fund was lost in bad loans. In all, less than one 
 hundred fifty thousand dollars was realized from the sale of sixty 
 thousand acres of the grants for higher education.®^ 
 
 As has been stated in another connection, in 183 1 the legislature 
 of Illinois, without waiting for the consent of Congress, authorized 
 the sale of school lands at not less than a dollar and a quarter an 
 acre.^* Prior to sale the township trustees appraised the lands. 
 In 1840 a law was passed which gave a majority of the voters in 
 any township the authority to lower the appraised value fixed by 
 the trustee, with the restriction that the price could not be less 
 than the value fixed by law, which was a dollar and a quarter an 
 acre.^^ The voters had no authority to increase the price set by 
 the trustee. The next year a new law was enacted which provided 
 that the county commissioner should sell at public auction the 
 school lands in any township upon the order of two-thirds of the 
 voters of the township. No minimum price was fixed by law and, 
 as a consequence, in many cases the lands were sold for less than 
 one dollar an acre. By this law the county school commissioners 
 were authorized to lend school funds at twelve per cent, interest.^® 
 On March i, 1847, the management of these funds was transferred 
 to the township treasurers.^^ Subsequently there were only minor 
 changes in the policy of management of the township school lands. 
 
 The university lands in Illinois were managed by the legislature. 
 The original township granted by Congress proved to be very poor 
 so, in 1830, Congress consented to exchange it for another town- 
 ship or its equivalent.®* The legislature immediately offered 
 these lands for sale and disposed of nearly all of them for a dollar 
 and a quarter an acre. The state borrowed the money from the 
 seminary fund at six per cent, interest and each year borrowed 
 the interest at the same rate until 1835 when the interest was de- 
 voted to the support of common schools.®^ This was a clearviola- 
 tion of the conditions of the grant by Congress, but the practice 
 
 ^ Knight: p. 131. 
 
 «* In 1843 Congress consented to the sales and approved the sales ab-eady 
 made. U. S. Statutes at Large, V, p. 600. 
 * Laws of Illinois, 1839-40, p. 85. 
 86 Knight: p. 81. 
 
 ^"^ Laws of Illinois, 1846-47, p. 131-32. 
 6* U. S. Statutes at Large, III, p. 475. 
 6« Laws of Illinois, 1834-35, PP- 22-24. 
 
98 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 was continued until 1857 when the State Normal University was 
 established. '^^ 
 
 Four and one half sections of the seminary lands remained un- 
 sold in 1 861, at which time they were given to the Illinois Agricul- 
 tural College. These lands were soon sold for about twenty dol- 
 lars an acre, but through mismanagement part of the proceeds of 
 the sales was lost. The state finally brought suit and recovered 
 some of the lands which were sold later for about nine thousand 
 dollars. The seminary fund was augmented by the addition of 
 the proceeds from the sale of other public lands until it reached 
 about one hundred sixty thousand dollars. The history of land 
 grants reveals no better example of gross mismanagement than 
 the seminary fund in Illinois. ^^ 
 
 There is some relief in turning from the somewhat disappointing 
 story of the sale of school lands in the first three states formed in 
 the Northwest Territory to an account of the sale of these lands in 
 Michigan. It will be recalled that the policy of selling school 
 lands was first adopted in Michigan in 1837 when the state super- 
 intendent of schools was authorized to sell the lands at not less 
 than eight dollars an acre.'^ Within less than a year after the 
 enactment of this law more than thirty thousand acres were sold 
 at approximately twelve dollars an acre.^^ These lands were sold 
 on time payments and the period of depression caused by the panic 
 of 1837 made it impossible for many purchasers to meet their pay- 
 ments. In 1 841 the legislature met this situation by reducing the 
 price of the unsold lands to five dollars an acre and, the following 
 year, gave relief to those who had already purchased by enacting a 
 law that provided that, upon application by the purchaser, the 
 land should be appraised on the basis of its value at the time when 
 it was purchased and the price reduced not more than forty per 
 cent, of the original purchase price. ^^ The school fund was re- 
 duced by approximately one hundred seventy-five thousand dol- 
 lars by this act, but, under the circumstances, it was probably a 
 very just measure. '^^ 
 
 '° Laws of Illinois, 1857, pp. 298-301. 
 
 '1 Knight: pp. 135-36. 
 
 '2 Laws of Michigan, 1837-38, p. 209-14. 
 
 '3 Knight: p. 90, citing Mich. Sen. Doc., 1838, Nos. 43, 44. 
 
 '* Laws of Michigan, 1842, pp. 44-47. ^ 
 
 ^ Knight takes the position that the legislature yielded to political pressure and 
 bought public favor at the expense of the school fund. (Pp. 94-96.) The fact 
 remains that many purchasers, due to conditions beyond their control, were unable 
 to pay for their lands and would have lost heavily if relief had not been given. 
 
Management of School Lands in the Northwest 99 
 
 In 1846 the minimum price of school lands was reduced to four 
 dollars an acre although sales had been increasing at the price of 
 five dollars. The reason for this reduction has never been dis- 
 covered so the suspicion that it was a political move has grown 
 apace. On the whole the common school lands in Michigan were 
 sold at a much higher price than in any of the other states in the 
 old Northwest. Four dollars an acre seems high when compared 
 with prices for which thousands and thousands of acres were sold 
 in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. By 1850 it had become 
 the practice in Michigan for the state to borrow the common school 
 fund and, by the new constitution adopted that year, this was 
 made the established policy.'* 
 
 The university lands in Michigan were, in some respects, not as 
 well managed as the common school lands. In 1826 Congress 
 granted seventy-two sections to the state of Michigan for higher 
 education. In 1831 the trustees of these lands, with the consent 
 of Congress, traded the more valuable half of them for a larger 
 quantity of inferior land.'' This proved to be an unfortunate 
 transaction because the trustees eventually sold the lands they 
 obtained by the exchange for five thousand dollars, while their 
 original lands were valued at the time of this sale at five hundred 
 thousand dollars.'^ Apart from this transaction the university 
 lands were well-managed in Michigan, although the legislature, 
 under considerable pressure, compromised with squatters on these 
 grants and finally, in 1840, sold them the lands they had pre- 
 empted at less than seven dollars an acre, much less than their 
 value. '^ By 1885 practically all of the university lands were sold, 
 creating a fund of more than five hundred thousand dollars, the 
 largest in the old Northwest. 
 
 The first constitution of Wisconsin, adopted in 1848, created a 
 permanent school fund of the sections sixteen, the five hundred 
 thousand acres given by Congress and usually dedicated to 
 internal improvements, and five per cent, of the proceeds from the 
 sale of other public lands. ^^ The constitution also created a board 
 for the management of school lands, consisting of the state Treas- 
 
 '« Constitution of Michigan, adopted 1850, Art. XIV, Sec. i. See Laws of 
 Michigan, 185 1, p. XXVII. 
 
 " U. S. Statutes at Large, VI, p. 402. . . 
 
 '8 Knight: p. 137, citing Gregory: School Funds and School Laws of Michi- 
 gan, p. 61. 
 
 '' Laws of Michigan, 1840, pp. 101-109. 
 
 80 Constitution of Wisconsin, Art. X, Sec. 2, adopted 1848. 
 
100 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 urer, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General, who 
 should offer the lands for sale after they had been appraised. ^^ 
 In 1850 the state legislature recognized squatter rights by a law 
 which permitted squatters to purchase their lands at a minimum 
 price of a dollar and a quarter an acre.^^ This law applied to set- 
 tlers who had located on the lands prior to the grants by Congress. 
 The next year a more general law was enacted offering the same 
 terms to all actual settlers except those already in possession of 
 one hundred sixty acres or more.^^ 
 
 In 1852 the minimum price of the five hundred thousand acres 
 grant and of unappraised school lands was fixed at a dollar and a 
 quarter an acre.^* Speculators soon bought large quantities of 
 these lands at the minimum price ^^ so, in 1855, the legislature 
 limited the number of acres that one individual could purchase.^ 
 This restriction was removed in 1863 and the minimum price was 
 lowered to seventy- five cents an acre.^^ This seems to have been 
 a concession to speculators, probably with the hope that new set- 
 tlers would come in to take advantage of the low price of lands. 
 During the next twenty years the minimum price fluctuated be- 
 tween seventy- five cents and a dollar and a half an acre. The 
 guiding principle in fixing the price seems to have been the desire 
 to attract settlers into the state rather than the purpose to use the 
 lands for the advancement of education. 
 
 This tendency to sacrifice school lands to increase population 
 was also manifest to a less degree in the management of the uni- 
 versity lands. It was not until 1838 that Congress reserved the 
 two townships in Wisconsin for a university. The territorial 
 legislature immediately created a university, but the institution 
 was not built during the territorial days. The constitution of 
 1848 established the state university and created a perpetual fund 
 out of the university land grants for the support of the university.^^ 
 The lands were appraised and offered for sale in 1849 at prices 
 ranging from one dollar and thirteen cents to seven dollars and six 
 
 *^ Constitution of Wisconsin, Art. X, Sec. 8, adopted 1848. 
 *2 Laws of Wisconsin, 1850, p. 194. 
 ^Ibid., 1 85 1, p. 27. 
 
 84 /6ic?., 1852, pp. 12-13; 213. ,j , ^ _, 
 
 85 This was easily done because any lands that were not sold when offered 
 at public sale could then be bought privately at the minimum price. 
 " Laws of Wisconsin, 1855, pp. 25-26. 
 
 87 76i</.. 1863, p. 359; 430-31. . „ . . 
 
 88 Constitution of Wisconsin, Art. X, Sec. 6. Adopted 1848. In Revised 
 Statutes 0} Wisconsin, 1849, p. 34. 
 
• «- • •> 
 
 > • • • 
 
 • ^ * 
 
 Management of School Lands in the Northwest loi 
 
 cents an acre.^^ In 1850 the legislature fixed the minimum price 
 at ten dollars an acre ^^ but so much pressure was brought to bear 
 on the legislature that, after making several concessions, the 
 minimum price was fixed at three dollars in 1852.^^ This action 
 led to a large increase in sales of the university lands. 
 
 The legislature soon began to see that the university lands had 
 been squandered, so Congress was petitioned to grant another two 
 townships for a university in lieu of the salt lands that had never 
 been located. ^^ Congress granted the petition in 1854,^^ but 
 within five years the legislature had again reduced the minimum 
 price of the university lands to three dollars an acre. In 1864 
 the legislature seems to have become reconciled to this wasteful 
 policy and made three dollars an acre the fixed price of all un- 
 appraised lands. ^"^ 
 
 Wisconsin was more fortunate in the investment of the pro- 
 ceeds from the sales of school lands than in the sales themselves. 
 The first plan adopted by the board of commissioners appointed in 
 1849 was that of lending the school funds to individuals. This 
 was in accord with the provisions of the law of 1849. In i860 it 
 was discovered that many of the loans were not adequately secured 
 so that, by reasonable estimate, at least one fourth of the money 
 loaned was lost.^^ Two years later, March 14, 1862, the legislature 
 authorized the commissioners to invest the funds in state bonds.^ 
 The commissioners followed this policy until all the available 
 state bonds were in the school fund. On March 22, 1866, the 
 legislature made the debt of the state to the school fund perma- 
 nent and fixed the rate of interest at seven per cent.®^ In 1868 the 
 commissions were empowered to invest the school, university, 
 normal school, and agricultural college funds in United States 
 bonds and in the bonds of the New England states and of New 
 York and Ohio.^^ By acts of 1871 and 1872 the commissioners 
 were authorized to invest the funds in local school bonds and 
 
 89 Knight: p. 145. 
 
 ^^Laws of Wisconsin, 1850, p. 144. 
 
 »i Ibid., 1852, p. 769. 
 
 »2 Knight: p. 147. 
 
 «3 U. S. Statutes at Large, X, p. 597. 
 
 w Laws of Wisconsin, 1864, p. SH- 
 
 95 Knight: p. 112. 
 
 «6 Laws of Wisconsin, 1862, p. 53. 
 
 97 Ibid., 1866, pp. 26-28. 
 
 ^^Ibid., 1868, p. 112. 
 
102 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 municipal bonds of the City of Milwaukee. ^^ Since the change 
 made in 1862 in the general policy of investing the school funds 
 the investments made by the commissioner have been uniformly 
 safe. 
 
 There is one incident in the management of the proceeds from 
 the sale of university lands in Wisconsin that is of some signifi- 
 cance. In 1862 the legislature ordered the expenditure of part of 
 the principal of this fund to pay for the erection of university 
 buildings/"^ and one hundred four thousand dollars was used for 
 this purpose. ^*^^ This act was clearly contrary to the state con- 
 stitution and to the conditions on which Congress had made the 
 donations of the university lands. By way of restitution of these 
 misappropriated funds the legislature agreed to pay to the uni- 
 versity seven per cent, on the amount misappropriated. 
 
 To summarize briefly, the policy of Wisconsin has been to in- 
 vest the university fund of approximately three hundred fifty 
 thousand dollars in government and municipal bonds. Not- 
 withstanding the fact that there was a marked tendency to sacri- 
 fice school lands to attract immigration to the state, on the whole 
 the school lands and funds of Wisconsin were as well-managed as 
 any in the Northwest. 
 
 ^^ Laws of Wisconsin, 1871, pp. 52-56; 1872, p. 136. The investment in the 
 bonds of Milwaukee was limited to $500,000 in water bonds. 
 ^^^ Ibid., 1862, pp. 168-69. 
 "1 Knight: p. 149. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 LATER APPLICATIONS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF 
 LAND GRANTS FOR EDUCATION 
 
 Thus far this study has been confined almost exclusively to the 
 history of the land grants for education in the Northwest Terri- 
 tory. There are two reasons for this, namely: (i) the early 
 ordinances dealt primarily with this section of the country, and 
 {2) it was in the territories and states erected in this old North- 
 west that the precedents for the support of public education by 
 federal land grants were firmly established. The final task of this 
 work is to show how the early land ordinances affected the general 
 policy of the national government as regards education and to 
 explain in some detail the influence of these ordinances on the 
 development of the public school system in the United States. 
 
 During the first ten or fifteen years after the adoption of the 
 federal constitution there appeared to be a strong probability 
 that the new government would not continue the policy of making 
 land grants for the support of schools. Considerable opposition 
 to this policy developed in the older states that had no public lands 
 within their borders which could be thus used to encourage educa- 
 tion. It was during this period when the national land policy 
 was taking definite form that the early efforts in Ohio to estab- 
 lish schools through the use of the land grants for education were 
 of untold importance in keeping this policy alive until it was finally 
 adopted by the national government. 
 
 From the adoption of the national constitution to the passage 
 of the act enabling Ohio to become a state, April 30, 1802, only 
 two land laws of any significance were enacted by Congress. 
 These were the laws of May 18, 1796, and May 10, 1800, both of 
 which dealt with the manner of sale of public lands in the North- 
 west. Neither of these laws made any reservations of land for the 
 support of schools. It looked as if the national government in- 
 tended to shift the responsibility for compliance with the educa- 
 tional provisions of the Ordinance of 1787 upon the inhabitants of 
 the Northwest Territory. The only land grant for education 
 during this period was the renewal in 1792 of the grant of one 
 
 103 
 
104 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 township to John Cleves Symmes, who had obtained this grant in 
 his original contract, August 29, 1787, and later forfeited it through 
 failure to comply with the ternis of this contract.^ Apart from 
 this one instance Congress showed no disposition to follow the 
 example set by the land grants for schools contained in the con- 
 tract with the Ohio Company. 
 
 In so far as the national government is concerned the first act 
 of Congress to embody the policy of land grants for education was 
 the Enabling Act of Ohio, which reserved every section sixteen for 
 the support of schools. The history of this act and the subse- 
 quent acts which extended this policy to the Connecticut and 
 Virginia Military Reserve, then to the other territories of the 
 Northwest, has already been traced. It remains to be shown how 
 this policy of land grants for education was extended and applied 
 in other public land states. 
 
 The first three states admitted into the Union, after the original 
 thirteen, were Vermont, in 1791, Kentucky, in 1792, and Tennes- 
 see, in 1796. These were not, strictly speaking, public land states 
 and no grants for education were made in any of them at the time of 
 admission. While it is true that, in 1780, Virginia had granted 
 eight thousand acres for the founding of a seminary of learning in 
 the county of Kentucky, the national government did nothing to 
 extend the policy of land grants south of the Ohio river before 
 1803. In that year, March 3, Congress reserved every section 
 sixteen in the territory south of Tennessee for the use of schools 
 and made a special grant for Jefferson College at Natchez.^ 
 
 On April 18, 1806, Congress passed a bill settling certain claims 
 in Tennessee. It provided that one hundred thousand acres 
 should be reserved for two colleges, one hundred thousand acres 
 for academies, one to be established in every county, and one sec- 
 tion in each township reserved for public schools.^ Three days 
 later, April 21, 1806, an act adjusting claims in the Territory of 
 Orleans and in the District of Louisiana also provided that section 
 sixteen in every township should be reserved for public schools and 
 one entire township for a seminary of learning.* This act was in 
 response to a petition of the Legislative Council of the Territory 
 of Orleans asking Congress to make grants in that territory similar 
 
 1 Journal of Congress, XII, p. 150 f. 
 ' U. S. Land Laws, I, p. 97. 
 ' Ihid., p. 136. 
 * Ibid., p. 142. 
 
Later Applications of the Principle of Land Grants 105 
 
 to those made in the Mississippi Territory in 1803. The chief 
 argument set forth in this petition in support of this request was 
 the reasonableness and justice of extending the educational pro- 
 visions of the Ordinance of 1785 to other public lands.^ The terms 
 of these grants of 1803 and 1806 were similar to those of the 
 grants in Ohio. 
 
 At the time of the admission of Louisiana in 18 12, and of Missis- 
 sippi in 181 7, nothing was said in the enabling acts as regards land 
 grants for education, but this fact in no wise affected the grants 
 previously made during the territorial days of these states. In- 
 diana had been admitted in 18 16 with grants similar to those made 
 in Ohio and, in 1818, Illinois was admitted with the new provision 
 which granted section sixteen in each township "to the state, for 
 the use of the inhabitants of such township, for the use of schools.'* 
 This seemed to be a move forward, but the next year, March 2, 
 1 8 19, the act enabling Alabama to become a state revived the 
 policy pursued in Ohio and granted section sixteen to the inhabi- 
 tants of the township for the use of schools.® This act also con- 
 tained a grant of one township for a seminary of learning, title to 
 which was vested in the state legislature. 
 
 In 1 8 12, when the territory of Orleans became the state of 
 Louisiana, the name of the Louisiana territory was changed to 
 Missouri territory by an act of Congress June fourth of that year.'' 
 The only reference to education in this act was the repetition of the 
 famous educational provision of the Ordinance of 1787. On Feb- 
 ruary 17, 1 818, Congress reserved two townships in the Missouri 
 territory, one on the Missouri river and the other on the Arkansas 
 river, for the establishment of two seminaries of learning.^ Two 
 years later, March 6, 1820, the act enabling Missouri to become a 
 state confirmed the seminary grant on the Missouri river and also 
 granted section sixteen in each township to the state for the use of 
 the inhabitants of the township for the use of schools.^ The pro- 
 visions of this act went into effect the following year when Mis- 
 souri was admitted into the Union. Thus Congress returned to 
 the form of grant made in Illinois. 
 
 There is one incident in the history of land grants for education 
 
 ^ Am. St. Pap. Pub. Lands, I, p. 259. 
 ^ U. S. Statutes at Large, III, p. 489. 
 ' Ibid., II, p. 747. 
 ^ Ibid., Ill, p. 407. 
 ^Ibid., Ill, p. 547. 
 
io6 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 in Missouri that is of interest for the reason that it throws some 
 light on the educational views held by Congress. In 1818 a peti- 
 tion from Missouri requested Congress to permit the sale of one 
 half of the sections reserved for schools and the establishment of 
 an academy in St. Charles county with the proceeds thus derived. 
 Congress denied this petition on the grounds that reading and 
 writing for the many was better than higher learning for the iew.^^ 
 
 The act enabling Maine to become a state in 1820 was silent on 
 land grants for education because Maine was not a public land 
 state. After the admission of Missouri, Arkansas was the next 
 state which came into the Union. The enabling act for Arkansas, 
 passed June 23, 1836, contained the same provisions as regards 
 land grants for education as the enabling act for Missouri. The 
 seminary township grant was confirmed and each section sixteen 
 was granted to the state, for the use of the inhabitants of such 
 township, for the use of schools.^^ 
 
 Michigan became a state in 1837 and, as has been shown, re- 
 ceived a new type of land grant for education, far superior to either 
 the type of grant made to Ohio or to Illinois. In the case of 
 Michigan every section sixteen was granted to the state for the use 
 of schools. The funds derived from school land could thus be 
 used to develop schools in any part of the state regardless of town- 
 ship lines. This did much to aid in the development of a well- 
 organized state system of education. 
 
 The full importance of this new policy evidently was not appre- 
 ciated by Congress at the time of the admission of the next state, 
 Florida, in 1845. The enabling act for Florida, enacted March 3, 
 1845, granted to the state "section sixteen in every township, or 
 other lands equivalent thereto, for the use of the inhabitants of 
 such township for the support of public schools; also, two entire 
 townships of land, in addition to the two townships already re- 
 served, for the use of two seminaries of learning." ^^ This act 
 further provided that five per cent, of the net proceeds from the 
 sale of other public lands within the state should be used for educa- 
 tion. From this it would appear that Congress had returned to 
 the policy of granting sections sixteen to the state for the use of 
 the inhabitants of each township, as in the case of the grants to 
 
 iMm. St. Pap. Pub. Lands, III, p. 302. 
 " U. S. Statutes at Large, V, p. 58. 
 « Ibid., p. 788. 
 
Later Applications of the Principle of Land Grants 107 
 
 Illinois. This, however, is not true; the truth is. Congress had no 
 well-defined policy at this time with reference to land grants for 
 education. On the same day, March 3, 1845, that the enabling 
 act for Florida became law another act was passed, enabling Iowa 
 to become a state. This law contained the provision "that sec- 
 tion numbered sixteen in every township of public lands, and, 
 where such sections have been sold or otherwise disposed of, other 
 lands equivalent thereto, and as continguous as may be, shall be 
 granted to the State for the use of schools." ^^ Seventy- two sec- 
 tions also were granted to the state for a university. In the ex- 
 citement of the closing hours of the last day of its existence the 
 Congress that passed these two enabling acts was apparently 
 wholly unconscious of the fact that they contained two very dis- 
 tinct types of land grants for education. 
 
 The annexation of Texas did not involve the question of land 
 grants for education since Texas was not a public land state. In 
 1846 Iowa came into the Union on the terms of the enabling act of 
 March 3, 1845, and thenceforth the government continued to ad- 
 here to the Michigan type of educational grant in admitting new 
 states. The only exceptions to this were California and West 
 Virginia, and in the case of California sections sixteen and thirty- 
 six in each township were granted to the state for public schools on 
 March 3, 1853.^^^ This policy of granting two sections in each 
 township for education was instituted in the law of 1848, authoriz- 
 ing the survey of the Oregon territory. The enabling acts for the 
 next three states admitted into the Union, Minnesota, February 
 26, 1857,1^ Oregon, February 14, 1859,^* and Kansas, January 29, 
 1861,^^ granted to each of these states sections sixteen and thirty- 
 six for common schools and seventy- two sections to each of them 
 for a university. The enabling act for Nevada, March 21, 1864,^* 
 granted only sections sixteen and thirty-six, but on July 4, 1866, 
 Congress made the customary grant of seventy-two sections for a 
 university and extended to Nevada the provisions of the famous 
 act of July 2, 1862, which made the grants for agricultural and 
 mechanical colleges.^® 
 
 " U. S. Statutes at Large, V, p. 789. 
 
 " Ibid., X, p. 244. 
 
 15 Ibid., XI, p. 167. 
 
 i« Ibid., XI, pp. 383-84. 
 
 ^' Ibid., Xll, p. 127. 
 
 " Ibid., XIII, pp. 30-32. 
 
 " Ibid., XIV, p. 85. 
 
io8 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 On April 19, 1864, Congress passed the act enabling Nebraska 
 to become a state.^^ The usual grants to the state of sections six- 
 teen and thirty-six for common schools and seventy-two sections 
 for a university were made and, in addition thereto, the state was 
 granted five per cent, of the net proceeds from the sale of other un- 
 reserved public lands for the support of common schools. The use 
 of this five per cent, for schools was by no means new, for it had 
 been a common practice for Congress to grant this revenue to the 
 states for roads or other internal improvements and in many cases 
 it had been used, by special permission of Congress, for education. 
 The significance of this provision in the enabling act of Nebraska 
 is that it shows the tendency for this practice to become an es- 
 tablished policy of the national government. 
 
 In the case of Colorado Congress adopted another policy of 
 great importance with reference to the land grants for education. 
 Sections sixteen and thirty-six were reserved to the state for com- 
 mon schools by an act of March 21, 1864, at the time this same 
 grant was made to Nevada.^^ Then, in 1875, when Colorado 
 became a state, the usual grant of seventy- two sections for a 
 university was made.^^ In this act which made the university 
 grant was the interesting provision that the sections sixteen and 
 thirty-six could not be sold for less than two dollars and a half an 
 acre. Why Congress had never seen fit until this time to put ade- 
 quate restrictions upon the sale of school lands is difficult to un- 
 derstand. The wisdom of this policy has been demonstrated in 
 recent years in every state where it has been followed and, in ad- 
 mitting states since Colorado, Congress has generally placed such 
 restrictions upon the sale of school lands as to prevent their being 
 sacrificed or squandered as was so frequently the case in the older 
 states. 
 
 On February 22, 1889, Congress passed the enabling act for 
 Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington.^* 
 Sections sixteen and thirty-six in each of the states was granted to 
 the state for public schools and seventy-two sections were granted 
 to each state for a university. A minimum price of ten dollars an 
 acre was placed upon both university and common school lands; 
 the proceeds from the sale of the latter were to go into the common 
 
 2° U. S. Statutes at Large, XIII, pp. 47-50. 
 
 " Ibid., pp. 32-35. 
 
 « Act of Mar. 3, 1875, U. S. Statutes at Large, XVIII, pp. 475-76. 
 
 2« U. S. Statutes at Large, XXV, pp. 679-81. 
 
Later Applications of the Principle of Land Grants 109 
 
 school fund. By the terms of this act each of the states, Montana, 
 Washington, and North Dakota, received ninety thousand acres 
 for an agricultural and mechanical college and South Dakota re- 
 ceived one hundred twenty thousand acres for this purpose. This 
 provision was in accord with the terms of the agricultural and 
 mechanical college act of 1862^^ and subsequent acts extending its 
 provisions to new states formed after its enactment. In addition 
 to these grants each of these four states was granted for educa- 
 tion five per cent, of the net proceeds from the sale of other public 
 lands lying within its bounds. 
 
 When Idaho became a state, July 3, 1890, the act of admission 
 granted to the state sections sixteen and thirty-six for common 
 schools, seventy-two sections for a university, ninety thousand 
 acres for an agricultural college, and five per cent, of the net pro- 
 ceeds from the sale of other public lands within the state for com- 
 mon schools.2^ The minimum price of the university lands was 
 fixed at ten dollars an acre. Idaho also was granted one hundred 
 thousand acres for a scientific school, one hundred thousand acres 
 for state normal schools, and fifty thousand acres for a university 
 at Moscow; the minimum price fixed at ten dollars an acre. 
 
 These additional grants were made in lieu of the grants usually 
 made for internal improvements under the act of 1841.2^ Every 
 public land state admitted between 1845 and 1889, with the excep- 
 tion of Minnesota, had diverted these grants for internal improve- 
 ments to the support of education; so, for this reason. Congress; 
 adopted this policy of making specific grants for education in lieu 
 of these grants for internal improvements. Wyoming came into 
 the Union a week after Idaho, July 10, 1890, with the same grants 
 for a university, agricultural college, and common schools, and 
 with a special grant of thirty thousand acres for a school for the 
 deaf and dumb and blind .^^ 
 
 The enabling act for Utah, July 16, 1894, contained the most 
 liberal grants for education that Congress had made up to that 
 time.2^ By this act Utah received sections two, sixteen, thirty- 
 two, and thirty-six, or their equivalent, for common schools, five 
 per cent, of the net proceeds from the sale of other public lands 
 
 2* U. S. Statutes at Large, XII, p. 503. 
 
 26 Ihid., XVI, pp. 215-17. 
 
 » Ihid., V, p. 453. 
 
 2' Ihid., XXVI, pp. 222-26. 
 
 ^Uhid., XXVIII, pp. 107-12. 
 
no Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 for the common school fund, two townships for a university, and 
 two hundred thousand acres for an agricultural college. The 
 special grants were one hundred ten thousand acres for the uni- 
 versity, in lieu of saline lands, and in lieu of swamp lands, one 
 hundred thousand acres for a school of mines, to be connected with 
 the university, one hundred thousand acres for normal schools, 
 and one hundred thousand acres for a school for the blind. The 
 legislature was given power to regulate the sale of school lands. 
 
 This same liberal policy was followed in admitting the last three 
 states, Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico. The enabling act 
 for Oklahoma, June i6, 1906, granted to the state sections sixteen 
 and thirty-six for common schools, with certain restrictions on 
 such sections in Indian, military, and national reservations; 
 $5,000,000, in lieu of sections sixteen and thirty-six in Indian 
 Territory ; every section thirteen, open to settlement, in Oklahoma 
 or Indian Territory, distributed as follows: one-third for the 
 university, one-third for the normal schools, one-third to the agri- 
 cultural and mechanical college and the colored normal univer- 
 sity; two hundred fifty thousand acres for a university; one hun- 
 dred fifty thousand acres for a university preparatory school ; two 
 hundred fifty thousand acres for an agricultural and mechanical 
 college; three hundred thousand acres for normal schools; one 
 hundred thousand acres for a colored agricultural and normal uni- 
 versity; and five per cent, of the net proceeds from the sale of 
 other public lands for the common school fund.^^ The act per- 
 mitted the leasing of common school lands for not more than ten 
 years and of university lands for not more than five years. The 
 sale of school lands after appraisal by three disinterested ap- 
 praisers was also permitted. 
 
 The enabling act for New Mexico ^° and Arizona,^^ June 20, 
 1 9 10, granted to each state sections two, sixteen, thirty- two, and 
 thirty-six for common schools, two hundred thousand acres for a 
 university, one hundred fifty thousand acres for an agricultural 
 and mechanical college, one hundred fifty thousand acres for a 
 school of mines, two hundred thousand acres for normal schools, 
 and one hundred thousand acres for a military institute. The 
 minimum price of school lands in New Mexico was fixed at three 
 
 " U. S. Statutes at Large, XXXIV, Pt. i, pp. 267-85. 
 *^Ihid., XXXVI, Pt. I. pp. 562-63. 
 " Ibid., pp. 572-74. 
 
Later Applications of the Principle of Land Grants 1 1 1 
 
 or five dollars an acre, depending upon the location. In Arizona 
 the nainimum price was fixed at three dollars an acre. The lands 
 in New Mexico and Arizona that were irrigrated or could be irri- 
 gated were an exception to these provisions concerning minimum 
 prices. For these lands the minimum price was fixed at twenty- 
 five dollars. This act further provided that no school lands in 
 either state can ever be sold until they have been appraised. 
 This enabling act was the last of such acts passed by Congress, for 
 with the admission of New Mexico and Arizona into the Union 
 the last of the public domain within the United States was or- 
 ganized into states. 
 
 In addition to the enabling acts and the other laws that have 
 been discussed in the foregoing there were a number of other acts 
 of considerable importance as regards land grants for education. 
 It is in place here to outline briefly the nature and importance of 
 these laws. First among these was the preemption act of Sep- 
 tember 4, 1841,^2 which provided for the distribution of the net 
 proceeds from the sale of public lands among the states then in 
 the Union, or subsequently admitted, on a basis of their represen- 
 tation in Congress. By this act five hundred thousand acres 
 were granted to each state for internal improvements. While 
 this law did not make a specific grant for education, as has already 
 been pointed out, it became a common practice to devote the funds 
 thus derived to the support of schools. This act of 1841 was the 
 culmination of a series of laws extending over a period of eleven 
 years, the chief concern of which was the preemption policy; while 
 the main significance of this act was in that connection, it was also 
 of great importance because it provided a source from which pub- 
 lic education will ultimately receive more than sixty millions of 
 dollars. 
 
 The next law of any consequence for education was the act of 
 September 28, 1850, which granted the swamp lands in Arkansas 
 to that state and extended this grant to all other states then in the 
 Union, or subsequently admitted. As in the case of the grants of 
 1841, these swamp land grants, or the lands granted in lieu of 
 them, were generally devoted to education. In all, public schools 
 have received more than forty million acres from this source. 
 
 Perhaps the most important single act for education ever passed 
 by Congress was that of July 2, 1862, which made the land grants 
 
 ^ U. 5. Statutes at Large, V, p. 453. 
 
112 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 for agricultural and mechanical coUeges.^^ To every state not in 
 rebellion were granted thirty thousand acres for each senator and 
 representative; the proceeds from the sale of these lands were to 
 remain an undiminished fund which should be invested at five per 
 cent, in bonds of the United States or other good securities; the in- 
 come was to be used for the maintenance of colleges teaching agri- 
 culture, the mechanic arts, military science, and such other courses 
 deemed proper; but no funds could be used for buildings. To 
 states in which there were no available public lands scrip was to be 
 issued in lieu thereof. On April 14, 1864, the provisions of this 
 act were extended so that any state could participate in its benefits 
 upon acceptance of its conditions .^"^ The provisions of this act 
 were extended, on July 23, 1866,^^ to any new state upon its ad- 
 mission into the Union and on January 23, 1873, the time for the 
 acceptance of provisions of the act of July 2, 1862, was extended 
 to the first of July, 1874.^® This enabled all the southern states to 
 participate in the benefits of this law. More than eleven million 
 acres have been granted to the states under the provisions of the 
 act of July 2, 1862, and the subsequent acts extending its pro- 
 visions.^^ 
 
 The next act of importance was that of March 2, 1887, for es- 
 tablishing agricultural experiment stations.^^ This law granted 
 to each state $15,000 out of the proceeds from the sale of public 
 
 33 U. S. Statutes at Large, XII, pp. 503-5. 
 
 "mj., XIII, p. 47. 
 
 35 Ibid., XIV. p. 208. 
 
 ^ Ibid., XWll, pp. 416-17. 
 
 " The table given herewith summarizes the chief land grants for education 
 made by the national government. It was compiled from data drawn largely 
 from the article on the National Government and Education in the Cyclopedic 
 of Education, IV, p. 377 ff. These data were compared with other authorities 
 and checked against the facts presented in this work. While absolute accuracy 
 is impossible in such a table, this is approximately correct. 
 
 No. of Approximate 
 Acres Value 
 
 Common school section grants 81,064,300 $410,000,000 
 
 Saline grants 900,000 1,000,000 
 
 Five per cent, fund 7,187,316 
 
 Amount used for education derived from act of 
 
 1841, before 1889 14,000,000 
 
 Grants since 1889 in lieu of other grants 1 1,243,080 50,000,000 
 
 Swamp lands granted since 1850 used for schools 40,000,000 13,000,000 
 
 University grants 3,500,000 30,000,000 
 
 Grants under terms of act of July 2, 1862 11,367,832 30,000,000 
 
 Totals 148,075,212 $555,187,316 
 
 38 U. S. Statutes at Large, XXIV, pp. 440-41. 
 
Later Application of the Principle of Land Grants 113 
 
 lands for the founding of such experiment stations in connection 
 with the agricultural and mechanical colleges. On August 30, 
 1890, Congress enacted a law which granted to each state for the 
 support of the agricultural colleges $15,000 for that year and that 
 amount increased by $1,000 annually for ten years; thereafter 
 each state was to receive $25,000 annually. All of these funds 
 were to be drawn from the proceeds from the sale of public 
 lands.^^ On May 17, 1900 a supplementary act was passed which 
 provided that if the proceeds from the sale of public land were not 
 sufhcient to meet these payments the balance should be paid by 
 the United States .'^^ These acts are of special importance be- 
 cause they mark the transition from land grants for education, 
 through money grants out of the proceeds from the sale of public 
 lands, to money grants for education from the general revenue of 
 the United States. 
 
 39 U. S. Statutes at Large, XXVI, pp. 18-19. 
 
 "/&R, XXXI, p. 179. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
 
 In this final chapter a few of the main conclusions that may be 
 legitimately drawn from the facts presented in this study will be 
 set forth briefly. That the basis of the conclusions may be clearly 
 established a summary will first be made of the foregoing chapters. 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 The purpose of the first chapter was to explain the economic and 
 political importance of the West at the time of the enactment of 
 the early land ordinances. To this end it was shown that after 
 1763 the fundamental problem as regards the West was an eco- 
 nomic one. If that region lying between the Allegheny mountains 
 and the Mississippi river was to remain a part of the English 
 colonies it was necessary that it be bound to the east by economic 
 ties. The conspiracies to win the West away from the Union 
 which developed after the Revolution were inspired by the great 
 economic value of the Ohio and Mississippi valleys, and the con- 
 spirators' hope of success was based upon the economic needs of 
 the West. After 1763 there was a gradual growth in the conscious- 
 ness of these needs in the middle colonies and Virginia which led to 
 the early projects for the improvement of the means of communi- 
 cation and transportation between the back country and the 
 Atlantic seaboard. 
 
 Next after the economic value of the West the problem of the 
 political organization of that section was of prime importance. 
 By the close of the Revolution it was generally recognized that the 
 political institutions of the new nation must be extended into the 
 West in order to hold that section to the new government. The 
 surrender of claims to western lands by the various states, es- 
 pecially the terms of the Virginia cession which provided for the 
 formation of new states in the ceded territory, indicated the 
 drift of public opinion and foreshadowed the ultimate solution of 
 the problem of government of the West. 
 
 The second chapter outlined the history of the early ordinances 
 dealing with the West. It was shown how the final treaty of peace 
 114 
 
Summary and Conclusions 115 
 
 with England in 1 783 gave a new impetus to the westward move- 
 ment and made acute the need for a governmental ordinance for 
 the newly acquired territory. The Virginia act of cession of the 
 western lands to the national government had provided for the 
 nationalization of these western lands and the adoption of this 
 policy had been assured by the acts of other states relinquishing 
 claims to the back country. 
 
 With the West in possession of the national government it 
 devolved upon Congress to establish some form of government 
 over that region. The Ordinance of 1784 was the first attempt to 
 perform this task. While this ordinance remained a dead letter it 
 is important for two reasons: (i) it nationalized the West in ac- 
 cordance with the terms of the Virginia act of cession; (2) it was 
 silent as regards land grants for education. This ordinance was 
 not a land law but a governmental ordinance and it is therefore of 
 more importance from the point of view of political theory than 
 for its bearing on the national land policy. It was understood at 
 the time of its enactment that Congress would also pass a law for 
 the sale of the western lands. In 1785 such a law was enacted. 
 
 The Ordinance of 1785 was a land law. Its purpose was to 
 establish a policy for the survey and sale of the public domain that 
 would be acceptable to all sections of the country. Because of the 
 two very distinct and conflicting methods of surveying public 
 lands in use at the time, the Ordinance of 1785 was a compromise 
 between the New England township plan and the southern method 
 of indiscriminate surveys of small tracts. The ordinance provided 
 that the public lands should be surveyed into townships six miles 
 square, subdivided into thirty-six sections, each a square mile. 
 Every other township was to be sold entire, while the alternate 
 townships were to be sold by sections. The most important pro- 
 vision in this ordinance was that which reserved section number 
 sixteen in every township for the maintenance of public schools 
 within the township. 
 
 The Ordinance of 1785, although a compromise, proved to be a 
 triumph for the New England policy of "township planting" as 
 this form of settlement proved more popular in practice than the 
 "indiscriminate locations." The reservation of the sections six- 
 teen for education was also a New England idea and it was written 
 into the ordinance as a concession to the New Englanders. At 
 the time this provision was looked upon as of minor importance. 
 
1 16 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 Its value was thought to lie in the fact that it would attract settlers 
 into the new country and promote land sales rather than in the fact 
 that it was the beginning of a far-reaching national policy for the 
 encouragement of public education by land grants. Subsequent 
 events proved that the true significance of this ordinance was in 
 this provision that reserved sections sixteen for education, thereby 
 establishing a precedent that became a fixed policy of the national 
 government. 
 
 In Chapter III it was shown that the Ohio Company grew out 
 of the Congressional desire to pay the debt to the Continental 
 Army in western lands. The "Army Plan" and the "Financiers' 
 Plan" were both proposals to make such a settlement with the 
 soldiers. Each of these plans contained a provision for the sup- 
 port of public schools by land grants. They differed in that the 
 "Army Plan" placed the control of educational land grants in the 
 hands of the states that were to be formed in the West while the 
 " Financiers' Plan" provided that the control of such lands should 
 be vested in the national government. 
 
 Neither of these plans became operative so a group of New Eng- 
 land officers of the Continental Army organized the Ohio Com- 
 pany of Associates for the purpose of buying lands in Ohio with 
 continental certificates under the terms of the Ordinance of 1785 
 or others equally as good. This company finally succeeded in 
 buying 1,500,000 acres of land in Ohio on terms much more favor- 
 able than those fixed by the Ordinance of 1785. The success of 
 the Ohio Company in dealing with Congress was largely due to the 
 fact that it was associated with a large land speculation, the Scioto 
 Company, which was promoted by the Secretary of the Board of 
 Treasury of the United States and others of prominence. Politi- 
 cal deals as regards the appointment of the officials in the North- 
 west Territory also contributed to the success of the Ohio Com- 
 pany's contract with the national government. 
 
 In the discussion of the Ohio Company it was also pointed out 
 that this company, through its very able representative. Dr. Cut- 
 ler, brought considerable pressure to bear on Congress in connec- 
 tion with the enactment of the Ordinance of 1787. The success of 
 the Ohio Company was conditioned, in part at least, upon the 
 form of government established in the Northwest so it is not prob- 
 able that the company would have bought lands in Ohio if the 
 terms of the ordinance for government of that territory had been 
 
Summary and Conclusions 117 
 
 ■unsatisfactory to the members of the company. The Ordinance 
 of 1787 and the sale of lands to the Ohio Company were closely as- 
 sociated in the minds of Congress and beyond question the terms 
 of the Ordinance were greatly influenced by the opinions and 
 desires of the members of the Ohio Company. 
 
 In the fourth chapter was developed the fact that while the Ordi- 
 nance of 1787 was not a land law, but rather a governmental 
 ordinance, it was essentially related to the national land policy 
 in that it contained certain principles of government the establish- 
 ment of which was deemed necessary to the successful sale of 
 public lands. Among these principles there were two of especial 
 significance, namely: (i) the formation in the western territory of 
 states on an equality with the original states; (2) the use of public 
 lands for the support of education. 
 
 Maryland, in 1779, stood for the establishment of new states 
 as a condition in the settlement of the conflicting claims to the 
 western lands. Both the Army Plan and the Financiers' Plan em- 
 bodied this principle and it was the basic provision of the Ordi- 
 nance of 1784. The Ordinance of 1787 gave better and final ex- 
 pression of this principle and fixed it definitely as a part of the 
 national policy of dealing with the public domain. 
 
 The principle of land grants for the support of schools was a 
 part of America's heritage from England, even though the connec- 
 tion was somewhat remote. The charity schools of the South were 
 the most direct outgrowth of the English precedent. In New 
 England the practice of granting lands for the support of schools 
 developed out of the local conditions as a part of system of "town- 
 ship planting." The "Army Plan" provided for land grants for 
 schools, although it made no such provision for religion. The 
 "Financiers' Plan" contained this principle in the provision for 
 land grants for "seminaries of learning." The Ordinance of 1784 
 was an ordinance for government and was silent on the question of 
 land grants for education, it being understood at the time that a 
 land ordinance would be enacted to supplement the law of 1784. 
 The support of schools by land grants was a generally accepted 
 principle in 1784 so the Ordinance of 1785, which was a land law, 
 gave full expression to this principle. The contract of the Ohio 
 Company with the national government secured for the company 
 land grants for both common schools and a university. The 
 Ordinance of 1787, which was the organic law of the Northwest 
 
1 1 8 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 Territory, expressed this principle in the general but none the less 
 comprehensive phrase, ''Religion, morality and knowledge being 
 necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, 
 schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." 
 Thus, while the principle of land grants for education did not 
 originate in the Ordinance of 1787, such grants were used to com- 
 ply with its mandate to encourage schools and the means of educa- 
 tion. A precedent was thereby set which became a definite part 
 of the national land policy. 
 
 The purpose of the fifth chapter was to show that education was 
 a minor consideration in the Ordinance of 1787 and that no special 
 credit is due those responsible for the passage of this ordinance be- 
 cause its provision for the encouragement of schools was later used 
 effectively as an argument for land grants for education. Much 
 has been written to magnify the influence of the members of the 
 Ohio Company in this connection. It was not meant in the dis-^ 
 cussion in chapter five to minimize the zeal and piety of Dr. 
 Cutler and his associates in their successful efforts to obtain land 
 grants both for schools and religion, but rather to point out that 
 there was no clear consciousness on their part as to the ultimate in- 
 fluence on education of the Ordinance of 1787. Members of 
 Congress generally looked upon this ordinance as a means to 
 further the sale of western lands and provision concerning educa- 
 tion was considered a special inducement to this end. The true 
 significance of this provision as the foundation of a national policy 
 was not perceived by anyone concerned with its enactment or by 
 the general public. The importance of the Ordinance of 1787 was 
 overshadowed at the time by the proceedings of the constitutional 
 convention then in session. 
 
 In the sixth chapter it was shown that while the ordinance of 
 July 13, 1787, commonly called the Ordinance of 1787, made no 
 definite provision for land grants for education, the ordinance for 
 the sale of lands, enacted July 23, 1 787, definitely granted every 
 section sixteen for the support of public schools in each township 
 and also reserved two complete townships for the support of a 
 university in the center of the first million and a half acres pur- 
 chased by the Ohio Company. The contract of sale between the 
 Board of Treasury and the Ohio Company, executed in October, 
 1787, carried out these provisions for land grants for education, 
 and this policy was continued in the sale to Symmes. In this case. 
 
Summary and Conclusions 119 
 
 however, only one township was granted for higher education, and 
 that was not given until Symmes extended his purchase. 
 
 These contracts for the sale of large bodies of land, with reserva- 
 tions for the support of schools, made it possible to demonstrate 
 the fact that the policy of granting land for education was practi- 
 cal. Furthermore a precedent was thus established that was the 
 strongest argument for further land grants for education in new 
 states as this problem recurred from time to time. The large 
 grants for universities which were procured by these contracts 
 were of especial importance for they were the first donations for 
 higher education made by the national government. The institu- 
 tions founded by these grants were the beginning of the American 
 state universities. 
 
 The seventh chapter described in brief outline the educational 
 work of the early settlers. In this connection were pointed out 
 the chief reasons why schools grew so slowly in this early period. 
 Most important among these reasons were (i) the physical hard- 
 ships of the frontier made making a living the dominating prob- 
 lem; (2) Indian hostility; (3) general poverty of the people with 
 respect to everything except land; (4) scarcfty of money; (5) 
 scattered population which made school attendance small and ir- 
 regular; (6) the difficulty of procuring good teachers; and (7) the 
 lack of social unity inherent in frontier society. All of these 
 forces worked against the development of public schools and a 
 system of public education. 
 
 The study of the work of the early settlers also revealed the fact 
 that free public schools, supported by taxation, had no place in the 
 educational thought of that time. The common practice was to 
 charge tuition in the public schools and to supplement this source 
 of revenue with private donations. The charter adopted by the 
 Ohio legislature for the American Western University placed the 
 board of trustees of that institution under the control of the legis- 
 lature. This certainly was a move towards a state university. 
 From state controlled schools founded upon donations of public 
 lands the transition was not difficult to free public schools sup- 
 ported by taxation. Thus while the early settlers developed no 
 new or distinctive ideas in education, they aided materially in the 
 growth of the present-day system of public education in the 
 United States. 
 
 In the eighth chapter it was shown that Congress tried three 
 
120 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 plans of making land grants for common schools before a final 
 policy was evolved. The first plan was that of granting every 
 section sixteen to the inhabitants of each township for the support 
 of schools within the township. This was the plan followed in the 
 grants in Ohio. The next plan was that used in Illinois by which 
 every section sixteen was granted to the state for the use of schools 
 in each township. By the third plan, first followed in Michigan, 
 every section sixteen was granted to the state for the use of schools. 
 The state was thus free to use the funds derived from these grants 
 to encourage schools throughout the state. This became the 
 established policy of Congress and made possible the development 
 of state public school systems. 
 
 It was further shown that there were two general policies fol- 
 lowed in the Northwest in the management of school lands. The 
 first policy generally followed was that of leasing the school lands, 
 but in each case it gave place to the policy of selling these lands. 
 The transition from leasing to selling was made easy through the 
 practice of granting perpetual leases to school lands, as in the Vir- 
 ginia Military Reserve in Ohio. Wherever the policy of leasing 
 was tried it failed to produce any considerable revenue for schools 
 and for this reason it was discarded and the school lands sold. 
 However, from the point of view of revenue, the policy of selling 
 was also disappointing. In Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois the selling 
 plan was practically a failure, in Michigan it was relatively success- 
 ful, while in Wisconsin the school lands were sold for much less 
 than their value in order to attract settlers into the state. 
 
 The early investments of the funds derived from the leases or 
 sales of school lands were generally unfortunate. A great part 
 of this fund was lost or squandered through the carelessness, in- 
 efficiency or corruption of those to whom the management of 
 these lands was intrusted. Later, when little remained of the 
 school funds, the investments were usually safe and yielded a fair 
 return for the support of education. On the whole, the land 
 grants for education in the old Northwest were a disappointment 
 as a means to encourage public education. 
 
 The ninth chapter was a brief history of the later applications of 
 the principle of land grants for education by the national govern- 
 ment. It was shown that the first expression of this principle 
 after the adoption of the federal constitution was in the Ohio en- 
 abling act. Next it was explained how this principle was applied, 
 
Summary and Conclusions 121 
 
 with increasing liberality in the grants, to the other public land 
 states. The main reason for this increase in the land grants for 
 education was the gradual development of the practice of diverting 
 land grants for internal improvements and for other purposes to 
 the support of schools. In this chapter also was emphasized the 
 special importance of the grants for higher education embodied 
 in the series of acts beginning with the act of July 2, 1862, which 
 granted lands for the support of agricultural and mechanical col- 
 leges. The fact that the schools thus founded were vocational and 
 of especial value to a definite and powerful class of voters is of 
 political rather than of educational significance. Without doubt 
 the motives behind this legislation grew out of political necessity 
 rather than educational interest, nevertheless it is important to note 
 that it was thought that political necessity could best be served by 
 liberal land grants for a form of higher education. The last fact 
 presented in the ninth chapter was the transition from land grants 
 for education to grants of money for education out of the treasury 
 of the United States. From the point of view of the future this is 
 perhaps the most significant outcome of national land grants for 
 education. 
 
 CONCLUSIONS 
 
 1. In 1785 there were well-established precedents for land grants 
 for education, but the clause in the Ordinance of 1785 which stated 
 that "there shall be reserved the lot No. 16, of every township, for 
 the maintenance of public schools, within the said township" was 
 the beginning of the national land grants for education. The res- 
 ervations for education in this land ordinance were not the ex- 
 pression of a definite plan or policy for the encouragement of 
 schools, but were placed in the ordinance as a special inducement 
 to promote the sale of public lands. 
 
 2. The Ordinance of 1787 was a governmental ordinance rather 
 than a land law and therefore contained no land grants for educa- 
 tion. Nevertheless the article of this ordinance which stated that 
 "religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good gov- 
 ernment and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of 
 education shall forever be encouraged " set forth a principle and an 
 ideal that was a guiding influence in the later development of a 
 national policy of land grants for education. The words of this 
 ordinance were quoted time and again to urge Congress to make 
 
122 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 further grants for education. These words have been rewritten 
 again and again in the constitutions of the several states, and have 
 been both an ideal and an incentive to the furtherance of public 
 education. The full influence of the Ordinance of 1787 upon 
 public education can never be exactly measured and evaluated. 
 The facts remain that this ordinance was the organic law of the 
 great Northwest Territory, in which the value of land grants for 
 education was first demonstrated; that its main provisions were 
 later extended to other territories, and that the policy of land 
 grants for education, as well as other means for the encouragement 
 of education, were inspired by the language of this ordinance. 
 
 3. The contracts of 1 787-1 788 for the sale of large bodies of 
 land in the Ohio valley were inseparably associated with the 
 enactment of the Ordinance of 1787. The influence brought to 
 bear upon Congress, when this ordinance was pending, by the 
 Ohio Company of Associates was indeed very strong and, without 
 doubt, the mandate for the encouragement of education, which 
 this ordinance contained, was in complete harmony with the de- 
 sires of the members of this company. The land grants for educa- 
 tion contained in the contract of sale with the Ohio Company show 
 clearly that this was true. The reservation of every section six- 
 teen for the use of public schools, within each township, was in 
 conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance of 1785, but the 
 large land grant for a university was the first grant of the kind 
 made by the national government. The great importance of 
 these land sales of 1 787-1 788 was in the fact that they made it 
 possible to prove in actual experience that land grants for educa- 
 tion were both practical and wise. Later, when the land policy of 
 the national government was being formed, this concrete proof and 
 unanswerable argument aided materially in perpetuating the 
 policy of land grants for education. 
 
 4. One general conclusion that grows out of the study of the 
 early land ordinances is the fact that there was no well-defined 
 policy or purpose involved in the early land grants for education. 
 The political necessity of binding the back-country to the East, 
 the economic advantages of such a union to the seaboard states, 
 and the liquidation of the national debt by the sale of western 
 lands were the prime motives that led to the enactment of these 
 early ordinances. The land grants for education were incidental, 
 in so far as Congress was concerned, and were incorporated into 
 
Summary and Conclusions 123 
 
 these laws to aid in the sale of western lands. This consideration 
 was not so potent during the first decade after the adoption of the 
 federal constitution and it appeared for a time as if land grants for 
 schools would be discontinued. The actual beginning of a na- 
 tional policy of land grants for education was in the act enabling 
 Ohio to become a state in 1802, rather than in the early land 
 ordinances. 
 
 5. In so far as the use of land grants for education is concerned 
 two things are clear. First, there was little or no appreciation of 
 the value of these grants or interest in their management on the 
 part of the public. Secondly, in general the school lands and funds 
 were poorly managed and frequently squandered through in- 
 competence or corruption. School lands were often leased on 
 terms calculated to serve other interests rather than those of 
 education. The undue haste in selling these lands far below their 
 market value further attests the fact that the general public was 
 little concerned with land grants for education. However, it is 
 not just to conclude that the policy of selling school lands was, in 
 itself, unwise. The land grants for education were made to assist 
 the early settlers in the new territories and states. It was never 
 intended that these lands should be held for the benefit of future 
 generations more able to maintain schools than were the pioneers. 
 If the early settlers could derive the greatest aid from the land 
 grants by selling school lands, such sales were wise. It is only 
 where the lands were sold for considerably less than their market 
 value at the time of sale that adverse criticism is fair. 
 
 6. The form of land grants for education that grew directly out 
 of the provisions of the early land ordinances was that which re- 
 served every section sixteen for the use of the inhabitants of the 
 township. This form of grant eventually gave way to the section 
 grants to the state for the use of schools within each township, 
 which in turn was replaced by the grants to the state for the use of 
 schools, regardless of township lines. Before these changes had 
 taken place the first form of grant had exerted a very definite in- 
 fluence on the public school system. This first form of grant was 
 essentially of New England origin and was vitally associated with 
 the "township planting" system of settlement so characteristic of 
 New England. Out of this form of grant grew the district school 
 system which flourished wherever this form of grant was made. 
 This greatly retarded the development of broad and sound state 
 
124 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 systems of education ; in fact, the evils of the New England district 
 school system which are still present in the United States today 
 were perpetuated by this early form of land grant for education. 
 On the other hand it is true that this form of grant met the local 
 needs in the early days and fostered the ideal of adapting the 
 schools to community problems. In time the evils of the district 
 school system will be overcome, but this ideal will remain. 
 
 7. One of the most important contributions to the present-day 
 system of education that came from the early land grants is the 
 state universities. The Ohio Company of Associates, who received 
 the first land grant for higher education made by the national gov- 
 ernment, did not contemplate the foundation of a state institution, 
 but the state legislature of Ohio so amended the charter for their 
 university as to place its board of trustees under direct control of 
 the legislature. Thus began the American state universities.^ 
 These institutions, always non-sectarian, sometimes non-religious, 
 standing for academic freedom, a broad curriculum, and coeduca- 
 tion, have become the most liberalizing force in modern education. 
 In some respects the policy of national land grants for higher edu- 
 cation was the most significant result of the early land ordinances. 
 
 8. National land grants were the very foundation of public 
 education in the United States. However, these grants were 
 never adequate for the support of schools and at times they have 
 appeared to retard the growth of public education because they 
 were used as an excuse for withholding other means of support. 
 It was only natural that tax- payers would prefer to depend upon 
 the land grants for the maintenance of schools rather than to tax 
 themselves. The slowness of the development of education by 
 tcixation was not due to the land grants for education, but the in- 
 adequacy of these grants made necessary taxation for the support 
 of the schools founded upon them. 
 
 9. The most interesting educational tendency that has grown 
 out of the early land grants for schools is the present-day policy 
 of making national money grants out of the United States treasury 
 for education, as exemplified by the Smith-Hughes act. The 
 transition from land grants for education to grants of money out of 
 
 * Transylvania University, founded in 1785 upon land grands made by Vir- 
 ginia, in the county of Kentucky, was first in point of time; but this institution 
 is not a typical state university. It passed under the control of a religious body 
 and is, today, a denominational school. It cannot properly be classed as a 
 state university. 
 
Summary and Conclusions 125 
 
 the proceeds from the sale of public lands was natural and easy. 
 The transition from money grants out of public land funds to 
 money grants out of the general revenue of the national govern- 
 ment is no more difficult. This tendency appears to be leading 
 towards national supervision and control of education. Whatever 
 the ultimate outcome of this tendency may be, or what may be the 
 wisdom of it, neither of these questions lies within the scope of this 
 study. It suffices here to show wherein this modern tendency is 
 related to the early federal land ordinances. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 LAWS AND STATUTES 
 
 American State Papers. Class VIII (Public Lands). Washington. 
 
 Annals of Congress. I789f-i823. Washington, 1849. 
 
 Journals of the American 'Congress. 1774-88. Washington. 
 
 Journals of the Continental Congress. 1782-88; 1786-87. Washington. 
 
 U. S. Laws Respecting the Sale and Disposition of Public Lands. 2 vols. 
 Washington, 1838. 
 
 Land Laws of the United States. 3 vols. Washington, 1884. 
 
 U. S. Statutes at Large. 36 vols. Washington. 
 
 Statutes of Ohio and the Northwest Territory. 1 788-1 833. (S. P. Chase, editor.) 
 3 vols. Cincinnati, 1835. 
 
 Statutes at Large of Virginia. (W. W. Hening, editor.) 13 vols. Richmond, 
 1819-23. 
 
 Ohio Laws. The session acts of the state legislature. 
 
 Indiana Territorial Laws. The session acts of the territorial legislature 
 
 Laws of Indiana. The session acts of the state legislature. 
 
 Revised Laws of Indiana. 1824. 
 
 Indiana Reports. Vol. VI. 
 
 Laws of Illinois. The session acts of the state legislature. 
 
 Laws of Michigan. The session acts of the state legislature. 
 
 Revised Statutes of Michigan. 1838. 
 
 Statutes of the Territory of Wisconsin. 1839. 
 
 Laws of the Territory of Wisconsin. The session acts of the territorial legisla- 
 ture. 
 
 Laws of Wisconsin. The session acts of the state legislature. 
 
 Revised Statutes of Wisconsin. 1849. 
 
 BOOKS 
 
 Adams, H. B. Maryland's Influence upon Lands Cessions to the United States. 
 
 Johns Hopkins University Studies, Vol. Ill, No. i. Baltimore, 1885. 
 Atwater, Caleb. History of the State of Ohio. Cincinnati, 1838. 
 Bancroft, George. History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United 
 
 States. 2 vols. New York, 1882. 
 Barrett, Jay A. Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787. University of Nebraska 
 
 Seminary Papers, Department of History and Economics. New York, 
 
 1891. 
 Black, A. The Story of Ohio. Boston, 1888. 
 
 Boyd, W. W. Secondary Education in Ohio Previous to 184.0. Ohio Archaeo- 
 logical and Historical Society Publications, Vol. XXV. Columbus, 1916. 
 Chaddock, R. E. Ohio Before 1850. Columbia University Studies in History, 
 
 Economics and Public Law, Vol. XXXI. New York, 1891. 
 
 126 
 
Bibliography 127 
 
 Commons, J. R., and Knight, G. W. History of Higher Education in Ohio, 
 Bureau of Education Circular, No. 5. Washington, 1891. 
 
 Croghan, George. Journal, 176$. In Early Western Travels (R. G. Thwaites, 
 editor). Vol. I. Cleveland, 1907. 
 
 Cuming, Fortesque. Tour of the Western Country, 1807-9. In Early West- 
 ern Travels (R. G. Thwaites, editor). Vol. IV. Cleveland, 1907. 
 
 CuTHEON, B. M., and Utley, Henry. Michigan as a Province, Territory and 
 State. New York, 1906. 
 
 Cutler, M anasseh. A n Explanation of a Map of Federal Lands, etc. Salem, 
 1787. 
 
 Cutler, W. P., and- J. P. Life, Journals, and Correspondence of Rev. Man- 
 nasseh Cutler. 2 vols. Cincinnati, 1888. 
 
 Cyclopedia of Education (FdiXiX Monroe, editor). 5 vols. New York, 1911-13. 
 
 Donaldson, Thomas. The Public Domain. Its History, with Statistics. 
 Washington, 1884. 
 
 Dunn, J. P. Indiana. Boston, 1905. 
 
 Early Western Travels (R. G. Thwaites, editor). Cleveland, 1907. 
 
 Ford, A. C. Colonial Precedents of Our National Land System in 1800. 
 University of Wisconsin Bulletin, No. 352. Madison, 1910. 
 
 •Geer, cm. The Louisiana Purchase and the Westward Movement. Volume 
 VIII of The History of North America (G. C. Lee, editor). Philadelphia, 
 1904. 
 
 Hasse, a. R. Index of Economic Material in Documents of the States. Wash- 
 ington, 1912. 
 
 Hildreth, S. p. Contributions to the Early History of the Northwest, etc. Cin- 
 cinnati, 1864. 
 
 Hildreth, S. P. Pioneer History: Being an Account of the First Examination 
 of the Ohio Valley, and the Early Settlement of the Northwest Territory, 
 Cincinnati, 1848. 
 
 Hinsdale, B. A. The Old Northwest. New York, 1888. 
 
 Howe, Henry. Historical Collections of the Great West. Vol. I. Cincinnati, 
 
 1855- 
 Howe, Henry. Historical Collections of Ohio. Columbus, 1890. 
 
 King, Rufus. Ohio, First Fruits of the Ordinance of 1787. Boston, 1891. 
 
 Knight, G. W. History and Management of Land Grants for Education in the 
 Northwest Territory. Papers of the American Historical Association, 
 Vol. I, No. 3. New York, 1885. 
 
 Knight, G. W. , and Commons, J . R. The History of Higher Education in Ohio. 
 Bureau of Education Circular, No. 5. Washington, 1891. 
 
 Leach, A. F. English Schools of the Reformation. Westminster, 1896. 
 
 Lewis, A. F. History of Higher Education in Kentucky. Contributions to 
 American Educational History, No. 25. Washington, 1899. 
 
 Marlzolff, C. L. Ohio University. In Ohio Archaeological and Historical 
 Society Publications. Vol. XIX. Columbus, 1910. 
 
 Mathews, A. Ohio and Her Western Reserve. New York, 1902. 
 
 JMechaux, F. a. Travels West of the Allegheny Mountains. In Early West- 
 ern Travels (R. G. Thwaites, editor). Vol. III. Cleveland, 1907. 
 
128 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 Narrative and Critical History of America (Justin Winsor, editor). 8 vols, 
 
 Boston, 1884-89. 
 New York Daily Advertiser, files of. June, July, and August, 1787. 
 New York Packet, files of. June, July, and August, 1787. 
 Old South Leaflets, Vols. I and VI. Boston, 1888. 
 Pennsylvania Gazette, files of. June, July, and August, 1787. 
 Peter, Robert and Johanna. Transylvania University. Filson Club Pub- 
 lications, No. II. Louisville, 1896. 
 Pickering, Octavius. Life of Timothy Pickering. 4 vols. Last three 
 
 volumes by C. W. Upham. Boston, 1867, 1873. 
 Poole, W. F. Ordinance of 1787. Ann Arbor, 1892. 
 Randall, H. S. Life of Thomas Jefferson. 3 vols. Philadelphia, 1888, 
 Reports of the Ohio Archceological and Historical Society. Vols, I-IV, VL 
 
 Columbus, 1895-98. 
 Sato, Shosuke. History of the Land Question in the United States. Johns 
 
 Hopkins University Studies. Baltimore, 1886. 
 ScHAFER, Joseph. The Origin of the System of Land Grants for Education. 
 
 University of Wisconsin Bulletin, No. 63. Madison, 1902. 
 Shilling, D. C. Pioneer Schools and Schoolmasters. In Ohio Archaeological 
 
 and Historical Society Publications, Vol. XXV. Columbus, 1916. 
 Summers, T. J. History of Marietta. Marietta, 1903. 
 Sumner, Chas. Justice to the Land States. Washington, 1851. 
 TTte Life and Public Services of Arthur St. Clair (W. H. Smith, editor). 2 vols. 
 
 Cincinnati, 1882. 
 Thwaites, R. G. On the Storied Ohio. Chicago, 1903. 
 Trade and Industrial Education. Issued by the Federal Board for Vocational 
 
 Education. Bulletin No. 17. Trade and Industrial Education, Series 
 
 No. I. Washington, 19 18. 
 Treat, P. J. The National Land System, 1 785-1 820. New York, 19 10. 
 Upham, A. H. The Centennial of Miami University. In Ohio Archaeological 
 
 and Historical Society Publications, Vol. XVIII. Columbus, 1909. 
 Utley, Henry, and Cutheon, B. M. Michigan as a Province, Territory and 
 
 State. New York, 1906. 
 Venable, W. H. Beginnings of Literary Culture in the Ohio Valley. Cincin- 
 nati, 1 89 1. 
 Walker, C. M. History of Athens County, Ohio. Ohio Valley Historical 
 
 Series, No. 2. Cincinnati, 1869. 
 Washington- Crawford Letters (C. W. Butterfield, editor). Cincinnati, 1877. 
 Washington, George^ Writings of (W. C. Ford, editor). 14 vols. New York, 
 
 1890. 
 Washington, George, Writings of (Jared Sparks, editor). 12 vols. Boston^ 
 
 1834-37. 
 Winsor, Justin. The Centennial of Gallipolis. In Ohio Archaeological and 
 
 Historical Society Publications, Vol. HI. Columbus, 1895-98. 
 Winsor, Justin. The Westward Movement. Boston, 1897. 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 THE ORDINANCE OF 1785 
 
 An Ordinance for Ascertaining the Mode of Disposing of Lands in the 
 Western Territory 
 
 Passed May 20, 1785 
 
 Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled, that the territory- 
 ceded by individual states to the United States, which has been purchased of 
 the Indian inhabitants, shall be disposed of in the following manner: 
 
 A surveyor from each state shall be appointed by Congress or a Committee of 
 the States, who shall take an oath for the faithful discharge of his duty, before 
 the geographer of the United States, who is hereby empowered and directed to 
 administer the same; and the like oath shall be administered to each chain car- 
 rier, by the surveyor under whom he acts. 
 
 The geographer, under whose direction the surveyors shall act, shall occasion- 
 ally form such regulations for their conduct, as he shall deem necessary; and 
 shall have authority to suspend them for misconduct in office, and shall make 
 report of the same to Congress, or to the Committee of the States; and he shall 
 make report in case of sickness, death, or resignation of any surveyor. 
 
 The surveyors, as they are respectively qualified, shall proceed to divide the 
 said territory into townships of 6 miles square, by lines running due north and 
 south, and others crossing these at right angles, as near as may be, unless where 
 the boundaries of the late Indian purchases may render the same impracticable, 
 and then they shall depart from this rule no farther than such particular cir- 
 cumstance may require. And each surveyor shall be allowed and paid at the 
 rate of two dollars for every mile, in length, he shall run, including the wages of 
 chain carriers, markers, and every other expense attending the same. 
 
 The first line, running due north and south as aforesaid, shall begin on the 
 river Ohio, at a point that shall be found to be due north from the western 
 termination of a line, which has been run as the southern boundary of the State 
 of Pennsylvania; and the first line, running east and west, shall begin at the 
 same point, and shall extend throughout the whole territory; provided, that 
 nothing herein shall be construed, as fixing the western boundary of the State of 
 Pennsylvania. The geographer shall designate the township, or fractional parts 
 of townships, by numbers progressively from south to north ; always beginning 
 each range with No. i ; and the ranges shall be distinguished by their progressive 
 numbers to the westward. The first range, extending from the Ohio to the lake 
 Erie, being marked No. i . The geographer shall personally attend to the run- 
 ning of the first east and west line; and shall take the latitude of the extremes of 
 the first north and south line, and of the mouths of the principal rivers. 
 
 The lines shall be measured with a chain, shall be plainly marked by chaps 
 on the trees, and exactly described on a plat, whereon shall be noted by the 
 surveyor, as their proper distances, all mines, salt-springs, salt-licks, and mill- 
 seats, that shall come to his knowledge; and all water-courses, mountains and 
 
 129 
 
1 30 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 other remarkable and permanent things, over and near which such lines shall 
 pass, and also the quality of the lands. 
 
 The plats of the townships respectively, shall be marked by sub-divisions into 
 lots of one mile square, or 640 acres, in the same direction as the external lines, 
 and numbered from i to 36; always beginning the succeeding range of the lots 
 with the number next to that with which the preceding one concluded. And 
 where, from the causes before-mentioned, only a fractional part of a township 
 shall be surveyed, the lots, protracted thereon, shall bear the same numbers as 
 if the township had been entire. And the surveyors, in running the external 
 lines of the townships, shall, at the interval of every mile, mark corners for the 
 lots which are adjacent, always designating the same in a different manner from 
 those of the townships. 
 
 The geographer and surveyors shall pay the utmost attention to the variation 
 of the magnetic needle; and shall run and note all lines by the true meridian, 
 certifying, with every plat, what was the variation at the times of running the 
 lines thereon noted. 
 
 As soon as 7 ranges of townships, and fractional parts of townships, in the 
 direction from south to north, shall have been surveyed, the geographer shall 
 transmit plats thereof to the board of treasury, who shall record the same, with 
 the report, in well bound books to be kept for that purpose. And the geo- 
 grapher shall make similar returns, from time to time, of every 7 ranges as they 
 may be surveyed. The Secretary at war shall have recourse thereto, and shall 
 take by lot therefrom, a number of townships, and fractional parts of town- 
 ships, as well from those to be sold entire, as from those to be sold in lots, as will 
 be equal to one-seventh part of the whole of such 7 ranges as nearly as may be, 
 for the use of the late continental army; and he shall make a similar draught, 
 from time to time, until a sufficient quantity is drawn to satisfy the same, to be 
 applied in manner hereinafter directed. The Board of treasury shall, from time 
 to time, cause the remaining numbers, as well those to be sold entire, as those to 
 be sold in lots, to be drawn for, in the name of the thirteen states respectively, 
 according to the quotas in the last preceding requisition on all the states; pro- 
 vided, that in case more land than its proportion is allotted for sale in any state, 
 at any distribution, a deduction be made therefor at the next. 
 
 The board of treasury shall transmit a copy of the original plats, previously 
 noting thereon, the townships, and fractional parts of townships, which shall 
 have fallen to the several States, by the distribution aforesaid, to the commis- 
 sioners of the loan office of the several States, who, after giving notice of not less 
 than two or more than six months, by causing advertisements to be posted up 
 at the court-houses, or other noted places in every county, and to be inserted in 
 one newspaper, published in the States of their residence respectively, shall pro- 
 ceed to sell the townships, or fractional parts of townships, at public vendue, in 
 the following manner, viz: The township, or fractional part of a township. No. 
 I, in the first range, shall be sold entire; and No. 2, in the same range, by lots; 
 and thus in alternate order through the whole of the first range. The town- 
 ships, or fractional part of a township. No. i , in the second range, shall be sold 
 by lots; and No. 2, in the same range, entire; and so in alternate order through 
 the whole of the second range; and the third range shall be sold in the same man- 
 ner as the first, and the fourth in the same manner as the second, and thus al- 
 
Appendices 131 
 
 ternately throughout all the ranges; provided, that none of the lands, within the 
 said territory, be sold under the price of one dollar the acre, to be paid in specie, 
 or loan-office certificates, reduced to specie value, by the scale of depreciation, 
 or certificates of liquidated debts of the United States, including interest, be- 
 sides the expense of the survey and other charges thereon, which are hereby 
 rated at 36 dollars the township, in specie, or certificates as aforesaid, and so in 
 the same proportion for a fractional part of a township, or of a lot, to be paid at 
 the time of sales; on failure of which payment, the said lands shall again be of- 
 fered for sale. 
 
 There shall be reserved for the United States out of every township the four 
 lots, being numbered 8, 11, 26, 29, and out of every fractional part of a town- 
 ship, so many lots of the same numbers as shall be found thereon, for future sale. 
 There shall be reserved the lot No. 16, of every township, for the maintenance of 
 public schools, within the said township; also, one-third part of all gold, silver, 
 lead and copper mines, to be sold or otherwise disposed of as Congress shall 
 hereafter direct. 
 
 When any township, or fractional part of a township, shall have been sold as 
 aforesaid, and the money or certificates received therefor, the Loan Officer shall 
 deliver a deed in the following terms: 
 The United States of America, to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: 
 
 Know ye, that for the consideration of dollars, we have granted, 
 
 and hereby do grant and confirm, unto , the township (or fractional 
 
 part of the township, as the case may be) numbered , in the range 
 
 , excepting therefrom, and reserving, one-third part of all gold, silver, 
 
 lead, and copper mines, within the same; and the lots Nos. 8, 1 1, 26, and 29, for 
 future sale or disposition; and the lot No. 16, for the maintenance of public 
 
 schools. To have to the said his heirs and assigns, forever; (or, if 
 
 more than one purchaser, to the said , their heirs and assigns, forever, 
 
 as tenants in common.) 
 
 In witness whereof, A B, commissioner of the loan office in the State of 
 
 , hath, in conformity to the ordinance passed by the United States in 
 
 Congress assembled, the twentieth day of May in the year of our Lord 1785, 
 
 hereunto set his hand and affixed his seal, this day of , in the 
 
 year of our Lord , and of the independence of the United States of 
 
 America . 
 
 And when any township or fractional part of a township shall be sold by lots 
 as aforesaid, the commissioner of the loan office shall deliver a deed therefor in 
 the following form: 
 The United States of America to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: 
 
 Know ye, that for the consideration of dollars, we have granted 
 
 and hereby do grant and confirm unto , the lot (or lots, as the case may 
 
 be) in the township (or fractional part of township, as the case may be) 
 numbered , in the range , excepting and reserving one- 
 third part of all gold, silver, lead, and copper mines, within the same for future 
 
 sale or disposition. To have to the said , his heirs and assigns forever 
 
 (or, if more than one purchaser, to the said their heirs and assigns 
 
 forever, as tenants in common). 
 
 In witness whereof, A B, Commissioner of the Continental Loan Office, in the 
 
132 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 State of , hath, in conformity to the ordinance passed by the United 
 
 States, in Congress assembled, the twentieth day of May, in the year of our Lord 
 one thousand seven hundred and eighty-five, hereunto set his hand and affixed 
 
 his seal, this day of , in the year of our Lord , and of 
 
 the Independence of the United States of America . 
 
 Which deeds shall be recorded in proper books, by the Commissioner of the 
 Loan Office, and shall be certified to have been recorded, previously to their 
 being delivered to the purchaser, and shall be good and valid to convey the lands 
 in the same described. 
 
 The commissioners of the loan offices respectively, shall transmit to the board 
 of treasury every three months, an account of the townships, fractional parts of 
 townships, and lots committed to their charge; specifying therein the names of 
 the persons to whom sold, and the sums of money or certificates received for the 
 same; and shall cause all certificates by them received, to be struck through 
 with a circular punch; and shall be duly charged in the books of the treasury, 
 with the amount of the money or certificates, distinguishing the same, by them 
 received as aforesaid. 
 
 If any township, or fractional part of a township or lot, remains unsold for 18 
 months after the plat shall have been received, by the commissioners of the loan 
 office, the same shall be referred to the board of treasury, and shall be sold in 
 such manner as Congress may hereafter direct. 
 
 And whereas Congress, by their resolutions of September i6th and i8th, in 
 the year 1776, and the 12th of August, 1780, stipulated grants of land to certain 
 officers in the hospital department of the late continental army; for complying 
 therefore with such engagements. Be it ordained. That the secretary at war, 
 from the returns in his office, or such other sufficient evidence as the nature of 
 the case may admit, determine who are objects of the above resolutions and 
 engagements, and the quantity of land to which such persons or their represent- 
 atives are respectively entitled, and cause the townships, or fractional parts of 
 townships, hereinbefore reserved for the use of the late continental army, to be 
 drawn for in such manner as he shall deem expedient, to answer the purpose of 
 an impartial distribution. He shall, from time to time, transmit certificates to 
 the commissioners of the loan offices of the different states, to the lines of which 
 the military claimants have respectively belonged, specifying the name and 
 rank of the party, the terms of his engagement and time of his service, and the 
 division, brigade, regiment or company to which he belonged, the quantity of 
 land he is entitled to, and the township, or fractional part of a township, and 
 range out of which his portion is to be taken. 
 
 The commissioners of the loan offices shall execute deeds for such undivided 
 proportions in manner and form herein before-mentioned, varying only in such 
 a degree as to make the same conformable to the certificate from the secretary 
 at war. 
 
 Where any military claimants of bounty in lands shall not have belonged to 
 the line of any particular state, similar certificates shall be sent to the board of 
 treasury, who shall execute deeds to the parties for the same. 
 
 The secretary at war, from the proper returns, shall transmit to the board of 
 treasury, a certificate, specifying the name and rank of the several claimants of 
 the hospital department of the late continental army, together with the quantity 
 of land each claimant is entitled to, and the township, or fractional part of a 
 
Appendices 133 
 
 township and range out of which his portion is to be taken; and thereupon the 
 board of treasury shall proceed to execute deeds to such claimants. 
 
 The board of treasury, and the commissioners of the loan offices in the states, 
 shall, within 18 months, return receipts to the secretary at war, for all deeds 
 which have been delivered, as also all the original deeds which remain in their 
 hands for want of applicants, having been first recorded ; which deeds so return- 
 ed, shall be preserved in the office, until the parties or their representatives re- 
 quire the same. 
 
 And be it further ordained, That three townships adjacent to lake Erie be 
 reserved, to be hereafter disposed of in Congress, for the use of the officers, 
 men, and others, refugees from Canada, and the refugees from Nova Scotia, 
 who are or may be entitled to grants of land under resolutions of Congress now 
 existing or which may hereafter be made respecting them, and for such other 
 purposes as Congress may hereafter direct. 
 
 And be it further ordained. That the towns of Gnadenhutten, Schoerbrun 
 and Salem, on the Muskingum, and so much of the lands adjoining to the said 
 towns, with the buildings and improvements thereon, shall be reserved for the 
 sole use of the Christian Indians, who were formerly settled there, or the re- 
 mains of that society, as may in the judgment of the geographer, be sufficient 
 for them to cultivate. 
 
 Saving and reserving always, to all officers and soldiers entitled to lands on 
 the northwest side of the Ohio, by donation or bounty from the commonwealth 
 of Virginia, and to all persons claiming under them, all rights to which they are 
 so entitled, under the deed of cession executed by the delegates for the state of 
 Virginia on the first day of March, 1784, and the act of Congress accepting the 
 same: and to the end, that the said rights may be fully and effectually secured, 
 according to the true intent and meaning of the said deed of cession and act 
 aforesaid. Be it ordained, that no part of the land included between the rivers 
 called Little Miami and Scioto, on the northwest side of the river Ohio, be sold, 
 or in any manner alienated, until there shall first have been laid off and appro- 
 priated for the said officers and soldiers, and persons claiming under them, the 
 lands they are entitled to, agreeably to the said deed of cession and act of 
 Congress accepting the same. 
 
 Done by the United States in Congress assembled, the 20th day of May, in 
 the year of our Lord, 1785, and of our sovereignty and independence the ninth. 
 
 Richard H. Lee, President, 
 Jour. Am. Cong. v. IV, 520-21, or Charles Thompson, Secretary. 
 
 Land Laws, Part i. Chap. 14. 
 
 APPENDIX B 
 
 POWERS TO THE BOARD OF TREASURY TO CONTRACT FOR 
 THE SALE OF WESTERN TERRITORY 
 
 The report of a committee, consisting of Mr. Carrington, Mr. King, Mr. 
 Dane, Mr. Madison, and Mr, Benson, amended to read as follows, viz: 
 
 That the Board of Treasury be authorized and empowered to contract with 
 any person or persons for a grant of a tract of land which shall be bounded by 
 the Ohio, from the mouth of the Scioto to the intersection of the western boun- 
 
1 34 Educational Significance 0} Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 dary of the seventh range ot townships now surveying; thence, by the said 
 boundary to the northern boundary of the tenth township from the Ohio; 
 thence, by a due west line, to the Scioto; thence, by the Scioto, to the beginning 
 upon the following terms, viz: The tract to be surveyed, and its contents as- 
 certained, by the geographer or some other officer of the United States, who 
 shall plainly mark the said east and west line, and shall render one complete 
 plat to the Board of Treasury, and another to the purchaser or purchasers. 
 
 The purchaser or purchasers, within seven years from the completion of this 
 work, to lay off the whole tract, at their own expense, into townships and frac- 
 tional parts of townships, and to divide the same into lots, according to the land 
 ordinance of the 20th of May, 1785; complete returns whereof to be made to the 
 Treasury Board. The lot No. 16, in each township or fractional part of a town- 
 ship, to be given perpetually for the purposes contained in the said ordinance. 
 The lot No, 29, in each township or fractional part of a township, to be given 
 perpetually for the purposes of religion. The lots Nos. 8, 11, and 26, in each 
 township or fractional part of a township, to be reserved for the future disposi- 
 tion of Congress. Not more than two complete townships to be given perpetu- 
 ally for the purposes of a University, to be laid off by the purchaser or purchas- 
 ers, as near the center as may be, so that the same shall be of good land, to be 
 applied to the intended object by the legislature of the State. The price to be 
 not less than one dollar per acre for the contents of the said tract, excepting the 
 reservations and gifts aforesaid, payable in specie, loan-office certificates re- 
 duced to specie value, or certificates of liquidated debts of the United States, 
 liable to a reduction by an allowance for bad land, and all incidental charges 
 and circumstances whatever: Provided, That such allowance shall not exceed, 
 in the whole, one-third of a dollar per acre. And in making payment the princi- 
 pal only of the said certificates shall be admitted ; and the Board of Treasury, 
 for such interest as may be due on the certificates rendered in payment as afore- 
 said, prior to January i, 1786, shall issue indents for interest to the possessors, 
 which shall be receivable in payment as other indents for interest of the existing 
 requisitions of Congress; and for such interest as may be due on the said certi- 
 ficates between that period and the period of payment, the said board shall issue 
 indents, the payment of which to be provided for in future requisitions, or other- 
 wise. Such of the purchasers as may possess rights for bounties of land to the 
 late army, to be permitted to render the same in discharge of the contract, acre 
 for acre: Provided, That the aggregate of such rights shall not exceed one- 
 seventh part of the land to be paid for: And provided also. That there shall 
 be no future claim against the United States on account of the said rights. Not 
 less than 500,000 dollars of the purchase-money to be paid down upon closing 
 of the contract, and the remainder upon the completion of the work to be per- 
 formed by the geographer or other officer on the part of the United States. 
 Good and sufficient security to be given by the purchaser or purchasers for the 
 completion of the contract on his or their part. The grant to be made upon the 
 full payment of the consideration money, and a right of entr>' and occupancy to 
 be acquired immediately for so much of the tract as shall be agreed upon be- 
 tween the Board of Treasury and the purchasers. 
 
 Ordered, That the above be referred to the Board of Treasury, to take order. 
 
 July 23, 1787. 
 Land Laws, Pt. i. Chap. 21. 
 
Appendices 135 
 
 APPENDIX C 
 
 CHARTER OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITY 
 AS DRAFTED BY DR. M. CUTLER 
 
 Institutions for the liberal education of Youth being essential to the progress 
 of Arts and Sciences, important to morals and religion, friendly to the peace, 
 order, and prosperity of Society, and honorable to the Government which 
 patronizes them ; and Congress having made grants of lands for the encourage- 
 ment and support of a University, for schools, and for the purposes of Religion, 
 within the purchase made by the Ohio Company of Associates; Therefore: 
 
 Section I. Be it enacted by the General Assembly (here insert the style 
 of the Assembly), That there be a University instituted and established, and 
 forever to remain, within the limits of the tract of land purchased by the said 
 Ohio Company of Associates, by the name of the American University, for the 
 instruction of youth in all the various branches of the liberal Arts and Sciences, 
 for the promotion of good education, piety, religion, and morality, and for con- 
 ferring all the degrees and literary honors granted in similar institutions. 
 
 Sec. II. And be it further enacted, That there shall be in the said University, 
 and forever to remain, a body politic by the name and style of the Board of 
 Trustees of the American University, which Board of Trustees shall consist of 
 the President and Vice-President of the University, ex officio, and of eleven 
 Trustees, all of whom shall reside, while in office, within the limits of the 
 purchase made by the said Ohio Company of Associates; to be appointed as 
 hereafter provided. 
 
 Sec. III. And be it further enacted, That the said Board of Trustees shall 
 have power and authority to elect a President, who shall preside in the Univer- 
 sity, and also a Vice-President, who shall preside in the absence of the President; 
 and likewise to appoint Professors, Tutors, Instructors, and all such officers and 
 servants in the University as they shall deem necessary for carrying into effect 
 the design of this Institution; and shall have authority, from time to time, to 
 determine and establish the name, number, and duties of all the officers and 
 servants to be employed in the University, except wherein provision is other- 
 wise made by their act; and may empower the President, or some other member 
 of the Board, to administer such oaths as they shall appoint and determine for 
 the well ordering and good government of the University. 
 
 Sec. IV. And be it further enacted. That the said Board of Trustees shall 
 have power and authority from time to time to enact statutes and rules for 
 the government of the said Board, not incompatible with the Government of 
 the United States, or the state in which the University is founded; and shall 
 have power and authority to suspend, dismiss, and disfranchise the President, 
 Vice-President, or any member of the said Board, who shall, by his conduct, 
 render himself unworthy of the office, station, or place he sustains; and said 
 Board shall have power and authority to suspend, dismiss, disfranchise, and 
 remove from the University, any officer or instructor (except the President 
 and Vice-President), or any resident, student, or servant, whenever the said 
 Board shall deem it expedient for the interest and honor of the University. 
 And whenever the President, Vice-President, or any member of the Board of 
 
1 36 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 Trustees, shall be removed by death, resignation, or otherwise, or whenever 
 any member of the Board shall move his place of residence without the limits 
 of the purchase of the Ohio Company of Associates, the said Board shall hold a 
 meeting, and due notice of the design thereof shall be given to each member, 
 for the purpose of supplying such vacancy; and there shall be not less than 
 nine members present at the time of choosing a President, Vice-President, or 
 member of the Board, and the choice shall be made by ballot ; and the President 
 shall, at all times, have the right of nominating to the Board, but not of 
 appointing, his successor in office, except when he shall be removed for mis- 
 demeanor; and the said Board shall appoint a certain day for holding a public 
 commencement, and such commencement shall be annually holden within or 
 near the University, for the purpose of conferring such degrees and literary 
 honors as are usually granted in similar institutions, at which time the Board of 
 Trustees shall always be present; and the first commencement shall be holden as 
 soon as, in the opinion of the Board, there shall be a sufficient number of stu- 
 dents qualified to receive literary honors; and no degrees, or literary honors, 
 shall be at any time given without the previous approbation of the Board of 
 Trustees. 
 
 Sec. V. And be it further enacted. That the President, Vice-President, and 
 such Professors, Tutors, or Instructors as the Board of Trustees shall appoint 
 for that purpose, shall have power and authority, from time to time, to order, 
 regulate, and establish the mode and course of education and instruction to be 
 pursued in the University, and also to make, publish, and execute such a code 
 of rules, regulations, and by-laws as they shall deem necessary for the well- 
 ordering and good government of the University, and to repeal or amend any 
 part thereof; provided, nevertheless, that all such rules, regulations, and by- 
 laws, before they become va4id, shall be examined and approved by the Board 
 of Trustees. And the President, or, in his absence, the Vice-President or Sen- 
 ior Instructor, shall direct and cause to be holden in the said University, quar- 
 terly, in every year, a public examination, at which all the Professors and 
 Instructors shall be present; and each class of the students shall be examined 
 relative to the proficiency they have made in their particular arts, sciences, or 
 branches of education in which they have been instructed. 
 
 Sec. VI. And be it further enacted. That the said Board of Trustees shall 
 have one common seal, which shall be the seal of the University, under which 
 shall be passed every Diploma, or certificate of Degrees, and the President, 
 Vice-President, or Board of Trustees make use thereof in any writing or instru- 
 ment which may concern the University, or be relative to the end and design of 
 its institution, and the said Board shall have power to break, change, and renew 
 the same at pleasure; and that they may sue and be sued in all actions, real, 
 personal, and mixed, and prosecute and defend the same unto final judgment, 
 by the name of the Board of Trustees of the American University. 
 
 Sec. VII. And be it further enacted. That the said Board of Trustees shall, 
 forever hereafter, have power and authority to lease, let, rent, and improve, for 
 the use of the University, all the lands contained in the townships number eight 
 and number nine, in the fourteenth range of townships, within the purchase of 
 the Ohio Company of Associates, being the two townships given "for the pur- 
 pose of a University," by the Congress of the United States of America, by 
 
Appendices 137 
 
 a certain indenture executed on the twenty-seventh day of October, in the year 
 one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and confirmed by an act of Con- 
 gress, entitled "an act authorizing the grant and conveyance of certain lands to 
 the Ohio Company of Associates," passed in the year one thousand seven hun- 
 dred and ninety-two, and also by Letters Patent, under the seal of the United 
 States, granted to the Directors of the Ohio Company of Associates, dated the 
 tenth day of May, in the aforesaid year; and the improvements, rent, and in- 
 come thereof shall be applied for carrying into effect the designs of the said 
 University, in such way and manner as the said Board of Trustees shall direct. 
 
 Sec. VIII. And be it further enacted. That the said Board of Trustees shall, 
 forever hereafter, be deemed capable, in law, of having, holding, and taking in 
 fee-simple, by purchase, gift, grant, devise, or otherwise, and of using and im- 
 proving any lands, tenements, or other estate, real or personal, for the use of 
 the said University; provided, that the annual income of such real estate shall 
 not exceed forty thousand dollars, and the annual income or interest of such 
 personal estate shall not exceed fifty thousand dollars, to be valued in silver at 
 one hundred and ten cents by the ounce; and the annual income or interest of 
 the said real or personal estate shall be applied for the benefit of the University 
 in such way and manner as the Board of Trustees shall, from time to time, de- 
 termine; and in case any donation shall be made for particular purposes, rela- 
 tive to the designs of this institution, and the Board of Trustees shall accept the 
 same, every such donation shall be applied in conformity to the will of the 
 Donor. 
 
 Sec. IX. And be it further enacted, That the Board of Trustees, or such 
 person or persons as they shall appoint, shall have power and authority to let, 
 lease, or cause to be improved, from time to time, the lots number sixteen, given 
 by Congress for the use of schools, and the lots number twenty-nine, appropri- 
 ated by Congress to the purposes of Religion, within the several townships 
 granted to the Directors of the Ohio Company of Associates by Letters Patent, 
 under the seal of the United States; and the inhabitants of each respective town- 
 ship shall have the exclusive right to the rents, income, or improvements arising 
 from the lot number sixteen and the lot number twenty-nine, which are situate 
 within their respective townships, to be appropriated agreeably to the inten- 
 tions for which the said lots were respectively given; and the Board of Trustees 
 shall pay, or cause to be paid without delay, the amount of the rents, or income 
 of the lot number sixteen, as soon as such rents or income can be obtained, or, 
 otherwise, shall appropriate the improvement thereof solely to the use and 
 benefit of schools; and in like manner shall the profits, in any way or manner 
 arising from the lot number twenty-nine, be solely appropriated to the purposes 
 of Religion, and under such rules and regulations as the said Board shall 
 establish for carrying into effect the design of the respective donations. And 
 the said Board of Trustees shall, as speedily as may be, put, or cause the said 
 lots to be put, into a state to be productive, by causing them to be rented, or 
 otherwise improved, in such manner as the said Board shall judge will be most 
 beneficial to the inhabitants of each respective township; provided, notwith- 
 standing, that the rents or income of such lots as may be situate in townships 
 where the profits arising therefrom can not, at the present time, be applied 
 agreeably to the design of the donation, for the benefit of the inhabitants of such 
 
138 Educational Significance of Early Federal Land Ordinances 
 
 townships within the said townships, the profits arising from the improvements 
 thereof may be applied for promoting the instruction of youth and the pur- 
 poses of Religion, respectively, where school instructors and religious teachers 
 are actually employed, until the inhabitants of such townships can receive the 
 benefit thereof, within their respective townships; and the said Board shall ap- 
 portion such profits in such way and manner as, in their opinion, shall be most 
 just and equitable to the inhabitants, and most conducive to promote the de- 
 signs of the respective donations. 
 
 Sec. X. And be it further enacted. That A. B,, C. D., E. F. (naming eleven) 
 shall constitute the said Board of Trustees, for the time being, and until a 
 President and Vice-President of the University shall be elected and enter into 
 office; and that A. B. be, and he is hereby, authorized to appoint the time and 
 place of holding the first meeting, and that he notify each member constituting 
 the Board of Trustees to attend accordingly; and that, as soon as the said Board 
 shall judge it expedient, a President and Vice-President, or either of them, shall 
 be chosen in the manner before prescribed; and that, at all times, the President, 
 or, in his absence, the Vice-President, or, in his absence, such member as the 
 Board shall appoint, shall preside at the meetings of said Board of Trustees. 
 
 Cutler: Life of Cutler, II: pp. 22-27. 
 
VITA 
 
 Howard Cromwell Taylor was born November 4, 1887, in 
 Boone County, Missouri. 
 
 He attended Stephens College, Primary Department, Co- 
 lumbia, Missouri, 1 893-1 899; Stephens College, Preparatory De- 
 partment, 1 899-1902; University Military Academy, Columbia, 
 Missouri, 1902-1903; University of Missouri, Columbia, Mis- 
 souri, 1 903- 1 904; Georgetown College, Georgetown, Kentucky, 
 1904-1907, receiving the A.B. degree in 1906 and the A.M. de- 
 gree in 1907; University of Missouri, Graduate School, 1912-1914; 
 Columbia University, Faculty of Philosophy, 1914-1915, receiving 
 the A.M. degree in 19 15. 
 
 He was clerk in the general offices of the Missouri Pacific-Iron 
 Mountain and Southern Railway, St. Louis, Missouri, 1907-1909; 
 principal of the Arcadia Heights School, Arcadia, Missouri, 1909- 
 1912; teacher of history and government, University of Missouri, 
 summer of 1914; teacher of history. East Carolina Teacher Train- 
 ing School, Greenville, North Carolina, summer of 191 5; Professor 
 of Education, Drury College, Springfield, Missouri, 1915-1916; 
 Instructor in Educational Psychology, University of Missouri, 
 1916-1917; Dean of the College of the City of El Paso and As- 
 sociate Professor in the College of Mines of the University of 
 Texas, El Paso, Texas, 191 7 — . 
 
 139 
 
^ 
 
^•^ 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY, 
 
 - BERKELEY 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE 
 
 ON THE LAST DATE 
 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 Books not. returned on time are subject to a fine of 
 50c iJer' volume after the third day overdue, increasing 
 to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in 
 demand may be renewed if application is made before 
 expiration of loan period. 
 
 MAY 1 \%%6 
 
 14Apr'57TS 
 
 ' 'L 23 1^'-:? 
 
 REC'D LD 
 
 
 Iv..-.^ 3i 1951 
 
 
 «0V 111989 
 
 *' MAB 4 ,, 
 
 931 
 
 *"« 30 1931 
 
 
 APR 101946 
 
 
 ^^OecblPF 
 
 
 9hr'52lU 
 
 
 
 20m-l,'22 
 
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 CDDb712b7b 
 
 490304 
 
 lA LIBRARY