The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 35, July 1931 - April, 1932 Page: 17

Texas and the Southern Pacific Railroad, 1848-1860

acre, or a donation of more than $5,000,000 by Texas.41 The na-
tional government failed to take any action on this offer, hence it
expired by its own limitation in March, 1851.
The struggle of 1850 and the Clay Compromise which averted
possible secession and disunion was followed b.y a few months of
calm in Pacific railroad agitation. The Texas spokesman in the,
United States Senate for the Southern route was Thomas Jeffer-
son Rusk; in the House of Representatives the Texas leader on
this question was Volney Elijah Howard, of the San Antonio dis-
trict. During the early fifties we find them making known the
wants of Texas along the line of a southern Pacific railway. It
should be remarked that some sort of a bill for a Pacific railroad
was always before Congress from 1845 until the outbreak of the
Civil War. Senator Gwin, of California, had brought to the 32nd
Congress a Pacific railroad bill which was referred to a commit-
tee, and from the Committee was evolved the Rusk Bill, provid-
ing for a road from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean to
be aided by the United States government but built by a railroad
company. Alternate sections of land along a twelve-mile zone in
the states and along a twenty-four-mile zone in the territories,
were to be allowed the contractors, and as the work progressed they
were to be allowed an additional subsidy of $20,000,000 in 5%
fifty-year bonds. The surveys were to be made by government
engineers, and the President of the United States was to select the
route. Transportation of mails and telegraph service were to be
furnished the government free, and the government was to reserve
the right to buy the road at the end of thirty years service.42 The,
chief objection urged by the opponents of the Rusk Bill was the
great power given to the President in the selection of the route.
The Senate adjourned without final action.
In the preceding session Rusk had offered an amendment
to the bill for a railroad along the route proposed by Asa
Whitney. Rusk proposed an additional road along the line of
the 32nd parallel, thinking that most of the sectional prejudice
would be overcome by a plan to build two roads instead of one.
But the amendment made no progress.48 As his amendment failed,
Rusk spoke eloquently for the original bill from a broad national
'=Teas State Gazette, January 12, 1850.
"Cong. Globe, 2 Sess., 82 Cong., 341.
a"Cong. Globe, 1 Sees., 82 Cong., 941.