¹ Bryce, James, The American Commonwealth (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1914), 1, 26.Google Scholar

² By the Ordinance of May 20, 1785. For a concise summary of the beginnings of American land policy see Robbins, Roy M., Our Landed Heritage: The Public Domain 1776–1936 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1942), pp. 3–19.Google Scholar

³ Art. IV, sec. 3. “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; … The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; …”

⁴ Robbins, Our Landed Heritage, p. 27.

⁵ For an analysis of the relationship between canal and railway land-grant systems see Rae, John Bell, “Federal Land Grants in Aid of Canals,” The Journal of Economic History, IV (May, 1944), 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Donaldson, Thomas, The Public Domain (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1884), pp. 257–261.Google Scholar Army Engineers provided additional important assistance to waterway and harbor improvement through survey services, these activities being more readily identifiable with defense than economic development.

⁷ Albert Gallatin, then Secretary of the United States Treasury, had clearly enunciated this principle in his report on internal improvement presented to Congress in 1808. There appears to have been no general acceptance of the principle at that time or none, at least, of its full implications in terms of policy.

⁸ 14–15 Vic, c. 73. In 1833 Congress authorized the State of Illinois to divert a land grant made in 1827 for the construction of a canal to construct a railroad. This authorization was the first Congressional railway land grant but was not utilized. See Donaldson, The Public Domain, p. 261.

⁹ Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, 3d Session, 8th Provincial Parliament of Canada (Quebec, 1865), hereafter referred to as theConfederation Debates, p. 103.

¹⁰ See Hibbard, Benjamin H., A History of the Public Land Policies (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1924), pp. 14–16.Google Scholar

¹¹ Coues, Elliott, History of the Expedition under the Command of Lewis and Clark, (New York, 1893), I, xx–xxviGoogle Scholar, as cited in Innis, Harold A., A History of the Canadian Pacific Railway (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1923), p. 5 n.Google Scholar

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ Kirkland, Edward C., A History of American Economic Life (New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 1934), pp. 376–382.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Writing in the New York Morning News, December 27, 1845, with specific reference to the Oregon Boundary dispute, John L. O'Sullivan spoke of “the right of our [the American] manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.” Cited by Weinberg, Albert K. in Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansionism in American History (Baltimore, 1935), p. 145.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Howay, F. W., Sage, W. N. and Angus, H. F., British Columbia and the United States (Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1942), pp. 196–197.Google Scholar Proposals for annexation of the North American territories by the United States were neither surprising nor, indeed, entirely unacceptable to public opinion in England. The Times of London said: “British Columbia is a long way off…. With the exception of a limited official class it receives few immigrants from England, and a large proportion of its inhabitants consists of citizens of the United States who have entered it from the south. Suppose that the Colonists met together and came to the conclusion that every natural motive of contiguity, similarity of interests, and facility of administration induced diem to think it more convenient to slip into the Union than into the Dominion…. We all know that we should not attempt to withstand them.” Lord Granville, Secretary of State for the Colonies, “expressed the wish that the British possessions in North America would propose to be independent and annex themselves.” See Hugh L. Keenleyside, “British Columbia— Annexation or Confederation?” Canadian Historical Association, Annual Report 1928, p. 36.

¹⁷ Keenleyside cites examples of unofficial annexationist utterances. See his article, “British Columbia—Annexation or Confederation?” p. 37. See also Warner, Donald F., “Drang Nach Norden: The United States and the Riel Rebellion,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXXIX (1952–1953), 693–712.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Confederation Debates, pp. 86, 103, 243–244, 475–476.

¹⁹ As cited in Keenleyside, “British Columbia— Annexation or Confederation?” p. 39.

²⁰ See Pope, Sir Joseph, Memoirs of the Right Honourable Sir John Alexander Macdonald, G.C.B. (Toronto, 1894), pp. 524–525.Google Scholar

²¹ Canada, , House of Commons, Debates, 1881, p. 491.Google Scholar

²² Ibid.