Sec. 5, Act of July 1, 1862, Statutes at Large 12 (1863): 489.
The case was United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 91 U.S. 72
23 L. Ed. 224.
1875 U.S. LEXIS 1337.
2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2357.
1 Otto 72, Nov. 29, 1875, decided.
Here I have followed the argument of Horace White, an attorney for the bondholders of the Kansas Pacific.
"Arguments of Horace White... House Committee on the Pacific Railroad, Union Pacific Railroad Discriminations," 45th Congress, 2nd session, 1878, 1-3, copy in C.B. & Q, 63, 1870, 6.8, Pacific Railroad File, no. 29.
Report to the Stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad, for the Year 1875 (Boston, 1876), 37.
"An Act to Authorize the Commisioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to Guarantee the Payment of a Loan...21 July 1873," in Correspondence respecting the Canadian Pacific Railroad Act So Far As Regards British Columbia (London: Harrison and Sons, 1875), 98-99.
Klein, Union Pacific, 31.
Add local planning and regulation book. Such schemes had a considerable ante-bellum history, and both the American Congress and the Canadian Parliament had learned that although running a railroad through the public domain changed the value of land, rising prices would not necessarily accrue to the government, and so they sought to capture part of the increased value by retaining part of the land near the tracks.
James Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 50-52.