We have seen that the first donation was one-twentieth part of certain proceeds derived from the sale of lands; then ninety feet of land, followed soon by one-half of five sections per mile on each side; then by six sections; then by ten, and finally by twenty sections per mile on each side of the road. If the lands granted, or in other words embraced within the limits of the grants, could be found available, the companies, not including those for canals or wagon roads, would receive, provided each built its road and complied with the laws, more than two hundred and fifteen million acres. That quantity if embraced in one compact body, would form an area of more than three hundred and thirty-five thousand square miles, or a tract of land more than seven times as large as the State of Pennsylvania, and only about six thousand miles less than the area of the thirteen original States. But, in fact, the grants will not realize near that quantity, and the estimate, as made by the Land Department, is only about one hundred and eighty-seven million acres. By the aid of those grants, however, about fifteen thousand miles of road have been constructed. Those roads have been the means of developing vast fields of magnificent territory, and securing to the people many lesser lines built by private capital. The various grants have been the subject of much explanatory, amendatory, and confirmatory legislation, and have also received numerous interpretations by the different courts. Of the latter, I deem it proper to refer only to the more important rulings of the Supreme Court which bear upon the fundamental principles underlying the whole system. In nearly all grants, except the Pacific, provision has been made for indemnity in case it appeared, when the lines of the roads had been definitely fixed, that the United States had sold, disposed of, or reserved any of the sections or parts of sections contained within the grants. The theory has heretofore existed that “indemnity” was allowed for all tracts which might not be found subject to the operation of the grant; and selections have been permitted in lieu of such disposed of or reserved tracts. A recent decision, however, casts some doubt upon the correctness of this theory. The question came up in a case from Kansas, under the act of March 3, 1863, and the court declared: