Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - Sidor ...
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has been proofread at least once.
(diff)
(history)
Denna sida har korrekturlästs minst en gång.
(skillnad)
(historik)
advantages of Illinois. He said that Chicago being the
market of the west, to settle far from that point,
especially across the Mississippi, was to lessen income
through higher freight rates; that it was good economy
to pay more for Illinois land than for Iowa, Kansas,
and Minnesota farms. As a further inducement he was
authorized to state that no taxes would be levied on
Illinois Central land until seven years after payment. The
central Illinois climate is milder and more even, feed
for cattle easier to procure, and schools and the
comforts of life more accessible. Hasselquist wrote that
many favored purchasing Illinois Central land. No decision
was reached, however, but two men were appointed
to inspect possible locations with instructions to view
the railway lands first. [1]
One of the representatives, J. C. Brandt, made a
report of his tour through Hemlandet. [2] He was unable
to travel widely in Minnesota because of lack of funds,
but he visited Forest City, Hutchinson, Glencoe, and
Seandian Grove, which places he describes concisely and
well. On the whole he gained a most favorable
impression of Minnesota.
Apparently the attempt to direct emigration on a large
scale failed, but the meetings, discussions, and letters
advertised certain communities and influenced decisions
of individuals. Minnesota especially received a great
deal of free advertising. Reverend P. A. Cederstam
wrote from St. Peter as follows: [3] “Minnesota is now
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
