Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

"The committee are of opinion that promiscuous and unauthorized settlements on the public lands are, in many respects, injurious to the public interests; good policy forbids that any encouragement should be given to such intrusions. It was prohibited by the Congress under the confederation, and has been made penal by an act under the present form of government. Congress cannot, in the opinion of the committee, grant the prayer of the petitioners, in its full extent, without destroying the effect intended to be produced by the law prohibiting intrusions on the public lands. To legalize a direct violation of the law must, by obvious consequence, encourage future violations."

This law is now in force, and this report was made by Mr. Morrow, of Ohio, a gentleman well acquainted with the public land and the interests of the United States. By a departure from this wise policy, all the pernicious consequences which he so distinctly points out have been

realized.

In 1824, the Committee on Public Lands again reported as follows, in regard to pre-emption rights:

"The committee are of opinion that an extension of these principles would be injurious to the Government as well as to those who may hereafter become the purchasers of public lands, and probably to those who may venture to settle upon Government land without authority hereafter.

"It cannot be perceived by what principle persons having no color of title should, after lands on which they have settled were known to belong to the United States at the time of making such settlement, claim the pre-emption right to such lands.

"Should the Government sanction applications of this nature, an inducement would be offered to persons of an enterprising disposition to anticipate, in every quarter, the Government in its sales of the public lands, and to settle upon and improve the most valuable tracts of land, which they would claim at the minimum price, whenever such lands were brought into the market by the authority

[blocks in formation]

"A system of indulgence to those who trespass, by making unauthorized settlements upon the public lands, after those lands are known to belong to the United States, would, in the opinion of the committee, be productive of much perplexity to the Governmen', as well as of injury to those concerned in the purchase and settlement of the public domain."

A

Without troubling the Senate further by reference to the doings of Congress, I may here remark that this was the wholesome doctrine which guided and regulated action here in regard to the public lands until 1830. deaf ear was invariably turned upon all entreaties to grant what are denominated pre-emption rights. None stood more firmly against them than the members from the new States. The injurious consequences were foreseen, and our predecessors comprehended how difficult it would be to retrieve a false step. In 1820, the minimum price of public lands was reduced from two dollars to a dollar and a quarter an acre, and all credit abolished; which system is now in operation.

In 1839, the first pre-emption law, which extended to the public lands generally, was passed, under pretence of quieting the possessions of a few poor people who

[FEB. 9, 1837.

had established homes upon the public land, and asked for a few acres, at the minimum price, which they had cultivated about their houses. The argument addressed to the humanity of Congress prevailed. The speculators, in the guise of poor men, seduced Congress. It seemed just in itself; and we will now see what have been the results of that law, and learn something from experience. If the public documents speak the truth, it has been the means of awakening cupidity, and has served to disguise and cover up the most disgusting frauds, perjuries, and peculations. This law, in its terms, provided for retrospective cases only, for cases where settlements and cultivation had been actually made, and was designed to secure to the poor man his home, not to invite new settlers, or to enlarge the domains of the rich. A pre-emption law, as it is styled, gives to the occupant the exclusive right to enter for himself, to become the purchaser of a given quantity of land, on which he has made his improvements, be its quality or value what it may, at a dollar and a quarter the acre, which is the lowest price at which public land is sold. The least quantity which the United States, in their sin. gular liberality, proposed to let a pre-emptioner have was 160 acres, or one quarter of a section--the public lands being surveyed into sections or squares of 640

acres each.

This act of 1830, it was supposed, would apply only to the relief of a few cases of poor people, who had penetrated the public land, and commenced the process of clearing farms. But, sir, Mr. Brown, the late Commissioner of the Land Office, was required to state, at the last session of Congress, how much revenue had been diverted from the public Treasury by this act. His answer was, that he had no certain data by which to estimate it; but he adds:

"Considering the many tens of thousands of claims that have arisen under it, and the prevailing desire, in the mean while, to invest money in public land, the conclusion seems fair that the selected spots would have been sold for a price proportioned to their excellence, if no such law, nor any improper conspiracy, had existed. The estimate of three millions of dollars, which I had the honor to submit to you on the 28th of January last, appears to me now to underrate, much rather than to magnify, the difference between the receipts for preemption concessions and the sum the same lands would have brought into the Treasury,”

Under this law, where two persons had made improvements on the same quarter section of land, it was decided, as they could not both have it, that one should have what is familiarly called a float--that is, a right to enter his quantity upon any of the surveyed and unsold public lands; thus giving to him a vast range, and an opportunity to select the most valuable spot.

The Commissioner, in speaking of the manner in which these floats were obtained, says:

"The virtuous and patriotic citizens of Louisiana have been disgusted and alarmed by the extent to which fraud and perjury are asserted to have been carried on in the manufacture of such claims within that interesting State, threatening to cover a large portion of the most valuable lands that have been surveyed."

"The law, as its title imports, is in favor of settlers. But pretensions have been set up by persons dwelling in town with their families, and there following mercantile pursuits, while they caused a little show of improvement, that scarce deserved the name, to be made for them by others; no proof being produced of their personal super. intendence or direction on the spot. Cultivation by slaves or hirelings in 1833, and one or the other, or a growing crop on the place on the following 19th of June, have been assumed as fulfilling the required con

ditions."

[blocks in formation]

"Among the pretences to cultivation, there have been disclosures as follows, viz: where the cutting and burning a small patch of cane; where an enclosure, not entitled to be called a fence, around a space only large enough for a small garden, and the planting a few culinary vegetables; and where scattering an undefined quantity of turnip seeds or grass seeds, and, in one case, planting a few turnips or onions, have been claimed as cultivation to meet this condition." Again:

"If the propriety were conceded of making the preemption policy a part of our land system, there would be still no evident fitness in extending the concession to a full quarter section of land. An allowance of half that quantity of the very best land is surely munificent, and, if presumed poverty be one of the considerations for the grant, it may be observed that many a good farm in the West contains no more than an eighth of a section." Again:

[SENATE.

are the owners of these floats? Principally one, and not more than three speculators. Since the 1st of January of this year, up to the 27th of May, day after day, week after week, I might say months after months, a notorious speculator (and who must have been known as such to the officers of the land office at Opelousas) was scen occupying that office, to the almost total exclusion of every body else. No other person appeared to understand how to get pre-emption floats through, and no one did succeed until an event which will be stated below. He could be seen followed to and from the land office by crowds of free negroes, Indians, and Spaniards, and the very lowest dregs of society in the counties of Opelousas and Rapides, with their affidavits already prepared by himself, and sworn to by them before some justice of the peace in some remote part of the county. These claims, to an immense extent, are presented and allowed. And upon what evidence? Simply upon the evidence of the would it be believed that the lands where these quarter sections purported to be located, from the affidavit of the applicants, had never been surveyed by the Govern ment nor any competent officer thereof, nor approved, nor returned surveyed? I further state that there was not even a private survey made. These facts I know. I have been in the office when the entries were made, and have examined the evidence, which was precisely what I have stated above."

"The temptation to abuse the charity of the Legisla-parties themselves who desire to make the entry! And ture is so radically intermixed and so inextricably interwoven with the operation of the pre-emption laws, that I should despair of laying before you altogether effectual means for the prevention of fraud on the part of claimants. It seems to me a hopeless task to project any modification of existing enactments that shall silence perjury, and defeat the devices of sagacious speculators, so long as their ingenuity shall be sharpened and stimulated by the prospect of immense gain attending their

success."

Such are the extraordinary and disgusting develop. ments made by the officer who was last year at the head of the General Land Office, and whose means of intelligence cannot be questioned; and such is the effect of legislating the public domain into the hands of individ uals. It offers such temptation to an easy acquisition of wealth, that it superinduces every species of fraud.

I will now ask attention to some parts of a statement made by the attorney of the United States for the western district of Louisiana in regard to these floats and pre-emption rights:

Such has been the result of the experiment of the law of 1830, made for the benefit of a few poor settlers. It has swept away more than three millions of dollars from the public chest, and introduced a system which corrupts and demoralizes the citizens, to an extent surpassing belief. It comes to us fraught with all the evils prophesied of it, and has already invited hordes to seize upon the public property, indulging the hope that new laws of this description will be passed. Indeed, they come boldly to our doors and demand them. This city is now filled with greedy claimants; not your poor and helpless individuals, who have raised a log cabin over their heads in some nook of public property, but men who enter the fashionable walks of life and boast of their for

tunes.

"I will here mention a construction of the law which was adopted by the officers at Opelousas, and most of the pre-emption floats have been admitted under that construction: Two persons living on a quarter section, or And yet this law of 1830 was guarded and protected who pretend that they do, on lands not worth a cent an by oaths and required proofs. The settlement and the acre; men who can neither read nor write; men who cultivation must he proved under oath, and to have ochave never seen a survey made, and know nothing about curred before 1829, to entitle the claimant to the benc sections or quarter sections of land; and who, in point fit of the act. But, sir, what is cultivation? Any act of fact, live five, ten, and, in many instances, twenty upon the soil; raising a handful of vegetables of a few miles apart, go before a justice of the peace as ignorant weeks' growth; sowing a little grass seed, which is up as themselves, and swear to all the facts required by in a few days. What is occupancy? Feeding a horse law to make their entry; this, too, in a section of coun- upon the soil has been claimed as such. And such mistry never surveyed by the authority of the Government, erable frauds, aided by the perjury of hired and interestnor any competent officer thereof. Would it be believed witnesses, have been employed, with the connivance ed that any officer of the Government would admit an of public officers, under a benevolent act, to steal the entry under circumstances like these, upon the oaths most valuable parts of the public land. Such has been alone of the parties interested in making them, and our sad and appalling experience under the law of 1830. upon lands not surveyed, approved, and returned, by higher authority? Can it be possible that an entry of that kind can either be in conformity with law, justice, or right?

"I state, of my own knowledge, that many of these pre-emption floats are precisely in the situation above detailed. I am authorized to name Colonel Robert A. Crane, of Louisiana, who states, positively, he knows many of them to be founded upon the same corrupt perjury--persons swearing that they lived on the same quarter section, when, in truth and in fact, they never had lived so near each other as five miles. It is not believed that there are thirty honest pre-emption floats in the whole district of Louisiana; and yet, since the 1st of January, 1835, up to the 27th of May, they have passed at the land office at Opelousas at least 350. And who

Now, sir, what is the character of the bill on your table? A thousand-fold worse than the act of 1830. It is a pre-emption, for the exclusive benefit of the States in which the public lands lie. A monopoly in their hands; an appropriation of the public lands to their use, to the exclusion of all others; a gift of this vast treasure to the citizens of those States. And can I vote for such a profligate disposition of public property? How can I meet my constituents and justify such an act? You have hardly the modesty to disguise this bill, by holding it up as a measure for the benefit of the poor; but gentlemen stand boldly forth, and contend that every man's farm should be made up to at least 1,280 acres out of the pubfic land. Ay, more: that he shall have the right to select from no less than twenty-one sections of 640 acres each, the best parts and portions, to make up his comple

[blocks in formation]

ment, at a dollar and a quarter the acre. And more: you do not confine him to lands surveyed, but permit him to range in regions never yet exposed to sale, and to select the richest gifts of nature. Nor is your bill confined to retrospective action, but whoever will may go and seize the public domain. And what do you require of him? Oaths and proofs of occupancy and cultivation; such, substantially, as were required by the act of 1830; provisions just as easily evaded. And titles were manufactured under that act in vast numbers, by the oaths of perjured witnesses and the certificates of false magistrates. If you were robbed of three millions of dollars under that act, what may you not expect by thus opening the flood-gates to the cupidity of the greedy and avaricious?

We have, I know, heard much fulsome panegyric lavished upon the hardy pioneers, as they are styled; much of their sufferings, and much of their perils and bravery. But, sir, who invites them to these sufferings? Who asks them to seize the public land? For whose benefit is it? The laws of the United States forbid their entry upon it, they restrain by heavy penalties all intrusion, they declare all such persons to be trespassers and liable to indictment. These intruders are, therefore, disturbers of the public peace, and by interfering with the Indians they provoke hostilities, and create the very wars in which they affirm they have suffered, and then claim our compassion. It is my firm belief that if these disturbers were kept within lawful bounds, we should have no hostilities with the Indians.

But, sir, if fighting is meritorious, have we no fight ing men to be provided for? Are those who achieved our independence forgotten? Do Bunker Hill, and Lexington, and Sarotaga, sink into forgetfulness before the exploits with Black Hawk and Occola? We have heard much, too, of the poor settler; and that there are some of this class on the public land is doubtless true. If they, and they alone, can be provided for by being quieted in their possessions, they shall have my vote. Show me a bill for them, which will bar frauds and speculation, and it shall have my most hearty support. But what sort of a bill is this for poor men, which proposes to let each person who may choose to take up for himself or to annex to his estate 1,280 acres of the most

choice spots of the public land? Cannot something short of an estate equal to that of a nobleman satisfy the poor? The poor, sir, are used as the stalking-horse to disguise the measure; its features are, however, too apparent to mislead any one. But if the poor are to be provided for, then I claim that all are alike entitled. I regret it, but we have many poor, too poor even to be able to make the long journey to your public land. They are meritorious, and they suffer all the privations incident to their unfortunate condition, and I claim for them a share of the public bounty, if the public property is to be distributed. There is a great class of widows and orphans, aged and infirm, whose condition makes a strong appeal to your humanity. Let your bounty reach them, and gladden their sorrowful hearts, instead of adding to the boundless acres of the rich planters.

We have been told that great numbers of respectable people have emigrated, and settled upon the public lands, in the expectation that a pre-emption law would pass for their benefit. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. HUBBARD] says that he knows of a great number, and that a large majority of the Territorial Council of Wisconsin are squatters. I doubt not it is true, and that they have left their poor neighbors behind them in New Hampshire. They are doubtless men of comfortable means; and why do they go to Wisconsin to settle upon public lands which have neither been surveyed nor brought into the market, when there are millions on millions of acres which have been surveyed this side of

[FEB. 9, 1837.

that Territory, which are of superior quality for agricul tural purposes, and which they might lawfully enter and own at a dollar and a quarter? This boundless region does not satisfy the ambition of these poor men who are seeking a home. They pass by all this, as unworthy of their notice, and light upon regions where they may have the first choice, and not wait to get rich by the slow process of ordinary accumulation. These are the poor men knocking at our doors for pre-emption rights. But this is not all. We have proofs here that they are banded and associated together to resist the laws of the United States, and to maintain their claims against all opposition. They have constitutions, as they term them; and for what? To stand together and maintain their possessions. To set at defiance the title of the United States to their own property. To make war upon all persons who shall dare to bid for these lands at the sales made by the United States, and by such high-handed violence to secure to themselves great tracts of country, the most valuable portions of the public domain, at the paltry sum of a dollar and a quarter the acre, though it is well known that purchasers stand ready in many instances to give a hundred-fold more. Many of these settlers, it is said, are banded with the speculators by an agreement to divide the booty; and when the rights are thus once secured in a place, like birds of prey, they rise up and light upon some other favored region, to convert it to private property by the same process of

lawless violence.

I was informed by a gentleman, last winter, who lived at the Grand Rapids, in Michigan, among the Ottawa Indians, that the south bank of the rapids was owned by a squatter, who had obtained a section of 640 acres, at a dollar and a quarter the acre, and that it is worth, at this moment, without any important improvements, half a million of dollars. I could not easily credit the word of a man of the strictest veracity, until I saw, by the treaty made with these Indians, and ratified here at the last session, that a section on the other bank was estimated to be worth a much greater sum. This is not an isolated case of the accumulation of vast wealth by the erection of a bark cabin and the planting of a few peppers or tomatoes. The end, aim, and purpose, of the great body of pre-emptioners is to make themselves rich out of the public property. It is, in a word, to defraud the United States in the manner described in the documents from which I have read.

I have recently conversed with a distinguished member of the other House, from the West, who passed through Wisconsin during the last summer, and he informs me that the path leading through the public lands was, for a large portion of the way, skirted by a furrow or two of the plough, which turned off at intervals, and entered the prairies or the openings. On inquiry, he found that this was the proof of occupancy and possession. Those who had done this considered themselves as having established pre-emption rights to all enclosed by the furrows. Some went round a thousand, some more, and some less, acres, and some marked out, in this way, many lots. Almost all the choice land had been thus seized, in anticipation of the passage of this or some pre-emption act. He added, that when one crossed the furrow of another, this was called jumping, and then a fight with deadly weapons ensued.

I bave seen also a letter, giving an account of a treaty made in Wisconsin the last summer with the lowas, who lived on the lowa river, west of the Mississippi. The lands upon this stream are represented to be of extraor dinary fertility; and, after the general terms of the treaty were agreed upon, the commissioners proposed that a stipulation for a speedy removal of the Indians and a surrender of the territory should be inserted. When this proposition was interpreted to the Indians, the wri

[blocks in formation]

ter, who was present, declares there was among them a general laugh, which was viewed as a singular com. ment upon a grave proposition, and an explanation was requested. They instantly replied that the proposition for such an article was absurd, and wholly unnecessary, as they had no possession. They affirmed, what was ascertained to be true, that before they assembled to make the treaty, the pre-emptioners had begun to run their ploughs round the land; and no sooner had their agreement to negotiate been made public, than the whites began to take possession of their cabins, and they did not doubt they were now occupying every one of them. The author of this letter is a gentleman, well known as a respectable citizen of the United States.

[SENATE.

mended the rejection of the bill to renew the deposite with the States,) why should it not follow the surplus of last year? Is not this better than to cast it into the sea? But there is still a wiser and a better measure-one that at all times has strongly recommended itself to the consideration of the country: I mean the bill which has repeatedly passed both Houses by a large majority, and has met with an insurmountable obstacle in the veto of the Executive-the land bill. This act provided for the distribution of the avails of the sales of the public lands among the States, upon just and equitable principles, to aid them in their great cause of education and internal improvements. It was in conformity with the terms of the cession of those lands; for they were given to the States, and not to the United States.

And, sir, if this salutary measure had been adopted, what signal blessings would it have conferred upon the States? Who does not see that it was every where need

gladdened in all the country, by such a just distribution of a treasure acquired by the common blood and sacrifices of the American people? A more munificent, wise, and just act, was never devised within these chambers. This money would have been applied by the States to lighten the burdens and to increase the happiness of the people. I know of nothing in which the poor are more emphatically blessed than in enlarged means of education, or in which the whole people are more clearly benefited than in the extension of internal improvements, which bring the products of labor by cheap and easy means to the markets of the country.

I have now said enough to show what is the general character of pre-emption rights-that they fill the minds of sharpers with golden dreams, and that the poor are the last class of people who are to be benefited by them. If this bill passes, the public lands are gone, irreclaimed, and that the hearts of the people would have been ably gone; for such will be the rush upon them, and such the reliance upon future legislation of this character, that this Government can never reassert its authority. I have heard that the number of persons waiting on the public domain for this law may be estimated at 50,000; whether it be more or less is not material, for it is known to be great. When we hear that the Government itself of Wisconsin is of this class, we can have little doubt of the character of the population. Now, sir, I again ask, what necessity is there for such a partial, unjust measure? Why should we in this manner waste the public treasure, and corrupt the morals of the citizens? Why should we do injustice to the whole country, by Such was the general design of this beneficent act; and lowering the value of real estate? Are not the land- while I lament that any causes should have arrested its holders, the farmers of the old States, to be regard-progress, I do not despair of yet seeing a returning sense ed? You cannot change the price of the public lands without its being felt by a correspondent change in the value of real estate from Maine to the farthest West. It seems to be thought here that the farmers of the old States have no right to open their mouths, if you legis late away half the value of their estates, which have been acquired by long, patient, and laborious industry. They may be left to take care of themselves, or to abandon their homes, and scramble for a share of the public property; for they seem to attract little of the sympathy that is so liberally extended to those who grasp at the alluring booty. Are not the rights of the farmers of the older portions of the new States to be regarded! They have bought and paid for their lands to the United States. Can it be just to them to give away adjoining lots? You indirectly acknowledge that it would not; for you bribe such persons, by allowing them to enlarge their farms to very extraordinary dimensions. But why are we urged to pass a law thus full of injustice?

The great and leading argument is, that the Treasury is too full of money, and it is better to annihilate a source of vast revenue, than to possess the money. Better to throw away public property than to keep it! Better to give it to a few, than that the great whole should have the benefit of it! Sir, you may talk of the poor; of the necessity of settling the public lands; of the gallantry of the pioneers; of their sufferings, their respectability, and whatever else the human mind may invent in its proneness to fiction; but you can never reconcile the people to such an argument. You can never satisfy them that it is better to waste the public treasure than to apply it to public uses; that it is better and more just to pamper a few with it, than to let the whole feel the blessings which a Government may secure by an administration for the benefit of all.

If there should be a surplus of revenue, (which the Secretary of the Treasury denies, and which the committee that report this bill deny, for they have recomVOL. XIII.-49

and more just regard to public rights in this matter.

Can any one for a moment hesitate between the land bill and the act before us? They both relate to the public property: the one proposes to dispose of it for the public and general good; the other to advance the interests of a few clamorous individuals, most of whom are greedy speculators; the one to enlighten the public mind and to promote the public convenience, the other to create an odious monopoly in the hands of a few, while the great public is excluded from all participation in its own property; the one to ease the Treasury of its burdens, by returning to the people what is their own, the other to build up a class of favored individuals at the expense of the people. The one creates a sectional, undisguised monopoly, not of privileges alone, but by taking what belongs to us of the old States, as well as to those of the new, and giving it to others. Can there, ought there to be a moment's hesitation in choosing between these meas. ures? If the Treasury is too full, (which your Secretary in his report and estimates denies,) shall the people have their own, or shall a favored few be pampered with it?

Have we reached a crisis which demands the absolute sacrifice of the public lands? What would be thought of an individual so profligate as to commit his property to destruction? It would be deemed a sin so gross as to provoke the displeasure of Heaven. And we need not be surprised if we soon reach a period when the people will look back with incredulity upon this era, in which we are puzzling ourselves to devise ways to get rid of the revenue. They will be amazed that so little wisdom existed here as not to apply any surplus that possibly can exist to great and useful purposes; but, above all, they will credit no man with sincerity who argues that it is necessary to sacrifice the public property; for you cannot persuade men that their condition is above amendment; that they need nothing more; that public money cannot yet be expended so as to promote their happiness.

But if, from political prejudice or any other cause, the land bill is objectionable, still we may easily reduce

SENATE.]

[ocr errors]

Public Lands.

he revenue without throwing the public property over. board. Why not limit or stop the sales of the public lands? Why not offer a limited portion of those which have been surveyed, instead of exciting the cupidity of the greedy, by offering a choice of the whole domain? There surely can be no difficulty in reducing the reve nue from public land, if it is necessary. Small financial talent can bring that about, and leave the public property to meet future emergencies. The Treasury can never be so plethoric as to require blood-letting.

But another matter has been pressed with extraordinary zeal, and, I fear, more for effect than any other purpose.

This chamber has literally resounded, ever since the opening of the session, with denunciations of speculators in lands. The pre-emption law of 1830, I have shown, disguised and gave effect to the most disgusting, injurious frauds among speculators that have ever been perpetrated, and this bill opens a passage a thousand times wider and safer for the workers of iniquity. I have, therefore, been greatly surprised that those who denounce speculators should be found among the advocates of this measure. Let those who have defrauded the poor Indians, and through them plundered the United States, answer for their gross misconduct. No denunciations for them can be too heavy, no punishment too

severe.

[FEB. 9, 1837.

their own affairs are judiciously conducted. They need
no regulation themselves; indeed, they are willing to
submit to none; for that is a matter that belongs exclu-
sively to their private judgment; but their neighbors may
with propriety be regulated. The Executive may put
bis hand upon them, because they buy or sell a little too
much. It is a kind of indefinable public injury, which
may be corrected by the interference of executive pow
er; and there is no harm in applying a regulator to the
judgment of others. To ourselves it is not necessary, as
our opinions are as good as the King's. But I said spec-
ulation did not find its origin in the public lands, but in
the removal of the deposites. That extraordinary meas
ure gave the death-blow to the Bank of the United States,
and established the belief that such a bank hereafter was
to be dispensed with. What a host of banks have risen
upon its ruins! What a sea of paper has inundated the
country, under pretence of suppressing bank notes! In
1830, the bank capital in the United States was estima-
ted at $145,192,268; and it is now believed to be little,
if any, short of $400,000,000. Banks have been every
where created, with an amount of capital that would
have startled the public mind before this war began.
Where is the boasted hard-money currency? Who sees
it? Who feels it? It jingles in the press, and nowhere
else. But what has been the effect of this remarkable
creation of banks? It has every where greatly added to
the amount of circulation. The very evil complained of
exists in a vastly more efficient and all-pervading charac-
Wherever new banks have been created, there
hopes have been excited that money could be reached,
and there these hopes have begot the spirit of specula
tion. A new batch of bills was to be thrown out, and
those who would add to their mass of wealth, and those
who would mend broken fortunes, or amass riches by sud-
den acquisitions, seized these opportunities to lay hold
of the means.
The success of one has stimulated anoth-
er, until the contagion has spread, with the spread of
banks, over the land. This system, I fear, has grown to
be an alarming evil; and whenever distress and suffering
shall overtake us, as it bids fair to do speedily, then will
the eyes of the public be turned to this place for relief,
and the just power of the States, instead of being respect.
ed, will be trampled under foot. Pennsylvania, demo.
cratic Pennsylvania, has already appealed to this power
to rid her of her State banks.

ter.

But what have those persons done who, for the most part, have purchased the public lands, and paid this troublesome revenue into the Treasury? Just what the United States have invited them to do. We have a law of long standing, which requires, after the public lands have been surveyed, that they shall first be offered at public auction, and those which will sell at more than a dollar and a quarter shall be thus disposed of. It further provides that, whatever remains of the quantity thus offered, any person may enter in any quantity not less than one eighth of a section, and become the owner by paying the price into the land office of the district where the land lies. All persons are alike invited, both to attend the sales and to make entries of what remains. The great body of the public lands have been sold under the provisions of this law, and the purchasers have done precisely what we have invited them by law to do, and precisely what all honest purchasers before them have done. You offered your land on your own terms, and they have paid all you demanded. This is the extent of Let not the public lands be charged with exciting this their offence; and does it become us, while that law gambling spirit. The only reason why you sell the pub stands on the statute books, and while the public offices lic lands is, because they are supposed to be cheap; and are kept open under public authority from Congress, to if you think them so, it is easy to ask more. Let the stigmatize those who give us just what we ask-who currency alone; place your surplus money with the deal openly, fairly, and honestly? If you have too n any States, instead of piling it up in your pet banks, so that purchasers, if the land is too rapidly taken up, then alter it rises above their capital, and the people will soon learn your law; change your terms, instead of denouncing the how to do business, and you will find little cause to com. purchasers. You can make terms that will put a stop to plain of speculation; but so long as you undertake to the sales. It ill becomes us to spend our breath in scold-regulate it, and fit that regulation to suit the fortunes ing about those who have done nothing but comply with our terms, nothing but to conform to the laws made here. It is further urged that the public lands have excited a disposition to speculation and trade which ought to be suppressed, because it is injurious to the country. That an extraordinary spirit of trade and speculation is abroad admits of no doubt; and that its ends will not contribute to the general prosperity is perhaps equally certain; but I cannot agree that the public lands have been the exciting cause. Nothing seems to me more unfounded.

The origin of this state of things may be found in the attempts of the Executive to regulate the currency of the country. These attempts, all agree now, have been futile and positively injurious; and so will all attempts to regulate speculation prove. Every one thinks he can clearly see proofs of over-trading in others; but there are few, I believe, who do not entertain the opinion that

and wishes of favored capitalists, so long you will hear complaints, and just complaints, of the partial and op pressive action of this Government.

But with what force can those who censure specula tion advocate this bill? It proposes to legalize the most stupendous speculations that the country has ever witnes sed. If we cannot extricate ourselves from the petty law of 1830, if that has enlisted an army of 50,000 men to band themselves together to insist on pre-emption rights against all law and all color of right, what number do you think this bill will array upon the frontiers? I tell you, sir, that the whole power of the United States will exert itself in vain against the current. Your pub. lic domain will be lost; instead of three millions, your bill will take from you three hundred millions. The temptation is such as never addressed itself to cupidity: and the speculators, those who can run furrows and hire

« AnteriorContinuar »