tem, such as I propose. surveyed and brought into market, every tract osition has many advant1. In the first place, it does State or individual in the next, it does full justice to ur citizens, and I believe, if > are intended to be benetaken upon the subject, a would prefer my amendill. The bill gives to the done hundred and sixty bor, who by his industry ct of forty acres, is excluecause he is not a landless rlance of the day, and must s tract to the size of that of hbor. It is only necessary r every one to see its force. s the party to reside on the ve years before he can beatent. This feature of the le to many persons. While > settles a tract of new land, y it continuously for five epugnant to him to take it ndition. He wishes to be d settle a new place, should ealthy or the neighborhood m, or for any other cause He would greatly prefer pose, with the privilege of her than have his land given vith the restrictions of the ially is this true, when his obtained by the oath of inalways had an unconquersolvent debtor's oath. It is ust pride of an unfortunate > admit his poverty to credre yet more keenly to suffer en; but it is cruel to compel before an officer of the law y proud-spirited men who the provisions of this act, h terms. iciple was recommended by ated by Mr. Calhoun and at different times by this Istained by such unanswers and the other branch of ing of its practical advant SENATE. States. Another party, greater in numbers, re- The We have heard much said from time to time on the subject of State sovereignty and Federal encroachments; but, in my humble judgment, there In this way, and for these reasons, the Government has extorted millions from her citizens. I trust no one desires to see it longer continued. My proposition is a more liberal one to the settler than any that has been heretofore made. Since the origin of our land system, public sentiment has undergone a great change with regard to the true policy of disposing of the lands. The first plan was to sell the lands to the highest bidder, giving the occupant no preference by preemption or otherwise, and fixing the minimum price at two dollars per acre. This policy was pursued till 1820, when it yielded to a more just and liberal one, by which the price was reduced to $1 25 per acre, and secured a right of preemp-never has been a proposition introduced into either tion to the actual settler upon payment of that sum. Much of your lands have been in market at that price for thirty years, and remain unsold, for the obvious reason that it is not worth the price you ask for it, and I might safely add, never will be, unless in the progress of railroad improvements, a demand should arise in speciallyfavored districts of country. The man who would hold his rich and poor, valuable and valueless lands at the same inflexible price, would be considered a very unwise land operator. What would be unwise in an individual, seeking to increase his own gains, is surely still more so in the Government, which does not or should not seek to replenish its Treasury at the expense of the best class of its citizens. As the price was reduced from $2 to $1 25 thirty-three years ago, it is quite time that it should be reduced to $1 per acre, and then graduated as proposed by my amendment. If you will adopt this amendment as a substitute for the original bill, and the House concurs, as I have no doubt it will, not a whisper of discontent will be heard throughout this broad land. Our people have never been known to complain of Congress for doing justice to her citizens. By the adoption of this amendment you will do not only an act of justice, but you place homesteads within the reach of thousands who cannot obtain them under the present law. And what is equally as important, you present him no temptation to forfeit his self-respect. Men do not like to become paupers upon the Government, unless I have utterly mistaken the characters of those with whom I have lived all my life. I firmly believe that this amendment would not only be more acceptable to the people generally, but would be hailed with more joy than any act of Congress that has passed within the last thirty years. Mr. President, it must be obvious to all who have closely observed the indications of public opinion, that something must be done with the public lands; some radical change in our policy with regard to their disposition must be made. You have an overflowing Treasury, arising from duties on imports amply sufficient to meet the most extravagant wants of the Government. We have, therefore, no excuse for persevering in the policy of selling these lands at a profit; no just reason for refusing to act liberally with the settler. I am confident that if this subject could be fully understood, and fairly presented to the American people, and their wishes could be expressed thereon at the polls, that nine-tenths of them would say with General Jackson, sell for such sum as will reimbuse the Treasury, but not on speculation. And if the other sex, man's better half, were consulted, their vote would be unanimous. I have said, and repeat, that something must be done. It will be recollected that we have on our calendar a bill passed by the House, known as the branch of Congress since the adoption of the Constitution, which involves a more outrageous violation of the just rights of the States, than the bill to which I have alluded. I have ever been opposed to the doctrine of nullification; but, sir, if any law passed by Congress would justify such resistance, it would be this. For the same reason, I opposed another bill on your calendar, known as Miss Dix's bill. No one appreciates more highly than I do the motives of that most benevolent lady and public benefactress; but I can never consent to make a donation of lands within a sovereign State, to a corporation without its limits. When this is done, you retard the settlement of the country, corrupt the morals of the people, depress the energies, and violate the sovereignty of the State. Congress has in several instances donated alternate sections of the public land to aid in the construction of railroads. This was right and proper, because the lands penetrated by those improvements are thereby enhanced in value, sought after and sold, and the reserved lands sell for more than the whole would have done without the improvement. I am not informed how it is in other States, but the greater portion of the lands granted to the Mobile and Ohio railroad, as well as those reserved to the Government, were not worth one cent per acre, and never would have sold for even that, without the improvement; but with it, they will be valuable. Beside this, the State of Mississippi has already paid into your Treasury immense profits on the entire cost of the lands sold within that State. If I have not greatly deceived myself, Mr. President, I have shown that if the amendment I propose should be adopted, strict justice will be done to every interest concerned, yet so tempered with mercy that it will be acceptable to this great nation; that it will reimburse the Treasury every dollar expended in the acquisition, survey, and sale of the lands; that it will relieve the Government from the odious character of land speculator upon its own citizens; that it will augment the revenues of the Government by the increased prosperity of our citizens, it being the consumer of goods who pays the duties; and that it will be really more acceptable to those who are intended to be its beneficiaries than the original bill. It will be carrying out the humane recommendation of President Jackson, made twenty years ago. It is substantially the homestead bill without its objectionable features. It will benefit a much larger class of citizens. It will preserve the selfrespect of those who are to enjoy its benefits, and will not be opposed by the people of the old States or the new. These, in my judgment, are sufficient reasons for the adoption of my amendment. Before concluding, I will invite the attention of the Senate to a significant fact connected with this question. Since this bill has been pending in this body, many petitions have been presented pray ing its passage: but, so far as I recollect not one the fact, that the sire the lands upon se petitions originintroduced several ge of the bill-one ticed the introducby my friend from roduced from Bos C. DODGE, ry 24, 1853, he Homestead bill. Mr. President, that ad principles of the risen to-day, and ore the Senate, was he views and opinwhich has been so I should sit by in en said to go unanam not unprepared, bill. Sir, the prinroviding homes for dear to my heart , and strengthened my fortune to have of the Mississippi itories upon the exaboriginal inhabittate of which I am ber of the Union. I something personps, and difficulties, ement of the public hich every individencounter before he estead, and which I ADGER in the chair,] acon, to help me to not my constituent, 1 by all the higher kind, is seeking to of the wife and chilhat eminently wise Macon,) once said it wending his way a towards the valI did not wish him 7 the landless poor m which his lot had please, (respectable ects advantageously in the rich and fertile would probably lead for himself and his bill which has toof the Senator from o has ridiculed it in asure long held dear -to the tenant and the Union, who is y the sweat of his e it is, who call for enty-five years ago the late eminently [issouri, (Mr. Benhe public lands and ettlers, and for that Tazewells of Virrth Carolina voted. ystem of legislative the enemies of this have recourse to, it whose benefit this They have no nds having been subs It might be both interest to create a landed aristoc ESS. quently re-vested in the e enlarged charter was to the Plymouth combsolute right in all the th and forty-eighth deThe New England States been settled under this anner might be traced policy, by which other egral parts of our Union, lished-the Crown exerr in all cases where the ot been conceded. the administration of the d Spain in Louisianavince was settled by emiere the feudal principles noblesse existed, yet the - lands, both under the ime, by allodial tenures, bsolute fee-simple right. authorities was a liberal o the feeble colonist seekr-distant territory, and orts and luxuries of the e find that Louis XIV., vince of Louisiana was the utmost liberality to _ng the country; and, deexactions and restraints, in his charter to Crozat, in his grant to the Indian in 1717, the principles of -roprietary rights in the esting and instructive, did ve the details, and to trace gress of the great Euroon this continent; but sufstory of the past fully eseir policy was conceived larged and magnanimous ver, of the history of our ore to the point, and will strong argument in favor eringly called in this body ious to look back at the ongress for the sale of the es. It provided for their usand acres each; and did 1 smaller quantity, except reated by the angles and This law, in effect, was r man from even purchasled capitalists to become rs, and to sell the land to ant prices, or else force the r the former. ons of many of our statesBritain, and which, at that on them with all the force ation, make it not surprisre deemed it advantageous cracy; but their error may lent, or circumstances of a just appreciation. It is ing to take a retrospect of pts at Republican legislagradually we have shaken in which we were trained, hackles of prejudice have : movement from the orilarge tracts, and on credit, act of the 10th of May, or sales in sections and half as certainly one of a most I its passage forms an era epublic of perhaps greater than any other in our anthe Government has ever upon the settlement, the 1 permanent prosperity of revious to the year 1820, ired two dollars per acreas paid at the time of purder in three equal annual de of selling did not, howras abandoned in the year esent system and price of The Homestead Bill-Mr. Dodge, of lowa. with conditions and restrictions, the salable quan- Almost every one within the sound of my Now, what is the attitude in which our own Government stands to the subject? Why, we hold as a Government to the people the position of a great monopolist land-holder, with an absolute proprietary right in fourteen hundred millions of acres ! This magnificent estate is parsimoniously doled out at a fixed price per acre to its own people. By this system, and through the medium of land warrants with which you have so bountifully furnished him, the wealthy speculator is enabled to seize upon immense tracts of country as they are brought into market, whole counties perhaps, and hold them until the stern necessities of an advancing population, and a resistless tide of settlement, enable him to command his own price. Look at the ruinous effects of this, growing out of the monopolist speculations of 1836, when the sales under a bloated paper currency rose up to more than twenty-five millions in a single year, and was followed by disastrous results. The settler became tributary to the capitalist, money was unnaturally diverted from its legitimate channels, individual and public prosperity was checked, and, indeed, for the time, almost hopelessly prostrated. In the commercial changes and revolutions to which, at times, every nation becomes subject, there is nothing so certainly calculated to increase the elements of distress and public and private mischief, as a system having the authority of law, which could countenance such speculation. The whole cost of the public lands to the 1st January, 1850, including their purchase, survey, sale and management, was $74,957,879 38. The aggregate receipts from their sale to the year and month named, was $135,339,093 17. This estimate does not embrace California, Oregon, New Mexico, or Utah. Deduct the aggregate cost from the aggregate receipts, and we have a net balance in favor of the United States of $60,381,213 79. Twenty millions of dollars were paid for Louisiana and Florida. These acquisitions would have been worth more than that amount for their commercial and maritine capacities and advantages, and not including the fee-simple of the soil—they, if you please, retaining it as Texas has. Deduct the amount of their cost, ($20,000,000,) and the actual profit to the Government from the sale of its domain is eighty million dollars and upwards, ($80,381,213 79.) It is proper to make this deduction, for the value of the land in Louisiana and Florida was not the consideration which induced their purchase. The United States, for great national purposes, needed the control of the mouth of the Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico. The same high considerations and wise policy dictated the expediency of our acquiring California, with her unrivaled bay and harbor of San Francisco. As a mere question, then, of dollars and cents, the Government might here be willing to stop, for it has been more than reimbursed. Our prosperity and growth as a nation will, in my opinion, be greatly accelerated by the adoption of a different principle: one that will repudiate the system of doling out the public lands at a certain number of shillings per acre, as a source of revenue and Treasury profit. The new States and the Territories will suffer most by continuing this system, and especially by the passage of measures tending to excite and aggravate it, such as I have before adverted to. The mania of speculation will soon sweep over them like the Sirocco blast, prostrating all within the range of its poisonous and desolating career. These embryo States, so far as regards the public domain, will cease to be the territories of the Union, and become the property of monopolists, possessing their soil, delaying their admission into the Union, and thus shaping their destiny for half a century. Witness the deplorable condition of Ireland; the sad evils of antirentism in New York; of non-resident proprie SENATE. Wisconsin, and numerous other instances of absentee landlordism in other western States and Territories. The settler, only when his necessities demand it, appears at the door of the Government official seeking to purchase a home. He finds that im mense tracts, nay whole counties, and almost whole Territories, are thus excluded from actual settlement for an ordinary lifetime, and he is driven further in his pursuit of land, or is forced to become a tenant. Could any system be devised more destructive of equal rights and Republican principles? In vain will we have eschewed the feudal system, with its relation of lord and vassal, if we defeat the homestead bill, and create and continue to issue, as is proposed by numerous mammoth schemes now before us, this paper currency, called land warrants, to be used as it is, to absorb the public domain and regulate the terms of its sale and settlement. Excluding the years 1835 and 1836, the average sales of the public lands from 1796 down to 1847, is about one million and a half of acres per annum. Owing to an increase in the circulating medium, but more especially to the enormous issue of land warrants, the sales amounted to $4,870,067 during the last fiscal year. Of these sales nearly three and a half millions of acres were for bounty land warrants; being an increase over the previous years of nearly a million of acres thus absorbed by these warrants, which I greatly fear are being most extensively used to pass the title from the Government to the speculator. The following letter from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, bears upon this point. state: GENERAL LAND OFFICE, February 12, 1853. SIR: In answer to your inquiry, I have the honor to That the whole amount of lands sold during the years 1844, 1845, 1846, and 1847, was.......... .8,383,326.66 acres. Making a yearly average of.. ...2,095,831.66 acres. The whole number of entries during said period was... Or a yearly average of. ...155,130 38,782 This makes an average of 54 4-100 acres to each entry, showing that a large majority of the entries were in 80 and 40-acre tracts. 66 In the year 1846, there were sold in the Fairfield district, in Iowa, 180 tracts of 160 acres each, equal to..28,800 acres 66 80 " 1,028 82,240 66 40 66 38,680 149,720 acres 66 967 Total. 2,175 66 Making an average for each sale of 68 8-10 acres. This shows the average of sales for the four years therein named to be about two millions of acres as the maximum quantity required for annual settlement and cultivation. The absence of all artificial causes exciting speculation in the four years enumerated, and the preponderance of forty and eighty-acre entries, show that the great body of the land sold was purchased by those who desired it for homes and improvement. That Now, if the Government of the United States really consulted its own interests in a pecuniary point of view, would it not, instead of making the public lands a source of direct annual profit by the sales producing a revenue now of some two or three millions a year, discard that system and throw open this estate to an industrious and energetic population, which would give back in exchange a rich and perpetual stream of wealth, fed by all the elements of a nation's prosperity? But not only in this respect should we consider our duties and obligations. This Government stands in the position of a political parent, whose duty it is to watch over, guard, and protect the interests of every citizen. duty requires that we should enable every one within the limits washed by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, to secure a farm or homestead for himself and family. That is a generous, nay, just and noble system, which would repudiate this selfish policy of shillings, and look to one which is more in accordance with the genius of our institutions. Let this Congress of the United States come up to the important subject under a proper sense of what is due to our people and our country, and by adopting a measure like this they will rescue from a state wholly unproductive, thousands of square miles; will convert them to the great pur y of the American bill, so called, rsement from the assed the House, body for nearly it was considered aspects and bearsure of progress, ed into a law, is r whole country. which have been am astonished to epetition of those - preemption and en brought before ment of our land so great has been that few, if any, eir voices against y this measure in a few years, and will be produced. tribute to agriculod-favored calling re at all likely to mefit of those who this consideration, it to my support. of the favor with vation of the soil, ase the number of thus augmenting and the comfort, Our people. Some eceipt of all reveIn this opinion I say, I fear they en of the opinion public demand an vate sales of the ould be conveyed ttle upon and imnous speculations > which I have beten in the history year last named tary of the Treasator from Missisthis body to put e public domain, settlers and cultiI statesman, and, I humbly confits to our whole considering the sources revenues are raised, w could be devised? Acting under this pow made donations to an e soldiers of the Mexican 1812, the war of the ailed marshals and soldi -to say nothing of the action grants to States al Of a population of ims of inhabitants in the fthe Census Bureau, i e, has furnished me w wing accuracy of the nu in the United States, lions three hundred a e hundred and nineteel hout the number. Mr. President, there n osed, so misrepresented he homestead bill. In the n of the country has believe that its grants al und we of the new States mactment would bring ho upon us. Like every me reform, it is fought with al bloody-bones argument wh there any public man who l to propose a repeal of the this country? I opine not. Americanism is so dead gain. Then, if that be t ers come to us in the numb k you, in the name of with them? Will you keep you keep them wher pportunity of cultivating -or will you hold o inducement, such as the h ch as all Governments held out? The British on an and South American are invited and attracte not rather choose to elev ing them to the magnif de West, upon which th aughters and sons grow espectable? It is within bility that under the nstitutions and the glori titution, some of the de hased and hated foreig Presidency of these Unit in touching the public forgotten that population ary. You forget the le and elegantly paraphrase "What constitutes a State THE HOM SPEECH OF HON OF G IN THE SENATE Against the principl Mr. CHARLTON proposed to address th called the homestead the amendment now P been made to come a cable, under the exist I understand that wedge, but the begin end in the homestead of attacking the true that is apparently P it is a good rule, in c fare, to attack the ve ESS. hence our governmental at more beneficial one er, Congress has recently normous amount to the var; to those of the war Revolution, Bonaparte's ers, to General Lafayette sixteenth and alternate- || nd companies. over twenty-three mile United States, the head in reply to a request of with an esimate approxiamber of real-estate own, which he fixes at two and thirty-two thousand en; and this, I presume, never was a measure so ed, so vilified, as has been he first place, a large porbeen made erroneously are made to foreigners, es have been told that its hordes of foreign paupers measure of progress and all sorts of rawhead and which can be invented. Is o has the courage to dare the naturalization laws of not. I take it that Native d that it will never kick e true, and these foreignmbers in which they do, I of God, what will you do eep them in your cities?here they are denied the ing the soil of the counI out to them a generous homestead bill does, and its on this continent have on the north, and the Mexin Republics on the south, ted foreigners. Will you vate their condition by inificent and fertile plains of they can settle, and their ow up and be useful and the range of human probspirit and genius of our ious provisions of our Conescendants of these muchgners may attain even the ited States. In your legisic lands, you seem to have on as well as soil is neceslesson taught by a Greek, sed by a British, poet: The Homestead Bill-Mr. Charlton. main guard; and 1 do this the more readily, as, doubtless, we shall have the homestead bill before us at the close of the session, when it will be too late to debate it. I cannot yield my assent to the principles involved in this bill. I do not think that sound policy, true political economy, or the great interests of our country are at all protected or preserved by it. Not questioning for a moment the motives of those who advocate it, I consider that its passage is well calculated to demoralize the very class whose benefit seems to be its main object. I believe that it will lend a helping hand to idleness, profligacy, and vice, and that it will throw a temptation in the way of honest industry, which may turn its feet aside from the path of usefulness and success in order that it may obtain a gift that will be worthless when it is procured. If I am right in these opinions, it is the duty of us all to defeat the measure before us. If I am wrong in my conclusions, I have the satisfaction of knowing that nothing that I can say can pervert the judgment of the "older and better" legislators around me. I propose to state, very briefly, the reasons for my convictions; and my first objection to it is, that whilst it seems to be founded upon the agrarian principle, that each man shall share equally in the public lands, and that this Government is but the trustee for its citizens, yet it does not carry out the very idea that is its basis; it is unequal in its operation; it gives the public domain only to those who have no land at all at the time of such application, and who will swear that they have not disposed of any land to obtain the benefits of this act. Why these provisions? Why exclude the honest laborer, who, by the sweat of his brow, had purchased his farm and erected his homestead? Why, in the division of the spoil amongst the cestui que trusts, thrust aside the successful tiller of the ground-the experienced cultivator? Why give the common property only to him who, by his idleness had never obtained his tract of land, or by his extravagance, or folly, or inexperience had wasted it? Is this to encourage agriculture and other branches of industry, which the title of this act declares to be its object?—or is it not to waste the country's treasures upon those who had hitherto been too idle to acquire property, or too unskillful to make it useful? It seems to me that the proper course, if any such distribution must take place, (which I exceedingly deprecate,) would be to give equally to all. The indigent man may have become so without his own crime or folly; but what have these done-the successful, the industrious, the honest, that they should be excluded? Why should you put a penalty on thrift, and reward only the man who has had neither the industry nor skill, in this favored land, to shelter his "landless head" from the storm? No successful answer can be given to these questions, unless we are advancing to the opinion that all property in land is a robbery, and that he who has already obtained a portion, though it may be by honest industry, shall have no more,-an opinion which I trust no one here entertains, and no one here will advance. But it will be said, he that has already an estate in land needs no more; we wish to supply him who has none; we wish the soil to be cultivated; we wish agriculture to be improved; we want to give a start to the poor man, and to throw around him the comforts of a home. We want to convert this barren domain into a beautiful garden spot, and to change, by the magic power of the spade, the hoe, and the plow, the noxious weed into the life-sustaining plant. We want to make the desert blossom like the rose, and to make the untrodden path of the prairie the highway for vast multitudes of freemen. All this sounds well; but if it is said that this act is going to accomplish all or any of these things, I am afraid that, like most such romantic and poetic sentiments, there is more beauty of diction than there will be truth in fulfillment. Let us take them up in their order, and hold them up to the candle of reason. You begin, as I have already said, by excluding the man, whatever his ability, whatever his industry, whatever his honesty and experience, who owns a single acre of land-a single acre will exclude him. No matter how poor he may be, if he SENATE. of land, his unhallowed foot shall never tread this sacred soil. His land may be barren, it matters not; his children may be starving, it is of no consequence; he may, by his experience and knowledge of agriculture, be the very person for the cultivation of this rich soil-all this cannot be listened to. He may be a native born, whose father's blood helped to purchase the freedom of our country; he may be a naturalized citizen, who has proved his devotion to our free institutions by daring valor or indomitable energy; still the answer that will meet his ear will be, You have already land; you can have no more. He offers to sell his parental homestead, even which, to advance his childen's interests, he may be willing to abandon; this act still declares he shall not participate in its benefits, while it gives no other reason for the exclusion than the single and unmeaning one that he has land already. Now, if the true motive of this bill were to cultivate the soil, and to promote agriculture, one would think that these objects would be obtained by allowing this class of men, who had shown their energy and success, to participate in the benefits, and to extend the circle of their usefulness. Certainly some limit might be made, so as not to thrust aside the mere nominal holder of a few feet of soil. But let us proceed. This act is intended, say some of its advocates, for the aid of the poor man-to give him a start, and to throw around him the comforts of a home. But how does this appear? This act includes only those who have no land. There are hundreds of thousands in this Republic who, while they own no soil, have their gold and silver and jewels, their bank stock, their notes of hand, and other personal estate. They are wealthy and prosperous; they may nevertheless come and take their quarter section. How is this act, then, only meant for the poor man? It will be said, that no man of wealth will come; but that is no answer. He may if he will-the law does not exclude him; but the law does exclude the poor man who has no personal property, but a little soil of his own-it matters not how little. Poverty is not the testownership of land is. But, sir, if this objection were out of the way, it would not change my views. I do not like this bait that is thrown out. I do not like this beginning of a system that seeks to array one class of our country against the other-that suggests to the poor man that he alone is the owner of the soil. I do not like the under current that steals under the apparent tide of sympathy. Let me not be misunderstood, sir. I am not one of those who look upon penury as a crime. In many cases it is the decree of Providence: "The poor ye have with you always," was as well the assertion of a truth as the announcement of a prophecy. So it has ever been, and so will it ever be; and he is but a traitor to the best interests of humanity and his country who does not do what he reasonably can to alleviate the sufferings of those less fortunate than himself; and poverty and suffering are appeals that this Republic of ours has always answered to. Witness its hospitals, its asylums, its charitable institutions. Witness its succor to Greece and to Ireland. Witness its outstretched arms to receive every one upon whose neck the iron heel had pressed. But there are lawful ways of showing sympathy, and there are unlawful ones-and this system is an instance of the latter. Besides, sir, you encourage poverty by this plan. You reward it, in the first instance, though it may have been the result of vice or sloth; you protect it, you perpetuate it, by making the property you thus bestow, not liable for any debt which may be incurred for five years; and whilst you leave the fruits of the ground subject to legal process, you take away the inducement to produce more than is barely sufficient for sustenance. You encourage recklessness and idleness; you stereotype the indolence and want of foresight which you found in a more imperfect state. Mr. President, I know that poverty is no crime, not always; but I know that idleness is, and ever has been; and I know that poverty which is the result of idleness, is something worse than a misfortune. "He that will not work, neither should he eat," is the language of inspiration. In this free countme whana hanant. |