IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JUNE 20, 1832.

[THE immense tracts of public lands possessed by the United

States, situated in the western states and territories, had been

acquired by cessions to the general government from the original

Atlantic states claiming them; by the purchase of Louisiana

and Florida; and by treaties of purchase with the Indians. The

principal inducement to their cession by the states was to aid

in the payment of the revolutionary war debt, for which they

were at first pledged. The prospect of the extinguishment of

the public debt during general Jackson’s administration induced

him, while president, to recommend to congress the cession of

the lands unsold to the states in which they were situated; which

would have been an act of injustice to the original thirteen

states, and some of the others. President Jefferson had in 1806

suggested the appropriation of the proceeds of the sales of the

lands to works of internal improvement, and to the support of

education.

It will be recollected that in 1832, general Jackson was

a candidate for reëlection as president, and Mr. Clay had

been nominated in opposition. The opponents of Mr. Clay,

having a majority in the senate, referred to the committee

on _manufactures_, of which Mr. Clay was chairman, an inquiry

respecting the proper disposition of the public lands. This

was done for the purpose of embarrassing Mr. Clay, and injuring

him either in the old or new states, whichever way he might

report on the subject. The result was a severe disappointment

to his enemies, by his devising and reporting a _plan for the

distribution of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands_

among all the several states; the principles of which report,

being founded in wisdom and justice, could not well be resisted,

and have been repeatedly since adopted by congress, although

prevented from being carried into effect by the vetoes of

presidents Jackson and Tyler. This report, and the bill which

accompanied it, were supported by Mr. Clay in the following

speech, giving the most interesting views of a subject of vast

importance to his countrymen, and with which his fame as a

statesman and public benefactor must ever stand identified.]

IN rising to address the senate, I owe, in the first place, the

expression of my hearty thanks to the majority, by whose vote, just

given, I am indulged in occupying the floor on this most important

question. I am happy to see that the days when the sedition acts

and gag laws were in force, and when screws were applied for the

suppression of the freedom of speech and debate, are not yet to return;

and that, when the consideration of a great question has been specially

assigned to a particular day, it is not allowed to be arrested and

thrust aside by any unexpected and unprecedented parliamentary manœuvre.

The decision of the majority demonstrates that feelings of liberality,

and courtesy, and kindness, still prevail in the senate; and that they

will be extended even to one of the humblest members of the body; for

such, I assure the senate, I feel myself to be.[19]

It may not be amiss again to allude to the extraordinary reference of

the subject of the public lands to the committee of manufactures. I

have nothing to do with the motives of honorable senators who composed

the majority by which that, reference was ordered. The decorum proper

in this hall obliges me to consider their motives to have been pure and

patriotic. But still I must be permitted to regard the proceeding as

very unusual. The senate has a standing committee on the public lands,

appointed under long established rules. The members of that committee

are presumed to be well acquainted with the subject; they have some of

them occupied the same station for many years, are well versed in the

whole legislation on the public lands, and familiar with every branch

of it; and four out of five of them come from the new states. Yet, with

a full knowledge of all these circumstances, a reference was ordered by

a majority of the senate to the committee on manufactures――a committee

than which there is not another standing committee of the senate,

whose prescribed duties are more incongruous with the public domain.

It happened, in the constitution of the committee of manufactures, that

there was not a solitary senator from the new states, and but one from

any western state. We earnestly protested against the reference, and

insisted upon its impropriety; but we were overruled by the majority,

including a majority of senators from the new states. I will not

attempt an expression of the feelings excited in my mind on that

occasion. Whatever may have been the intention of honorable senators,

I could not be insensible to the embarrassment in which the committee

of manufactures was placed, and especially myself. Although any other

member of that committee could have rendered himself, with appropriate

researches and proper time, more competent than I was to understand the

subject of the public lands, it was known that, from my local position,

I alone was supposed to have any particular knowledge of them. Whatever

emanated from the committee was likely, therefore, to be ascribed to me.

If the committee should propose a measure of great liberality towards

the new states, the old states might complain. If the measure should

seem to lean towards the old states, the new might be dissatisfied.

And if it inclined to neither class of states, but recommended a plan

according to which there would be distributed impartial justice among

all the states, it was far from certain that any would be pleased.

Without venturing to attribute to honorable senators the purpose

of producing this personal embarrassment, I felt it as a necessary

consequence of their act, just as much as if it had been in their

contemplation. Nevertheless, the committee of manufactures cheerfully

entered upon the duty which, against its will, was thus assigned to it

by the senate. And, for the causes already noticed, that of preparing

a report and suggesting some measure embracing the whole subject,

devolved in the committee upon me. The general features of our land

system were strongly impressed on my memory; but I found it necessary

to reëxamine some of the treaties, deeds of cession, and laws, which

related to the acquisition and administration of the public lands; and

then to think of, and, if possible, strike out some project, which,

without inflicting injury upon any of the states, might deal equally

and justly with all of them. The report and bill, submitted to the

senate, after having been previously sanctioned by a majority of the

committee, were the results of this consideration. The report, with the

exception of the principle of distribution which concludes it, obtained

the unanimous concurrence of the committee of manufactures.

This report and bill were hardly read in the senate before they were

violently denounced. And they were not considered by the senate before

a proposition was made to refer the report to that very committee

of the public lands to which, in the first instance, I contended

the subject ought to have been assigned. It was in vain that we

remonstrated against such a proceeding, as unprecedented, as implying

unmerited censure on the committee of manufactures, as leading to

interminable references; for what more reason could there be to refer

the report of the committee of manufactures to the land committee, than

would exist for a subsequent reference of the report of this committee,

when made, to some third committee, and so on in an endless circle? In

spite of all our remonstrances, the same majority, with but little if

any variation, which had originally resolved to refer the subject to

the committee of manufactures, now determined to commit its bill to

the land committee. And this not only without particular examination

into the merits of that bill, but without the avowal of any specific

amendment which was deemed necessary! The committee of public lands,

after the lapse of some days, presented a report, and recommended a

reduction of the price of the public lands immediately to one dollar

per acre, and eventually to fifty cents per acre; and the grant to

the new states of fifteen per centum on the net proceeds of the sales,

instead of ten, as proposed by the committee of manufactures, and

nothing to the old states.

And now, Mr. President, I desire, at this time, to make few

observations in illustration of the original report; to supply some

omissions in its composition; to say something as to the power and

rights of the general government over the public domain; to submit a

few remarks on the counter report; and to examine the assumptions which

it contained, and the principles on which it is founded.

No subject which had presented itself to the present, or perhaps any

preceding congress, was of greater magnitude than that of the public

lands. There was another, indeed, which possessed a more exciting and

absorbing interest; but the excitement was happily but temporary in its

nature. Long after we shall cease to be agitated by the tariff, ages

after our manufactures shall have acquired a stability and perfection

which will enable them successfully to cope with the manufactures of

any other country, the public lands will remain a subject of deep and

enduring interest. In whatever view we contemplate them, there is no

question of such vast importance. As to their extent, there is public

land enough to found an empire; stretching across the immense continent,

from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, from the Gulf of Mexico to the

northwestern lakes, the quantity, according to official surveys and

estimates, amounting to the prodigious sum of one billion and eighty

millions of acres! As to the duration of the interest regarded as a

source of comfort to our people, and of public income――during the last

year, when the greatest quantity was sold that ever, in one year, had

been previously sold, it amounted to less than three millions of acres,

producing three millions and a half of dollars. Assuming that year as

affording the standard rate at which the lands will be annually sold,

it would require three hundred years to dispose of them. But the sales

will probably be accelerated from increased population and other causes.

We may safely, however, anticipate that long, if not centuries, after

the present day, the representatives of our children’s children may be

deliberating in the halls of congress, on laws relating to the public

lands.

The subject in other points of view, challenged the fullest attention

of an American statesman. If there were any one circumstance more than

all others which distinguished our happy condition from that of the

nations of the old world, it was the possession of this vast national

property, and the resources which it afforded to our people and our

government. No European nation, (possibly with the exception of Russia,)

commanded such an ample resource. With respect to the other republics

of this continent, we have no information that any of them have yet

adopted a regular system of previous survey and subsequent sale of

their wild lands, in convenient tracts, well defined, and adapted to

the wants of all. On the contrary, the probability is, that they adhere

to the ruinous and mad system of old Spain, according to which large

unsurveyed districts are granted to favorite individuals, prejudicial

to them, who often sink under the incumbrance, and die in poverty,

whilst the regular current of emigration is checked and diverted from

its legitimate channels.

And if there be in the operations of this government one which more

than any other displays consummate wisdom and statesmanship, it is that

system by which the public lands have been so successfully administered.

We should pause, solemnly pause, before we subvert it. We should touch

it hesitatingly, and with the gentlest hand. The prudent management of

the public lands, in the hands of the general government, will be more

manifest by contrasting it with that of several of the states, which

had the disposal of large bodies of waste lands. Virginia possessed

an ample domain west of the mountains, and in the present state

of Kentucky, over and above her munificent cession to the general

government. Pressed for pecuniary means, by the revolutionary war, she

brought her wild lands, during its progress, into market, receiving

payment in paper money. There were no previous surveys of the waste

lands; no townships, no sections, no official definition or description

of tracts. Each purchaser made his own location, describing the land

bought as he thought proper. These locations or descriptions were often

vague and uncertain. The consequence was, that the same tract was not

unfrequently entered at various times by different purchasers, so as to

be literally shingled over with conflicting claims. The state perhaps

sold in this way much more land than it was entitled to, but then it

received nothing in return that was valuable; whilst the purchasers,

in consequence of the clashing and interference between their rights,

were exposed to tedious, vexatious, and ruinous litigation. Kentucky

suffered long and severely from this cause; and is just emerging from

the troubles brought upon her by improvident land legislation. Western

Virginia has also suffered greatly, though not to the same extent.

The state of Georgia had large bodies of waste lands, which she

disposed of in a manner satisfactory, no doubt, to herself, but

astonishing to every one out of that commonwealth. According to her

system, waste lands are distributed in lotteries, among the people of

the state, in conformity with the enactments of the legislature. And

when one district of country is disposed of, as there are many who do

not draw prizes, the unsuccessful call out for fresh distributions.

These are made from time to time, as lands are acquired from the

Indians; and hence one of the causes of the avidity with which the

Indian lands are sought. It is manifest, that neither the present

generation, nor posterity, can derive much advantage from this mode

of alienating public lands. On the contrary, I should think, it cannot

fail to engender speculation and a spirit of gambling.

The state of Kentucky, in virtue of a compact with Virginia, acquired

a right to a quantity of public lands south of Green river. Neglecting

to profit by the unfortunate example of the parent state, she did

not order the country to be surveyed previous to its being offered

to purchasers. Seduced by some of those wild land projects, of which

at all times there have been some afloat, and which, hitherto, the

general government alone has firmly resisted, she was tempted to offer

her waste lands to settlers, at different prices, under the name of

head-rights or preëmptions. As the laws, like most legislation upon

such subjects, were somewhat loosely worded, the keen eye of the

speculator soon discerned the defects, and he took advantage of

them. Instances had occurred, of masters obtaining certificates of

head-rights in the name of their slaves, and thus securing the land, in

contravention of the intention of the legislature. Slaves, generally,

have but one name, being called Tom, Jack, Dick, or Harry. To conceal

the fraud, the owner would add Black, or some other cognomination,

so that the certificate would read Tom Black, Jack Black, and so

forth. The gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Grundy,) will remember,

some twenty-odd years ago, when we were both members of the Kentucky

legislature, that I took occasion to animadvert upon these fraudulent

practices, and observed, that when the names came to be alphabeted,

the truth would be told, whatever might be the language of the record;

for the alphabet would read _Black_ Tom, _Black_ Harry, and so forth.

Kentucky realized more in her treasury than the parent state had done,

considering that she had but a remnant of public lands, and she added

somewhat to her population. But they were far less available than they

would have been under a system of previous survey and regular sale.

These observations, in respect to the course of the respectable states

referred to, in relation to their public lands, are not prompted by any

unkind feelings towards them, but to show the superiority of the land

system of the United States.

Under the system of the general government, the wisdom of which, in

some respects, is admitted, even by the report of the land committee,

the country subject to its operation, beyond the Alleghany mountains,

has rapidly advanced in population, improvement, and prosperity. The

example of the state of Ohio was emphatically relied on by the report

of the committee of manufactures――its million of people, its canals,

and other improvements, its flourishing towns, its highly-cultivated

fields, all put there within less than forty years. To weaken the force

of this example, the land committee deny that the population of the

state is principally settled upon public lands derived from the general

government. But, Mr. President, with great deference to that committee,

I must say, that it labors under misapprehension. Three fourths, if

not four fifths of the population of that state, are settled upon

public lands purchased from the United States, and they are the most

flourishing parts of the state. For the correctness of this statement,

I appeal to my friend from Ohio, (Mr. Ewing,) near me. He knows, as

well as I do, that the rich valleys of the Miami of Ohio, and the

Maumee of the Lake, the Sciota and the Muskingum, are principally

settled by persons deriving titles to their lands from the United

States.

In a national point of view, one of the greatest advantages which these

public lands in the west, and this system of selling them, affords,

is the resource which they present against pressure and want, in other

parts of the union, from the vocations of society being too closely

filled, and too much crowded. They constantly tend to sustain the

price of labor, by the opportunity which they offer, of the acquisition

of fertile land at a moderate price, and the consequent temptation

to emigrate from those parts of the union where labor may be badly

rewarded.

The progress of settlement, and the improvement in the fortunes and

condition of individuals, under the operation of this beneficent system,

are as simple as they are manifest. Pioneers of a more adventurous

character, advancing before the tide of emigration, penetrate into

the uninhabited regions of the west. They apply the axe to the forest,

which falls before them, or the plough to the prairie, deeply sinking

its share in the unbroken wild grasses in which it abounds. They

build houses, plant orchards, enclose fields, cultivate the earth,

and rear up families around them. Meantime, the tide of emigration

flows upon them, their improved farms rise in value, a demand for

them takes place, they sell to the new comers, at a great advance,

and proceed further west, with ample means to purchase from government,

at reasonable prices, sufficient land for all the members of their

families. Another and another tide succeeds, the first pushing on

westwardly the previous settlers, who, in their turn, sell out their

farms, constantly augmenting in price, until they arrive at a fixed

and stationary value. In this way, thousands, and tens of thousands,

are daily improving their circumstances, and bettering their condition.

I have often witnessed this gratifying progress. On the same farm you

may sometimes behold, standing together, the first rude cabin of round

and unhewn logs, and wooden chimneys, the hewed log house, chinked and

shingled, with stone or brick chimneys, and, lastly, the comfortable

brick or stone dwelling, each denoting the different occupants of the

farm, or the several stages of the condition of the same occupant. What

other nation can boast of such an outlet for its increasing population,

such bountiful means of promoting their prosperity, and securing their

independence?

To the public lands of the United States, and especially to the

existing system by which they are distributed with so much regularity

and equity, are we indebted for these signal benefits in our national

condition. And every consideration of duty, to ourselves, and to

posterity, enjoins that we should abstain from the adoption of any wild

project that would cast away this vast national property, holden by the

general government in sacred trust for the whole people of the United

States, and forbids that we should rashly touch a system which has been

so successfully tested by experience.

It has been only within a few years, that restless men have thrown

before the public their visionary plans for squandering the public

domain. With the existing laws, the great state of the west is

satisfied and contented. She has felt their benefit, and grown

great and powerful under their sway. She knows and testifies to

the liberality of the general government, in the administration of

the public lands, extended alike to her and to the other new states.

There are no petitions from, no movements in Ohio, proposing vital and

radical changes in the system. During the long period, in the house of

representatives, and in the senate, that her upright and unambitious

citizen, the first representative of that state, and afterwards

successively senator and governor, presided over the committee of

public lands, we heard of none of these chimerical schemes. All went

on smoothly, and quietly, and safely. No man, in the sphere within

which he acted, ever commanded or deserved the implicit confidence of

congress, more than Jeremiah Morrow. There existed a perfect persuasion

of his entire impartiality and justice between the old states and the

new. A few artless but sensible words, pronounced in his plain Scotch

Irish dialect, were always sufficient to insure the passage of any bill

or resolution which he reported. For about twenty-five years, there

was no essential change in the system; and that which was at last made,

varying the price of the public lands from two dollars, at which it had

all that time remained, to one dollar and a quarter, at which it has

been fixed only about ten or twelve years, was founded mainly on the

consideration of abolishing the previous credits.

Assuming the duplication of our population in terms of twenty-five

years, the demand for waste land, at the end of every term, will at

least be double what it was at the commencement. But the ratio of the

increased demand will be much greater than the increase of the _whole_

population of the United States, because the western states nearest to,

or including the public lands, populate much more rapidly than other

parts of the union; and it will be from them that the greatest current

of emigration will flow. At this moment, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee,

are the most migrating states in the union.

To supply this constantly augmenting demand, the policy, which

has hitherto characterized the general government, has been highly

liberal both towards individuals and the new states. Large tracts, far

surpassing the demand of purchasers, in every climate and situation,

adapted to the wants of all parts of the union, are brought into market

at moderate prices, the government having sustained all the expense of

the original purchase, and of surveying, marking, and dividing the land.

For fifty dollars any poor man may purchase forty acres of first-rate

land; and, for less than the wages of one year’s labor he may buy

eighty acres. To the new states, also, has the government been liberal

and generous in the grants for schools and for internal improvements,

as well as in reducing the debt, contracted for the purchase of lands,

by the citizens of those states, who were tempted, in a spirit of

inordinate speculation, to purchase too much, or at too high prices.

Such is a rapid outline of this invaluable national property, of the

system which regulates its management and distribution, and of the

effects of that system. We might here pause, and wonder that there

should be a disposition with any to waste or throw away this great

resource, or to abolish a system which has been fraught with so many

manifest advantages. Nevertheless, there are such, who, impatient with

the slow and natural operation of wise laws, have put forth various

pretensions and projects concerning the public lands, within a few

years past. One of these pretensions is, an assumption of the sovereign

right of the new states to all the lands within their respective limits,

to the exclusion of the general government, and to the exclusion of all

the people of the United States, those in the new states only excepted.

It is my purpose now to trace the origin, examine the nature, and

expose the injustice, of this pretension.

This pretension may be fairly ascribed to the propositions of the

gentleman from Missouri, (Mr. Benton,) to graduate the public lands, to

reduce the price, and cede the ‘refuse’ lands, (a term which I believe

originated with him,) to the states within which they lie. Prompted,

probably, by these propositions, a late governor of Illinois, unwilling

to be outdone, presented an elaborate message to the legislature of

that state, in which he gravely and formally asserted the right of that

state to all the land of the United States, comprehended within its

limits. It must be allowed that the governor was a most impartial judge,

and the legislature a most disinterested tribunal, to decide such a

question.

The senator from Missouri was chanting most sweetly to the tune,

‘refuse lands,’ ‘refuse lands,’ ‘refuse lands,’ on the Missouri side of

the Mississippi, and the soft strains of his music, having caught the

ear of his excellency, on the Illinois side, he joined in chorus, and

struck an octave higher. The senator from Missouri wished only to pick

up some crumbs which fell from Uncle Sam’s table; but the governor

resolved to grasp the whole loaf. The senator modestly claimed only an

old, smoked, rejected joint; but the stomach of his excellency yearned

after the whole hog! The governor peeped over the Mississippi into

Missouri, and saw the senator leisurely roaming in some rich pastures,

on bits of refuse lands. He returned to Illinois, and, springing

into the grand prairie, determined to claim and occupy it, in all its

boundless extent.

Then came the resolution of the senator from Virginia, (Mr. Tazewell,)

in May, 1826, in the following words:

‘Resolved, that it is expedient for the United States to cede

and surrender to the several states, within whose limits the

same may be situated, all the right, title, and interest of

the United States, to any lands lying and being within the

boundaries of such states, respectively, upon such terms and

conditions as may be consistent with the due observance of the

public faith, and with the general interest of the United States.’

The latter words rendered the resolution somewhat ambiguous; but still

it contemplated a cession and surrender. Subsequently, the senator

from Virginia proposed, after a certain time, a gratuitous surrender

of all unsold lands, to be applied by the legislature, _in support of

education_ and the _internal improvement_ of the state.

[Here Mr. Tazewell controverted the statement. Mr. Clay called

to the secretary to hand him the journal of April, 1828, which

he held up to the senate, and read from it the following:

‘The bill to graduate the price of the public lands, to make

donations thereof to actual settlers, and to cede the refuse to

the states in which they lie, being under consideration――

‘Mr. Tazewell moved to insert the following as a substitute:

‘That the lands which shall have been subject to sale under the

provisions of this act, and shall remain unsold for two years,

after having been offered at twenty-five cents per acre, shall

be, and the same is, ceded to the state in which the same may

lie, to be applied by the legislature thereof in support of

education, and the internal improvement of the state.’]

Thus it appears not only that the honorable senator proposed the

cession, but showed himself the friend of education and internal

improvements, by means derived from the general government. For this

liberal disposition on his part, I believe it was, that the state of

Missouri honored a new county with his name. If he had carried his

proposition, that state might well have granted a principality to him.

The memorial of the legislature of Illinois, probably produced by

the message of the governor already noticed, had been presented,

asserting a claim to the public lands. And it seems, (although the

fact had escaped my recollection until I was reminded of it by one of

her senators, (Mr. Hendricks,) the other day,) that the legislature

of Indiana had instructed her senators to bring forward a similar

claim. At the last session, however, of the legislature of that state,

resolutions had passed, instructing her delegation to obtain from the

general government _cessions_ of the unappropriated public lands, on

the most favorable terms. It is clear from this last expression of the

will of that legislature, that, on reconsideration, it believed the

right to the public lands to be in the general government, and not

in the state of Indiana. For, if they did not belong to the general

government, it had nothing to cede; if they belonged already to the

state, no cession was necessary to the perfection of the right of the

state.

I will here submit a passing observation. If the general government

had the power to cede the public lands to the new states for

particular purposes, and on prescribed conditions, its power must be

unquestionable to make some reservations for similar purposes in behalf

of the old states. Its power cannot be without limit as to the new

states, and circumscribed and restricted as to the old. Its capacity to

bestow benefits or dispense justice is not confined to the new states,

but is coextensive with the whole union. It may grant to all, or it can

grant to none. And this comprehensive equity is not only in conformity

with the spirit of the cessions in the deeds from the ceding states,

but is expressly enjoined by the terms of those deeds.

Such is the probable origin of the pretension which I have been

tracing; and now let us examine its nature and foundation. The argument

in behalf of the new states, is founded on the notion, that as the

old states, upon coming out of the revolutionary war, had or claimed

a right to all the lands within their respective limits; and as the

new states have been admitted into the union on the same footing and

condition in all respects with the old, therefore they are entitled to

all the waste lands embraced within their boundaries. But the argument

forgets that all the revolutionary states had not waste lands; that

some had but very little, and others none. It forgets that the right

of the states to the waste lands within their limits was controverted;

and that it was insisted that, as they had been conquered in a common

war, waged with common means, and attended with general sacrifices, the

public lands should be held for the common benefit of all the states.

It forgets that in consequence of this right, asserted in behalf of

the whole union, the states that contained any large bodies of waste

lands (and Virginia, particularly, that had the most) ceded them to

the union, for the equal benefit of all the states. It forgets that

the very equality, which is the basis of the argument, would be totally

subverted by the admission of the validity of the pretension. For

how would the matter then stand? The revolutionary states will have

divested themselves of the large districts of vacant lands which they

contained, for the common benefit of all the states; and those same

lands will enure to the benefit of the new states exclusively. There

will be, on the supposition of the validity of the pretension, a

reversal of the condition of the two classes of states. Instead of the

old having, as is alleged, the wild lands which they included at the

epoch of the revolution, they will have none, and the new states _all_.

And this in the name and for the purpose of equality among all the

members of the confederacy! What, especially, would be the situation of

Virginia? She magnanimously ceded an empire in extent for _the common

benefit_. And now it is proposed not only to withdraw that empire from

the object of its solemn dedication, to the use of all the states, but

to deny her any participation in it, and appropriate it exclusively to

the benefit of the new states carved out of it.

If the new states had any right to the public lands, in order to

produce the very equality contended for, they ought forthwith to cede

that right to the union, for the common benefit of all the states.

Having no such right, they ought to acquiesce cheerfully in an equality

which does, in fact, now exist between them and the old states.

The committee of manufactures has clearly shown, that if the right

were recognised in the new states now existing, to the public lands

within their limits, each of the new states, as they might hereafter be

successively admitted into the union, would have the same right; and,

consequently, that the pretension under examination embraces, in effect,

the whole public domain, that is, a billion and eighty millions of

acres of land.

The right of the union to the public lands is incontestable. It

ought not to be considered debatable. It never was questioned but

by a few, whose monstrous heresy, it was probably supposed, would

escape animadversion from the enormity of the absurdity, and the utter

impracticability of the success of the claim. The right of the whole

is sealed by the blood of the revolution, founded upon solemn deeds of

cession from sovereign states, deliberately executed in the face of the

world, or resting upon national treaties concluded with foreign powers,

on ample equivalents contributed from the common treasury of the people

of the United States.

This right of the whole was stamped upon the face of the new states

at the very instant of their parturition. They admitted and recognised

it with their first breath. They hold their stations, as members of

the confederacy, in virtue of that admission. The senators who sit here

and the members in the house of representatives from the new states,

deliberate in congress with other senators and representatives, under

that admission. And since the new states came into being, they have

recognised this right of the general government by innumerable acts――

By their concurrence in the passage of hundreds of laws respecting the

public domain, founded upon the incontestable right of the whole of the

states;

By repeated applications to extinguish Indian titles, and to survey the

lands which they covered;

And by solicitation and acceptance of extensive grants of the public

lands from the general government.

The existence of the new state is a falsehood, or the right of all the

states to the public domain is an undeniable truth. They have no more

right to the public lands, within their particular jurisdiction, than

other states have to the mint, the forts and arsenals, or public ships,

within theirs, or than the people of the District of Columbia have to

this magnificent capitol, in whose splendid halls we now deliberate.

The equality contended for between all the states now exists. The

public lands are now held, and ought to be held and administered for

the common benefit of all. I hope our fellow-citizens of Illinois,

Indiana, and Missouri, will reconsider the matter; that they will

cease to take counsel from demagogues who would deceive them, and

instil erroneous principles into their ears; and that they will feel

and acknowledge that their brethren of Kentucky and of Ohio, and of all

the states in the union, have an equal right with the citizens of those

three states, in the public lands. If the possibility of an event so

direful as a severance of this union were for a moment contemplated,

what would be the probable consequence of such an unspeakable calamity;

if three confederacies were formed out of its fragments, do you imagine

that the western confederacy would consent to have the states including

the public lands hold them exclusively for themselves? Can you imagine

that the states of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, would quietly

renounce their right in all the public lands west of them? No, sir! No,

sir! They would wade to their knees in blood, before they would make

such an unjust and ignominious surrender.

But this pretension, unjust to the old states, unequal as to all, would

be injurious to the new states themselves, in whose behalf it has been

put forth, if it were recognised. The interests of the new states is

not confined to the lands within their limits, but extends to the whole

billion and eighty millions of acres. Sanction the claims, however,

and they are cut down and restricted to that which is included in their

own boundaries. Is it not better for Ohio, instead of the five millions

and a half, or Indiana, instead of the fifteen millions, or even for

Illinois, instead of the thirty-one or thirty-two millions, or Missouri,

instead of the thirty-eight millions, within their respective limits,

to retain their interest in those several quantities, and also to

retain their interest, in common with the other members of the union,

in the countless millions of acres that lie west, or northwest, beyond

them?

I will now proceed, Mr. President, to consider the expediency of a

reduction of the price of the public lands, and the reasons assigned

by the land committee, in their report, in favor of that measure.

They are presented there in formidable detail, and spread out under

seven different heads. Let us examine them; the first is, ‘because

the new states have a clear right to participate in the benefits of

a reduction of the revenue to the wants of the government, _by getting

the reduction extended to the article of revenue chiefly used by them_.’

Here is a renewal of the attempt made early in the session, to confound

the public lands with foreign imports, which was so successfully

exposed and refuted by the report of the committee on manufactures.

Will not the new states participate in any reduction of the revenue,

in common with the old states, without touching the public lands? As

far as they are consumers of objects of foreign imports, will they not

equally share the benefit with the old states? What right, over and

above that equal participation, have the new states, to a reduction of

the price of the public lands? As _states_, what right, much less what

‘clear right’ have they, to any such reduction? In their sovereign or

corporate capacities, what right? Have not all the stipulations between

them, _as states_, and the general government, been fully complied

with? Have the people within the new states, considered distinct from

the states themselves, any right to such a reduction? Whence is it

derived? They went there in pursuit of their own happiness. They

bought lands from the public because it was their interest to make the

purchase, and they enjoy them. Did they, because they purchased some

land, which they possess peacefully, acquire any, and what right, in

the land which they did not buy? But it may be argued, that by settling

and improving these lands, the adjacent public lands are enhanced.

True; and so are their own. The enhancement of the public lands was not

a consequence which they went there to produce, but was a collateral

effect, as to which they were passive. The public does not seek to

avail itself of this augmentation in value, by augmenting the price.

It leaves that where it was; and the demand for reduction is made in

behalf of those who say their labor has increased the value of the

public lands, and the claim to reduction is founded upon the fact of

enhanced value? The public, like all other landholders, had a right

to anticipate that the sale of a part would communicate, incidentally,

greater value upon the residue. And, like all other land proprietors,

it has the right to ask more for that residue; but it does not, and,

for one, I should be as unwilling to disturb the existing price by

augmentation as by reduction. But the public lands is the article

of revenue which the people of the new states chiefly _consume_. In

another part of this report, liberal grants of the public lands are

recommended, and the idea of holding the public lands as a source

of revenue is scouted; because, it is said, more revenue could be

collected from the settlers as consumers, than from the lands. Here

it seems that the public lands are the articles of revenue chiefly

consumed by the new states.

With respect to lands yet to be sold, they are open to the purchase

alike of emigrants from the old states, and settlers in the new. As

the latter have most generally supplied themselves with lands, the

probability is, that the emigrants are more interested in the question

of reduction than the settlers. At all events, there can be no peculiar

right to such reduction existing in the new states. It is a question

common to all, and to be decided in reference to the interest of the

whole union.

Second. ‘Because the public debt being now paid, the public

lands are entirely released from the pledge they were under

to that object, and are free to receive a _new_ and _liberal

destination, for the relief of the states in which they lie_.’

The payment of the public debt is conceded to be near at hand; and it

is admitted that the public lands, being liberated, may now receive a

new and liberal destination. Such an appropriation of their proceeds

is proposed by the bill reported by the committee of manufactures, and

to which I shall hereafter more particularly call the attention of the

senate. But it did not seem just to that committee, that this new and

liberal destination of them should be restricted ‘for the relief of the

states in which they lie,’ exclusively, but should extend to all the

states indiscriminately, upon principles of equitable distribution.

Third. ‘Because nearly one hundred millions of acres of the land

now in market are the refuse of sales and donations, through a

long series of years, and are of very little actual value, and

only fit to be given to settlers, or abandoned to the states in

which they lie.’

According to an official statement, the total quantity of public land

which has been surveyed up to the thirty-first of December last, was a

little upwards of one hundred and sixty-two millions of acres. Of this,

a large proportion, perhaps even more than the one hundred millions of

acres stated in the land report, has been a long time in market. The

entire quantity which has ever been sold by the United States, up to

the same day, after deducting lands relinquished and lands reverted

to the United States, according to an official statement, also, is

twenty-five million two hundred forty-two thousand five hundred and

ninety acres. Thus after the lapse of thirty-six years, during which

the present land system has been in operation, a little more than

twenty-five millions of acres have been sold, not averaging a million

per annum, and upwards of one hundred millions of the surveyed lands

remain to be sold. The argument of the report of the land committee

assumes, that ‘nearly one hundred millions are the refuse of sales, and

donations,’ are of very little actual value, and only fit to be given

to settlers, or abandoned to the states in which they lie.

Mr. President, let us define as we go――let us analyze. What do the

land committee mean by ‘refuse land?’ Do they mean worthless, inferior,

rejected land, which nobody will buy at the present government price?

Let us look at facts, and make them our guide. The government is

constantly pressed by the new states to bring more and more lands

into the market; to extinguish more Indian titles; to survey more. The

new states themselves are probably urged to operate upon the general

government by emigrants and settlers, who see still before them, in

their progress west, other new lands which they desire. The general

government yields to the solicitations. It throws more land into the

market, and it is annually and daily preparing additional surveys of

fresh lands. It has thrown and is preparing to throw open to purchasers

already one hundred and sixty-two millions of acres. And now, because

the capacity to purchase, in its nature limited by the growth of our

population, is totally incompetent to absorb this immense quantity, the

government is called upon, by some of the very persons who urged the

exhibition of this vast amount to sale, to consider all that remains

unsold as refuse! Twenty-five millions in thirty-six years only are

sold, and all the rest is to be looked upon as refuse. Is this right?

If there had been five hundred millions in market, there probably would

not have been more or much more sold. But I deny the correctness of

the conclusion that it is worthless because not sold. It is not sold,

because there were not people to buy it. You must have gone to other

countries, to other worlds, to the moon, and drawn from thence people

to buy the prodigious quantity which you offered to sell.

Refuse land! A purchaser goes to a district of country and buys out

of a township a section which strikes his fancy. He exhausts his money.

Others might have preferred other sections. Other sections may even

be better than his. He can with no more propriety be said to have

‘refused’ or rejected all the other sections, than a man who, attracted

by the beauty, charms, and accomplishments of a particular lady,

marries her, can be said to have rejected or refused all the rest of

the sex.

Is it credible, that out of one hundred and fifty or one hundred

and sixty millions of acres of land in a valley celebrated for its

fertility, there are only about twenty-five millions of acres of

good land, and that all the rest is refuse? Take the state of Illinois

as an example. Of all the states in the union, that state probably

contains the greatest proportion of rich, fertile lands; more than

Ohio, more than Indiana, abounding as they both do in fine lands. Of

the thirty-three millions and a half of public lands in Illinois, a

little more only than two millions have been sold. Is the residue of

thirty-one millions all refuse land? Who that is acquainted in the west

can assert or believe it? No, sir; there is no such thing. The unsold

lands are unsold because of the reasons already assigned. Doubtless

there is much inferior land remaining, but a vast quantity of the best

of lands also. For its timber, soil, water-power, grazing, minerals,

almost all land possesses a certain value. If the lands unsold are

refuse and worthless in the hands of the general government, why are

they sought after with so much avidity? If in our hands they are good

for nothing, what more would they be worth in the hands of the new

states? ‘Only fit to be given to settlers!’ What settlers would thank

you? what settlers would not scorn a gift of _refuse_, worthless land?

If you mean to be generous, give them what is valuable; be manly in

your generosity.

But let us examine a little closer this idea of refuse land. If there

be any state in which it is to be found in large quantities, that

state would be Ohio. It is the oldest of the new states. There the

public lands have remained longer exposed in the market. But there we

find only five millions and a half to be sold. And I hold in my hand

an account of sales in the Zanesville district, one of the oldest in

that state, made during the present year. It is in a paper, entitled

the ‘Ohio Republican,’ published at Zanesville, the twenty-sixth of

May, 1832. The article is headed ‘refuse land,’ and it states: ‘it

has suited the interest of some to represent the lands of the United

States which have remained in market for many years, as mere ‘refuse’

which cannot be sold; and to urge a rapid reduction of price, and the

cession of the residue, in a short period, to the states in which they

are situated. It is strongly urged against this plan, that it is a

speculating project, which, by alienating a large quantity of land

from the United States, will cause a great increase of price to actual

settlers, in a few years; instead of their being able for ever, as

it may be said is the case under the present system of land sales,

to obtain a farm at a reasonable price. To show how far the lands

unsold are from being worthless, we copy from the Gazette the following

statement of recent sales in the Zanesville district, one of the oldest

districts in the west. The sales at the Zanesville land-office, since

the commencement of the present year, have been as follows; January,

seven thousand one hundred and twenty dollars and eighty cents;

February, eight thousand five hundred and forty-two dollars and

sixty-seven cents; March, eleven thousand seven hundred and forty-four

dollars and seventy-five cents; April, nine thousand two hundred and

nine dollars and nineteen cents; and since the first of the present

month about nine thousand dollars worth have been sold, more than half

of which was in forty acre lots.’ And there cannot be a doubt that the

act, passed at this session, authorizing sales of forty acres, will,

from the desire to make additions to farms, and to settle young members

of families, increase the sales very much, at least during this year.

A friend of mine in this city bought in Illinois, last fall, about

two thousand acres of this refuse land, at the minimum price, for which

he has lately refused six dollars per acre. An officer of this body,

now in my eye, purchased a small tract of this same refuse land, of

one hundred and sixty acres, at second or third hand, entered a few

years ago, and which is now estimated at one thousand and nine hundred

dollars. It is a business, a very profitable business, at which

fortunes are made in the new states, to purchase these refuse lands,

and, without improving them, to sell them at large advances.

Far from being discouraged by the fact of so much surveyed public

land remaining unsold, we should rejoice that this bountiful resource,

possessed by our country, remains in almost undiminished quantity,

notwithstanding so many new and flourishing states have sprung

up in the wilderness, and so many thousands of families have been

accommodated. It might be otherwise, if the public land was dealt out

by government with a sparing, grudging, griping hand. But they are

liberally offered, in exhaustless quantities, and at moderate prices,

enriching individuals, and tending to the rapid improvement of the

country. The two important facts brought forward and emphatically

dwelt on by the committee of manufactures, stand in their full force,

unaffected by any thing stated in the report of the land committee.

These facts must carry conviction to every unbiased mind, that will

deliberately consider them. The first is, the rapid increase of the

new states, far outstripping the old, averaging annually an increase

of eight and a half per centum, and doubling of course in twelve years.

One of these states, Illinois, full of refuse land, increasing at the

rate of eighteen and a half per centum! Would this astonishing growth

take place if the lands were too high, or all the good land sold? The

other fact is, the vast increase in the annual sales――in 1830, rising

of three millions. Since the report of the committee of manufactures,

the returns have come in of the sales of last year, which had been

estimated at three millions. They were, in fact, three million five

hundred and sixty-six thousand one hundred and twenty-seven dollars and

ninety-four cents! Their progressive increase baffles all calculation.

Would this happen, if the price were too high?

It is argued, that the value of different townships and sections

is various; and that it is, therefore, wrong to fix the same price

for all. The variety in the quality, situation, and advantages, of

different tracts, is no doubt great. After the adoption of any system

of classification, there would still remain very great diversity in

the tracts belonging to the same class. This is the law of nature.

The presumption of inferiority, and of refuse land, founded upon the

length of time that the land has been in market, is denied, for reasons

already stated. The offer, at public auction, of all lands to the

highest bidder, previous to their being sold at private sale, provides

in some degree for the variety in the value, since each purchaser

pushes the land up to the price which, according to his opinion, it

ought to command. But if the price demanded by government is not too

high for the good land, (and no one can believe it,) why not wait until

that is sold, before any reduction in the price of the bad? And that

will not be sold for many years to come. It would be quite as wrong to

bring the price of good land down to the standard of the bad, as it is

alleged to be, to carry the latter up to that of the former. Until the

good land is sold there will be no purchasers of the bad; for, as has

been stated in the report of the committee of manufactures, a discreet

farmer would rather give a dollar and a quarter per acre for first-rate

land, than accept refuse and worthless land as a present.

‘Fourth. Because the speedy extinction of the _federal_ title

within their limits is necessary to the _independence_ of the

_new_ states, to their _equality_ with the _elder_ states; to

the _development_ of their resources; to the _subjection_ of

their soil to _taxation_, _cultivation_, and _settlement_, and

to the _proper_ enjoyment of their jurisdiction and sovereignty.’

All this is mere assertion and declamation. The general government,

at a moderate price, is selling the public land as fast as it can find

purchasers. The new states are populating with unexampled rapidity;

their condition is now much more eligible than that of some of the

old states. Ohio, I am sorry to be obliged to confess, is, in internal

improvement and some other respects, fifty years in advance of her

elder sister and neighbor, Kentucky. How have her growth and prosperity,

her independence, her equality with the elder states, the development

of her resources, the taxation, cultivation, and settlement of her

soil, or the proper enjoyment of her jurisdiction and sovereignty,

been affected or impaired by the federal title within her limits?

The federal title! It has been a source of blessings and of bounties,

but not one of real grievance. As to the exemption from taxation of

the public lands, and the exemption for five years of those sold to

individuals, if the public land belonged to the new states, would they

tax it? And as to the latter exemption, it is paid for by the general

government, as may be seen by reference to the compacts; and it is,

moreover, beneficial to the new states themselves, by holding out a

motive to emigrants to purchase and settle within their limits.

‘Sixth. Because the ramified machinery of the land-office

department, and the ownership of so much soil, extends the

patronage and authority of the general government into the

_heart_ and _corners_ of the new states, and subjects their

_policy_ to the danger of a _foreign_ and _powerful_ influence.’

A foreign and powerful influence! The federal government a foreign

government! And the exercise of a legitimate control over the national

property, for the benefit of the whole people of the United States, a

deprecated penetration into the heart and corners of the new states!

As to the calamity of the land offices, which are held within them, I

believe that is not regarded by the people of these states with quite

as much horror as it is by the land committee. They justly consider

that they ought to hold those offices themselves, and that no persons

ought to be sent from the other _foreign_ states of this union to fill

them. And, if the number of the offices were increased, it would not be

looked upon by them as a grievous addition to the calamity.

But what do the land committee mean by the authority of this foreign,

federal government? Surely, they do not desire to get rid of the

federal government. And yet the final settlement of the land question

will have effected but little in expelling its authority from the

bosoms of the new states. Its action will still remain in a thousand

forms, and the _heart_ and _corners_ of the new states will still

be invaded by post-offices and post-masters, and post-roads, and the

Cumberland road, and various other modifications of its power.

‘Because the sum of four hundred and twenty-five millions

of dollars, proposed to be drawn from the new states and

territories, by the sale of their soil, at one dollar

and twenty-five cents per acre, is unconscionable and

impracticable――such as never can be paid――and the bare attempt

to raise which, must drain, exhaust, and impoverish these states,

and give birth to the feelings, which a sense of injustice and

oppression never fail to excite, and the excitement of which

should be so carefully avoided in a confederacy of free states.’

In another part of this report the committee say, speaking of the

immense revenue alleged to be derivable from the public lands, ‘this

ideal revenue is estimated at four hundred and twenty-five millions

of dollars, for the lands now within the limits of the states and

territories, and at one billion three hundred and sixty-three million

five hundred and eighty-nine thousand six hundred and ninety-one

dollars for the whole federal domain. Such _chimerical_ calculations

preclude the propriety of argumentative answers.’ Well, if these

calculations are all chimerical, there is no danger, from the

preservation of the existing land system, of draining, exhausting and

impoverishing the new states, and of exciting them to rebellion.

The manufacturing committee did not state what the public lands would,

in fact, produce. They could not state it. It is hardly a subject of

approximate estimate. The committee stated what would be the proceeds,

estimated by the minimum price of the public lands; what, at one half

of that price; and added, that, although there might be much land

that would never sell at one dollar and a quarter per acre, ‘as fresh

lands are brought into market and exposed to sale at auction, many of

them sell at prices exceeding one dollar and a quarter per acre.’ They

concluded by remarking, that the least favorable view of regarding them,

was to consider them a capital yielding an annuity of three millions of

dollars at this time; that, in a few years, that annuity would probably

be doubled, and that the capital might then be assumed as equal to one

hundred millions of dollars.

Whatever may be the sum drawn from the sales of the public lands,

it will be contributed, not by citizens of the states alone in which

they are situated, but by emigrants from all the states. And it will be

raised, not in a single year, but in a long series of years. It would

have been impossible for the state of Ohio to have paid, in one year,

the millions that have been raised in that state, by the sale of public

lands; but in a period of upwards of thirty years, the payment has

been made, not only without impoverishing, but with the constantly

increasing prosperity of the state.

Such, Mr. President, are the reasons of the land committee, for the

reduction of the price of the public lands. Some of them had been

anticipated and refuted in the report of the manufacturing committee;

and I hope that I have now shown the insolidity of the residue.

I will not dwell upon the consideration urged in that report, against

any large reduction, founded upon its inevitable tendency to lessen

the value of the landed property throughout the union, and that in the

western states especially. That such would be the necessary consequence,

no man can doubt, who will seriously reflect upon such a measure as

that of throwing into market, immediately, upwards of one hundred

and thirty millions of acres, and at no distant period upwards of two

hundred millions more, at greatly reduced rates.

If the honorable chairman of the land committee, (Mr. King,) had relied

upon his own sound practical sense, he would have presented a report

far less objectionable than that which he has made. He has availed

himself of another’s aid, and the hand of the senator from Missouri,

(Mr. Benton,) is as visible in the composition, as if his name had been

subscribed to the instrument. We hear again, in this paper, of that

which we have so often heard repeated before in debate, by the senator

from Missouri――the sentiments of Edmund Burke. And what was the state

of things in England, to which those sentiments were applied?

England has too little land, and too many people. America has too much

land, for the present population of the country, and wants people. The

British crown had owned, for many generations, large bodies of land,

preserved for game and forest, from which but small revenues were

derived. It was proposed to sell out the crown lands, that they might

be peopled and cultivated, and that the royal family should be placed

on the civil list. Mr. Burke supported the proposition by convincing

arguments. But what analogy is there between the crown lands of the

British sovereign, and the public lands of the United States? Are they

here locked up from the people, and, for the sake of their game or

timber, excluded from sale? Are not they freely exposed in market, to

all who want them, at moderate prices? The complaint is, that they are

not sold fast enough, in other words, that people are not multiplied

rapidly enough to buy them. Patience, gentlemen of the land committee,

patience! The new states are daily rising in power and importance. Some

of them are already great and flourishing members of the confederacy.

And, if you will only acquiesce in the certain and quiet operation of

the laws of God and man, the wilderness will quickly teem with people,

and be filled with the monuments of civilization.

The report of the land committee proceeds to notice and to animadvert

upon certain opinions of a late secretary of the treasury, contained in

his annual report, and endeavors to connect them with some sentiments

expressed in the report of the committee of manufactures. That report

has before been the subject of repeated commentary in the senate,

by the senator from Missouri, and of much misrepresentation and

vituperation in the public press. Mr. Rush showed me the rough draft

of that report, and I advised him to expunge the paragraphs in question,

because I foresaw that they would be misrepresented, and that he

would be exposed to unjust accusation. But knowing the purity of his

intentions, believing in the soundness of the views which he presented,

and confiding in the candor of a just public, he resolved to retain

the paragraphs. I cannot suppose the senator from Missouri ignorant

of what passed between Mr. Rush and me, and of his having, against my

suggestions, retained the paragraphs in question, because these facts

were all stated by Mr. Rush himself, in a letter addressed to a late

member of the house of representatives, representing the district in

which I reside, which letter, more than a year ago, was published in

the western papers.

I shall say nothing in defence of myself, nothing to disprove the

charge of my cherishing unfriendly feelings and sentiments towards any

part of the west. If the public acts in which I have participated, if

the uniform tenor of my whole life, will not refute such an imputation,

nothing that I could here say would refute it.

But I _will_ say something in defence of the opinions of my late

patriotic and enlightened colleague, not here to speak for himself; and

I will vindicate his official opinions from the erroneous glosses and

interpretations which have been put upon them.

Mr. Rush, in an official report which will long remain a monument of

his ability, was surveying, with a statesman’s eye, the condition of

America. He was arguing in favor of the protective policy――the American

system. He spoke of the limited vocations of our society, and the

expediency of multiplying the means of increasing subsistence, comfort,

and wealth. He noticed the great and the constant tendency of our

fellow-citizens to the cultivation of the soil, the want of a market

for their surplus produce, the inexpediency of all blindly rushing to

the same universal employment, and the policy of dividing ourselves

into various pursuits. He says:

‘The manner in which the remote lands of the United States are

selling and settling, whilst it possibly may tend to increase

more quickly the aggregate population of the country, and the

mere means of subsistence, does not increase capital in the same

proportion. * * * * Anything that may serve to hold back this

tendency to diffusion from running _too far and too long into an

extreme_, can scarcely prove otherwise than salutary * * * * If

the population of these, (a majority of the states, including

some western states,) not yet redundant in fact, though

appearing to be so, under this legislative incitement to

emigrate, remain fixed in more instances, as it probably would

be by extending the _motives_ to manufacturing labor, it is

believed that the nation would gain in two ways: first, by the

more rapid accumulation of capital, and next, by the gradual

reduction of the _excess_ of its agricultural population over

that engaged in other vocations. It is not imagined that it ever

would be practicable, even if it were desirable, _to turn_ this

_stream_ of emigration aside; but resources, opened through

the influence of the laws, in new fields of industry, to the

inhabitants of the states already sufficiently peopled to enter

upon them, might operate to lessen, in some degree, and usefully

lessen, its absorbing force.’

Now, Mr. President, what is there in this view adverse to the west, or

unfavorable to its interests? Mr. Rush is arguing on the tendency of

the people to engage in agriculture, and the incitement to emigration

produced by our laws. Does he propose to change those laws in that

particular? Does he propose any new measure? So far from suggesting

any alteration of the conditions on which the public lands are sold,

he expressly says, that it is not desirable, if it were practicable,

to turn this stream of emigration aside. Leaving all the laws in full

force, and all the motives to emigration arising from fertile and

cheap lands, untouched, he recommends the encouragement of a new branch

of business, in which all the union, the west as well as the rest,

is interested; thus presenting an option to population to engage in

manufactures or in agriculture, at its own discretion. And does such

an option afford just ground of complaint to any one? Is it not an

advantage to all? Do the land committee desire (I am sure they do

not) to create starvation in one part of the union, that emigrants

may be forced into another? If they do not, they ought not to condemn

a multiplication of human employments, by which, as its certain

consequence, there will be an increase in the means of subsistence and

comfort. The objection to Mr. Rush, then, is, that he looked at his

_whole_ country, and at all parts of it; and that, whilst he desired

the prosperity and growth of the west to advance undisturbed, he wished

to build up, on deep foundations, the welfare of all the people.

Mr. Rush knew that there were thousands of the poorer classes who never

would emigrate; and that emigration, under the best auspices, was far

from being unattended with evil. There are moral, physical, pecuniary

obstacles to all emigration; and these will increase, as the good

vacant lands of the west are removed, by intervening settlements

further and further from society, as it is now located. It is, I

believe, Dr. Johnson who pronounces, that of all vegetable and animal

creation, man is the most difficult to be uprooted and transferred to

a distant country; and he was right. Space itself, mountains, and seas,

and rivers, are impediments. The want of pecuniary means, the expenses

of the outfit, subsistence and transportation of a family, is no slight

circumstance. When all these difficulties are overcome, (and how few,

comparatively, can surmount them!) the greatest of all remains――that

of being torn from one’s natal spot――separated, for ever, from the roof

under which the companions of his childhood were sheltered, from the

trees which have shaded him from summer’s heats, the spring from whose

gushing fountain he has drunk in his youth, the tombs that hold the

precious relic of his venerated ancestors!

But I have said, that the land committee had attempted to confound

the sentiments of Mr. Rush with some of the reasoning employed by the

committee of manufactures against the proposed reduction of the price

of the public lands. What is that reasoning? Here it is; it will speak

for itself; and without a single comment will demonstrate how different

it is from that of the late secretary of the treasury, unexceptionable

as that has been shown to be.

‘The greatest emigration, (says the manufacturing committee,)

that is believed now to take place from any of the states, is

from Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The effects of a material

reduction in the price of the public lands, would be, first, to

lessen the value of real estate in those three states; secondly,

to diminish their interest in the public domain, as a common

fund for the benefit of all the states; and, thirdly, to offer

what would operate as a bounty to further emigration from

those states, occasioning more and more lands, situated within

them, to be thrown into the market, thereby not only lessening

the value of their lands, but draining them, both of their

population and labor.’

There are good men in different parts, but especially in the Atlantic

portion, of the union, who have been induced to regard lightly this

vast national property; who have been persuaded that the people of the

west are dissatisfied with the administration of it; and who believe

that it will, in the end, be lost to the nation, and that it is not

worth present care and preservation. But these are radical mistakes.

The great body of the west are satisfied, perfectly satisfied, with the

general administration of the public lands. They would indeed like, and

are entitled to, a more liberal expenditure among them of the proceeds

of the sales. For this provision is made by the bill to which I will

hereafter call the attention of the senate. But the great body of the

west have not called for, and understand too well their real interest

to desire, any essential change in the system of survey, sale, or price

of the lands. There may be a few, stimulated by demagogues, who desire

change; and what system is there, what government, what order of human

society, in which a few do not desire change?

It is one of the admirable properties of the existing system, that it

contains within itself and carries along principles of conservation and

safety. In the progress of its operation, new states become identified

with the old, in feeling, in thinking, and in interest. Now, Ohio is as

sound as any old state in the union, in all her views relating to the

public lands. She feels that her share in the exterior domain is much

more important than would be an exclusive right to the few millions

of acres left unsold, within her limits, accompanied by a virtual

surrender of her interest in all the other public lands of the United

States. And I have no doubt, that now, the people of the other new

states, left to their own unbiased sense of equity and justice, would

form the same judgment. They cannot believe that what they have not

bought, what remains the property of themselves and all their brethren

of the United States, in common, belongs to them exclusively. But if

I am mistaken, if they have been deceived by erroneous impressions on

their mind, made by artful men, as the sales proceed, and the land is

exhausted, and their population increased, like the state of Ohio, they

will feel that their true interest points to their remaining copartners

in the whole national domain, instead of bringing forward an unfounded

pretension to the inconsiderable remnant which will be then left in

their own limits.

And now, Mr. President, I have to say something in respect to the

particular plan brought forward by the committee of manufactures, for

a temporary appropriation of the proceeds of the sales of the public

lands.

The committee say that this fund is not wanted by the general

government; that the peace of the country is not likely, from present

appearances, to be speedily disturbed; and that the general government

is absolutely embarrassed in providing against an enormous surplus in

the treasury. While this is the condition of the federal government,

the states are in want of, and can most beneficially use, that very

surplus with which we do not know what to do. The powers of the general

government are limited; those of the states are ample. If those limited

powers authorized an application of the fund to some objects, perhaps

there are some others, of more importance, to which the powers of

the states would be more competent, or to which they may apply a more

provident care.

But the government of the whole and of the parts, at last is but one

government of the same people. In form they are two, in substance one.

They both stand under the same solemn obligation to promote, by all the

powers with which they are respectively intrusted, the happiness of the

people; and the people, in their turn, owe respect and allegiance to

both. Maintaining these relations, there should be mutual assistance

to each other afforded by these two systems. When the states are

full-handed, and the coffers of the general government are empty, the

states should come to the relief of the general government, as many of

them did, most promptly and patriotically, during the late war. When

the conditions of the parties are reversed, as is now the case, the

states wanting what is almost a burden to the general government, the

duty of this government is to go to the relief of the states.

They were views like these which induced a majority of the committee

to propose the plan of distribution, contained in the bill now under

consideration. For one, however, I will again repeat the declaration,

which I made early in the session, that I unite cordially with those

who condemn the application of any principle of distribution among

the several states, to surplus revenue derived from taxation. I think

income derived from taxation stands upon ground totally distinct from

that which is received from the public lands. Congress can prevent

the accumulation, at least for any considerable time, of revenue from

duties, by suitable legislation, lowering or augmenting the imposts;

but it cannot stop the sales of the public lands, without the exercise

of arbitrary and intolerable power. The powers of congress over the

public lands are broader and more comprehensive, than those which they

possess over taxation, and the money produced by it.

This brings me to consider, first, the power of congress to make the

distribution. By the second part of the third section of the fourth

article of the constitution, congress ‘have power to _dispose of_ and

make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or

other property of the United States.’ The power of disposition is

plenary, unrestrained, unqualified. It is not limited to a specified

object or to a defined purpose, but left applicable to any object or

purpose which the wisdom of congress shall deem fit, acting under its

high responsibility.

The government purchased Louisiana and Florida. May it not apply the

proceeds of lands within those countries, to any object which the good

of the union may seem to indicate? If there be a restraint in the

constitution, where is it, what is it?

The uniform practice of the government has conformed to the idea of

its possessing full powers over the public lands. They have been freely

granted, from time to time, to communities and individuals, for a great

variety of purposes. To states for education, internal improvements,

public buildings; to corporations for education; to the deaf and dumb;

to the cultivators of the olive and the vine; to preëmptioners; to

general Lafayette, and so forth.

The deeds from the ceding states, far from opposing, fully warrant the

distribution. That of Virginia ceded the land as ‘a common fund for the

use and benefit of _such_ of the United States as have become, or shall

become, members of the confederation or federal alliance of the said

states, Virginia inclusive.’ The cession was for the benefit of all

the states. It may be argued, that the fund must be retained in the

common treasury, and thence paid out. But by the bill reported, it will

come into the common treasury, and then the question, how it shall be

subsequently applied for the use and benefit of _such_ of the United

States as compose the confederacy, is one of modus only. Whether the

money is disbursed by the general government directly, or is paid out

upon some equal and just principle, to the states, to be disbursed

by them, cannot affect the right of distribution. If the general

government retained the power of ultimate disbursement, it could

execute it only by suitable agents; and what agency is more suitable

than that of the states themselves? If the states expend the money,

as the bill contemplates, the expenditure will, in effect, be a

disbursement for the benefit of the whole, although the several states

are organs of the expenditure; for the whole and all the parts are

identical. And, whatever redounds to the benefit of all the parts,

necessarily contributes, in the same measure, to the benefit of the

whole. The great question should be, is the distribution upon equal

and just principles? And this brings me to consider,

Secondly, the terms of the distribution proposed by the bill of

the committee of manufactures. The bill proposes a division of the

net proceeds of the sales of the public lands, among the several

states composing the union, according to their federal representative

population, as ascertained by the last census; and it provides for new

states, that may hereafter be admitted into the union. The basis of the

distribution, therefore, is derived from the constitution itself, which

has adopted the same rule, in respect to representation and direct

taxes. None could be more just and equitable.

But it has been contended in the land report, that the revolutionary

states which did not cede their public lands, ought not to be allowed

to come into the distribution. This objection does not apply to the

purchases of Louisiana and Florida, because the consideration for them

was paid out of the common treasury, and was consequently contributed

by all the states. Nor has the objection any just foundation, when

applied to the public lands derived from Virginia, and the other ceding

states; because, by the terms of the deeds, the cessions were made for

the use and benefit of all the states. The ceding states having made

no exception of any state, what right has the general government to

interpolate in the deeds, and now create an exception? The general

government is a mere trustee, holding the domain in virtue of those

deeds, according to the terms and conditions which they expressly

describe; and it is bound to execute the trust accordingly. But how

is the fund produced by the public lands now expended? It comes into

the common treasury, and is disbursed for the common benefit, without

exception of any state. The bill only proposes to substitute to that

object, now no longer necessary, another and more useful common object.

The general application of the fund will continue, under the operation

of the bill, although the particular purposes may be varied.

The equity of the proposed distribution, as it respects the two

classes of states, the old and the new, must be manifest to the senate.

It proposes to assign to the new states, besides the five per centum

stipulated for in their several compacts with the general government,

the further sum of ten per centum upon the net proceeds. Assuming the

proceeds of the last year, amounting to three millions five hundred and

sixty-six thousand one hundred and twenty-seven dollars and ninety-four

cents, as the basis of the calculation, I hold in my hand a paper which

shows the sum that each of the seven new states would receive. They

have complained of the exemption from taxation of the public lands

sold by the general government for five years after the sale. If that

exemption did not exist, and they were to exercise the power of taxing

those lands, as the average increase of their population is only eight

and a half per centum per annum, the additional revenue which they

would raise, would be only eight and a half per centum per annum; that

is to say, a state now collecting a revenue of one hundred thousand

dollars per annum, would collect only one hundred and eight thousand

five hundred, if it were to tax the lands recently sold. But by the

bill under consideration, each of the seven new states will annually

receive, as its distributive share, more than the whole amount of its

annual revenue.

It may be thought, that to set apart ten per centum to the new states,

in the first instance, is too great a proportion, and is unjust towards

the old states. But it will be recollected that, as they populate much

faster than the old states, and as the last census is to govern in the

apportionment, they ought to receive more than the old states. If they

receive too much at the commencement of the term, it may be neutralized

by the end of it.

After the deduction shall have been made of the fifteen per centum

allotted to the new states, the residue is to be divided among the

twenty-four states, old and new, composing the union. What each of the

states would receive, is shown by a table annexed to the report. Taking

the proceeds of the last year as the standard, there must be added

one sixth to what is set down in that table as the proportion of the

several states.

If the power and the principle of the proposed distribution be

satisfactory to the senate, I think the objects cannot fail to be

equally so. They are education, internal improvements, and colonization,

all great and beneficent objects, all national in their nature. No mind

can be cultivated and improved; no work of internal improvement can be

executed in any part of the union, nor any person of color transported

from any of its ports, in which the whole union is not interested. The

prosperity of the whole is an aggregate of the prosperity of the parts.

The states, each judging for itself, will select among the objects

enumerated in the bill, that which comports best with its own policy.

There is no compulsion in the choice. Some will prefer, perhaps, to

apply the fund to the extinction of debt, now burdensome, created for

internal improvement; some to new objects of internal improvement;

others to education; and others again to colonization. It may be

supposed possible that the states will divert the fund from the

specified purposes. But against such a misapplication we have, in

the first place, the security which arises out of their presumed good

faith; and, in the second, the power to withhold subsequent, if there

has been any abuse in previous appropriations.

It has been argued that the general government has no power in respect

to colonization. Waiving that, as not being a question at this time,

the real inquiry is, have the states themselves any such power? For

it is to the states that the subject is referred. The evil of a free

black population, is not restricted to particular states, but extends

to and is felt by all. It is not, therefore, the slave question, but

totally distinct from and unconnected with it. I have heretofore often

expressed my perfect conviction, that the general government has no

constitutional power which it can exercise in regard to African slavery.

That conviction remains unchanged. The states in which slavery is

tolerated, have exclusively in their own hands the entire regulation

of the subject. But the slave states differ in opinion as to the

expediency of African colonization. Several of them have signified

their approbation of it. The legislature of Kentucky, I believe

unanimously, recommended the encouragement of colonization to congress.

Should a war break out during the term of five years, that the

operation of the bill is limited to, the fund is to be withdrawn and

applied to the vigorous prosecution of the war. If there be no war,

congress, at the end of the term, will be able to ascertain whether the

money has been beneficially expended, and to judge of the propriety of

continuing the distribution.

Three reports have been made, on this great subject of the public lands,

during the present session of congress, besides that of the secretary

of the treasury at its commencement――two in the senate and one in the

house. All three of them agree, first, in the preservation of the

control of the general government over the public lands; and, secondly,

they concur in rejecting the plan of a cession of the public lands to

the states in which they are situated, recommended by the secretary.

The land committee of the senate propose an assignment of fifteen per

centum of the net proceeds, besides the five per centum stipulated in

the compacts, (making together twenty per centum,) to the new states,

and _nothing to the old_.

The committee of manufactures of the senate, after an allotment of an

additional sum of ten per centum to the new states, propose an equal

distribution of the residue among all the states, old and new, upon

equitable principles.

The senate’s land committee, besides the proposal of a distribution,

restricted to the new states, recommends an immediate reduction of the

price of ‘fresh lands,’ to a minimum of one dollar per acre, and to

fifty cents per acre for lands which have been five years or upwards

in market.

The land committee of the house is opposed to all distribution, general

or partial, and recommends a reduction of the price to one dollar per

acre.

And now, Mr. President, I have a few more words to say, and shall be

done. We are admonished by all our reflections, and by existing signs,

of the duty of communicating strength and energy to the glorious union

which now encircles our favored country. Among the ties which bind

us together, the public domain merits high consideration. And if we

appropriate, for a limited time, the proceeds of that great resource,

among the several states, for the important objects which have been

enumerated, a new and powerful bond of affection and of interest

will be added. The states will feel and recognise the operation

of the general government, not merely in power and burdens, but in

benefactions and blessings. And the general government in its turn

will feel, from the expenditure of the money which it dispenses to

the states, the benefits of moral and intellectual improvement of

the people, of greater facility in social and commercial intercourse,

and of the purification of the population of our country, themselves

the best parental sources of national character, national union,

and national greatness. Whatever may be the fate of the particular

proposition now under consideration, I sincerely hope that the

attention of the nation may be attracted to this most interesting

subject; that it may justly appreciate the value of this immense

national property; and that, preserving the regulation of it by the

will of the whole, for the advantage of the whole, it may be

transmitted, as a sacred and inestimable succession, to posterity,

for its benefit and blessing for ages to come.