[THE system of granting preëmption rights to settlers on the
public lands, or squatters, as they are called, being persons
who locate themselves on those lands without first obtaining the
right by purchase, Mr. Clay has always opposed. In taking this
course he has shown his disregard of the effect calculated to be
produced on his personal popularity in the newly settled states,
by opposing a measure which he considered detrimental to the
interests of the country, however desirable it might be to the
pioneers in the new settlements. At the session of congress
in 1838, a bill granting preëmption rights to settlers on the
public lands was introduced and passed the senate by a large
majority, but, while the measure was under consideration, Mr.
Clay did not hesitate, to oppose it in the following remarks.]
MR. CLAY said, that in no shape which should be given to this bill
could he give it his vote. In any aspect it was to be considered as a
bounty, or a grant of the property of the whole people to a small part
of the people; often the speculator; and he would like to know by what
authority such a bill could be passed. He regarded it as a reward for
the violation of law; as a direct encouragement to intruding lawlessly
on the lands of the United States, and for selecting and taking what
the trespasser pleased of the property of the whole people; and he was
not to be deterred from the most strenuous opposition to such measures
by any denunciation, come from what quarter it might, let these
measures be supported by whom they might.
But he would not now enter into the consideration of granting the
public property in the manner proposed by this bill. He had risen
to notice a subject which seemed to have been lost sight of. It had
been said, the government lost nothing by preëmption; but he could
not conceive how the accounts were made out in proof of this assertion.
The president tells us, that the whole average amount gained above the
minimum price is only about six cents per acre; others state it at two,
four, and five cents; and the secretary of the treasury asserted, in
his annual report, that the revenue would be augmented by the passage
of a preëmption law. The preëmption law! As if the competition of a
fair, open, public sale would not produce more; as if preëmptioners
would not go to the public sales, if preëmption were denied them, and
buy their land as reasonably as it could be purchased! Could any one be
so stupid as to suppose that the gain on the land could be greater by
preëmption than by public auction?
But Mr. Clay wished especially to call the attention of the senate
to a document to which he would refer. Two years ago a report from
the commissioner of the land office had been sent here by this same
secretary of the treasury, the report of a person more conversant with
settlements in the western country than perhaps any man in congress,
and certainly more than any connected with the executive government,
the late commissioner, Mr. Brown, the late governor of the state of
Ohio. What did he say of the loss incurred by preëmption laws? The
document was number two hundred and eleven of the session of 1836. The
whole of it was well worthy of deliberate perusal, and it was replete
with fraud, abominable, execrable fraud, scandalous to the country,
scandalous to the government, and scandalous to the perpetrators. In
saying this, Mr. Clay would not denounce any whole class; but he would
say that the preëmption system was a scheme of heartless and boundless
speculation. What does the commissioner say?
‘This office possesses no data whereby to estimate with
tolerable accuracy how far the sales of public lands have
been effected, in respect to quantity, by the preëmption act
of nineteenth of June, 1834. Considering the great demand for
land within the last two years, it remains to be shown that a
greater number of acres has been disposed of in that period in
consequence of the privilege it confers. It is quite impossible
to estimate with satisfactory accuracy the effect that has been
produced on this branch of the revenue by allowing (to those
who have, and pretend to, a right of preference) the choice,
at the lowest rate, of distinguished sites for towns, and their
vicinities, the best mill seats, and the finest farming lands,
including those so highly prized for the culture of cotton.
‘The general land office has no certain data for a just
calculation of the amount which the treasury has been prevented
from receiving by the operation of this law, but considering the
many tens of thousands of claims that have arisen under it and
the prevailing desire in the mean while to vest money in public
land, the conclusion seems fair, that the selected spots would
have been sold for a price proportioned to their excellence,
if no such law, nor any improper conspiracy, had existed. The
estimate of three millions of dollars, which I had the honor
to submit to you on the twenty-eighth of January last, appears
to me now to underrate much rather than magnify the difference
between the receipts for preëmption concessions, and the sum
the same lands would have brought into the treasury, had no
impediment laid in the way of full and free competition for the
purchase.
‘It is but just, however, to observe, that the revenue from
public lands has not been impaired by preëmptions alone; and I
may be allowed to remark, in this place, that the information,
on the subject of the last resolution referred to me, consists
of what common fame represents as avowed and notorious, namely:
that the public sales are attended by combinations of two kinds,
interested in keeping bids down to the minimum; the one composed
of those who have and those who pretend to a right of preference,
and resort to intimidation by threats and actual violence, as
exemplified most particularly at the public sales at Chicago, in
June, 1835, when and where the controlling party is represented
to have effectually prevented those from bidding who were
not acceptable to themselves; the other description formed
of persons associated to frustrate the views of individuals
desirous of purchasing, who refuse to join their coalition, or
submit to their dictation, by compelling the recusants to forego
their intended purchases, or give more than the market value of
the lands.’
Now, resumed Mr. Clay, how did this conspiracy take place? He would
tell. In September last, the Indian title had been extinguished to
a tract of most valuable land in Indiana, at one dollar per acre, by
the United States. What was the consequence? The instant the Indian
title was extinguished, there was a rush upon it from all quarters;
and if that land should be exposed at public sale, it would be found
that these men, who had seized the property of the people of the United
States, would combine to intimidate and overawe all competitors, and
thereby acquire the land on their own terms. In this way lawless men
had often combined, not only without but against the positive authority
of law; and here, while vindicating the rights and guarding the
property of the whole people, Mr. Clay would not be awed nor deterred
from performing his duty by any personal considerations. He would read
no more of this document, senators could read it at their leisure;
it was the deliberate judgment of an experienced and intelligent man
against the whole system of preëmption.
But he wished to call the attention of the senate to some official
documents, one of which was from a district attorney, he believed of
Louisiana.
‘Sir: I present, herewith, a number of affidavits in relation
to preëmptions obtained by Gabriel H. Tutt, to the southeast
quarter, Richard Tutt, to the east half of the northeast quarter,
and Benjamin Tutt, to the west half of the northeast quarter, of
section number three west, in the land district of Dempolis, in
the state of Alabama. These affidavits have been taken by some
of the most respectable men in the state of Alabama, and have
been sent on to me for the purpose of procuring the grant of the
above preëmptions to be set aside, on the ground that they were
obtained by fraud and imposition; and that this is the fact,
I entertain no doubt whatever. Shortly before I left Alabama,
I was in the immediate vicinity of the above lands, and heard a
number of persons speaking of the manner in which they had been
paid out; and the opinion was general, without exception, that a
most shameful and scandalous imposition had been practiced upon
the government. There is no doubt that all the lands mentioned
were paid out at the instance and for the benefit of James B.
Tutt, a man, to my knowledge, of notoriously bad character.
Gabriel H. Tutt, as the affidavit shows, is a citizen of Greene
county, (the county in which I reside myself, and I know him
well,) and that he never did reside on the quarter section paid
out in its name, or near it, his residence in Greene county
being at least fifteen or twenty miles from the land paid out
in his name. Richard Tutt and Benjamin Tutt are, I believe, both
_public paupers_, and have been so for years; _I am confident_
as to one, and am satisfied in my own mind as to the other. I
have known them for several years; they have lived in Greene
county, and have been supported at the charge and expense of the
county. Neither of them, as the affidavits show, have resided on
the lands since they were paid out, and Richard Tutt was not on
the land paid out in his name until January, 1834, and had no
improvements whatever in ♦1833.’
‘If reckless and unprincipled men can succeed in cheating and
defrauding government, by appropriating and securing to their
own use public lands at the minimum price, under acts of bounty
and benevolence, passed for the benefit of honest, enterprising,
and industrious settlers, corruption and venality must and will
become the order of the day, wherever there is a quarter section
of public land left worth contending for: and it is greatly to
be feared that this has become too much the case already. May I
ask to be informed of any steps taken by the department in this
matter, as early as convenient?’
And here are some comments of the receiver of the land office at Mount
Salus, who tells us he has been in the public service since 1806.
‘It is much to be regretted that the surveys are not made,
and the lands offered for sale, before the country is settled.
Preëmption in parts of the country where there are no private
claims to adjust, seem to hold out rewards to those who, in
the first instance, violate the laws with a view of greatly
benefiting themselves, by securing the choice parts at the
lowest price, while others, more conscientious, wait for the
public sales. It has a very demoralizing effect; the temptation
is so great to get land worth five or ten dollars an acre, in
many instances, at the government price for the poorest land,
that witnesses will be found to prove up the occupancy of the
land. It occasions severe disputes between the settlers, and
much troublesome unthankful service for the officers, all of
which would be avoided by hastening the surveys, and immediately
offering the land for sale. The witnesses are sometimes probably
deceived by not knowing where the subdivisional lines would run
if extended through the tracts.’
The same officer, in illustrating the subject in another place, says,
‘The preëmption system is not a practicable system to dispose of
the public lands; and if the president could see the outrageous
uproar and confusion in the register’s office for one day, I am
well convinced he would never sign another preëmption law. The
preëmption rights heretofore were confined to small districts,
interspersed with private claims, and the right was given only
to actual settlers who _resided_ on the very tract claimed
by them, and then only to heads of families, and persons over
twenty-one years of age. There were no floating rights. Even
that system created great confusion and fraud in Louisiana, and
was generally believed to do more harm than good. I know one
considerable battle royal fought on the occasion, and was told
by the deputy surveyors that many of the tracts they surveyed,
perhaps in the very year the preëmption right was obtained,
were in a wild state, where they did not see the trace of a
human being, and were proved to be in a state of cultivation. At
present it is customary for the leader of a party of speculators
to agree with a number of dealers, with their witnesses, men,
women, and children, to meet on a certain day at the register’s
office. They come like the locusts of Egypt, and darken the
office with clouds of smoke and dust, and an uproar occasioned
by whisky and avarice, that a register, at least, can never
forget.
‘The many different propositions made by members of congress to
dispose of the public lands, makes it probable that some change
in the system will be effected; I therefore ask your indulgence
to make some general remarks on the subject. I have been engaged
in the land business from the year 1806, first as a deputy
surveyor, about one year; then about fifteen years as principal
deputy for the western district, Louisiana; four years of which,
as one of the commissioners for deciding on and adjusting the
claims of that district; and have now been more than eight
years register for the Choctaw land district. I think it is to
be regretted, that there is so much feverish anxiety to make
alterations in the land system by members of congress, who have
not the practical experience necessary to enable them to avoid
confusion and endless difficulties.
‘The preëmption act of the twenty-ninth of May, 1830, is the
most unguarded, and in all respects the worst land law that
has ever been passed in the United States. In districts where
the public land could not be disposed of for many years, on
account of private claims, there seemed to be some necessity for
allowing preëmptions; but where there are no private claims to
be adjusted, the exclusive advantage given to those who go on
the most choice spots, and that in direct violation of an act of
congress, has a very unequal bearing and demoralizing effect. If
the whole community, who are equally interested, were authorized
by law to make settlements on the public lands, the advantages
would seem to be equal; but, if such was the case, I think it
likely that it would cause the loss of many lives in the general
scramble which would take place. If the preëmption right only
extended to the forfeited lands, or such as had been improved
under the credit system, where the tracts paid for had cost the
parties a high price, there would seem to be some reason in it;
but that a general sweep should be made of the most valuable
lands of the United States by intruders, at as low a price as
that which the poorest person in the nation would have to pay
for the poorest pine barren, is unreasonable in the extreme.’
[_Mr. Walker._ What is the name of that officer?]
Gideon Fitz; and this extract is on the forty-ninth page of the
document.
Mr. Clay did not intend at present to go so far into the subject as
he had done, hoping for another occasion on which he designed, should
God spare his life and health, to speak more fully on the subject, and
endeavor to expose this system of iniquity.
Two years ago, according to the official report of commissioner Brown,
there was a loss of three millions of dollars, which would not have
occurred if the land had been put up fairly in the market――a loss
occasioned by this system of iniquity, and the combinations which it
occasions to keep down the price, and to prevent all competition. When
the senate should receive the account which Mr. Clay had called for,
(by a resolution,) which he hoped they would receive in time for this
bill, they would see what amount was received at the public sales, what
was the average price of each acre sold at the public sales, without
confounding them with the private sales, and making an average from the
whole.
[Mr. Walker, in reply, alluded to a charge made against
himself, by an anonymous letter, that he owned half a million
of preëmption in Mississippi, and to his formal denial, in the
senate, that he owned any land whatever in that quarter, or
had any interest there, direct or indirect. He proceeded at
considerable length to adduce facts and arguments to invalidate
the testimony on which Mr. Clay had depended, and made some
allusion to the preëmption part of Mr. Clay’s land bill, and
charged the old states with grasping after the public lands.
Mr. Clay, of Alabama, (rising at the same time with Mr. Clay
of Kentucky,) said he had a few words for this distinguished
commissioner of the public lands.
(_Mr. Clay, of Kentucky._ A bad, a very bad commissioner.)
Mr. Clay, of Alabama, had understood this commissioner to
say, that there had been a loss of three millions of dollars,
occasioned by preëmption laws, which prevented the sale of the
public lands. But he wished to call the attention of the senate
to some documentary facts, in regard to the assumption that
government suffered a loss by allowing preëmption, and that
the land would sell for more under other circumstances. The
requisite documents were on the table, (Mr. Clay said,) by
which it would appear, that in 1822, there was an average excess
of three cents above the minimum price, in 1823 only of five,
and in 1824 no more than of two cents. At that time no general
preëmption law had been enacted. Afterwards there was a still
further falling off, and in 1828 the excess was only one cent;
in 1829 the same. These facts would put down the assumption,
that government had lost any thing by preëmption laws. The
document to which Mr. Clay referred had been obtained only
within the last ten days, and it appeared from that, that up to
the present time, the excess had been little more than two cents
per acre.
Mr. Clay argued, that the preëmption laws were calculated to
put down fraud instead of encouraging it. The only fraud was
that of speculators, and the charge of it against the settlers
was utterly groundless. To oppose this system, and to continue
that of public auction, was to minister to the cupidity of
speculators; and the most effectual remedy against fraud was to
be found in preëmption laws.]
Mr. Clay, of Kentucky, said he knew how unequal this contest was. A
number of senators from the new states were ever ready to spring up and
eulogize the preëmption laws; but, unequal as it was, while he had a
place here, he would contend for those interests of the whole people,
which he was endeavoring to protect.
He would repel the imputation of the senator from Mississippi against
the old states. It was not the old states, but some of the new, that
were grasping at the public domain. If there was such a spirit anywhere,
it was not in the old states, but somewhere else.
The subject of the public lands had been forced upon him by the
political party of the senator from Mississippi several years ago. The
land bill for distributing the proceeds of them was the consequence;
but was there anything of grasping, even in that? It did not propose to
touch the land system, to alter or affect the price or the mode of sale.
The old, the tried system was admirable. Under the auspices of such men
as Jeremiah Morrow, nothing human could have been more perfect or just.
But what did that measure propose? To distribute the whole net proceeds
of the lands among all the states, old and new, allowing to the new
an extra bounty of fifteen per cent. What kind of grasping by the old
states was this? And how was the equitable measure received by some of
the new states? The senator was mistaken; it was not the old states to
whom his imputation would apply; the hand that made the grip was thrust
from some other quarter.
He had no part in the charge against the senator in relation to lands
in Mississippi; but how had he made out in his vindication of the
officers of the government? The commissioner of the land office was not
to be believed, because he differed from him; a commissioner appointed
by the immortal Jackson, governor of Ohio, and well worthy to be sent
on a foreign mission, was not to be believed, because his views did not
agree with those of the senator from Mississippi. But could the senator
say that the two or three millions of acres taken up by preëmptions
might not have produced, at public sales, three millions of dollars,
which the commissioner had estimated to have been lost? Had not the
senator himself stated, at a former session, that many of these lands
were worth fifty dollars per acre?
Mr. Clay, after a few remarks on certain frauds in Louisiana, and on
the alleged frauds in Mississippi, recurred to the case of the valuable
land in Indiana, for which there is a contest between individuals and
the legislature. He hoped, if either party should get the land, it
would be the whole state. But the legislature was now in session, and
what did they seem themselves to think of individual preëmption rights,
when not the whole union, but that state alone was concerned? They gave
thirty-nine votes against individual preëmption rights, and only five
votes in favor. He would read a short account of the debate on this
point.
[Here Mr. Clay read parts of several speeches in the Indiana
legislature, denouncing the preëmption system, and showing
that attempts were made by ♦speculators, under the garb of
poor settlers, to appropriate the land which had been recently
acquired from the Miami Indians.]
Mr. Clay had taxed his recollection in relation to persons in Kentucky,
to whom preëmption rights had been granted; and he knew of but one man
who lived on land granted to him by Virginia as a settler. Mr. Clay was
for abiding by, defending, and protecting the land system heretofore
existing, against all and every material innovation.