The debate was continued for many days, during which the speech of
Mr. Sumner was attacked and defended. Finally, on the 16th of March,
immediately before the question was taken, he again returned to the
subject.
MR. PRESIDENT,--Much time has been consumed by this question.
At several periods the debate has seemed about to stop, and then again
it has taken a new spring, while the goal constantly receded. I know
not if it is now near the end. But I hope that I shall not seem to
interfere with its natural course, or unduly occupy the time of the
Senate, if I venture again for one moment to take part in it.
The argument which I submitted on a former occasion has not
passed unregarded. And since it can owe little to my individual
position, I accept the opposition it encounters as a tribute to its
intrinsic importance. It has been assailed by different Senators, on
different days, and in different ways. It has been met by harmless
pleasantry, and by equally harmless vituperation,--by figures of
arithmetic and figures of rhetoric,--by minute criticism and extended
discussion,--also, by that sure resource of a weak cause, hard
words, and an imputation of personal motives. I propose no reply to
all this array; least of all shall I retort hard words, or repel
personal imputations. On this head I content myself with saying,--and
confidently, too,--that, had he known me better, the Senator from
Kentucky [Mr. UNDERWOOD], who is usually so moderate and
careful, would have hesitated long before uttering expressions which
fell from him in this debate.
The position I took is regarded as natural, or excusable, in a Senator
from one of the Land States, acting under the vulgar spur of local
interest; but it is pronounced unnatural and inexcusable in a Senator
from Massachusetts. Now, Sir, it is sufficient for me to say, in reply
to this imputation, that, while I know there are influences and biases
incident to particular States or sections of the Union, I recognize
no difference in the duties of Senators on this floor. Coming from
different States and opposite sections, we are all Senators of the
Union; and our constant duty is, without fear or favor, to introduce
into the national legislation the principle of justice. In this spirit,
while sustaining the bill before the Senate, I spoke for justice to the
Land States.
In my present course, I but follow the example of Senators and
Representatives of Massachusetts on kindred measures from their
earliest introduction down to the present time. The first instance was
in 1823, on the grant to the State of Ohio of land one hundred and
twenty feet wide, with one mile on each side, for the construction of a
road from the lower rapids of the Miami River to the western boundary
of the Connecticut Reserve. On the final passage of this grant in the
House, the Massachusetts delegation voted as follows: Yeas,--Samuel
C. Allen, Henry W. Dwight, Timothy Fuller, Jeremiah Nelson, John
Reed, Jonathan Russell; Nay,--Benjamin Gorham. In the Senate the bill
passed without a division. In 1828 a still greater unanimity occurred
on the passage of the bill to aid the State of Ohio in extending
the Miami Canal from Dayton to Lake Erie; and this bill is an early
instance of the grant of alternate sections, as in that now before
the Senate. On this the Massachusetts delegation in the House voted
as follows: Yeas,--Isaac C. Bates, Benjamin W. Crowninshield, John
Davis, Edward Everett, John Locke, John Reed, Joseph Richardson, John
Varnum; Nays,--none. In the Senate, Messrs. Silsbee and Webster both
voted in the affirmative. I pass over intermediate grants, which, I am
told, were sustained by the Massachusetts delegations with substantial
unanimity. The extensive grants, by the last Congress, to Illinois,
Mississippi, and Alabama, in aid of a railroad from Chicago to Mobile,
were sustained by all the Massachusetts votes in the House, except one.
Still further, in sustaining the present bill on grounds of justice
to the Land States, I but follow the recorded instructions of
the Legislature of Massachusetts, addressed to its Senators and
Representatives here on a former occasion. The subject was presented
in a special message to the Legislature in 1841, by the distinguished
Governor at that time,[89] who strongly urged "a liberal policy
towards the actual settler, and _towards the new States_, for this is
justly due to both." And he added: "Such States are entitled to a more
liberal share of the proceeds of the public lands than the old States,
as we owe to their enterprise much of the value this property has
acquired. _It seems to me, therefore, that justice towards the States
in which these lands lie demands a liberal and generous policy towards
them._"[90] In accordance with this recommendation, it was resolved by
the Legislature, "That, in the disposition of the public lands, _this
Commonwealth approves of making liberal provisions in favor of the new
States_; and that she ever has been, and still is, ready to cooperate
with other portions of the Union in securing to those States such
provisions."[91] Thus a generous policy towards the Land States, with
liberal provisions in their favor, was considered by Massachusetts the
part of justice.
[89] Hon. John Davis.
[90] Mass. House Documents, 1841, No. 23, pp. 2, 3.
[91] Mass. Acts and Resolves, 1841, p. 422.
It was my purpose, before this debate closed, to consider again the
argument I formerly submitted, and to vindicate its accuracy in all
respects, both in principle and in detail. But this has already been
so amply done by others much abler than myself,--by the Senator from
Missouri [Mr. GEYER], both the Senators from Michigan [Mr. FELCH and
Mr. CASS], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. BORLAND], the Senator from
Iowa [Mr. DODGE], and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. DOWNS],--all
of whom, with different degrees of fulness, have urged the same
grounds in favor of this bill, that I feel unwilling at this hour,
and while the Senate actually waits to vote on the question, to
occupy time by further dwelling upon it. Perhaps on some other
occasion I may think proper to return to it.
But, while avoiding what seems superfluous discussion, I cannot forbear
asking your attention to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky
[Mr. UNDERWOOD].
This amendment, when addressed to Senators of the favored States,
is of a most plausible character. It proposes to give portions of
the public domain to the original Thirteen, together with Vermont,
Maine, Tennessee, and Kentucky, for purposes of education and
internal improvement, at the rate of one acre to each inhabitant
according to the recent census. This is commended by the declared
objects,--education and internal improvement. Still further, in its
discrimination of the old States, it assumes a guise well calculated to
tempt them into its support. It holds out the attraction of seeming,
though unsubstantial, self-interest. It offers a lure, a bait, to be
unjust. I object to it on several grounds.
1. But I put in the fore-front, as my chief objection, its clear,
indubitable, and radical injustice, written on its very face. The
amendment confines its donations to the old States, and, so doing,
makes an inequitable discrimination in their favor. It tacitly assumes,
that, by the bill in question, or in some other way, the Land States
have received their proper distributive portion, so as to lose all
title to share with the old States in the proposed distribution. But,
if there be any force in the argument, so much considered in this
debate, that these railroad grants actually enhance the value of the
neighboring lands of the United States, and constitute a proper mode of
bringing them into the market, or if there be any force in the other
argument which I have presented, drawn from the equitable claims of
the Land States, in comparison with the other States, to the bounty of
the _great untaxed proprietor_,[92] then this assumption is unfounded.
There is no basis for the discrimination made by the amendment. If the
Iowa Land Bill be proper without this amendment, as most will admit,
then this amendment, introducing a new discrimination, is improper.
Nor do I well see how any one prepared to sustain the original bill
can sustain the amendment. The Senator from Kentucky, who leads us to
expect his vote for the bill, seems to confess the injustice of his
attempted addition.
2. I object to it as out of place. The amendment engrafts upon a
special railroad grant to a single State a novel distribution of the
national domain. Now there is a place and a time for all things; and
nothing seems to me more important in legislation than to keep all
things in their proper place, and to treat them at their proper time.
The distribution of the public lands is worthy of attention; and I am
ready to meet this great question whenever it arises legitimately for
our consideration; but I object to considering it merely as a rider to
the Iowa Land Bill.
[92] Mr. Webster, in his greatest speech, the celebrated reply to
Mr. Hayne, touched on this consideration. He said: "And, finally,
have not these new States singularly strong claims, founded on
the ground already stated, that the Government is a great untaxed
proprietor in the ownership of the soil?"--_Speeches_, Vol. III. p.
291.
The amendment would be less objectionable, if proposed as a rider
to a general system of railroad grants,--as, for instance, to a
bill embracing grants to all the Land States; but it is specially
objectionable as a graft upon the present bill. The Senator who
introduced it doubtless assumed that other bills, already introduced,
would pass; but, if his amendment be founded on this assumption, it
should wait the action of Congress on all these bills.
3. If adopted, the amendment might endanger, if it did not defeat,
the Iowa Land Bill. This seems certain. Having this measure at heart,
believing it founded in essential justice, I am unwilling to place it
in this jeopardy.
4. It prepares the way for States of this Union to become landholders
in other States, subject, of course, to the legislation of those
States,--an expedient which, though not strictly objectionable on
grounds of law, or under the Constitution, is not agreeable to our
national policy. It should not be promoted without strong and special
reasons. In the bill introduced by the Senator from Illinois [Mr.
SHIELDS], bestowing lands for the benefit of the insane in
different States, this objection is partially obviated by providing
that the States in which there are no public lands shall select their
portion in the Territories of the United States, and not in other
States. But, since in a short time these very Territories may become
States, this objection is rather adjourned than removed.
5. Lands held under this amendment, though in the hands of States, will
be liable to taxation, as lands of other non-resident proprietors,
and on this account will be comparatively valueless. For this reason
I said that the amendment held out the attraction of seeming, though
unsubstantial, self-interest. That the lands will be liable to taxation
cannot be doubted. The amendment does not propose in any way to relieve
them from this burden, nor am I aware that they can be relieved from
it. The existing immunity is only so long as they belong to the United
States. Now there is reason to believe, that, from lack of agencies and
other means familiar to the United States, the lands distributed by
this amendment would not find as prompt a market as those still in the
hands of the Great Landholder. But however this may be, it is entirely
clear, from the recorded experience of the national domain, that these
lands, if sold at the minimum price of the public lands, and only
as rapidly as those of the United States, and if meanwhile they are
subject to the same burdens as the lands of other non-residents, will,
before the sales are closed, be eaten up by the taxes. The taxes will
amount to more than the entire receipts from sales; and thus the grant,
while unjust to the Land States, will be worthless to the old States,
the pretended beneficiaries. In the Roman Law, an insolvent inheritance
was known by an expressive phrase as _damnosa hæreditas_. A grant under
this amendment would be _damnosa donatio_.
For such good and sufficient reasons, I am opposed to this amendment.
* * * * *