_To the Senate of the United States_:
At the close of the last session of Congress I received from that body
a bill entitled "An act to appropriate for a limited time the proceeds
of the sales of the public lands of the United States and for granting
lands to certain States." The brief period then remaining before
the rising of Congress and the extreme pressure of official duties
unavoidable on such occasions did not leave me sufficient time for that
full consideration of the subject which was due to its great importance.
Subsequent consideration and reflection have, however, confirmed the
objections to the bill which presented themselves to my mind upon its
first perusal, and have satisfied me that it ought not to become a law.
I felt myself, therefore, constrained to withhold from it my approval,
and now return it to the Senate, in which it originated, with the
reasons on which my dissent is founded.
I am fully sensible of the importance, as it respects both the harmony
and union of the States, of making, as soon as circumstances will allow
of it, a proper and final disposition of the whole subject of the public
lands, and any measure for that object providing for the reimbursement
to the United States of those expenses with which they are justly
chargeable that may be consistent with my views of the Constitution,
sound policy, and the rights of the respective States will readily
receive my cooperation. This bill, however, is not of that character.
The arrangement it contemplates is not permanent, but limited to five
years only, and in its terms appears to anticipate alterations within
that time, at the discretion of Congress; and it furnishes no adequate
security against those continued agitations of the subject which it
should be the principal object of any measure for the disposition of
the public lands to avert.
Neither the merits of the bill under consideration nor the validity of
the objections which I have felt it to be my duty to make to its passage
can be correctly appreciated without a full understanding of the manner
in which the public lands upon which it is intended to operate were
acquired and the conditions upon which they are now held by the United
States. I will therefore precede the statement of those objections by a
brief but distinct exposition of these points.
The waste lands within the United States constituted one of the early
obstacles to the organization of any government for the protection of
their common interests. In October, 1777, while Congress were framing
the Articles of Confederation, a proposition was made to amend them to
the following effect, viz:
That the United States in Congress assembled shall have the sole and
exclusive right and power to ascertain and fix the western boundary of
such States as claim to the Mississippi or South Sea, and lay out the
land beyond the boundary so ascertained into separate and independent
States from time to time as the numbers and circumstances of the people
thereof may require.
It was, however, rejected, Maryland only voting for it, and so difficult
did the subject appear that the patriots of that body agreed to waive it
in the Articles of Confederation and leave it for future settlement.
On the submission of the Articles to the several State legislatures for
ratification the most formidable objection was found to be in this
subject of the waste lands. Maryland, Rhode Island, and New Jersey
instructed their delegates in Congress to move amendments to them
providing that the waste or Crown lands should be considered the common
property of the United States, but they were rejected. All the States
except Maryland acceded to the Articles, notwithstanding some of them
did so with the reservation that their claim to those lands as common
property was not thereby abandoned.
On the sole ground that no declaration to that effect was contained in
the Articles, Maryland withheld her assent, and in May, 1779, embodied
her objections in the form of instructions to her delegates, which were
entered upon the Journals of Congress. The following extracts are from
that document, viz:
Is it possible that those States who are ambitiously grasping at
territories to which in our judgment they have not the least shadow of
exclusive right will use with greater moderation the increase of wealth
and power derived from those territories when acquired than what they
have displayed in their endeavors to acquire them? ...
We are convinced policy and justice require that a country unsettled at
the commencement of this war, claimed by the British Crown and ceded to
it by the treaty of Paris, if wrested from the common enemy by the blood
and treasure of the thirteen States, should be considered as a common
property, subject to be parceled out by Congress into free, convenient,
and independent governments, in such manner and at such times as the
wisdom of that assembly shall hereafter direct. ...
Virginia proceeded to open a land office for the sale of her Western
lands, which produced such excitement as to induce Congress, in October,
1779, to interpose and earnestly recommend to "the said State and all
States similarly circumstanced to forbear settling or issuing warrants
for such unappropriated lands, or granting the same, during the
continuance of the present war."
In March, 1780, the legislature of New York passed an act tendering a
cession to the United States of the claims of that State to the Western
territory, preceded by a preamble to the following effect, viz:
Whereas nothing under Divine Providence can more effectually contribute
to the tranquillity and safety of the United States of America than a
federal alliance on such liberal principles as will give satisfaction to
its respective members; and whereas the Articles of Confederation and
Perpetual Union recommended by the honorable Congress of the United
States of America have not proved acceptable to all the States, it
having been conceived that a portion of the waste and uncultivated
territory within the limits or claims of certain States ought to be
appropriated as a common fund for the expenses of the war, and the
people of the State of New York being on all occasions disposed to
manifest their regard for their sister States and their earnest desire
to promote the general interest and security, and more especially to
accelerate the federal alliance, by removing as far as it depends upon
them the before-mentioned impediment to its final accomplishment. ...
This act of New York, the instructions of Maryland, and a remonstrance
of Virginia were referred to a committee of Congress, who reported a
preamble and resolutions thereon, which were adopted on the 6th
September, 1780; so much of which as is necessary to elucidate the
subject is to the following effect, viz:
That it appears advisable to press upon those States which can remove
the embarrassments respecting the Western country a liberal surrender of
a portion of their territorial claims, since they can not be preserved
entire without endangering the stability of the General Confederacy; to
remind them how indispensably necessary it is to establish the Federal
Union on a fixed and permanent basis and on principles acceptable to all
its respective members; how essential to public credit and confidence,
to the support of our Army, to the vigor of our counsels and success of
our measures, to our tranquillity at home, our reputation abroad, to our
very existence as a free, sovereign, and independent people; that they
are fully persuaded the wisdom of the several legislatures will lead
them to a full and impartial consideration of a subject so interesting
to the United States, and so necessary to the happy establishment of the
Federal Union; that they are confirmed in these expectations by a review
of the before-mentioned act of the legislature of New York, submitted to
their consideration. ...
_Resolved_, That copies of the several papers referred to the committee
be transmitted, with a copy of the report, to the legislatures of the
several States, and that it be earnestly recommended to those States who
have claims to the Western country to pass such laws and give their
delegates in Congress such powers as may effectually remove the only
obstacle to a final ratification of the Articles of Confederation, and
that the legislature of Maryland be earnestly requested to authorize
their delegates in Congress to subscribe the said Articles.
Following up this policy, Congress proceeded, on the 10th October, 1780,
to pass a resolution pledging the United States to the several States as
to the manner in which any lands that might be ceded by them should be
disposed of, the material parts of which are as follows, viz:
_Resolved_, That the unappropriated lands which may be ceded or
relinquished to the United States by any particular State pursuant to
the recommendation of Congress of the 6th day of September last shall be
disposed of for the common benefit of the United States and be settled
and formed into distinct republican States, which shall become members
of the Federal Union and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom,
and independence as the other States; ... that the said lands shall be
granted or settled at such times and under such regulations as shall
hereafter be agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled, or
nine or more of them.
In February, 1781, the legislature of Maryland passed an act authorizing
their delegates in Congress to sign the Articles of Confederation. The
following are extracts from the preamble and body of the act, viz:
Whereas it hath been said that the common enemy is encouraged by this
State not acceding to the Confederation to hope that the union of the
sister States may be dissolved, and therefore prosecutes the war in
expectation of an event so disgraceful to America, and our friends and
illustrious ally are impressed with an idea that the common cause would
be promoted by our formally acceding to the Confederation. ...
The act of which this is the preamble authorizes the delegates of that
State to sign the Articles, and proceeds to declare "that by acceding
to the said Confederation this State doth not relinquish, nor intend
to relinquish, any right or interest she hath with the other united or
confederated States to the back country," etc.
On the 1st of March, 1781, the delegates of Maryland signed the Articles
of Confederation, and the Federal Union under that compact was complete.
The conflicting claims to the Western lands, however, were not disposed
of, and continued to give great trouble to Congress. Repeated and urgent
calls were made by Congress upon the States claiming them to make
liberal cessions to the United States, and it was not until long after
the present Constitution was formed that the grants were completed.
The deed of cession from New York was executed on the 1st of March,
1781, the day the Articles of Confederation were ratified, and it was
accepted by Congress on the 29th October, 1782. One of the conditions of
this cession thus tendered and accepted was that the lands ceded to the
United States "_shall be and inure for the use and benefit of such of
the United States as shall become members of the federal alliance of
the said States, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever_."
The Virginia deed of cession was executed and accepted on the 1st day of
March, 1784. One of the conditions of this cession is as follows, viz:
That all the lands within the territory as ceded to the United States,
and not reserved for or appropriated to any of the before-mentioned
purposes or disposed of in bounties to the officers and soldiers of the
American Army, _shall be considered 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, according to their usual respective proportions in
the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and bona
fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose
whatsoever_.
Within the years 1785, 1786, and 1787 Massachusetts, Connecticut, and
South Carolina ceded their claims upon similar conditions. The Federal
Government went into operation under the existing Constitution on
the 4th of March, 1789. The following is the only provision of that
Constitution which has a direct bearing on the subject of the public
lands, viz:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging
to the United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so
construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States or of any
particular State.
Thus the Constitution left all the compacts before made in full force,
and the rights of all parties remained the same under the new Government
as they were under the Confederation.
The deed of cession of North Carolina was executed in December, 1789,
and accepted by an act of Congress approved April 2, 1790. The third
condition of this cession was in the following words, viz:
That all the lands intended to be ceded by virtue of this act to the
United States of America, and not appropriated as before mentioned,
_shall be considered as a common fund for the use and benefit of the
United States of America, North Carolina inclusive, according to their
respective and usual proportions of the general charge and expenditure,
and shall be faithfully disposed of for that purpose, and for no other
use or purpose whatever_.
The cession of Georgia was completed on the 16th June, 1802, and in its
leading condition is precisely like that of Virginia and North Carolina.
This grant completed the title of the United States to all those lands
generally called _public lands_ lying within the original limits of the
Confederacy. Those which have been acquired by the purchase of Louisiana
and Florida, having been paid for out of the common treasure of the
United States, are as much the property of the General Government, to
be disposed of for the common benefit, as those ceded by the several
States.
By the facts here collected from the early history of our Republic it
appears that the subject of the public lands entered into the elements
of its institutions. It was only upon the condition that those lands
should be considered as common property, to be disposed of for the
benefit of the United States, that some of the States agreed to come
into a "perpetual union." The States claiming those lands acceded to
those views and transferred their claims to the United States upon
certain specific conditions, and on those conditions the grants were
accepted. These solemn compacts, invited by Congress in a resolution
declaring the purposes to which the proceeds of these lands should be
applied, originating before the Constitution and forming the basis on
which it was made, bound the United States to a particular course of
policy in relation to them by ties as strong as can be invented to
secure the faith of nations.
As early as May, 1785, Congress, in execution of these compacts, passed
an ordinance providing for the sales of lands in the Western territory
and directing the proceeds to be paid into the Treasury of the United
States. With the same object other ordinances were adopted prior to the
organization of the present Government.
In further execution of these compacts the Congress of the United States
under the present Constitution, as early as the 4th of August, 1790, in
"An act making provision for the debt of the United States," enacted as
follows, viz:
That the proceeds of sales which shall be made of lands in the
Western territory now belonging or that may hereafter belong to the
United States shall be and are hereby appropriated toward sinking or
discharging the debts for the payment whereof the United States now
are or by virtue of this act may be holden, and shall be applied solely
to that use until the said debt shall be fully satisfied.
To secure to the Government of the United States forever the power to
execute these compacts in good faith the Congress of the Confederation,
as early as July 13, 1787, in an ordinance for the government of the
territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, prescribed
to the people inhabiting the Western territory certain conditions which
were declared to be "articles of compact between the original States and
the people and States in the said territory," which should "forever
remain unalterable, unless by common consent." In one of these articles
it is declared that--
The legislatures of those districts, or new States, shall never
interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in
Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary
for securing the title in such soil to the _bona fide purchasers_.
This condition has been exacted from the people of all the new
territories, and to put its obligation beyond dispute each new State
carved out of the public domain has been required explicitly to
recognize it as one of the conditions of admission into the Union. Some
of them have declared through their conventions in separate acts that
their people "forever disclaim all right and title to the waste and
unappropriated lands lying within this State, and that the same shall
be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States."
With such care have the United States reserved to themselves, in all
their acts down to this day, in legislating for the Territories and
admitting States into the Union, the unshackled power to execute in good
faith the compacts of cession made with the original States. From these
facts and proceedings it plainly and certainly results--
1. That one of the fundamental principles on which the Confederation of
the United States was originally based was that the waste lands of the
West within their limits should be the common property of the United
States.
2. That those lands were ceded to the United States by the States which
claimed them, and the cessions were accepted on the express condition
that they should be disposed of for the common benefit of the States,
according to their respective proportions in the general charge and
expenditure, and for no other purpose whatsoever.
3. That in execution of these solemn compacts the Congress of the United
States did, under the Confederation, proceed to sell these lands and put
the avails into the common Treasury, and under the new Constitution did
repeatedly pledge them for the payment of the public debt of the United
States, by which pledge each State was expected to profit in proportion
to the general charge to be made upon it for that object.
These are the first principles of this whole subject, which I think
can not be contested by anyone who examines the proceedings of the
Revolutionary Congress, the cessions of the several States, and the acts
of Congress under the new Constitution. Keeping them deeply impressed
upon the mind, let us proceed to examine how far the objects of the
cessions have been completed, and see whether those compacts are not
still obligatory upon the United States.
The debt for which these lands were pledged by Congress may be
considered as paid, and they are consequently released from that lien.
But that pledge formed no part of the compacts with the States, or of
the conditions upon which the cessions were made. It was a contract
between new parties--between the United States and their creditors.
Upon payment of the debt the compacts remain in full force, and the
obligation of the United States to dispose of the lands for the common
benefit is neither destroyed nor impaired. As they can not now be
executed in that mode, the only legitimate question which can arise is,
In what other way are these lands to be hereafter disposed of for the
common benefit of the several States, "_according to their respective
and usual proportion in the general charge and expenditure?_" The
cessions of Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia in express terms,
and all the rest impliedly, not only provide thus specifically the
proportion according to which each State shall profit by the proceeds
of the land sales, but they proceed to declare that they shall be
"_faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no
other use or purpose whatsoever_." This is the fundamental law of the
land at this moment, growing out of compacts which are older than the
Constitution, and formed the corner stone on which the Union itself
was erected.
In the practice of the Government the proceeds of the public lands have
not been set apart _as a separate fund_ for the payment of the public
debt, but have been and are now paid into the Treasury, where they
constitute a part of the aggregate of revenue upon which the Government
draws as well for its current expenditures as for payment of the public
debt. In this manner they have heretofore and do now lessen the general
charge upon the people of the several States in the exact proportions
stipulated in the compacts.
These general charges have been composed not only of the public debt and
the usual expenditures attending the civil and military administrations
of the Government, but of the amounts paid to the States with which
these compacts were formed, the amounts paid the Indians for their
right of possession, the amounts paid for the purchase of Louisiana and
Florida, and the amounts paid surveyors, registers, receivers, clerks,
etc., employed in preparing for market and selling the Western domain.
From the origin of the land system down to the 30th September, 1832, the
amount expended for all these purposes has been about $49,701,280, and
the amount received from the sales, deducting payments on account of
roads, etc., about $38,386,624. The revenue arising from the public
lands, therefore, has not been sufficient to meet the general charges
on the Treasury which have grown out of them by about $11,314,656. Yet
in having been applied to lessen those charges the conditions of the
compacts have been thus far fulfilled, and each State has profited
according to its usual proportion in the general charge and expenditure.
The annual proceeds of land sales have increased and the charges have
diminished, so that at a reduced price those lands would now defray all
current charges growing out of them and save the Treasury from further
advances on their account. Their original intent and object, therefore,
would be accomplished as fully as it has hitherto been by reducing the
price and hereafter, as heretofore, bringing the proceeds into the
Treasury. Indeed, as this is the only mode in which the objects of the
original compact can be attained, it may be considered for all practical
purposes that it is one of their requirements.
The bill before me begins with an entire subversion of every one of the
compacts by which the United States became possessed of their Western
domain, and treats the subject as if they never had existence and as if
the United States were the original and unconditional owners of all the
public lands. The first section directs--
That from and after the 31st day of December, 1832, there shall be
allowed and paid to each of the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi, and Louisiana, over and above what each
of the said States is entitled to by the terms of the compacts entered
into between them respectively upon their admission into the Union and
the United States, the sum of 12-1/2 per cent upon the net amount of the
sales of the public lands which subsequent to the day aforesaid shall be
made within the several limits of the said States, which said sum of
12-1/2 per cent shall be applied to some object or objects of internal
improvement or education within the said States under the direction of
their several legislatures.
This 12-1/2 per cent is to be taken out of the net proceeds of the land
sales before any apportionment is made, and the same seven States which
are first to receive this proportion are also to receive their due
proportion of the residue according to the ratio of general
distribution.
Now, waiving all considerations of equity or policy in regard to this
provision, what more need be said to demonstrate its objectionable
character than that it is in direct and undisguised violation of the
pledge given by Congress to the States before a single cession was made,
that it abrogates the condition upon which some of the States came into
the Union, and that it sets at naught the terms of cession spread upon
the face of every grant under which the title to that portion of the
public land is held by the Federal Government?
In the apportionment of the remaining seven-eighths of the proceeds this
bill, in a manner equally undisguised, violates the conditions upon
which the United States acquired title to the ceded lands. Abandoning
altogether the ratio of distribution according to the general charge and
expenditure provided by the compacts, it adopts that of the Federal
representative population. Virginia and other States which ceded their
lands upon the express condition that they should receive a benefit from
their sales in proportion to their part of the general charge are by the
bill allowed only a portion of seven-eighths of their proceeds, and that
not in the proportion of general charge and expenditure, but in the
ratio of their Federal representative population.
The Constitution of the United States did not delegate to Congress the
power to abrogate these compacts. On the contrary, by declaring that
nothing in it "_shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the
United States or of any particular State_," it virtually provides that
these compacts and the rights they secure shall remain untouched by
the legislative power, which shall only make all "_needful rules and
regulations_" for carrying them into effect. All beyond this would seem
to be an assumption of undelegated power.
These ancient compacts are invaluable monuments of an age of virtue,
patriotism, and disinterestedness. They exhibit the price that great
States which had won liberty were willing to pay for that union without
which they plainly saw it could not be preserved. It was not for
territory or state power that our Revolutionary fathers took up arms;
it was for individual liberty and the right of self-government. The
expulsion from the continent of British armies and British power was to
them a barren conquest if through the collisions of the redeemed States
the individual rights for which they fought should become the prey of
petty military tyrannies established at home. To avert such consequences
and throw around liberty the shield of union, States whose relative
strength at the time gave them a preponderating power magnanimously
sacrificed domains which would have made them the rivals of empires,
only stipulating that they should be disposed of for the common benefit
of themselves and the other confederated States. This enlightened policy
produced union and has secured liberty. It has made our waste lands
to swarm with a busy people and added many powerful States to our
Confederation. As well for the fruits which these noble works of our
ancestors have produced as for the devotedness in which they originated,
we should hesitate before we demolish them.
But there are other principles asserted in the bill which would have
impelled me to withhold my signature had I not seen in it a violation
of the compacts by which the United States acquired title to a large
portion of the public lands. It reasserts the principle contained in
the bill authorizing a subscription to the stock of the Maysville,
Washington, Paris and Lexington Turnpike Road Company, from which I was
compelled to withhold my consent for reasons contained in my message of
the 27th May, 1830, to the House of Representatives.
The leading principle then asserted was that Congress possesses no
constitutional power to appropriate any part of the moneys of the
United States for objects of a local character within the States.
That principle I can not be mistaken in supposing has received the
unequivocal sanction of the American people, and all subsequent
reflection has but satisfied me more thoroughly that the interests of
our people and the purity of our Government, if not its existence,
depend on its observance. The public lands are the common property of
the United States, and the moneys arising from their sales are a part of
the public revenue. This bill proposes to raise from and appropriate a
portion of this public revenue to certain States, providing expressly
that it shall "_be applied to objects of internal improvement or
education within those States_," and then proceeds to appropriate the
balance to all the States, with the declaration that it shall be applied
"_to such purposes as the legislatures of the said respective States
shall deem proper_." The former appropriation is expressly for internal
improvements or education, without qualification as to the kind of
improvements, and therefore in express violation of the principle
maintained in my objections to the turnpike-road bill above referred
to. The latter appropriation is more broad, and gives the money to be
applied to any local purpose whatsoever. It will not be denied that
under the provisions of the bill a portion of the money might have been
applied to making the very road to which the bill of 1830 had reference,
and must of course come within the scope of the same principle. If the
money of the United States can not be applied to local purposes _through
its own agents_, as little can it be permitted to be thus expended
_through the agency of the State governments_.
It has been supposed that with all the reductions in our revenue which
could be speedily effected by Congress without injury to the substantial
interests of the country there might be for some years to come a surplus
of moneys in the Treasury, and that there was in principle no objection
to returning them to the people by whom they were paid. As the literal
accomplishment of such an object is obviously impracticable, it was
thought admissible, as the nearest approximation to it, to hand them
over to the State governments, the more immediate representatives of
the people, to be by them applied to the benefit of those to whom they
properly belonged. The principle and the object were to return to the
people an unavoidable surplus of revenue which might have been paid by
them under a system which could not at once be abandoned, but even this
resource, which at one time seemed to be almost the only alternative to
save the General Government from grasping unlimited power over internal
improvements, was suggested with doubts of its constitutionality.
But this bill assumes a new principle. Its object is not to return to
the people an unavoidable surplus of revenue paid in by them, but to
create a surplus for distribution among the States. It seizes the entire
proceeds of one source of revenue and sets them apart as a surplus,
making it necessary to raise the moneys for supporting the Government
and meeting the general charges from other sources. It even throws the
entire land system upon the customs for its support, and makes the
public lands a perpetual charge upon the Treasury. It does not return
to the people moneys accidentally or unavoidably paid by them to the
Government, by which they are not wanted, but compels the people to pay
moneys into the Treasury for the mere purpose of creating a surplus for
distribution to their State governments. If this principle be once
admitted, it is not difficult to perceive to what consequences it may
lead. Already this bill, by throwing the land system on the revenues
from imports for support, virtually distributes among the States a part
of those revenues. The proportion may be increased from time to time,
without any departure from the principle now asserted, until the State
governments shall derive all the funds necessary for their support from
the Treasury of the United States, or, if a sufficient supply should be
obtained by some States and not by others, the deficient States might
complain; and to put an end to all further difficulty Congress, without
assuming any new principle, need go but one step further and put the
salaries of all the State governors, judges, and other officers, with a
sufficient sum for other expenses, in their general appropriation bill.
It appears to me that a more direct road to consolidation can not be
devised. Money is power, and in that Government which pays all the
public officers of the States will all political power be substantially
concentrated. The State governments, if governments they might be
called, would lose all their independence and dignity; the economy which
now distinguishes them would be converted into a profusion, limited
only by the extent of the supply. Being the dependents of the General
Government, and looking to its Treasury as the source of all their
emoluments, the State officers, under whatever names they might pass and
by whatever forms their duties might be prescribed, would in effect be
the mere stipendiaries and instruments of the central power.
I am quite sure that the intelligent people of our several States will
be satisfied on a little reflection that it is neither wise nor safe to
release the members of their local legislatures from the responsibility
of levying the taxes necessary to support their State governments and
vest it in Congress, over most of whose members they have no control.
They will not think it expedient that Congress shall be the taxgatherer
and paymaster of all their State governments, thus amalgamating all
their officers into one mass of common interest and common feeling.
It is too obvious that such a course would subvert our well-balanced
system of government, and ultimately deprive us of all the blessings
now derived from our happy Union.
However willing I might be that any unavoidable surplus in the
Treasury should be returned to the people through their State
governments, I can not assent to the principle that a surplus may be
created for the purpose of distribution. Viewing this bill as in effect
assuming the right not only to create a surplus for that purpose, but to
divide the contents of the Treasury among the States without limitation,
from whatever source they may be derived, and asserting the power to
raise and appropriate money for the support of every State government
and institution, as well as for making every local improvement, however
trivial, I can not give it my assent.
It is difficult to perceive what advantages would accrue to the old
States or the new from the system of distribution which this bill
proposes if it were otherwise unobjectionable. It requires no argument
to prove that if $3,000,000 a year, or any other sum, shall be taken out
of the Treasury by this bill for distribution it must be replaced by the
same sum collected from the people through some other means. The old
States will receive annually a sum of money from the Treasury, but they
will pay in a larger sum, together with the expenses of collection and
distribution. It is only their proportion of _seven-eighths_ of the
proceeds of land sales which they are _to receive_, but they must _pay_
their due proportion of the _whole_. Disguise it as we may, the bill
proposes to them a dead loss in the ratio of _eight_ to _seven_,
in addition to expenses and other incidental losses. This assertion
is not the less true because it may not at first be palpable. Their
receipts will be in large sums, but their payments in small ones. The
_governments_ of the States will receive _seven_ dollars, for which the
_people_ of the States will pay _eight_. The large sums received will
be palpable to the senses; the small sums paid it requires thought to
identify. But a little consideration will satisfy the people that the
effect is the same as if _seven hundred dollars_ were given them from
the public Treasury, for which they were at the same time required to
pay in taxes, direct or indirect, _eight hundred_.
I deceive myself greatly if the new States would find their interests
promoted by such a system as this bill proposes. Their true policy
consists in the rapid settling and improvement of the waste lands within
their limits. As a means of hastening those events, they have long been
looking to a reduction in the price of public lands upon the final
payment of the national debt. The effect of the proposed system would be
to prevent that reduction. It is true the bill reserves to Congress the
power to reduce the price, but the effect of its details as now arranged
would probably be forever to prevent its exercise.
With the just men who inhabit the new States it is a sufficient reason
to reject this system that it is in violation of the fundamental laws
of the Republic and its Constitution. But if it were a mere question of
interest or expediency they would still reject it. They would not sell
their bright prospect of increasing wealth and growing power at such
a price. They would not place a sum of money to be paid into their
treasuries in competition with the settlement of their waste lands and
the increase of their population. They would not consider a small
or a large annual sum to be paid to their governments and immediately
expended as an equivalent for that enduring wealth which is composed of
flocks and herds and cultivated farms. No temptation will allure them
from that object of abiding interest, the settlement of their waste
lands, and the increase of a hardy race of free citizens, their glory
in peace and their defense in war.
On the whole, I adhere to the opinion, expressed by me in my annual
message of 1832, that it is our true policy that the public lands shall
cease as soon as practicable to be a source of revenue, except for the
payment of those general charges which grow out of the acquisition of
the lands, their survey and sale. Although these expenses have not been
met by the proceeds of sales heretofore, it is quite certain they will
be hereafter, even after a considerable reduction in the price. By
meeting in the Treasury so much of the general charge as arises from
that source they will hereafter, as they have been heretofore, be
disposed of for the common benefit of the United States, according to
the compacts of cession. I do not doubt that it is the real interest
of each and all the States in the Union, and particularly of the new
States, that the price of these lands shall be reduced and graduated,
and that after they have been offered for a certain number of years
the refuse remaining unsold shall be abandoned to the States and the
machinery of our land system entirely withdrawn. It can not be supposed
the compacts intended that the United States should retain forever a
title to lands within the States which are of no value, and no doubt
is entertained that the general interest would be best promoted by
surrendering such lands to the States.
This plan for disposing of the public lands impairs no principle,
violates no compact, and deranges no system. Already has the price of
those lands been reduced from $2 per acre to $1.25, and upon the will of
Congress it depends whether there shall be a further reduction. While
the burdens of the East are diminishing by the reduction of the duties
upon imports, it seems but equal justice that the chief burden of the
West should be lightened in an equal degree at least. It would be just
to the old States and the new, conciliate every interest, disarm the
subject of all its dangers, and add another guaranty to the perpetuity
of our happy Union.
Sensible, however, of the difficulties which surround this important
subject, I can only add to my regrets at finding myself again compelled
to disagree with the legislative power the sincere declaration that any
plan which shall promise a final and satisfactory disposition of the
question and be compatible with the Constitution and public faith shall
have my hearty concurrence.