The adoption of the substitute will abolish 228 of these; and, with advantage to the particular interests involved, transfer their duties to those of the States.

John Randolph, of Roanoke, speaking on this subject in the Senate of the United States in March, 1826, said:

"I wish that every new State had all the lands within the State, that, in the shape of receiverships and other ways, these States might not be brought under the influence of this ten miles square. In other words, I wish that all the patronage of the land office was in the hands of the individual States, and not in the hands of the general government. I am the friend of State rights, and will cut down the patronage of this general government, which has increased, is increasing, and must be diminished; or we-the States-shall be not only shorn of our beams,' sir, but abolished quite."

Mr. Van Buren, in May of the same year, in the Senate, said: The public lands "had extended the patronage of the government over the States to a great extent;" and "subjected" those in which they were situated "to an unwise and unprofitable dependence on the federal government. No man could render the country a greater service than he who should devise some plan by which the United States might be relieved from the ownership of this property by some equitable mode." He would vote for a proposition

on such terms.

In 1830, Mr. Hayne, in the Senate, said:

"More than one-half our time has been taken up with the discussion of propositions connected with the public lands, and more than one-half our acts embrace provisions growing out of this fruitful source."

In 1839, Mr. Calhoun said the discussion about their disposition consumed one-third of the time of Congress.

Mr. Speaker Boyd, in answer to an inquiry made by me, under date of May 21, 1854, says:

"I state as my deliberate opinion that during the sixteen years I have served in Congress, at least one-third of the entire time of that body has been consumed in the consideration of questions connected in one form or other with our public land system."

The Clerk of this House, Colonel Forney, in a note in reply to an inquiry on the subject, says:

"Fifteen hundred columns of the Congressional Globe and Appendix for the Thirty Second Congress are taken up with debates on public lands; and the expense to the government incurred alone by the time consumed was $143,520.

Again: THIS SUBSTITUTE NOT ONLY REDUCES THE PATRONAGE OF

THE GENERAL GONERNMENT RESULTING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC LANDS, BUT IT TAKES THEM OUT OF THE POLITICAL ARENA. A QUESTION PURELY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY WILL NO LONGER BE MADE ONE OF PARTISAN CONTROVERSY. IT IS NON-INTERVENTION IN THE LOCAL INTERESTS AND POLITICS OF THE STATES.

I desire to discuss this subject upon elevated painciples, and without appeal to party feelings. But I ask members if the disposition of the public lands has not been an element, on one side or the other, in all our political contests? It was directly connected with the great Hayne and Webster debate; and, after arraying in opposition the old and the new States, and embittering feeling at

the North and the South, has ever since affected the regulation of the tariff.

It was closely connected with all the financial measures of Gen. Jackson's administration, mixed itself up with his contest with the United States Bank, and became the suggestion of a charge in the constitution. It has ever been associated with the discussion of the power of Congress to make internal improvements; and now, when one after another of these questions have been settled or passed away, it remains with the subject of slavery to monopolize our time and embarrass legislation.

Is this never to cease? Having assisted to make and unmake Presidents for half a century, is it to continue a fund upon which individual members may draw to supply political capital for their districts? Has not the return of members to this House been made in a greater degree to depend upon the legislation of Congress upon this subject than upon any other? Do not measures, objectionable in principle, ally themselves with grants of land to force representatives to the alternative of a violation of their conviction of constitutional right, or a seeming antagonism to the interests of their constituents?

I believe, sir, there is a general desire that this should cease. I believe it to be the feeling of the country, that the public lands should be disposed of, once for all-justly and equitably-to prevent improper combinations-to reduce the length of our sessions, and enable us to legislate on other matters.

On the eve of Mr. Webster's first visit to Europe he was asked the object of his trip. His reply was, that, in addition to a desire to see the objects of natural interest, to one visiting the Old World, he wanted to get where he could see a man who had never made a bargain. I would not intimate that this expression was in any way associated with, or the result of, his political experience; but I may say, without reflection upon that great man, that the desire was by no means unnatural to any one who had been even a spectator of the legislation of Congress in reference to the public lands. On this point I will not enlarge. Sixteen years ago, in 1839, Mr. Calhoun, in speaking of the subject, said:

"I ask not whether it would be wise to continue the old system. No, sir, a far bolder question-will it be practicable?

"It is easy to see how this would end; the public domain, the noble inheritance of the people of this Union, would be squandered, or rather gambled away in the contest, and would thus be made at the same time the means of plunder and corruption, and of elevating to power the most profligate and audacious."

Has this prediction been realized? Let one of many years' experience in this House, and yet in the counsels of the country, answer. Three weeks since, speaking on a bill that has passed this House, Senator Thompson, of Kentucky, said:

"It seems to me, since I have had the honor to come to the national counsels, whether in this or the other house of Congress, the public lands have been bandied about eternally as a bribe in the shape of cession and retrocession, in the shape of graduation and of distribution, and of every imaginable project.”

Of all the interests of the country, Mr. Chairman, the land cr agricultural should be least affected by, or dependent upon, legislation. Upon it rest all other branches of national industry, and its value should be controlled by laws uniform and permanent. It is bad enough that the commerce of the country should be influenced by measures purely political; but trade partakes in some sort of the character of an adventure, and readily adapts itself to circumstances. Not so with land. The tiller of the soil may have a knowledge of chemistry, but he knows nothing of political chicanery. He watches the changes in the natural, not in the political elements, and looks to the ground, not to Congress, for his annual profit or the increased value of his land. And yet, if Congress issue twenty millions of land warrants as proposed by the bill of the gentleman from New York, or throw as many acres of land gratuitously, or at greatly reduced prices, upon the market one year, and none the next. the price of every man's farm will be as variable as your commercial stocks.

Sir, if you have the power, you have no moral right thus to subject the staid and sober interests of the home-staying, hardworking farmers of the country to the fluctuations of your commercial, or the tidal movements of your political sea.

Again: THE SUBSTITUTE NOT ONLY TAKES THE PUBLIC LANDS OUT OF THE POLITICAL ARENA, BUT FREES THE LAND STATES FROM A

HUMILIATING VASSALAGE. They have risen up out of the wilderness under a pledge given at the origin of the government, that they should be received into the Union with equal rights with the other States; and yet, they are now fettered by a system inflicting upon them all the evils of absenteeism.

The lands of the sovereign of England may be taxed in the shire in which they lie, while those of the general government within the States are exempted and held for years at prices above their value, causing emigration to seek other localities. They, in fact, act upon the surface of the new States like the immense corporations of Mortmain, which it cost England a revolution to get rid of.

By a calculation made (by Mr. Sumner,) in the Senate of the United States, in 1849, the land States, from a forbearance to tax the lands of the general government, after survey, have lost $72,000,000. How long will the idea of a paternity of the old over the new States, prevent a practical conviction in the popular mind of their entire equality?

Dispose of the public lands within the States to the States in which they lie, under the terms of this bill, and you at once get rid of the embarrassing questions which constantly force the States to protest or memorialize against a proprietorship within their borders, which, although it extend to half their limits, they can neither tax nor raise contributions from, for the general good, and which forces you to dole out to them the small pittance of 5 per cent. upon their sales.

BUT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE OTHER ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL, LESS GENERAL IN THEIR CHARACTER, BUT NOT LESS IMPORTANT, AND WHOSE PRACTICAL FORCE MUST STRIKE EVERY ONE WHO HAS OBSERVED THE PROGRESS OF LEGISLATION IN THIS HOUSE.

If the numerous causes which have attended, within the last twenty years, the unexampled development of this country, could be analyzed, perhaps to no one would be ascribed so much importance as that of railroads. North, South, East, and West, in ali portions of the country, and by all classes, their advantages are appreciated. Your Atlantic cities have dug through mountains to extend them to the West; and stretching them along your rivers and across your richest agricultural regions, the humblest proprietor has not hesitated to contribute, and has reaped a return in the greatly enhanced value of his land. So certain is this increased value of real estate along their line, that whole communities and States, looking to it as a result, have laid general taxes for their creation. In fact, it is now almost an acknowledged truth of political economy, and taxation for no other purpose is so popular.

Under these circumstances is there anything extravagant in the expectation on the part of the States that the general government should contribute, like every other proprietor within their limits, to the construction of railroads enhancing greatly the value of the public domain? The 5 per cent. upon the sales of the public lands within the States is now given them as a return, and in some sort acknowledgment of the benefit the lands of the government derive from the construction of ordinary roads. Is there anything so unreasonable in the call of the States upon the general government to make a similar return for the enhanced value of its land result of local taxation, that the humblest proprietor is made to pay-to justify the advocates of railroad grants before this House being regarded as speculators upon the public treasury, or to explain the repugnance with which some members listen even to the suggestion of such grants?

the

Sir, this repugnance springs from the vice in the organization of our land system, of which I have spoken. It is neither insensibility to the justice of this claim, nor a belief in the want of constitutional power, that creates this opposition with many, but an inability to decide upon interests purely local, and whose expediency must depend upon circumstances and facts peculiarly liable to perversion.

THE BILL I PROPOSE TRANSFERS THE DECISION OF THESE GRANTS

TO THE LEGISLATURES OF THE STATES. If the railroads seeking them deserve encouragement, and the alternate sections reserved will compensate in value for those granted, it will be best known to the legislatures of the States in which the lands lie, and through which the roads pass. The States lose nothing; deserving rail

roads receive encouragement; and in no event will the general government sacrifice a dollar. *

*

*

THIS SUBSTITUTE IS VALUABLE FOR OTHER REASONS OF MUCH IMPORTANCE, AND TO WHICH I ASK THE PARTICULAR ATTENTION OF THE HOUSE. IT WILL TRANSFER TO THE STATES THE SETTLEMENT OF

THAT LARGE CLASS OF CONTESTED LAND CASES WHICH NOW COME BE

FORE THE LAND COMMISSIONER IN THIS CITY FOR DECISION.
IT WILL
REFER TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE THOSE NUMEROUS APPLICATIONS
FOR SPECIAL LEGISLATION REGARDING LAND TITLES WHICH NOW EM-

BARRASS THIS HOUSE, AND TO THE STATE COURTS THAT IMMENSE

AMOUNT OF LITIGATION WHICH HAS BEEN EXPENSIVELY PROSECUTED IN THE UNITED STATES COURTS.

Here Mr. Perkins proceeded to give an interesting account of the difficulties, delays and cost incident to the prosecution and adjustment of private land claims, especially to the citizens of Louisiana. In connection with this subject he says, he is informed by the Commissioner of the land office that "it would have been economy in the first settlers of Louisiana to have purchased anew their lands from the government, rather than to have incurred the expense of their confirmation."

Having stated the arguments in favor of the measure, Mr. Perkins anticipates and answers the objections which are supposed to exist against it in the Atlantic States, and shows conclusively, we think, that the prosperity of the old States is dependent in a great measure upon the growth of the new, and that any act of legislation which benefits the latter, must promote the prosperity of the former.

Mr. Perkins then proceeds to show that the allowance of 25 per cent. to the States for the sale and management of the public lands will enable the General Government to realize more money from that source than it does or can under the present system. The following are his views and estimates upon this branch of the subject:

BUT, SIR, I MUST HASTEN ON. IS THE PER-CENTAGE TO BE PAID BY THE LAND STATES UPON THE SALE OF LANDS WITHIN THEIR LIMITS ADJUSTED IN THE BILL SO AS TO RECONCILE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS, AND WITHOUT BEING A GIFT OR A SALE OF THE LANDS TO RELIEVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM EXPENSE IN THEIR ADMINISTRATION, SECURE INDIVIDUAL INTEREST, AND AT THE SAME TIME IMPOSE NO ONEROUS CONTRACT UPON THE STATES ?

In the bill similar to this, introduced into the Senate in 1837, it was proposed that the States should pay over only 333 p. cent. By the bill of Judge Young, of Illinois, introduced in 1841, it was proposed they should pay over 65 per cent. of the gross amount.