"China has wisely prevented this abuse. Agriculture is there held in honor; and to preserve this happy manner of thinking, every year, on a solemn day, the Emperor himself, followed by the whole court, sets his hands to the plow and sows a small piece of land. Hence China is the best cultivated country in the world. It nourishes an innumerable multitude of people that at first appears to the traveller too great for the space they possess.

"The cultivation of the soil is not only to be recommended by the government on account of the extraordinary advantages that flow from it, but from its being an obligation imposed by nature on mankind. The whole earth is appointed for the nourishment of its inhabitants, but it would be incapable of doing it was it uncultivated. Every nation is then obliged by a law of nature to cultivate the ground that has fallen to its share, and it has no right to expect or require assistance from others, any further than the land in its possession is incapable of furnishing it with necessaries. Those people, like the ancient Germans and modern Tartars, who, having fertile countries, disdain to cultivate the earth, and rather choose to live by rapine, are wanting to themselves, and deserve to be exterminated as savage and rapacious beasts. There are others who avoid agriculture, who would only live by hunting and flocks. This might doubtless be allowed in the first ages of the world, when the earth produced more than was sufficient to feed its few inhabitants; but at present, when the human race is so greatly multiplied, it would not subsist if all nations resolved to live in this manner. Those who still retain this idle life, usurp more extensive territories than they would have occasion for were they to use honest labor, and have, therefore, no reason to complain if other nations, more laborious and too closely confined, come to possess a part. Thus, though the conquest of the civilized empires of Peru and Mexico was a notorious usurpation, the establishment of many colonies in North America may, on their confining themselves within just bounds, be extremely lawful.

The

people of those vast countries rather overran than inhabited them."

I propose next to cite the authority of General Jackson, who was believed to be not only a friend to the South but a friend to the Union. He inculcated this great doctrine in his message of 1832:

"It cannot be doubted that the speedy settlement of those lands constitutes the true interest of the Republic. The wealth and strength of a country are its population, and the best part of the population are cultivators of the soil. Independent farmers are everywhere the basis of society, and the true friends of liberty."

.....

"It seems to me to be our true policy that the public lands shall cease, as soon as practicable, to be a source of revenue; and that they be sold to settlers in limited parcels, at prices barely sufficient to reimburse the United States the expense of the present system, and the cost arising from our Indian contracts."

"It is desirable, however, that the right of the soil, and the future disposition of it, be surrendered to the States respectively in which it lies.

"The adventurous and hardy population of the West, besides contributing their equal share of taxation under the impost system, have, in the progress of our Government, for the lands they occupy, paid into the treasury a large proportion of forty million dollars, and of the revenue received therefrom but a small portion has been expended among them. When, to the disadvantage of their situation in this respect, we add the consideration that it is their labor alone that gives real value to the lands, and that the proceeds arising from these sales are chiefly distributed among States that had not originally any claim to them, and which have enjoyed the undivided emoluments arising from the sales of their own lands,

it cannot be expected that the new States will remain longer contented with the present policy, after the payment of the public debt. To avert the consequences which may be apprehended from this cause, to stop forever all partial and interested legislation on this subject, and to afford every American citizen of enterprise the opportunity of securing an independent freehold, it seems to me, therefore, best to abandon the idea of raising a future revenue out of the public lands."

Thus we have standing before us, in advocacy of this great principle, the first writer of laws, Moses; next we have Vattel; and in the third place we have General Jackson.

Now, let us see whether there has been any homestead policy in the United States. By turning to our statutes, we find that the first Homestead Bill ever introduced into the Congress of the United States was in 1791. I know that it is said by some, and it is sometimes cantingly and slurringly reiterated in the newspapers, that this is a demagogical movement, and that some person has introduced and advocates this policy purely for the purpose of pleasing the people. I want to see who some of these demagogues are; and, before I read the section of this statute, I will refer, in connection with Jackson and these other distinguished individuals, to the fact that Mr. Jefferson, the philosopher and statesman, recognized and appreciated this great doctrine. In 1791, the first bill passed by the Congress of the United States recognizing the homestead principle, is in the following words:

"That four hundred acres of land be given ” —

that is the language of the statute.

We do not assume in this bill to give land. We assume that a consideration passes; but here was a law that was based on the idea that four hundred acres of land were to be given

"to each of those persons who, in the year 1783, were heads of families at Vincennes, or the Illinois country, or the Mississippi, and who, since that time, have removed from one of the said places to the other; but the Governor of the Territory northwest of the Ohio is hereby directed to cause the same to be laid out for them at their own expense," &c.

Another section of the same act provides,

"That the heads of families at Vincennes, or in the Illinois country, in the year 1783, who afterwards removed without the limits of said Territory, are nevertheless entitled to the donation of four hundred acres of land made by the resolve of Congress," &c.

That act recognized the principle embraced in the Homestead Bill. If this is the idea of a demagogue, if it is the idea of one catering or pandering to the public sentiment to catch votes, it was introduced into Congress in 1791, and received the approval of Washington, the father of his country. I presume that if he lived at this day, and were to approve the measure, as he did in 1791, he would be branded, and put in the category of those persons who are denominated demagogues. Under his administration there was another bill passed of a similar import, recognizing and carrying out the great homestead principle. Thus we find that this

policy, so far as legislation is concerned, commenced with Washington, and received his approval as early as 1791. From General Washington's administration there are forty-four precedents running through every administration of this Government, down to the present time, in which this principle has been recognized and indorsed.

We discover from this historical review that this is no new idea, that it is no recent invention, that it is no new movement for the purpose of making votes; but it is a principle wellnigh as old as the Government itself, which was indorsed and approved by Washington himself.

This would seem, Mr. President, to settle the question of power. I know it has been argued by some that Congress had not the power to make donations of land; but even the statute, to which I have referred, makes use of the word "give" without consideration. It was considered constitutional by the early fathers to give away land. We proceed in this bill upon the principle that there is a consideration. If I were disposed to look for precedents, even for the donations of the public lands, I could instance the bounty-land act, I could take you through other acts donating land, showing that the principle has been recognized again and again, and that there is not now a question as to its constitutionality.

I believe there is a clear difference in the power of the Federal Government in reference to its ap