Mr. EDWARDS presented a petition, signed by a number of individuals, concerned directly or indi- Mr. WALKER, of Alabama, spoke against the rectly as purchasers of public lands prior to the bill, grounding his objections-without examining law "making further provision for the sale of the at all the Constitutional question, but only the public lands," stating that said law operates inju-question of expediency-on the belief that such a riously on them, and praying that they may be permitted to apply the payments already made to such portions of their entries as such payments will cover at two dollars per acre, and that the residue may revert to the United States; and the petition was read, and laid on the table.

SENATE.

Relief to Land Purchasers.

JANUARY, 1821.

at the last session, he moved its indefinite post-ternal improvements, and their failure; especially ponement. the last serious effort, made in the most unexcepMr. TRIMBLE followed, and spoke in answer to tionable aspect, rejected by the veto of President the arguments used by gentlemen yesterday, and Madison, and which had not the necessary majorby Mr. WALKER to-day, against the bill-reason-ity in Congress to make the bill a law; and arguing to show that people would buy the neighbor- ing that if that decision were correct, this measure ing public lands under a fair calculation of the was improper. On the policy of that bill the pubchances in favor of the making of the canal, lic sentiment seemed to be about equally divided; formed on a view of the law, and, consequently, and he had at a subsequent session offered a resono deception would mislead them; and reasoning lution to give the General Government the desired also against the various local interests and jealou- power, which also failed. He would therefore not sies which opposed this bill, and the commence- support a measure now which conflicted with the ment of the contemplated work; and arguing that settled opinion that there existed no power in the it was only by adopting a plan of this kind by the General Government to make roads and canals in General Government that the public interest could the States. At any rate, he hoped, if the system be promoted, and the improper influence of private were commenced, it would not be in an insulated, interest, which might operate if the work were narrow, partial manner, but on a great, equitable, left to the State, could be avoided, &c. and impartial system.

Mr. MORRIL was opposed to the bill as well on account of its inexpediency, as from well founded doubts of the Constitutional power of Congress to authorize the work, and also from the inability of the Treasury at this time to defray extraordinary expenses, presuming that the cost of the work would be derived indirectly if not directly from the public funds. He viewed it also as a lure held out to the purchasers of the public lands, which he could not support; and thinking that when a business of this kind was commenced it ought to be part of a general plan, the expense defrayed out of a general fund, each State receiving its proportion of it; that this, moreover, was not the suitable place to begin the plan; that it would probably cost a great deal more, judging from other public works, than was now estimated.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, was decidedly against the indefinite postponement of the bill. He insisted that the sentiment of Congress had been expressed by a large majority in favor of making internal improvements; and, without fearing any ill consequences from such a policy, he viewed it as of vital importance to the convenience, the happiness, the harmony, and lasting union of the Republic. But this bill, he argued, did not touch the question referred to by Mr. BARBOUR; and its legality had been settled by the law authorizing the continuation of the Cumberland road to Missouri. He controverted the opinion that this canal would be a local work. It was a great national object, as were all works which brought the different parts of the country together, and promoted their comfort and union; and he was ready to support similar objects in other quarters. He maintained the right of the West to expect some expenditure of the public funds in that quarter of the Union, and thereby aid in some sort the moneyed institutions of that part of the country, &c.; in support of which opinions he spoke at some length.

after which

Mr. RUGGLES spoke in favor of his amendment and also of the bill, and argued to show that the canal would be made if now authorized; and also to show the vast commerce which would be carried on through the canal, from and to a great part of the Western country; its extensive advantages to that quarter of the Union, and the salutary policy generally of authorizing such a work. Mr. MORRIL subjoined a remark or two in supMr. TRIMBLE again spoke to show that the ex-port of the opinions he had previously expressed; pense of the canal would never have to be defrayed out of the funds of the General Government; that the expense of the survey would be a mere trifle, and the value of it to Ohio and the whole Western country incalculable. He was particularly desirous that the bill should now pass, because the advantages of it would otherwise be soon lost to the State and the Union, inasmuch as the Indian title being extinguished to the lands, they would be in the market, and would pass into the hands of individuals, &c.

Mr. BARBOUR viewed the question strictly as one of internal improvement, and involving all the considerations connected with that question. It appeared to be the settled sense of the country, though absurd and preposterous in his opinion, that the public funds may be appropriated to works of internal improvement, but that as soon as any work was completed it became derelict and beyond the control of the National Government. He gave a history of the attempts in Congress to authorize and commence a system of in

The question was put on the indefinite postponement of the bill, and decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Barbour, Brown, Chandler, Eaton, Elliot, Gaillard, Hunter, Johnson of Louisiana, King of Alabama, Lanman, Lloyd, Macon, Mills, Morril, Otis, Palmer, Parrott, Pleasants, Roberts, Smith, Taylor, Tichenor, Walker of Alabama, Walker of Georgia, Williams of Mississippi, and Williams of Tenn.-26.

NAYS-Messrs. Dana, Dickerson, Edwards, Johnson of Kentucky, Lowrie, Noble, Ruggles, Sanford, Stokes, Talbot, Thomas, Trimble, and Van Dyke—13. So the bill was rejected.

RELIEF TO LAND PURCHASERS.

The Senate then, agreeably to the order of the day, took up in Committee of the Whole, the bill for the relief of the purchasers of public lands prior to the first day of July, 1820.

Mr. THOMAS, of Illinois, said, that, by the laws in operation before the 1st of July, 1820, the mini

JANUARY, 1820.

Relief to Land Purchasers.

SENATE.

mum price of the public land was two dollars an consideration of the Legislature. It is matter of acre, payable one-fourth down, one-fourth at the general notoriety, that, when the greatest portion end of two years, and one-fourth at the end of each of this debt was contracted, the price of produce of the two succeeding years; one year of grace of every description was more than an hundred was allowed to the purchaser after the last pay-per cent. higher than at present. ment became due. If the payments were not com- Banks which had multiplied, and, apparently, pleted within that period, the land was offered at in some instances, been located with the express public sale; if it sold for more than was due, the view of furnishing facilities to the purchasers of surplus was paid to the purchaser, If it would public lands, had rendered money, or what was not sell for the amount due, it reverted to the Uni- then deemed money, so plenty, that a momentary ted States. Interest, in case of non-payment of frenzy seized upon the purchasers of public lands. any instalment when it became due, was charged Prices were bid for lands wholly unimproved upon such payment. A deduction of eight per greatly beyond what lands of equal quality, and cent. was allowed to purchasers for prompt pay- highly improved, in the neighboring States, would

ment.

have commanded.

Shortly after these purchases were made, produce fell to less than half the price which it then commanded; the facilities afforded by banks were suddenly withdrawn, by the drain of specie from their vaults, or notes ceasing to be receivable in consequence of their bankruptcy.

By the act of the 24th April, 1820, credit was abolished, and the minimum price of the public land reduced to one dollar and twenty-five cents an acre. The probable consequence of that measure, said Mr. T., if no provision is made to counteract it, will be the forfeiture of all the land purchased prior to the 1st of July, 1820, upon which The public debtor, by these occurrences, found the first payment only has been made, except where himself embarrassed by engagements which it valuable improvements have been made, upon a would have been difficult for him to fulfil, and quarter or half-quarter section. On all purchases which the change in the price of the public land at the minimum price, in that situation, the pur- has considerably aggravated. It is unnecessary to chaser will save, by the forfeiture, twenty-five cents charge the Government with having contributed an acre, unless competition at the resale should in- to the error which has been committed by the purcrease the price. Where a higher price has been chasers of the public lands, to induce it to afford given, the saving will be increased in proportion relief. It is sufficient, for that purpose, to show to that price, unless competition at the resale should that great loss will inevitably fall upon their purbe as great as at the original sale. When the sit- chasers unless relief is granted, and, that no benuation of the country, at the time the great mass efit will inure to the Government from that loss. of debt was contracted for the public lands, is con- In all governments, even the most despotic, the sidered, and contrasted with the present circum-resources of the Government consist of the surplus stances of those disposed to become purchasers of those lands, it will be readily perceived that the idea of increased competition, at any sale which may be made of lands that may be forfeited, will not be realized. The immense quantity of land which the Government has in the market, of itself, independent of the unfavorable change which has It is, however, admitted, that, if the Government occurred in the capacity of the community to pur- should exact the penalty of the law, it would apchase, would greatly diminish the fear of compe-parently be benefited in a pecuniary view. It tition, which is the only inducement on the part of the public debtor not to suffer the land purchased by him to revert to the United States.

It is, therefore, the interest of the Government, in a pecuniary point of view, to afford that measure of relief which will diminish the motive with purchasers to suffer their lands to revert to the United States.

But it is conceived, said Mr. T., that considerations of a higher nature are involved in this investigation. All governments ought to act so as to command the love and confidence of the governed. In this country, where the people are sovereign, the Government will always act in conformity to their sovereign will. The question, then, ought to be decided upon considerations of policy, of justice, and equity, and not by those of interest alone. Independent of the motive to a liberal and magnanimous conduct to the public debtors, resulting from the act of the Government diminishing the minimum price, other circumstances present themselves and press with irresistible force upon the

means of the Government. If the people are impoverished, the revenues of the Government are dried up, and all its operations enfeebled; this is the true reason why free States are always more powerful and fruitful in their resources than despotic States.

would retain the whole of the money received on the improvident purchases which have been described, and have the land which would revert at its disposition. This benefit, however, would be apparent only, and not real. The state of destitution to which this exaction would reduce the purchasers would destroy all competition among the purchasers at the resale of those lands; and a sense of the extreme rigor which had been exercised towards them, would restrain the citizens of other States disposed to purchase from entering into the competition. Sympathy, even among those disposed to better their situation by removal from the place of their nativity, would afford that relief which the equity and magnanimity of the Government ought to have promptly granted. But if this opinion should be deemed erroneous, still, any pecuniary benefit which the Government might be supposed to derive from the rigid exaction of the conditions, would be more than balanced by the increased payments in the Treasury, which the relief to which the purchasers are equitably entitled

would produce, in the year 1821, and by the uniformity of the receipts from that source of revenue during the eight succeeding years.

This sum, with the amount of new purchases made during that term, could not fail to produce an annual revenue of $2,500,000. From these general considerations, Mr. President, I shall proceed to a particular examination of the provisions of the bill.

1st. The right to relinquish is an equitable consequence of the change which the Government has made in the minimum price of the public land.

JANUARY, 1821.

with the equity, would greatly increase the payments into the Treasury during the present year, and correspondently diminish the amount necesThe right to relinquish, proposed by the bill, sary to be obtained by loan. It may appear, upon would probably diminish the debt $4,000,000. The first consideration, that the foregoing provisions prompt payments which would be produced by the present all the relief to which the parties are equidiscount tendered in the bill would probably fur-tably entitled, and which the Government can, ther reduce it $3,000,000. There would then re- consistently with due regard to justice, grant. It main $15,000,000 which would, according to the may be urged that, after the parties have been third proposition in the bill, produce an annual permitted to relinquish such part of the land purrevenue of $1,875,000. chased by them as they may think proper, and a reasonable deduction made for prompt payment has been tendered to them, that no cause of complaint can exist, no case of oppression can occur. To this it may be answered, that cases may still exist in which it may be the interest of the parties to suffer the lands purchased by them to revert. Under the former system tracts of not less than one hundred and sixty acres were sold, with the exception of sections numbers two, five, twenty, twenty-three, and thirty, in each township, which If the purchaser should, by any cause whatever, were divided into half-quarters, in the former case, be under the necessity of selling a part of his land where but a single tract has been purchased by an to discharge his debt to the Government, the price individual, the right of relinquishment cannot in which he will be able to obtain for it will be many instances be exercised without great loss to affected by that change, and his ability to make the purchaser; and in the latter it would be inconthe payment diminished in the proportion which venient and impolitic to admit of the right to two hundred bears to one hundred and twenty-five. relinquish. In such cases the parties are presumed, It is rational to presume that such will be the con- from the quantity purchased, to be poor. Their sequence, as the quantity of land which the Gov-poverty will probably disable them from making ernment has for sale will, for a much longer term prompt payment. They will therefore be driven than that proposed in the bill for the final extin- to the necessity of suffering their small farms to guishment of the debt, greatly exceed the demand revert. If saved from this necessity, it will be by for it for settlement, or for speculation. The ex- the compliance with terms from which they see orbitant price given for a portion of the public their wealthy neighbors exempt. But it has been lands, and the inability of the purchasers to pay shown to be their interest to suffer their lands to that price, appeals strongly to the equity and mag- revert, and run the risk of repurchasing, when the nanimity of Congress. The first section of the land shall be again offered for sale. It certainly bill does not propose to reduce the price of the land never can be sound policy in any Government to retained by the purchaser; it only releases him act in such a manner as to make it the interest of from what it is impracticable to perform. its citizens voluntarily, and from a regard to their pecuniary interests, to incur forfeitures, and to fail in the fulfilment of engagements which, though not legally, ought always to be considered morally binding. Such an example could not fail to have a baleful influence upon the public morality. Such 2. To excite to prompt payment, as well as to an example will be exhibited by the act of the grant equitable relief to the purchasers of public 24th of April, 1820, reducing the minimum price land, the second section provides that when the of the public land from two dollars to one dollar full purchase-money for any tract of land shall be and twenty-five cents an acre, if the third section paid on a certain day, a deduction shall be made. of the bill, or one analogous to it in principle, shall This provision is almost a necessary consequence not be adopted by the National Legislature. By of the change which has been made in the mini- that act it is clearly made the interest of the purmum price of the public lands by the act of the chaser to fail in his engagements with the Govern24th April, 1820. Nothing can be more equitable ment, and run the risk of purchasing at a cheaper than the tender to the former purchaser of the rate when the lands shall be reoffered for sale. option of paying, on a given day, the whole sum The third provision is clearly an alternative offered for any tract of land, subject to a deduction equal to those who cannot accept of the second All to the proportion which the former minimum price those whose pecuniary means will not enable them bears to the present. Considering the state of the to avail themselves of the second, will consider Treasury, any measure which will increase the that justice is inequitably distributed between the payments on account of the debt due for the pub-poor and the rich, if by the rejection of the third fic land ought to receive due consideration. For they are compelled, from a regard to their interthe want of punctuality in the payment of this debt, est, to suffer their small farms to revert to the the Government is compelled to borrow money. United States. A reduction for prompt payment, not inconsistent

The Government receives back its property, which will again by it be sold for what it is really worth. The right of relinquishment cannot be exercised so as to release the purchaser from his bargain, as far as the purchase-money has been paid.

But the third section of the bill is strongly rec