SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. TIMOTHY JENKINS, OF N. YORK 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 14, 1852, 
 
 AGAINST GIVING AWAY THE PUBLIC LANDS. 
 
 The House being: in Committee of the Whole, 
 (Mr. Hibbard in the chair,) 
 
 Mr. JENKINS said: Mr. Chairman, I shall 
 devote the hour allotted to me mainly in discuss¬ 
 ing these questions: Has Congress the rightful 
 power to make donations of public lands, either 
 for the construction of railroads, or to actual set¬ 
 tlers ? Would it be expedient for us to exercise 
 that power, even if we posses it ? 
 
 The Committee of this House upon Public 
 Lands has reported a bill granting to the State of 
 Missouri a portion of the national domain for the 
 purpose of constructing two railroads in that 
 State—one from St. Joseph to Hannibal, a dis¬ 
 tance of one hundred and eighty miles; the other 
 from St. Louis to the western line of the State, a 
 distance of two hundred and thirty-two miles. 
 By this bill it is proposed to give the State of 
 Missouri between one and two millions of acres 
 of land. I said to the State of Missouri; not 
 quite so. Corporations have been created by that 
 State, authorized to construct these roads. These 
 corporations, therefore, stand behind the State, 
 eager expectants of the nation’s bounty. 
 
 If this were the only project for such donations 
 to be pressed upon our consideration, we possibly 
 might pass over the subject with less concern; but 
 this bill is only the entering wedge. Other bills 
 are to follow, which, if carried through Congress, 
 will sweep away, at the present session, from 
 twenty-five to fifty millions of acres of the public 
 domain. 
 
 The Committees upon Public Lands in both 
 Houses of Congress are pushing forward a scheme 
 of internal improvements at the nation’s expense, 
 unrivaled in extravagance by any former legisla¬ 
 tive body. Let us look into the document room, 
 and see what intelligence the Senate, through that 
 channel, has communicated to us upon the subject. 
 We find sent there prior to the first of last March 
 a large volume of bills making donations of public 
 lands to certain favored States, of which I give a 
 brief abstract: 
 
 Donations proposed in the Senate at this session , as esti¬ 
 mated by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. 
 
 FIRST—-FOR RAILROADS. 
 
 States. Length of roads Amount of dona- 
 
 in miles. tion in acres. 
 
 Michigan.534. 341.760 
 
 Wisconsin.156. 599,040 
 
 Iowa.434. 3,107,417 
 
 Missouri.232 890,880 
 
 Arkansas.488. 1,873,920 
 
 Alabama.314. 1,205,760 
 
 Florida. 932. 5,882,880 
 
 3,090 
 
 Making for railroads... 13,901,657 
 
 These 3,090 miles of road will cost $60,000,000. 
 
 SECOND—DONATIONS TO STATES, NOT LIMITED TO RAIL¬ 
 ROADS. 
 
 Ohio. 302,105 
 
 Louisiana. 13,508,259 
 
 Illinois. 35,000 
 
 Add the above for railroads 
 
 13,845,454 
 . 13,901,657 
 
 Proposed donations, in acres. 27,747,111 
 
 Thus an effort is made to bring the united votes 
 of ten States into the measure, by holding out a 
 reward of the value of $35,000,000. 
 
 One scheme of prodigality never stands alone. 
 Others of like character soon cluster around the 
 leading project. The circle of combinations is 
 constantly enlarging, and each unauthorized appli¬ 
 cation is made to depend on the success of all. 
 The system in fact goes further. Meritorious 
 subjects for legislative action are quite sure of de¬ 
 feat, unless united to the prescribed circle. The 
 influence of the whole scheme is pernicious, and 
 tends to change our legislative Hall into a market¬ 
 place, where vote may be bartered for vote. 
 
 The power of the General Government is deriv¬ 
 ative—conferred on the one hand, and limited on 
 the other, by compact. The States have an inde¬ 
 pendent existence, and are clad with the elements 
 of supreme power. It is the business of States, 
 and not of the General Government, to support 
 
2 
 
 the poor; to disseminate learning; to encourage 
 the arts, promote agriculture, and construct roads 
 and canals. The jurisdiction of the General Gov¬ 
 ernment begins where that of the respective States 
 ends. Who will claim that the National Govern¬ 
 ment has a right to construct railroads ? The mode 
 in which the business is necessarily carried on 
 upon these roads furnishes an abundant answer 
 to this question. From their very nature they 
 are exclusive. He who wants to travel, cannot 
 put his own car on to the track. He must sub¬ 
 mit himself to the dictation of others. He must 
 enter cars prepared for the road. Fast or slow, 
 the engineer controls the movement, and the mur¬ 
 murs or plaudits of the passenger, alike unheard, 
 neither increase nor diminish the speed. How 
 unlike the navigation of our rivers, our lakes, or 
 the ocean ! There, each master spreads his own 
 canvas to the propitious wind, or dashes onward, 
 at pleasure, with his huge but obedient steamer. 
 The former is close and restricted; the latter is 
 free and national. The one is suited to the minu¬ 
 tiae of State legislation; the other to the broader 
 field of national commerce. The one constitutes 
 the thoroughfares of individual States; our great 
 rivers and lakes are the highways of the nation. 
 The objects, therefore, to which these funds are 
 devoted lie beyond our constitutional limits. As 
 well might we devote funds from the Treasury for 
 the establishment of a bank at Hannibal, as to 
 send out a railroad from that place through the 
 wild lands of the West. 
 
 Is it said that these lands are givfen to the States, 
 and that, inasmuch as the States have an undoubt¬ 
 ed right to construct railroads, therefore the con¬ 
 stitutional objection is answered? Let us test this 
 question. If this bill proposed to make a general 
 distribution of the public treasure to all the States 
 alike, the project would evidently be more just 
 than the present; yet it would then be open to the 
 strong objection of collecting money from the 
 people, for distribution among the people, abating 
 the expense of collection and payment. But this 
 proposition is to give a large amount of land to a 
 single State, with a provision requiring that State 
 to devote the avails of the land to the construction 
 of two specified railroads. If we have not a con¬ 
 stitutional right to construct railroads, have we a 
 right to make a donation of funds for the con¬ 
 struction of railroads ? If we have no right to 
 accomplish an object directlxj, have we a right to 
 accomplish the same object indirectly ? If there 
 be any reason which will enable us to bring about 
 this result, it lies beyond discovery by mortal 
 vision. 
 
 These public lands are held by the United States 
 in a fiduciary capacity. In the sale and disposi¬ 
 tion of them, Congress acts as a trustee. What 
 right has a trustee to give away the trust estate? 
 Have we any more authority to give away the 
 public lands than we have to put our hands into 
 the Treasury and make a donation in specie? If 
 these lands are taken from the market and given 
 away, that source of revenue is cut off. Increased 
 taxation, by way of import duties or otherwise, 
 is necessarily resorted to in order to supply the 
 deficiency in the public revenue thus created. In¬ 
 stead, therefore, of selling the nation’s lands to 
 pay the nation’s debts, we give away these lands 
 and tax the people to pay these debts ! Let the ! 
 argument be put in this form, and will any one 
 rise in his place and maintain the right in Congress 
 to make any such donation ? The very nature of 
 
 j the trust is at war with this gross assumption of 
 | power. 
 
 But, sir, I propose to examine this question of 
 ' power further. How, and under what circum- 
 j stances, did the General Government obtain title 
 to the public lands east of the Mississippi river? 
 Were the grants by the States to the General Gov¬ 
 ernment absolute or limited ? Let it be remem¬ 
 bered that most of the original grants from the 
 British Crown to the American colonies, covered 
 lands from the sea-board westwardly to the Mis¬ 
 sissippi river, and some purported to extend to the 
 Pacific ocean. These grants were made long be¬ 
 fore the country was fully explored. Little attention 
 was paid to their northern or southern boundary, 
 and hence these grants lapped upon each other. 
 Disputes began to arise between the States as to 
 the rightful extent of these grants, until the Amer¬ 
 ican Revolution, quieting these disputes, gave rise 
 to a more momentous question. To whom did 
 these unappropriated lands rightly belong ? The 
 blood and treasure of all the States were freely 
 poured out in that great struggle for the benefit 
 of the whole nation. The war was yet raging, 
 and the national debt rapidly increasing. How 
 shall this debt be paid ? Shall the patriotic States 
 of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Rhode 
 Island, whose grants were limited, bear the severe 
 burdens of the war, and then quietly sit down and 
 pay their proportionate share of the expense, leav¬ 
 ing the other States to the enjoyment of the vast 
 region of unappropriated lands lying between the 
 settlements on the sea-board and the Mississippi? 
 or shall these lands be regarded as a national fund, 
 devoted to war expenses and the common benefit 
 of all the States? These were questions, at that 
 important juncture, worthy the thoughts of states¬ 
 men. The subject was one of vital interest, and 
 was treated with the grave deliberation suited to its 
 importance. 
 
 Some of the States refused to sign the Articles 
 of Confederation until an equitable adjustment of 
 this matter should be made. In 1779, Congress 
 passed a resolution soliciting the then land States 
 not to dispose of the unappropriated lands during 
 the continuance of the war. Maryland, Delaware, 
 and New Jersey evinced a strong desire that jus¬ 
 tice to them should be done, and ardently pressed 
 Congress for a settlement of this question. Vir¬ 
 ginia, unwilling to l’esign her claims to any of the 
 unappropriated lands, remonstrated against any 
 interference with her possessions on the part of 
 the General Government. This subject had ap¬ 
 proached a dangerous crisis, when the Legislature 
 of the State of New York in 1780 patriotically 
 came to the rescue, and passed an act author¬ 
 izing their delegates in Congress to limit the west¬ 
 ern line of that State, and cede the lands west of 
 such line to the United States, for the benefit of 
 such States as should become members of theFed- 
 l eral Alliance. Before such cession was actually 
 ; made, Congress passed a resolution inviting the 
 S other States to follow the example set by New 
 York; and in that resolution expressly pledged the 
 faith of the nation to dispose of the lands which 
 : should be ceded to the General Government by 
 ! the respective States, for the common benefit of the 
 United States. Whereupon the State of New York, 
 in 1781, three years in advance of any other State, 
 j ceded her unappropriated lands west of her present 
 State line to the United States, pursuant to the 
 resolution of Congress. The other land States 
 followed the example of New York, and, relying 
 
3 
 
 upon the resolution of Congress, ceded their unap- 
 
 f jropriated lands to the United States in the fol- 
 owing order: Virginia in part in 1784, and finally 
 in 1788; Massachusetts in 1785; Connecticut in 
 part in 1786, and finally in 1800; South Carolina 
 in 1787; North Carolina in 1790; and Georgia 
 in 1802. 
 
 What were the purport and effect of this reso¬ 
 lution of Congress pledging the faith of the nation 
 to dispose of these lands for the common benefit 
 of all the States, and the cession of land by the 
 States pursuant thereto? These transactions to- | 
 gether constitute a compact obligatory upon the 
 parties now in full force, and binding as the Con- ; 
 stitution itself. What legal or moral right have 
 we to break that compact? Where do gentlemen 
 find the power authorizing Congress to trample 
 this solemn agreement under our feet, and instead 
 of disposing of these lands for the common benefit 
 of all—instead of collecting their avails for the sup¬ 
 port of Government, and the payment of the 
 national debt—give them away under the name of 
 States to railroad corporations and voracious spec¬ 
 ulators? What right has Congress under this 
 compact to give them away for any purpose? 
 
 The Constitution of the United States provides 
 that— 
 
 “ 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 
 claim of the United States or of any particular State.” 
 
 This is the only clause in that instrument relat¬ 
 ing to the public lands. What do the words con¬ 
 ferring upon Congress the power to dispose of, 
 and make all needful rules and regulations respect¬ 
 ing, the territory or other property of the United 
 States, mean, when taken ^"connection with the 
 clause prohibiting Congress from prejudicing any 
 claims of the United States or of any particular State 
 therein ? Can it in truth be said, that any one of 
 the States has no interest in the public lands ? If 
 each of the States has an interest in them, what 
 power, what right has Congress to prejudice such 
 claim by giving them away, either to States, indi¬ 
 viduals, or corporations? Is it not also obvious 
 that any such donation works a prejudice to the 
 claims of the United States in the public domain ? 
 These questions admit of but one answer. The 
 Constitution itself, therefore, not only fortifies the 
 position I have taken in respect to the public lands 
 east of the Mississippi river, but secures to the 
 respective States their interest in the public do¬ 
 main everywhere throughout the Union. 
 
 In the ordinary transactions of business, where 
 several persons purchase a tract of land, and all 
 assist in paying for it, each has an equitable right 
 to his share; though the legal title may be held by 
 one of their number or by a third person. In 
 1803 we purchased of the French Republic the Ter¬ 
 ritory of Louisiana for upwards of eleven million 
 and a half of dollars, and stipulated to release that 
 Republic from all liability for spoliations upon 
 our commerce prior to 1800, amounting to about j 
 as much more. In 1819, we purchased Florida ; 
 from Spain, for $5,000,000. Immense sums of' 
 money have been yearly paid to the various In- i 
 dian tribes for the extinguishment of their titles j 
 even to a small part of the public domain. For j 
 the extinguishment of Indian titles to 116,349,899 
 acres of land between the 4th of March, 1829, and 
 the 4th of December, 1838, we paid and agreed to 
 pay to Indian tribes, the sum of $72,562,056. 
 
 Larger sums still will be required from year to 
 year for the purchase of other Indian titles. The 
 Indian appropriation bill, for years, has exceeded 
 a million of dollars annually. At the present time, 
 the amount of annuities and interest payable to 
 Indian tribes is $822,215. Of this sum $150,310 
 is a perpetual annuity, equal in value to two and 
 a half millions of dollars. We owe various tribes 
 of Indians, upon which we pay annual interest, 
 the sum of $5,271,600. If we take into consider¬ 
 ation the present value of all annuities due these 
 tribes, together with the amount of funds belong¬ 
 ing to them and now in the hands of the General 
 Government, this branch of our national debt 
 alone cannot be less than twelve millions of dol¬ 
 lars. 
 
 The survey of our public lands for some years 
 past has cost the Government from $200,000 to 
 $300,000 a year. We have paid Mexico for the 
 acquisition of territory $15,000,000, and relin¬ 
 quished claims upon that Republic amounting to 
 about $6,000,000 more. We agreed to pay 
 Texas $10,000,000 for her claim upon New Mex¬ 
 ico. 
 
 The stipulations entered into between the United 
 States and Georgia, upon the cession of the unap¬ 
 propriated lands of that State to the General Gov¬ 
 ernment, resulted in the Florida war, and the con¬ 
 sequent removal of the Indians from that section 
 of the Union west of the Mississippi. The war 
 with Mexico resulted in a war for the acquisition 
 of territory. In the treaty of peace the United 
 States agreed to protect that Republic from dep¬ 
 redations by Indians residing within the United 
 States. What these wars have cost, and what 
 amount will be required to keep up an army upon 
 our southwestern frontier in order to comply with 
 the terms of the treaty with Mexico, it is not easy 
 to determine. 
 
 These immense sums have been expended from 
 the public Treasury, substantially for the acquisi¬ 
 tion of public lands. These moneys have been, 
 in part, paid out of the Treasury of the nation, 
 and the residue must also be drawn from the same 
 Treasury. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I wish to ask 
 the gentleman from New York a single question. 
 If the amount we have paid for the acquisition of 
 Florida, Louisiana, California, and all the other 
 acquired territory, is chargeable to the public 
 account? I to some extent answer the question 
 by asking another: If there were not a foot of 
 vacant unoccupied land, would not the United 
 States have been justified in paying the amount 
 which has been paid for the extension of our 
 jurisdiction ? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. The last question put by my 
 honorable friend from Tennessee, is not quite per¬ 
 tinent to the matter under discussion; for, in one 
 sense, we may have been remunerated for these 
 expenditures in the glory of our arms and the 
 fame of our achievements. When we have pur¬ 
 chased territory, and paid a vast sum of money 
 for it, even though our jurisdiction is thereby en¬ 
 larged and benefits result to the nation from such 
 extended jurisdiction, yet this cannot authorize 
 Congress to give away such territory, and leave 
 the people to pay the stipulated price. I therefore 
 answer, that the price paid for these acquisitions 
 is chargeable to public account. 
 
 Sir, this Government has been engaged in the 
 survey and sale of our unappropriated lands about 
 seventy years. The whole sales, up to the close of 
 
4 
 
 the last fisca iyear, amount only to 100,560,790. 
 The amount received upon sales does not half 
 equal the amount we have paid for the public lands. 
 The question, then, arises, whether it would be 
 discreet, even if we had the power, to give away 
 these lands until after the sum which has been 
 paid out shall have been realized from the sales of 
 them ? If a surplus can be saved, to whom should 
 that surplus go ? Obviously, it should be placed in 
 the Treasury for the benefit of the whole nation. 
 
 Our registered public debt is now $62,000,000. 
 Add to this the unregistered debt of $10,000,000 
 due Texas, and our liabilities of $12,000,000 to 
 the Indian tribes, and we see that the payment of 
 $84,000,000 is to be provided for. How is this 
 vast debt to be paid ? Throw away the public 
 lands, and the sober realities of taxation, drawn 
 from the sweat of the brow, will give a reluctant 
 but admonitory answer to this question. 
 
 If, then, there were no compact and no constitu¬ 
 tional provision against these donations, the plainest 
 principles of common justice should be an adequate 
 barrier against them. I am aware that the plea for 
 infractions upon constitutional rights is always put 
 forth in a plausible form; and ardent appeals to 
 interest are made, and subtle combinations entered 
 into, until a vast force is brought to bear upon the 
 object in view. Why is Prance now governed by 
 the arbitrary will of a tyrant? I answer, the Le¬ 
 gislature of Republican Prance led the way. That 
 body first set the Constitution at defiance. Against 
 the letter and spirit of that instrument, the French 
 Chamber disfranchised a large portion of the con¬ 
 stitutional voters, and invaded the liberty of the 
 Press. They squandered the public treasure in 
 balls and banquets. They taught the people to live 
 upon the Government. They crushed the rising 
 spirit of liberty in Rome, and Frenchmen did not 
 complain. The Constitution was overruled by 
 mere legislative enactments, broken by legislative 
 usurpation. What is liberty when the guarantees 
 of the constitution are gone? A mirror, to see a 
 tyrant’s face in. 
 
 Infringements upon the Constitution always 
 produce disastrous effects. Let any State in the 
 Union transcend its constitutional powers, and 
 embark upon a scheme of gigantic expenditure, 
 and though such expenditure may seem to be for a 
 praiseworthy object, yet the incipient wrong 
 wakes into life a horde of ravenous expectants of 
 public plunder. The very fact that the organic 
 law has been broken, to open the way for such 
 unauthorized expenditure, is itselfan invitation for 
 the artful and designing to set their wits in motion 
 for the most adroit mode of robbing the public 
 Treasury. Donations of such vast amounts of 
 public lands to the State x>r the construction of 
 railroads, is liable to the same fraudulent mode of 
 expenditure. These lands become a fund attract¬ 
 ive to speculators, who throng the halls of State 
 Legislatures. At their instance, corporations are 
 created, the lands transferred,the prices raised, the 
 roads surveyed, and cities and villages in abun¬ 
 dance emblazoned upon the map. Scrip for cor¬ 
 ner lots, and gardens, and farms, and mill-sites, 
 are blown into every market. The adroit specu¬ 
 lator knows well who to choose for customers. 
 He does not invite the attention of men who un¬ 
 derstand his appliances. It is the unsuspecting 
 and the credulous whom he marks for victims. 
 Thus, if these measures shall pass, the speculating 
 mania of J‘835 and 1636 will be reenacted, with the 
 ad vantage ofnew scenery and fresh embellishments. 
 
 ! The friends of this system propose to take the 
 lands in alternate sections, and confine the range 
 within fifteen miles of the road. They would then 
 require the sections retained by the General Gov¬ 
 ernment to be sold for not less than $2 50 per acre, 
 while they propose to allow the States to which 
 the sections shall be granted to sell the lands thus 
 granted for such price as they may choose. Thus 
 it is claimed that because the price on the half re¬ 
 served is to be doubled, the half given away is no 
 donation. If this proposition be sound, as a gen¬ 
 eral rule, why do not the States, so clamorous for 
 j railroads, so anxious to force Congress into this 
 ! new way of making money, themselves purchase 
 all the lands on each side of the proposed railroads 
 at the small sum of $1 25 per acre, and thus re¬ 
 lieve the General Government from the specula¬ 
 tion ? I more approve of the caution which gov¬ 
 erns the acts of these States than their advice by 
 which they would have the legislation of Congress 
 directed. Some acquaintance with the sales of 
 the public lands during the last twenty years, and 
 the amounts of land purchased remaining unoc¬ 
 cupied to this day will show how illusory this 
 position is. Under the reign of speculation in 
 1835 and 1836, the Government sold the enormous 
 amount of 32,639,343 acres of land, for the sum 
 of upwards of forty’millions of dollars. The best 
 judges upon this subject are of the opinion that 
 not one half of this land sold during those years 
 has yet gone into the hands of actual occupants. 
 Why is this ? The soil is good, and the land well 
 located, for it was purchased upon actual examina¬ 
 tion by men of experience. But, sir, the amount 
 of lands sold during those years was enough to 
 supply the whole tide of emigration westward for 
 twenty-five years. Many who have taken up their 
 abode in the new country chose to purchase lands 
 from the General Government, and hence a large 
 share of the lands bought upon speculation re¬ 
 mains unoccupied to this day. Gentlemen from 
 the new States complain that large amounts of 
 land have been surveyed and in market for a long 
 time, and yet remain unsold. They think that a 
 number of railroads in each of the new States, 
 and in the Territories, would induce actual set¬ 
 tlers to purchase these lands. This reasoning is 
 fallacious. No such extraordinary effects can be 
 i expected. The moment these lands are putin the 
 | market, if they are to be so desirable as some sup- 
 I pose, they will be seized by the speculators before 
 i the real settler from the Eastern States has time to 
 I think of emigration. 
 
 Since 1820, the Government has sold the public 
 lands, according to the judgment of those best ac- 
 ; quainted with the subject, at a price not much, if 
 j any, above what they cost us, including the ex- 
 ! penses of survey and sale. Efforts have been made 
 j from time to time to reduce the price below $1 25 
 ! an acre, for the purpose of encouraging emigration 
 [ to the new States. But now, a policy directly 
 the opposite is pressed upon our consideration. 
 The advocates of these railroad projects would 
 raise the price, and thus place the lands beyond 
 the reach of the emigrant possessed of small pecu¬ 
 niary means. This policy is also advocated with 
 a view of increasing emigration to the new States. 
 Antagonistic as these measures are to each other, 
 Representatives from the same States have, by 
 j turns, supported both. It is also supposed that a 
 j large majority of the advocates of these railroad 
 | schemes, are in favor of giving away the public 
 j lands to actual settlers. From the want of unity 
 
5 
 
 in these projects, we are admonished to examine 
 them all with some care. It has been said in the 
 course of debate, by a member of the Committee 
 on Public Lands, that donations of public land for 
 over twenty railroads are reported, and to be re¬ 
 ported, and the construction of these roads recom¬ 
 mended by that committee at this session. It is 
 plainly seen, that from combination of interest, if 
 one passes, all will. This is the new system for 
 increasing the sale and disposition of the public 
 lands, and promoting emigration from the old 
 States to the new. Suppose you could manage 
 one or two roads upon choice localities to advan¬ 
 tage, what will you do with the great number of 
 them contemplated in this scheme? Where are 
 the settlers to come from, sufficient to people such 
 a vast amount of territory within the time indi¬ 
 cated by the haste in which these measures are 
 pressed upon us? A few hundred thousand set¬ 
 tlers a year will not answ r er the purpose; nothing 
 short of emigration by kingdoms, in a body, can 
 satisfy such huge desires. Sir, depend upon it, 
 emigration will not be materially increased by the 
 means proposed. If lands were not raised in price, 
 emigrants might be concentrated for a time in the 
 vicinity of the proposed roads, instead of taking 
 up their abode elsewhere. This is concentration 
 in a particular locality, not an increase of popula¬ 
 tion in the new States. 
 
 In the course of debate, allusion has been made 
 to grants of alternate sections of land by Con¬ 
 gress, in 1827, to the State of Illinois, to aid in 
 the construction of a canal connecting the waters 
 of the Illinois river with Lake Michigan; and, 
 also, to another grant, during the same session of 
 Congress, of like alternate sections to the State of 
 Indiana, to aid in the construction of the Wabash 
 and Erie canal. The acts making these donations 
 required the price of the sections reserved to the Gen¬ 
 eral Government to be raised from $1 25 to $2 50 
 per acre. It was, doubtless, an object of importance 
 to connect the waters of the Mississippi, through 
 the medium of lakes and canals, with the waters 
 of the Hudson river. Perhaps so strong an appeal 
 could not have been made for any other similar 
 donation. The New York canals, between the 
 lakes and the Hudson river, were then in success¬ 
 ful operation; and, it was inquired, why not con¬ 
 struct canals in the new States, and send the prod¬ 
 ucts of the Mississippi valley to the commercial 
 metropolis of the nation? The supposed benefits 
 of these projects by no means equaled the injury 
 arising from these donations. The grants neither 
 blessed the giver nor receiver. They stimulated 
 the States of Indiana and Illinois to embark upon 
 a system of wild and extravagant expenditure. 
 They issued stocks in profusion, and the markets j 
 were filled with them to overflowing. No ad¬ 
 equate provision was made even for the payment 
 of the interest, much less the principal. Conse¬ 
 quences quite natural followed. These two fa¬ 
 vorite States, unsurpassed by any in the Union 
 for beauty and fertility, overwhelmed by pressing 
 liabilities, were forced to the threshold of repudia¬ 
 tion. Their stocks were hawked in the market¬ 
 place; their credit was lost, and their public works 
 stopped. These States turned over their lands to 
 corporations created for the purpose. The price 
 of the lands was fixed at five dollars an acre; and 
 although a quarter of a century has gone by since 
 the donations were made, more than half of them 
 remain unsold to this day. These vast debts, ere- | 
 ated by the States of Indiana and Illinois, have j] 
 
 prevented settlers from going there. The hardy 
 pioneer does not relish heavy taxation. He goes 
 where lands are good and cheap, and expenses 
 light. Hence, the sales of land belonging to the 
 General Government in these two States, have, 
 without doubt, been much retarded. 
 
 Our experience upon this subject does not stop 
 here. In 1838, Congress made a donation of al¬ 
 ternate sections of land to the Territory of Wis¬ 
 consin, for the construction of the Milwaukie and 
 Rock River canal. This grant, like those to In¬ 
 diana and Illinois, embraced the alternate sections 
 for the distance of five sections on each side of the 
 canal. In like manner, also, the price of the sec¬ 
 tions reserved to the United States was raised from 
 $1 25 to $2 50 an acre. These lands were not 
 surpassed in fertility, climate, or convenience of 
 location, by any in the Union. A corporation was 
 created to take the lands and construct the canal. 
 This canal was to be some sixty or seventy miles 
 long. The lands are gone, of course, but where 
 is the canal ? A dike, now used for mill purposes, 
 a mile and a half in length, tells the whole tale of 
 this munificent donation. Not discouraged at this 
 disastrous result, in 1846, Congress granted to the 
 same Territory like alternate sections of land, for 
 the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. 
 In 1848, Congress, aware that the whole project 
 resulted in a failure, not only reduced the price of 
 the alternate sections of the lands reserved to the 
 Genera! Government in both grants to Wisconsin 
 back to $1 25 an acre, but paid to those who had 
 purchased these reserved sections at double that 
 sum the excess above $1 25 an acre. Let the 
 Governor of Wisconsin, in his annual message to 
 the Legislature of that State in January last, be 
 heard upon this subject. He is on the ground, an 
 eye witness to the effects of this system of unau¬ 
 thorized prodigality. I give his language: 
 
 “ These large grants of the public lands to (he State, in 
 trust for the benefit of specific works of internal improve¬ 
 ment, under the supervision of private incorporated com¬ 
 panies, will retard the settlement of the State, by engross¬ 
 ing the most valuable portions of the vacant lands, and in 
 every instance, will probably have the effect to keep them 
 out of the immediate market, as well as to increase the 
 original cost to the settler when offered for sale. If granted, 
 as is usual in such cases, in alternate sections, the practice 
 has been, and will probably continue to be, to increase the 
 price of Government lands so alternately reserved, thus 
 making the land, both granted and reserved, a profitless bar¬ 
 gain to the capitalist, as well as placing them beyond the 
 reach of a large proportion of emigrant settlers, who would 
 otherwise become resident producers in the State. The 
 consequence would be, they would avoid Wisconsin and 
 seek more favorable localities in other States and Terri¬ 
 tories, where vacant lands could be procured at the usual 
 Government price, if a giant, be made for the benefit of 
 only one certain work, or a particular company, and no 
 other should be allowed, it would be objectionable, as con¬ 
 ferring a special and exclusive benefit upon a particular sec¬ 
 tion of the State, out of a general and common fund that 
 belongs to all portions and sections of the State alike. If 
 one grant should become a precedent, reason for allowing 
 others, and grants should continue to be made as often as 
 any work or improvement could be demonstrated to be of 
 utility and importance to any section of the country, in a 
 very short time all the public lands in the State would be 
 absorbed and engrossed by numberless projected internal 
 improvements, each under the management of special and 
 private companies, and all requiring the supervision of the 
 State government. The companies having charge of these 
 various works, would or might consider it for their interest 
 to make such a high appraisement of these grants as would 
 necessarily keep them a long time out of market, and pre¬ 
 vent their occupancy and settlement. In Hie mean time, 
 in order to obtain rfhe requisite means to commence and 
 carry on these works, they might see fit to issue bonds, 
 scrip, or other evidence of debt, making these lands the 
 basis of their credit and security, and by their sale and ne¬ 
 gotiation in a foreign market, have the effect to place these 
 
6 
 
 lands, in a measure, under the control of non-resident money 
 speculators.” 
 
 Mr. EASTMAN. Does the gentleman from 
 New York intend to say that the sentiment ex¬ 
 pressed in the extract just now read from the 
 message of the Governor of Wisconsin reflects the 
 public sentiment of Wiscdnsin on this subject? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. These appear to be the senti¬ 
 ments of Governor Farewell, elected to that office 
 by the people of Wisconsin. This is the best evi¬ 
 dence we can have of the sentiments of the people 
 of that State on this subject. The facts which I 
 have given, also fully support the opinion of the 
 chief magistrate of that State. 
 
 Thus, sir, theory and experience unite in placing 
 the stamp of condemnation upon this system. If 
 it were authorized by the Constitution, or by the 
 nature of the trust which the General Government 
 holds in the public domain, the project would nev¬ 
 ertheless be inexpedient, and unworthy of our 
 support. 
 
 I think it may be safely laid down as a princi¬ 
 ple, that no railroad should be constructed at pub¬ 
 lic or private expense, unless it should first be 
 obvious that the business which would be done 
 upon it could not fail to make it a profitable 
 investment. When the population is sufficiently 
 dense to warrant this result, capitalists in the 
 vicinity of the proposed improvement, perhaps 
 aided by their friends abroad, will quite naturally 
 enter upon the work. The funds will then be ex¬ 
 pended with care, and the work carried on with 
 economy. In this manner, one railroad, or more, 
 from the Mississippi river westward, commenced 
 at some appropriate place, will follow the settle¬ 
 ment of the country. It will be constructed by 
 the surplus funds which the hardy enterprise of 
 the West well knows how to accumulate and to 
 manage. The same enterprise will begin and ex¬ 
 tend one railroad or more, from the shores of the 
 Pacific eastward. The increasing population and 
 the growing wealth and commerce upon both sides 
 of the Rocky Mountains will extend the works 
 until it shall be an object to the larger capitalists 
 to supply the deficient link between the Atlantic 
 and Pacific sea-boards. This step-by-step progress, 
 begun and carried on by individual enterprise, 
 called for by the real wants, and supported by the 
 solid means of the country, is always sound and 
 reliable. But make these vast donations for the 
 construction of an army of railroads through the 
 wilderness everywhere, and you will have stronger 
 appeals, and more of them, hereafter for donations 
 to run the cars than you now have to make the 
 roads. 
 
 The present system of disposing of the public 
 domain has been steadily pursued upwards of 
 thirty years, and has worked well. It was adopted 
 after forty years’ experience. Prior to 1820, we 
 tried high prices and the credit system. A debt 
 of $22,000,000 due this Government, which the 
 settlers were unable to pay, was the result. The 
 lands were then reduced to $1 25 an acre, and sold 
 for ready money. There they have stood, breast¬ 
 ing the attack of several Administrations, warding 
 off the assaults of interested combinations, private 
 and corporate, and successfully pleading their own 
 cause against every effort to make them common 
 or State plunder. The system has never been 
 equaled by any other Government, and will never 
 be surpassed for its adaptation to the wants of the 
 settler and the interest of the country. Here the 1 
 nation has a vast treasure, which we can well rely [ 
 
 upon in war and in peace. It has been guarded 
 as a sacred trust, and I greatly mistake if that 
 guardianship will ever be abandoned. I deprecate 
 the weak and fallacious notion, promulgated in 
 certain quarters, for no good purpose, that the 
 new States are goingto rob the nation of the pub¬ 
 lic domain, and that this vast treasure will, in 
 some way, be all squandered. He is a prophet of 
 doubtful integrity who prognosticates evil, and 
 then, by his own act, contributes to the fulfillment 
 of his own prophecy. 
 
 We must expect that a great treasure will need 
 some effort in its protection. Is it said that the 
 interest of the new States will overleap all bounds 
 of justice, and vote all these lands away from the 
 nation ? Where are the votes to come from ? Ohio 
 is already an old State; and Wisconsin, Indiana, 
 Illinois, Mississippi, and Alabama, will soon take 
 rank in the same class. The success of specula¬ 
 tors, during the last Congress, in obtaining several 
 millions of acres for the benefit of railroad corpo¬ 
 rations, should stand forth as an admonition 
 agamst such encroachments. 
 
 The suggestion that the public lands tend to 
 corrupt legislation, is a poor apology for giving 
 these lands away. The argument amounts to this: 
 We fear that future legislators will become so 
 corrupt as to squander these lands; therefore let 
 us squander them; let us save their reputation, by 
 ruining our own ! As well might such statesmen 
 take the ground, that liberty itself is too great a 
 treasure to be preserved long. It is assailed on 
 every side. Posterity will not have integrity 
 enough to guard it. Sooner or later it must go. 
 We, therefore, being safe guardians of the public 
 interests, will put an end to this troublesome mat¬ 
 ter, by the establishment of a despotism! Sir, free 
 Governments always have had, and always will 
 have, great treasures to guard and defend. Per¬ 
 haps, the freer the Government, the more difficult 
 is the guardianship of these treasures. Property, 
 liberty, national honor, are always open to assault, 
 and assailants are ever at hand. One palpable legis¬ 
 lative wrong opens the door to many more. Let 
 us, therefore, stand up now against these encroach¬ 
 ments, and the victory of right over wrong will 
 hereafter be more sure. 
 
 If we would benefit the settlers, and keep an 
 inheritance open to the attainment of the sober 
 and industrious in this and coming generations— 
 if we would encourage those who begin life with¬ 
 out property, and hold out to them the strongest 
 possible inducements to lay by their earnings for 
 the purpose of securing to themselves and their 
 families a permanent home, we must banish from 
 our legislative Hall the projects of donation, grad¬ 
 uation, and distribution of the public domain, and 
 hold fast to the system which experience has de¬ 
 monstrated to be the best. Under this system 
 the pioneer moves into the new country amid 
 many disadvantages; but he is rewarded for his 
 perseverance with the first and best choice of a 
 farm. Each new settler increases the value of the 
 adjoining lot, and hence those lots which at first 
 would be rejected as a gift, in process of time are 
 better worth the Government price than the best 
 were at the period when they were purchased. 
 This process, itself so simple and natural, is the 
 best mode of land graduation which has ever been 
 devised. It does not reduce the price, but raises 
 the value of the poorer lands, as settlements ad¬ 
 vance, up to and above the Government price. It 
 enables the pioneer to settle his children around 
 
7 
 
 him from the fruits of their own earnings, each 
 content that the price is exceeded by the value of 
 the purchase. This system keeps the great body 
 of the lands out of the hands of speculators; for 
 no speculator can purchase a large body of land 
 at Government prices, keep it on hand for years, I 
 paying taxes and agency fees, and make money 
 from the investment. It pledges to the young 
 men of our country, and to emigrants from foreign 
 lands, an asylum and a home, as a reward of their 
 frugality and patient toil. So long as forty acres 
 of good land can be purchased for fifty dollars, 
 and eighty acres for one hundred dollars, a farm 
 is within the reach of every one who is not dis¬ 
 abled by sickness or old age. Our land system, 
 therefore, holds out a reward to industry and 
 frugality. The hardy virtues of earning and 
 saving lie at the foundation of individual and 
 national prosperity. Of what use is land to a 
 man who is too indolent to cultivate it, or too 
 prodigal to keep it? Give it to him, and he will 
 lace no real value upon it. Move him on it, and 
 e will quit it. Encourage him, and he neverthe¬ 
 less sinks as though he were afflicted with an in¬ 
 curable disease. 
 
 The donation of public lands to aetual settlers 
 did not originate in the United States. The sys¬ 
 tem, years ago, was reduced to practice in some 
 of the Spanish republics upon this continent, and 
 also by the British Government in Canada. The 
 effect produced has not commended the continu¬ 
 ance of the practice to the favorable consideration 
 either of the philanthropist or statesman. The 
 project has the merit of good motives. It originated 
 in the best feelings of the heart. In theory, it is, 
 at first view, somewhat attractive; but when it is 
 carefully examined, I think it will be found void 
 of any considerable amount of practical benefit. 
 
 The honorable gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
 Johnson] proposes to reduce this theory to prac¬ 
 tice in this country, by giving to each settler one 
 hundred and sixty acres of land, upon condition 
 of occupancy and improvement for five years. 
 This project has the sanction of the Committee on 
 Agriculture. Surely the committee does not pro¬ 
 pose this as a measure for improving the agricul¬ 
 ture of the old States; for we need there twice the 
 population we now have to bring the agricultural 
 districts up to an appropriate standard of improve¬ 
 ment. The only reason which has been or can be 
 offered for this scheme approaching plausibility is, 
 that it will provide a home for the poor. 
 
 There has been a tendency in the General Gov¬ 
 ernment for some years to engross the business 
 of State legislation. If a State is so derelict of 
 duty as to neglect to provide for its own poor, is 
 it the province of the General Government to fur¬ 
 nish an almoner and to supply their wants ? If 
 we take this step, where shall we stop? Other 
 omissions of duty in State governments, crying 
 out more loudly for redress than it is in the power 
 of poverty itself to put forth, may come to our 
 ears, and shall we redress these grievances also? 
 These principles, carried out, would leave the 
 States with nothing to do. They might remain 
 in name, with their boundaries on the map, show¬ 
 ing where States had been; but without vitality, 
 their name would be a reproach. All of the ob¬ 
 jections arising from a want of constitutional 
 power, or intrinsic right in the General Govern¬ 
 ment to make other partial donations are also ap¬ 
 plicable to donations of this character. If the bdl 
 provided for a donation of lands to all who should 
 
 occupy them for five years, without regard to the 
 pecuniary condition of the occupant, yet such 
 legislation would be partial and unauthorized. 
 The whole population of the old States cannot 
 move away from their homes. A gift to a man 
 who cannot take possession of it without a sacri¬ 
 fice, is no gift. Suppose a corporation owned 
 land in the State of Iowa, and that the directors 
 should pass a resolution that each stockholder 
 should have his share of the land if he would 
 move on to it and occupy it for five years. Some 
 might be willing to go; some might find it quite 
 impossible to abandon their present comfortable 
 abodes for a home in the West. Would the di¬ 
 vision of the lands, founded on the condition of 
 such occupancy, be in any respect just? No one 
 can claim that this would be an equitable partition. 
 
 If Congress had the rightful power to make do¬ 
 nations to actual settlers, and thus hold out a 
 bounty to every man who will move from the old 
 to the new States, few, very few, would move 
 there who would not go without such bounty. It 
 requires a much larger amount of means to pre¬ 
 pare for the change of abode, and pay the ex¬ 
 penses of a journey to the West, than is needed 
 for the purchase of a farm there. Whoever has 
 made such a beginningas will enable him to move 
 to a distant country, and have enough left to com¬ 
 mence the cultivation of a farm, will soon accu¬ 
 mulate enough more to purchase a farm. He will 
 then place a higher value upon it than if he were 
 indebted to public charity for his land. He will, 
 by his previous self-discipline, have prepared him¬ 
 self to take care of his earnings. How many of 
 the extreme poor who throngour cities and larger 
 towns, would ever take possession of lands in the 
 wilderness? Not one in a thousand. Theirasso- 
 ciations, their modes of living, and their employ¬ 
 ments, alike disincline and unfit them for a frontier 
 life. 
 
 The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Chand¬ 
 ler] seems to believe that the benefits of this law 
 to the poor who inhabit our larger cities will be 
 incalculable. He represents a part of the city of 
 Philadelphia, and must be acquainted with the 
 condition of the poor in his own district. Allow 
 me to read a short article, published in the National 
 Intelligencer of this city a month or two since, 
 upon this subject: 
 
 “ Destitution in Philadelphia.— The Philadelphia 
 American gives an account of a visit made a few days ago 
 to the hovels of many of the poor and destitute of that city, 
 who live in small unventilated rooms, for which they are 
 compelled to pay ten cents rent each day. Itis supposed 
 the number of these unfortunate beings is about five fliou- 
 sand. Many of them were found with their hands and feet 
 frozen for want of fuel to keep them warm, while others 
 had even disposed of mo3t of their scanty clothing to buy 
 bread. In one cellar a family were found who had been 
 turned out of home because they Were unable to pay their 
 rent. In another place, a poor miserable woman and sev¬ 
 eral children were found in a shed, the children covered up 
 in a heap of ashes to keep them warm. Having no clothing 
 whatever to cover them, the mother had been driven to this 
 resort to keep them from freezing. The clothes had been 
 sold to buy bread.” 
 
 These are the persons who need help. When 
 will they move on to the wild lands of the West? 
 Will the city of Philadelphia—will the State of 
 Pennsylvania furnish them the means to go with ? 
 If the poor are allowed to languish without food, 
 or raiment, in the very seat of opulence, the cof¬ 
 fers which are shut fast against them at home, 
 will not be unlocked for any such purpose. How 
 then shall they go? and how live, if sent penny¬ 
 less to that remote land ? If it is the poor whom 
 
8 
 
 you would help, point out, I beseech you, some 
 practicable means of enabling them to enjoy the 
 relief you would grant. 
 
 Mr. CLARK. Does the gentleman from New 
 York argue that the giving away of the public 
 lands will promote the suffering and destitution of 
 the poor in the cities? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Certainly. If we give away 
 the public lands and cut off' this source of reve¬ 
 nue to the General Government, a higher duty upon 
 imported articles is the inevitable consequence. Do 
 not the poor pay a duty, a tax, upon many of the 
 necessaries of life—the food which they eat and the 
 clothing which they wear? 
 
 Mr. MOORE, of Pennsylvania. The gentle¬ 
 man from New York refers to the large amount 
 of suffering which exists in Philadelphia, accord¬ 
 ing to the account which has just been read. I 
 would say to that gentleman, that the suffering in 
 our populous cities arises in a great measure from 
 the surplus of labor. Now, if a portion of in¬ 
 dustrious laborers and mechanics remove to the 
 West, does it not leave room for the employment 
 of those persons who are now suffering? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. I doubt this alleged surplus 
 of labor. The lands in the vicinity of Philadel¬ 
 phia would admit of the employment of many 
 more laborers to advantage—so throughout Penn¬ 
 sylvania—so in New York. If the poor cannot 
 get occupation in Philadelphia, why do they not 
 apply to the farmers in that vicinity for employ¬ 
 ment? Besides, if the passage of this bill will not 
 materially increase emigration to the West, then 
 of what benefit is the law to the poor in the cities ? 
 
 Mr. CABLE. I understand the gentleman to 
 say that even these poor people pay duties to this 
 Government; then I would ask the gentleman how 
 he can deny them any participation in the Gov¬ 
 ernment; or, in other words, an equal participa¬ 
 tion in the public lands, in which they have an 
 equal interest? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. I would by no means deny 
 to the poor a full participation both in the Gov¬ 
 ernment and the public lands. I would protect 
 them in the enjoyment of both. The poor have 
 their voice in the Government equally with the 
 rich, and the funds derived from asaleof the pub¬ 
 lic domain, and devoted not only to the support 
 of Government, but to the common defense of the 
 nation, result alike to the benefit of the humble 
 and the affluent. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I would like 
 to ask the gentleman a question. The bill under 
 consideration, it is true, would not give immediate 
 relief to the suffering condition of this description 
 of population; but there is one thing equally clear 
 and true, and that is, that it would not make their 
 condition any worse. But I would ask the gen¬ 
 tleman whether, if these persons had homes ‘and 
 land which they could have cultivated, and out of 
 which they could have obtained a support, they 
 would have been in this wretched condition? 
 
 Mr. JENKINS. Of course not. If you had 
 the right t<> devote the national funds to procuring 
 lands for them in the vicinity where they reside, 
 you might thus bring relief to their wants. But. 
 no man will claim that the national Government, 
 has any such power. This is the business of the 
 State in which they live. 
 
 But if your unauthorized bounty, from the very 
 
 nature of things, shall flow to those only who can 
 well take care of themselves, what justice is there 
 in pleading the cause of the needy in order to gain a 
 gratuity for the prosperous? Doubtless, the con¬ 
 dition of the poor can be greatly improved, but 
 such improvement must be commenced and car¬ 
 ried on among the community in which they re¬ 
 side. Individual instances there may be in which 
 a donation of western lands would be of service 
 to settlers, who might not otherwise obtain for 
 themselves a homestead. But if any legislation 
 upon this subject is begun by Congress, it must be 
 a general law, open alike to all. If you give a farm 
 to those only who are worth not exceeding $500, 
 according to the recommendation of the commit¬ 
 tee, children of the wealthy, who have not quite 
 yet come into possession of the large estates of 
 their parents, will nevertheless be entitled to the 
 gratuity, while the young man who has bent his 
 neck to six years patient toil, and h id aside $600, 
 would be excluded. Would not such a provision 
 open the door, also, to the grossest frauds? Many 
 years since we granted pensions to such revolu¬ 
 tionary soldiers only as were destitute of prop¬ 
 erty. What was the consequence? The wealthy 
 complained that, because they had been more in¬ 
 dustrious and frugal than their companions-in- 
 arms, and had, by that means, saved some prop¬ 
 erty, they were therefore excluded from the na¬ 
 tion’s liberality. Some clandestinely put their 
 property out of their hands, in order to obtain 
 pensions. The injustice and inexpediency of this 
 partial and one-sided legislation at length became 
 apparent, and Congress soon abrogated the dis¬ 
 crimination, and bestowed pensions alike upon the 
 rich and the poor. If you bestow the public do¬ 
 main upon the penniless only, will not the indus¬ 
 trious and frugal who, by the most rigid economy, 
 have laid up a few hundred dollars, complain of 
 their exclusion, for that cause, from the public 
 bounty ? Trace out the effects of such a law, 
 based upon a discrimination between those who 
 are worth over $500, and those who fall below the 
 prescribed line, and consequences the most mis¬ 
 chievous will not fail to be the result. Far better 
 distribute the proceeds of the public lands at once 
 among all the States, and let them be your almon¬ 
 ers, than to undertake the proposed scheme. 
 Much as I condemn any squandering of the pub¬ 
 lic domain, nevertheless, if this inheritance must 
 go, I would put it in a shape where it should be 
 sent home to the door of want, and cause it to re¬ 
 joice the heart that pines in the darkest cellar. I 
 would not mock poverty with donations of land 
 in the far West beyond the reach of the penniless; 
 but if we must turn aside to do the business of 
 State legislation, I would throw open the Treasury 
 of the nation, and do a work worthy of a nation’s 
 bounty. However agreeable to our feelings such 
 errands of mercy would be, fidelity to the Consti¬ 
 tution requires us to avoid this inviting field of 
 legislation. Our duties, more stern hut not less 
 important, lie in another direction. The guardi¬ 
 anship of the public treasure is committed to our 
 hands. Our power is limited. In time of war, 
 other sources of revenue may be cut off. In such 
 an event, the public lands have, and will continue 
 to replenish our empty coffers, unless we forget 
 the duties of our trust, and allow them to pass 
 from our control. 
 
 Printed at the Congressional Globe Office.