Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

of the State in which it lies, under a sale for unpaid taxes.

An over supply of land, like that of every other commodity, lowers the price. A, has a thousand bushels of wheat, or one hundred horses; he takes them to market, but he finds, on reaching the marfit of charity, has sent to that market, to be distributed as a gift or charity, a sufficient number of bushels of wheat or of horses to supply that market with wheat or horses for years to come. What will A do with his wheat or horses? He cannot sell them to those who then happen to be in want of wheat or horses; they will not purchase that which they can take as a gift freely and without price. But A cannot keep his wheat or horses; perhaps he owes for them; perhaps all his small capital is invested in his wheat or horses. What can he do but sell to the capitalist, who can hold on, however long, until the market rises-until the over supply has ceased? but of course A must sell at a ruinous price.

To give full force to my reasoning on this point, Mr. Chairman, it only remains for me to answer these two questions:

on the unimproved lands heretofore disposed of by the Government, or on the lands to be disposed of by the railroad bills. If there is a vast amount of unimproved land heretofore disposed of by the Government in the hands of private persons, companies, and corporations, will you not, by the proposed land grants of this session, retard the settle-ket, that the Government, or some rich man, in a ment of those lands, the demand of lands for settlement and cultivation being limited by the ratio of increase of our population? And thus will not the passage of any one of these land bills render it impolitic, or at least less politic, to pass another? This whole question has been argued as if we had a surplus population; as if we had fifty millions of men ready and waiting to take immediate possession, not only of the lands to be disposed of by the "homestead bill," and of the lands to be granted for railroads, but also of the unimproved lands heretofore disposed of by the Government, whereas the truth is, the public lands have been heretofore thrown into market by the Government vastly in advance of the requirement for settlement and cultivation from the increase of our population from all sources. What have been the consequences? Depreciated prices. The lands have passed into the hands of speculators, and are held by them in large tracts, unimproved, to the great injury, no doubt, of the new States, and to the ruin of thousands who have found themselves unable to hold on to their lands and pay the State taxes. Such were the consequences of the enormous sales of public lands in 1835 and 1836. Since then, especially within the last five years, an immense number of acres of the public lands have been given away by the Government, as bounties for military services, for railroad, and other internal improvements, and for various other purposes. Now, it appears to me that the sure effect of this "homestead bill;" of the indiscriminate grants for railroads, and of grants for certain other purposes of the public lands, proposed at this session, will be to greatly increase the evils which followed this mistaken policy of the Government, and which are now complained of by the new States; for while, by the railroad bills and other bills granting lands to States, or companies, for purposes of internal improvements, education, &c., you will add not less than two hundred millions of acres to the vast number of acres of the public lands which have been disposed of by the Government, but which remain yet uncultivated and unsettled; yet, by|| the "homstead bill," and by certain bills graduating the price of the public lands, you will take away or absorb from the lands to be granted by these railroad bills, &c., and from the lands heretofore disposed of by the Government, the market, the demand for settlement and cultivation, arising from the increase of our population.

What is to become of this immense amount of unimproved, wild land? It cannot be settled in a great number of years; the small capitalist or land owner cannot hold on to his and pay the taxes; those indebted for their lands cannot hold on to theirs; it is thrown into market; the actual settlers will not buy it because they can get land of the Government, under the "homestead bill," for nothing, or under the bill graduating the price of the public lands for twenty-five cents an acre. Where will the land go? It will pass, by sale and purchase at nominal prices, into the hands of large capitalists, who can hold on to it, or into the hands

1st. How much unimproved land is there in the land States and Territories, not belonging to the United States, but which has been heretofore disposed of by the Government of the United States, and is now owned and held by private persons, corporations, companies, and States, and in the market, waiting for sale, settlement, and cultivation?

2d. What will probably be the demand for unimproved land in the land States and Territories, for actual settlement and cultivation, for some years to come, say for the next ten years; that is, how much, what number of acres of unimproved land, would probably be settled within the next ten years, or any other given period, under the present land system, and without reference to the homestead bill," or to any other land bill or measure of this session?

These questions I shall now answer.

It appears by a table, recently prepared at the General Land Office, by request of my colleague, [Mr. BENNETT,] and which will be found annexed to his printed speech on the public lands, that the land States and Territories contain, in the aggre gate, 1,616,935,598 acres of land; and that of these 1,616,935,598 acres, on the 30th day of September, 1851, 1,399,586,140 acres had not been sold or appropriated by the Government, and belonged to the United States. By deducting, then, this 1,399,586,140 acres remaining unsold and unappropriated on the 30th of September, 1851, from 1,616,935,598 acres, the area, you have 217,349,458 acres as the total of acres in the land States and Territories, which had been sold and appropriated by the Government prior to the 30th of September, 1851. This 217,349,458 acres, however, includes 3,400,725 acres, which had been reserved for Indians, and 422,325 acres which had been reserved for salines, amounting together to 3,823,050 acres, which, deducted from 217,349,458, leaves 213,526,408 as the total of acres in these land States and Territories, that had been sold and granted by the Government up to the 30th of September, 1851, including 7,123,903 acres of confirmed private claims, but exclusive of about 4,000,000 of acres of the Chickasaw Indian cession

in Mississippi and Alabama, (ceded to the United States in 1832 and 1834. to be sold by the United States for the benefit of the tribe,) and of which about 4,000,000 acres had been sold up to the 30th of September, 1849, as appears by the report of the Commissioner of the Land Office of that year. This 4,000,000 added to the 213,526,408 makes 217,526,408, as the total of acres in the land States and Territories, sold and granted by the Government up to the 30th of September, 1851, including the private claims confirmed by the Government as before stated.

Now, it appears by the last census, that the total of acres of improved land in all the land States and Territories, was 37,450,699 acres; which, deducted from 217,526,408 acres, the total of acres so sold and granted by the Government, leaves 180,075,709 acres, as the total of acres of unimproved land in the land States and Territories which had been sold or granted by the United States, or the private title and claim to which had been confirmed by the United States prior to the 30th of September, 1851.

But this 180,000,000 acres includes only about 16,000,000 acres, the number of acres actually located under bounty-land warrants prior to the 30th September, 1851, and does not include about 46,000,000 of acres, the probable number of acres thereafter to be located under the Mexican war bounty land act, the war of 1812, and under the bounty land act of September 28, 1850.-(See report of Secretary of Treasury, December, 1850, and table K, appended to that report.) Nor does this 180,000,000, of course, include the 20,000,000 of acres in addition, which will probably be required to satisfy that provision in the act passed at the present session, making land warrants assignable, which extends the bounties of the act of September 28, 1850, to the militia volunteers of any State or Territory whose services have been paid by the United States. Add this 46,000,000 and 20,000,000 of acres yet to be located under the different bounty land acts, to the 180,075,709 acres which had been sold and disposed of by the Government, as before shown, and you have 246,075,709 as the total of acres of unimproved land in the land States and Territories which have been actually disposed of by the United States, and which are now owned and held by private persons, corporations, companies, and States, waiting for settlement and cultivation, and which are to be sold, and ought to be sold to actual settlers; and the owners of which are now, and will continue to be, competitors of the United States as a landholder not only, but will be competitors of the States, railroad companies, and other grantees of the lands to be disposed of at this session of Congress, by grants for railroads and other purposes, in the land market of the West.

By the last census it appears there are only 112,042,000 acres of improved land in all the States and Territories. There are, then, now, or soon will be, in the land States and Territories, under grants of the Government, heretofore made and by virtue of laws already passed, in the hands of private persons, corporations, companies, and States, of the finest and best unimproved land the sun ever shone upon, more than double the number of acres there are of improved land in the whole United States, including all the States and Territories.

How long will it take to settle this 246,000,000 ||

of acres of unimproved land which has been disposed of by the Government? Allowing eighty acres to each settler, it will take three millions of farmers to settle it-more than double the whole number of farmers now in the United States-as shown by the last census. Call the free white population of the United States now, twenty millions; allow the same ratio of decennial increase for the next thirty-three years, that the last census shows for the ten years prior to 1850, which is thirty-eight per cent.; of this increase for the next thirty-three years, take one thirteenth for settlers, which is about the per cent. of the free white population of the United States who are farmers or landholders, as distinguished from freeholders, as shown by the last census; and you will find by a calculation easily made, that the whole increase of the free white population of the United States for the next thirty-three years, will not supply settlers sufficient to settle this 246,000,000 acres of unimproved lands.

Of the 180,075,709 acres of unimproved land, which had been sold, and granted, and located under bounty land warrants, up to the 30th September, 1851, as before stated, it appears that

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

of unimproved land in these States alone, (besides that yet to be located under the different bounty land acts,) not belonging to the United States, but to the grantees of the United States. And yet these States come forward at this session of Congress and demand grants of the public lands for railroads, to the extent of thirty or forty millions of acres; and also, through their Representatives, appear here as the strong advocates of the "homestead bill," a measure which must necessarily prevent the sale and settlement, not only of this 137,936,551 acres of unimproved land, which has been disposed of by the Government, but of the lands which they now ask for railroads. This is not all. Our admiration is wonderfully increased in view of all this, when we look at the reason given to prove the constitutional power and right of the Government to grant these lands, not only to the States for railroads, but to the settler for a home, as a gift or gratuity, viz: that the Government will be benefited as a landholder-that the public lands retained by the Government will be increased in value and command a more ready sale—that is, that the Government with this immense amount of unimproved land owned by others, now in competition with the lands of the Government, will increase the price, and hasten the sale of its land, by increasing the competition. Can any one doubt that it is a discovery; a new principle of political economy, that a surplus increases price-and when you add to this, the other discovery, that by creating this surplus by gift or charity, you still further in

[merged small][ocr errors]

lands for various purposes, as if the Government was locking up the land from settlement and cultivation, as if the Government was depriving persons of a natural right to sufficient land to settle on; as if all the Government had to do was to say the word, and settlers would spring up by millions in a night, like mushrooms.

What glowing pictures have we had drawn of the beneficent effects to flow from this bill upon the country, and upon humanity!" One hundred and sixty millions of acres of wild land, settled, improved, and cultivated, as the result of a policy shadowed forth and guarantied by the passage of this bill," says my friend from Pennsylvania, [Mr. DAWSON,]" producing a surplus of 480,000,000 of bushels of wheat, which, at fifty cents per bushel, would amount to $240,000,000," he enthusiastically exclaims; as if we had now a million of" heads of families," ready, and waiting, and willing to take immediate possession under this

Now, as to the other questions-What will be the future demand of land for actual settlement in the land States? &c.-any answer must be, of course, problematical. We can only judge of the future from the past. What, then, has been this demand? What number of acres of unimproved land in these land States, &c., have been actually settled for the ten years next preceding 1850? We will take the same eleven land States last named. The whole population of these eleven States was, in 1840, 3,302,944; in 1850, 5,609,983. The increase, therefore, for the ten years, as shown by the abstract of the census returns of 1850, lately published, was 2,307,049, and the ratio of increase for the ten years about seventy per cent., (sixtynine and a fraction.) By the same abstract, it appears that there are 27,368,830 acres of improved land in these eleven land States; and by a table which will be found in the speech of the gentle-bill, without calling them from other employments, or man from Pennsylvania [Mr. DAWSON] on this homestead bill, made out by him from the returns of the census of 1850, in the Census Office, not yet published, it appears that there are in these eleven States 405,043 farmers or landholders, as distinguished from freeholders. This gives sixty-low, even to the land States, from the "homeseven acres and a fraction as the average number of acres of improved land held by each farmer or landholder in these eleven States, and also shows that about one thirteenth (thirteen and a fraction) of the total population of these States are farmers.

[ocr errors]

Now, say that one thirteenth of the 2,307,049 increase of population for the ten years prior to 1850 were farmers, and you have 177,465 as the increased number of farmers or settlers for the ten years prior to 1850. By giving sixty-seven acres of unimproved land to each of these settlers, you have 11,890,155 as the number of acres actually settled for the ten years prior to 1850. Now, allow the same ratio of decennial increase, say seventy per cent., and take one thirteenth of that increase for settlers, and the whole increase of the population of these eleven land States for thirty-four years will not give settlers sufficient to settle the 137,936,551 acres of unimproved land in the same States which had been sold or granted by the Government, or located under the different "bounty land acts,' on the 30th of September, 1851. But I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is not probable that the ratio of decennial increase, for the next twenty or thirty years, of the population in these States, in consequence of the probable immigration from the old States, and even from the land States, to California, Oregon, Texas, and the recently-acquired Territories, will be as large as for the last ten years; indeed, that it is not probable that such ratio of decennial increase will hereafter exceed on an average the ratio of decennial increase of the free white population of the whole of the United States for the last ten years, viz: thirty-eight per cent. Should it not, it will take the whole increase of the population of these eleven land States for about fifty years to settle the 137,936,551 acres of unimproved lands in those States which have been so disposed of by the Government.

Now, does not this statement alter the question? This whole land question has been argued this session, by the friends of the "homestead bill,' and of these indiscriminate (grants of the public

[ocr errors]

affecting other interests-overlooking the fact, that the public lands had already been thrown into the market immensely in advance of the demand from increase of population; and overlooking the great and serious injuries, which must necessarily folstead bill," when taken in connection with the other enormous grants of the public lands. Instead of attributing the evil of which the new States complain, of large tracts of their land being held by speculators to the right cause, viz: to the questionable policy of the Government, to say the least, in surveying and offering for sale the lands, vastly in advance of the requirements of settlement, the advocates of this measure charge the Government with withholding and monopolizing the lands; and now bring forward this "homestead bill," and other land bills, to take unnumbered millions of acres more from the hands and control of the Government. Pass the "homestead bill," and where will not only the unimproved lands to be granted by the other land bills of this session, but those which have heretofore been disposed of by the Government, go? Most inevitably, the greatest portion of them into the hands of speculators, or into the hands of the States in which they lie;-if into the hands of those States, they will thus acquire from the Government, as a gift, indirectly, that which they had no right to ask, or the Government constitutionally a right to grantas a gift, directly.

II. This homestead bill" is unjust, and will be injurious to the old States, or States in which there are no public lands, and to the capital invested in unimproved land, railroads, agriculture, and manufactures in those States.

By taking the total of acres of improved land in all the States in which there are no public lands, except Texas, and in Ohio, (which has only about 200,000 acres of public land, and therefore in looking at this question, ought not to be called a land State,) as shown by the last census, from the total of the areas in acres of these States, it appears that there are 220,708,176 acres of unimproved land in these States.

By a recent statement published by Mr. Kennedy, of the Census Office, it appears that there was, on the 1st of January, 1852, in operation, and in course of construction, 21,712 miles of railroad in the United States. That of these 21,712

miles of railroad, 5,264 miles are in Texas, and in the land States exclusive of Ohio, and 16,448 miles in Ohio, and in the States in which there are no public land exclusive of Texas; that the cost of these railroads per mile was, in New England, about $45,000; in New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland about $40,000; and in the other States it is estimated at $20,000. Call the cost of this 16,448 miles of railroad $30,000 per mile, and you have $493,440,000 as the cost of the railroads now in operation and in course of construction in the States in which there are no public lands, exclusive of Texas, and in Ohio.

The capital invested in agriculture in these States is immense. The capital employed in agriculture in the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia alone, amounting to $1,070,549,344, as is shown by the last census, estimating the improved land in these four States at $20 per acre.

66

to; and of the present land system, which has looked so favorably to their settlement and growth, I do not complain, for it has also looked to revenue for the benefit of all the States. But this "homestead bill," while it is a bold bid by the Government for population to leave the old States and settle in the new States-a gift of one hundred and sixty acres of land to the citizen of the old State, on the condition that he shall leave the old States and settle on the one hundred and sixty acres in the new States-is at the same time utterly inconsistent with any idea of looking hereafter to the public lands as a source of revenue; and thus will not only retard the growth, but indirectly increase the taxes of the old States for the benefit of the new States.

Will not the labor, the settlers that this bill, this bonus of the Government, induces to leave the old States and go to the new, add to the wealth and prosperity of the new States? And, if so, why will not such labor and settlers be a loss to the old States? Do the land States claim that they are to receive any benefit or advantage from this bill, that is not to be gained from, and to be the loss of, the States in which there are no public lands?

If these old States had a surplus of population; if all the lands in them, susceptible of profitable and successful cultivation, had been settled and improved; the question would be a very different one. But look at these States: Of the 22,400,000 acres in Maine, 2,019,593 only are improved; of the 5,139,000 acres in New Hampshire, 2,251,388; of the 29,444,000 acres in New York, 12,285,077; of the 4,384,640 acres in New Jersey, 1,770,337; of the 30,080,000 acres in Pennsylvania, 8,619,631; of the 25,576,960 acres in Ohio, 9,730,650; of the 304,685,880, the total of acres in Ohio, and in all the States in which there are no public lands, exclusive of Texas, 83,977,704 acres, a little over one quarter only are improved. A large portion of this unimproved land is not susceptible of cultivation no doubt; but a large portion of it, probably the greater portion, is susceptible of successful and profitable cultivation; and though it may not be so rich and productive, lies nearer market than the land in the land States. It is mostly owned and held by citizens of the different States, and is waiting for sale, settlement, and cultivation. Would not its settlement and cultivation add immensely to the wealth and power of the States in which it lies? What is wanting for its sale, settlement, and cultivation, but settlers? but when are these States to have settlers to settle it, under the policy of the Government, "shadowed forth" by

By the last census, it appears that the capital invested in the manufacture of cotton goods, woolen goods, pig iron, wrought iron, and castings alone, in the United States, amounts to $151,877,687. Now, does it require any reasoning to show that this "homestead bill" will be injurious to these States which have no public lands, and to the immense capital invested in unimproved lands, railroads, agriculture, and manufactures therein? What is the wealth of a State but its productive labor? and what is this bill but a bonus, a bounty affered by the Government for labor to leave the old States and settle in the new States? How can it benefit the land States unless it induces additional emigration from the old States to them-an emigration greater than would take place under the preëmption rights and minimum price," of the old land system? Neither this "homestead bill," nor any other land measure of this session, can benefit the land States as a whole, by taking the population of one land State and transferring it to another; nor can they benefit any one land State by taking the population from one part of that State and transferring it to another part of the same State. The benefit which the land States expect to receive, and which they claim from these measures is, that they will cause persons, or a class of persons, to leave the old States and settle in the land States who would not otherwise do so. The population of these land States, taking all of them, slave and free, has increased seventy per cent. in ten years. The population of several of the free land States has increased in the same period from three hundred to eight hundred per cent.-a growth and prosperity unexampled in the history of States. During the same period the population of the New England States increased only twenty-this" homestead bill;" by which the Government, two per cent., and the population of the Middle States about twenty-nine per cent. Now, what has caused this most extraordinary growth and rapid increase of the population of the land States but the rich and alluvial soil given to them by Nature, and the "preemption rights and minimum price" of the present land system given to them by the Government? From whence came a great part of this increase of population-at whose expense have the land States gained this extraordinary increase? From the old States, and at their expense. But of this I do not complain. I rejoice at their prosperity and growth. I look at it with pride and pleasure. The advantages which Nature has given to them they are justly entitled

(as if the advantages of soil and climate, and of "preemption rights and minimum price, "by which the land States have nearly doubled their population in ten years were not enough,) throws itself into the scale, by furnishing land, capital, freegratis, to those who shall leave the old States and settle in the new?

The land States not only ask for the "homestead bill," to enable them to increase their population faster; but they also ask for unnumbered millions of acres of the public domain as a gift or bonus with which to build railroads, for the same purpose.

Now look at the old States, with their 16,448 miles of railroad, and $493,440,000 of the capital

of their citizens invested therein. What were these railroads built for? Was not one of the principal objects in building most of them, to open to market the unimproved land in these States, and thus to hasten its sale, settlement, and cultivation; and is not the loss or profit of this immense capital, invested in these railroads, dependent more or less upon the settlement, improvement, and cultivation of the unimproved land in these States?

Look at the capital invested in agriculture in the improved land and its cultivation, and in manufactures, in the old States. Is it not all dependent upon the price of labor for its profit or loss; and is not this homestead bill, in substance and in effect, a premium offered by the Government to the laborer, for the benefit of the laborer, and of the land States, to leave the farmer and manufacturer in the East and go West? And is it just for the Government thus to use the property of all the States, or of all their citizens, for the benefit of a few States, or of a particular class of citizens, to the injury of the remainder of the States, and of another class of citizens?

railroad bills; and if not sold to actual settlers, the lands will pass in large tracts into the hands of speculators and mortgagees, and will be held by them unimproved for high prices, which, if paid in time, will be paid by the settler for the benefit of the speculator or mortgagee, who, after all, will be the only one benefited.

2d. Because the only plausible ground on which these railroad grants can be said to be either constitutional or expedient, is, that the railroads will enhance the value of the remainder of the public domain, and will thus benefit the United States as a landholder. Now, admit this to be so-for whose benefit is this enhanced value? Is it not for the benefit of the settlers under the "homestead bill?" Does not the "homestead bill" give away to actual settlers the lands so enhanced in value by the railroad bills? You first increase the value of the lands by the railroad bill, and then turn around and give them away by the "homestead bill," and allege this increased value as a justification for the railroad bill. The justification is this, and nothing more or less; that by the means of the one gift by the railroad bill, you enhance the value of the other gift or charity by the "homestead bill"-and all the benefit I can see that the Government can receive from the one measure, is the satisfaction of having increased the value of its charity to the landless by the other.

Mr. Chairman, I must not be misunderstood. As a resident of New York, I do not complain of or envy the prosperity of the West. I do not object to the people of the East going and settling there by thousands or hundreds of thousands at a time, if they choose. I am not the advocate of low wages, or of a protective policy. I do not ob- The "homestead bill" is inconsistent with itself, ject to the wages of labor, however high, which if I may so speak. It grants the land to the actmay be the result of the general prosperity of the ual settler, on condition that he occupy and culticountry, of general causes, of laws, or measures vate it for five years. For whose benefit is this of the Government, general or equal in their oper- condition? It is either for the benefit of the setation. Nor, perhaps, could the capitalist com-tler, or of the State, or of the United States. You plain of a law, or measure of the Government, dare not say that it is for the benefit of the settler, though partial in its operation, and intended to for then you treat the measure openly as a public benefit only particular States, or a class of citizens, charity. You dare not say it is for the benefit of if he had invested his capital after such partial law the State, for then you meet with an acknowlor measure of the Government. But I say, and edged constitutional difficulty. But you say that this is my point, that Congress has no right, and the settlement and cultivation which is enforced it would be unjust, to pass a law iike this home- by the condition, will increase the value of the stead bill," partial and unequal in its operation, public lands belonging to the United States, which for the exclusive benefit of a few of the States, or may not be settled and cultivated under the act, of a particular class of citizens, and to the injury and, therefore, the United States will be benefited of other States, and of another class of citizens as a landholder, and this is the only ground upon who had invested their capital under a different which you put the constitutionality of the act. policy of the Government, even though such law may have the effect to raise the wages of labor. I object to the Government's taking the public land, or money from the public Treasury, the property of all, and giving it to the poor and landless as a charity for their benefit exclusively, because they are poor and landless; or giving it to the poor and landless on condition that they settle in certain States, for the benefit of those States exclusively; and more especially, as I have shown, that such charity to individuals, or partiality to States, must operate to the injury of other States, and of other individuals, equally entitled to the favorable regard of the Government. I object to the Government interfering in this way; and by means of this bounty of land offered to the landless, inducing labor to leave the old States for the benefit of the new States, and to the injury of the old States.

III. This" homestead bill" is inconsistent with the past, and proposed grants of the public lands for railroads:

1st. Because it will necessarily prevent the grantees of these railroad lands, selling them to actual settlers within the period required by the

Now, suppose this increase in value to take place, for whose benefit is it? If not for the benefit of the first settlers, who may choose thereafter to avail themselves of the benefit of the act. A, B, and C settle on three adjoining quarter sections, and cultivate them severally for five years, and thereby increase the value of the adjoining unimproved quarter sections belonging to the United States; will C, D, and E, settlers bound West, who want land for actual settlement and cultivation, purchase of the Government these quarter sections, so enhanced in value by the settlement and labor of A, B, and C on the adjoining quarter sections, and pay the enhanced price for them to the Government, when they can take them freely under the homestead bill as a gift? The operation of the bill is not limited to any certain period; it is forever, or as long as there are any public lands remaining to be settled or disposed of; and this increased value produced by the settlement and cultivation of the first settlers under the bill, is for the benefit of the subsequent settlers under the bill, and not for the benefit of the United States as a landholder. IV. This "homestead bill" is wholly inconsist

« ZurückWeiter »