It was read, as follows: With instructions to report a bill as a substitute therefor, making grants of land upon some equal and just principle of apportionment, and to a proper amount, to all the States, to aid in the construction of railroads therein. Mr. BENNETT. I propose to amend the motion to refer to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union with the instructions just read. Mr. HALL. I do not wish to interfere with the gentleman's speech, but if he insists upon that motion, I shall feel compelled to raise a point of order upon it. The SPEAKER. The question raised will be considered at the proper time. Amount of land sold.....101,033,930 acres. 66 Sales more than grants.. 16,811,746 During several years past, the sales have been much less than formerly, while the grants have been rapidly increasing. They will soon exceed the sales. If grants are made to the thirty and odd railroads now asking for them, I have no doubt it would take over 50,000,000 of acres. acquired by the common blood and treasure of the people of the United States, are held in trust by Congress for the common benefit of all the 'States, and we earnestly protest against the policy, to which the Federal Government seems to 'be fast tending, of granting them away exclusively to the several States in which they lie for any purpose whatever.” This matter is important and exciting general attention. It is the most important subject before this Congress. The policy of making these grants has been adopted, and they have been made to a part of the States. What objection, then, to making them to an equal amount, upon the constitutional basis of Mr. BENNETT. When interrupted by the ex-representation, to each of the land States? and to piration of the morning hour on Wednesday last, I one half that amount to the old States? and stop had stated the amount of lands that had been sold, there. As it is now, even in the land States, there and the amount that had been granted to a part of is nothing like justice or equality in these grants. the States, (giving the States and the amount And while this special legislation is pursued, there granted to each.) never will be. To-day Missouri asks a grant to make her up equal to Illinois, (Mr. Benton proposed at last session a bill for that purpose, giving to Missouri some 2,600,000 acres,) and gets a grant that gives her, when located, a great deal more; to-morrow, or next session, half a dozen States ask grants to make them up equal to Missouri, and so on. In truth, it is a kind of a grab game, where each of the new States gets all it can-the most selfish and clamorous taking the largest share -while more than half of the States, and two thirds of the population, are mere spectators to the skill and rapacity which the twelve land States display in taking the public lands. And they tell us they are doing it for the public good. But it is all appropriated within their own States. The old States should take a portion also, for the public good. Never before was there such a scramble for the public lands as now. The necessity is too urgent to go through the ordinary form of legislation. They are not to be amended or referred. Railroad bills are to be put through at railroad speed. Every grant increases the necessity of more-all claimed by the new States. It is an exclusive claim, so far as the grants of lands go-a preemption right to all of the lands. I am opposed to this. I am for a fair division, and for "equal rights." And so far as the public lands are concerned," equality is justice"-equality in paying and equality in sharing. A member of the Indiana Legislature wrote to me during our last session, that his State had chartered more railroads than could be built for fifty years. Each of these will apply for a grant of land. The other land States have done, or will do the same; and this system will have no end while the lands last. This bill embraces two roads through Missouri, a State nearly one fourth larger than Illinois, and yet the estimate is only for 1,500,000 acres for both roads. The central railroad through Illinois took 2,700,000 acres or more. And it is quite certain the gentleman [Mr. HALL] is too modest by half in his estimate. Mr. HALL, (interposing.) I have it from official returns, that one of these roads will not take over 500,000 acres. We are willing to take the bill limiting the amount to 1,500,000 for both roads. Mr. BENNETT. The gentleman may be correct as to the amount, but the estimates are generally much below the mark. And the thirteen bills to be reported, and which are to depend on the fate of this bill, will probably average 2,000,000 of acres each. If this guess is near the truth, these alone would make the grants overrun the sales some 10,000,000 of acres. This system of partial, unequal, and unjust leislation has been pursued too far. It is time it were arrested. It is time to pause before we go on; to make some general and just apportionment of these grants to all the States, so far as they have been made already, and so far as they are to be made, or to stop where we are and make no more grants at all. The old States bear their full share in every burden imposed by the public lands, and they should share in the benefits of the grants made to the States for public purposes. At a recent State Convention in Kentucky, it was resolved "that the public lands, having been || My amendment, or substitute, proposes, first to make the land States equal, and then to grant to the old States one half as much for the same purposes. There has been granted to the twelve land States, 55,464,179 acres, more than half of all that has been sold for the "common benefit;" of this amount only 11,000,000 acres have been granted for roads, so that my amendment only proposes to give to the old States one half of one fifth, or one tenth as much as the land States have had, confining it to the single item of grants for roads, and for that only one half as much as is given to the new States. To deny this, is to deny the old States any share in these lands. When that is done, for one, I say no more grants. Let it all be sold, and the proceeds go into the General Treasury. I am for no partnership where I must bear my full share of all the burdens, and am denied any share of the benefits of the common property. I have made a computation of the land that would be granted to each State, to make up the land States for railroads equal with Illinois, and to give the other States one half as much: Acres. .2,700,000 600,000 the obligation to benefit all the States equally, but leaves the ability greater to do so. A gift is not to be measured by what it cost but by the benefit - 6,300,000 || conferred. It may cost less in one case than another. 3,300,000 But that is not the standard. Equal benefits are 2,100,000 to be given by these lands to all. Their location . 2,100,000 does not change the rights of any State or make 1,200,000 them greater or less. What enhances the price is 1,500,000 || claimed by the new States, because it does not cost 600,000 || anything. That proves too much. By this mode 900,000 || of reasoning, the new States would be entitled to . 1,200,000 || all the land New York, Virginia, North Carolina, 300,00 600,090 and South Carolina gave to the United States. The old States have as much right to urge this 23,400,000 || argument as the new States to claim all that costs nothing. If all the lands had been mere gifts to the United States, the rights of each to them would be equal. Some cost more than others. We make no difference in these grants for that reason. A man who had two farms-one given to him, and the other purchased-and two sons, 1,650,000 by this argument must give the favorite the farm 300,000 that cost nothing, and half the other also. 600,000 ..4,950,000 Of this sum 11,000,000 have been granted, and this only equalizes all the land States. Their population is 7,774,304. Old States one half as much. Representatives. 6.... Old States. New Hampshire.. 3.. 3. 155 Acres. 750,000 .1,950,000 .1,500,000 Wherever lands are granted to States, and are so used as to benefit the other lands, it is for the .3,750,000 benefit of all. A man who builds by the side of 150,000 | my village lot, and thereby doubles its price on 900,000 this ground, could claim half of it. This benefit is 1,200,000 my good luck, and his building was to benefit 750,000 himself, not me. And so of these railroads. 1,200,000 They are built for the benefit of the people living .1,500,000 in the new States. If they are a benefit to the 300,000 || public lands, each has an equal claim to share in this. It is fortunate that any of these grants will be so used as to benefit the lands, but it adds nothing to the claims or rights of any State. It is impossible for the old States to build their roads near the land-they are far away. Therefore they have no right to the land! And it is said by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FicKLIN] it is no more probable they will have any of the land than that the land will be removed to the Eastern States! What a lucky thing to be a Western State! They have a different Constitution, and different and higher rights than the East, North, or South. Eighteen States 23,250,000 So that the old States, with twice the population (15,364,108,) get less than the new States, by taking only half as much according to representation. This is a trifling amount, when it is recollected we have near 1,400,000,000 of acres; and this is to aid in making roads all over the Union. I had referred to the argument as to doubling the price of the alternate sections, and shown that this argument was incorrect. My objections to this are 1. That in truth, the price is not doubled over half the territory granted to the roads, and this bill will not double the price on half as much lands as the roads will take. 2. That doubling the price is not selling it, nor the way to sell it. And the probability is, not one half of it will ever be sold at the increased price. 3. It is an unequal tax, on a part of the public lands, to be paid by settlers mostly from the old States, on whom, so far as any return is made, the whole burden is cast. It is only an ingenious device to obtain these grants. 4 It adds nothing to the public property. But, it is said, it prevents any loss. And it is not true even to that extent. It may make up a small part, most certainly not all, and probably not one fourth part. But a perfect answer to this argument is, the States in which the roads are built have the full benefit of their being made by the public property. The benefit is the same to them whether any lands are left or not. The other States ask the same benefits. If in truth these roads, being near the lands, enhance their value, it is a lucky circum. stance, and purely accidental. It does not lessen COST AND EXPENSES OF THE PUBLIC LANDS. If all that is justly chargeable to the public lands, paid for them or expended to get them and obtain the possession of them-if all the expenditures arising from our acquisition and ownership of the public lands-were to be taken into the account, they have never paid one third part of that amount. So far from being a source of revenue, as it is claimed, they have never paid what they have cost. The gentleman introducing this bill [Mr. HALL] makes them overpay expenses $60,000,000, and puts their entire cost at $74,000,000. Let me refer him to a speech of the Senator from Missouri in 1840, [Colonel Benton,] in which he gives the facts and figures. (See Congressional Globe 26th Congress, page 88.) "The public lands have never fulfilled their destination; they have never paid the public debt, nor a shilling of itnot even its interest, nor a shilling of its interest. "They are themselves in debt to the custom house revenues for money taken from that source to assist in their acquisition and management. They have cost the United States $112,000,000, and brought into the Treasury $104,000,000, and of that, $28,000,000 has been distributed among the States, under the deposit act; deducting this, they are in debt $36,000,000, and lack that of paying for themselves. They are in debt that amount to the customs, and the burden of the public debt has been thrown upon the customs also. "We have paid out for them (the public lands) more than they have paid back, that is my assertion, and here is the proof: Paid for Louisiana... Interest paid thereon. Paid to Georgia.. Same purchase in Mississippi stock.... Surveys of public lands.... Salaries and expenses of General Land Office, Expense for the Indian Department from June, 1850, to December, 1851, one year and a half, is $5,051,975 39. Thus all the sales for two years and three quarters are only a trifle more than the expense of the Indian Department for one and a half years. $15,000,000 3,250,000 112,691,353 "So that here is a clear deficiency, under the head of paying for themselves, of $8,000,000. Add to that the $28,000,000 distributed to the States, and the deficiency is $36,000,000. And if to this we should add, as we fairly might, the value of the lands given in exchange to Spain and to the Indians, and the cost of getting possession, and the deficiency is many hundreds of millions." If this was so in 1840, the debt against the public lands is much greater now; large sums have been expended since in the purchase and management of these lands. This amount and the expenses are increasing every year, while of late the sales have been decreasing. Let us see how the account now stands: Paid to France for Louisiana............ Interest paid thereon Paid to Spain for Florida ..... Interest paid thereon In lands in exchange, (estimated). Paid to Georgia... Interest paid thereon.... Paid for the Yazoo claims.. ........ Add the cost of the Mexican war.. $15,000,000 36,500 7,461,838 10,000,000 750,000 It is true that entire accuracy cannot be arrived 6,369,838 at as to the whole cost and expense of the public 750,000 lands. But there are many items omitted above. 15,000,000 Beside, the truth will always be over and not below the estimate when items are given. At least, 4,563,266 13,689,798 no one can deny but what enough can be shown to settle the question, that they have never been $207,193,175 138,563,266 a source of revenue, and have never paid what they have cost. If the entire cost of these lands $68,629,909 could be ascertained, I have no doubt it is over 217,175,577 $500,000,000, and we have received from them less than $140,000,000. 200,000,000 $485,805,486 and At all events, they have cost an immense sum, and are calling annually for large expenditureswhich are paid by all the States. Is it not just that the States which pay most of this, proper should be repaid by at least some share of the lands granted to the States? We have no right to giving all to a part is as unjust to some of the be generous before we are just, and this policy of States, as it may be generous to others. All the costs of these lands the old States have paid alone, or helped the new States to pay (except so far as the lands were given by the old States.) At least three fourths of the entire cost the old States have paid; yet the old thirteen, with the four other States now classed with them as the old States, have not an acre granted to them-and the new States many millions. And this system has only begun. It is frankly declared by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FICKLIN] that no grants are to be made to the old States. All the new States agree in this. And behold the effect of union, the old States cannot even get a bill into the House to give them a little, while the new States are only disputing as to which shall take the most! The twelve land States claim all the grants of lands, and the reasons for this are "as plenty as blackberries." Every man has one of his own, and several that he has borrowed. And as fast as they fail, new ones are invented. Some of the more recent ones might be patented; they are proclaimed as "original" discoveries, never heard of before. That is not wonderful; the wonder is they should ever have been heard of at all. The real reason is, the new States want all of these lands they can get, and do not, therefore, want the old States to get any at all. TAXES. The latest argument is, not that "taxation without representation " has been resorted to, but that because those public lands have not been subjected to taxation, this neglect or omission has transferred millions of acres to the new States, and given to them a "superior" if not an "exclusive "right to all they ask of the public domain; and as far as grants are concerned, it is claimed to be an "exclusive "right, and so it has been in fact. In the first place, I deny that the new States, or any one of them, ever had a right to tax an acre of the public lands belonging to the United States. Whatever dicta may be found, no such principle has ever been settled in this country, no such thing has ever been done or attempted, nor has it ever been so decided. By the common law of England, which is law with us, public property cannot be taxed; this is a general rule. By the Revolution, the people here succeeded to all the rights of sovreignty once belonging to the crown. These lands are not private property, but public and national property, belonging to the people of all the States. The people of the United States, by the General Government alone, can dispose of these lands, or impose any tax or charge thereon. Under our system, it would be a clear invasion of one of the sovereign rights of the United States for any State to interfere in any way with the public lands. By the Constitution of the United States, "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. This expressly gives jurisdiction over this subject to the General Government, and consequently excludes the States. And if the General Government has the power of legislation, it has of taxation, for the one is only an incident of the other. In the case of the Providence Bank vs. Billings, (4 Peters, 514, 561, 563,) Chief Justice Marshall says: "The power of legislation, and consequently of taxation, operates on all the persons and property belonging to the body-politic. This is an original principle, which has its foundation in society itself. It is granted for the benefit of all, and resides in the Government as a part of itself, and need not be reserved when property of any description is granted to individuals or to corporate bodies." Again: the States are all joint owners, and no one can impose any tax or charge on the joint property without the consent of the rest. Each of the thirty-one States may do this, if any one can. But this pretence becomes more than absurd, when it is remembered it was resolved in 1780, that "the public lands shall be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States." And it was pro vided by the ordinance of 1787, that "no tax shall be imposed upon lands, the property of the United States." And this express provision against taxing the United States land was inserted in the acts admitting each of the new States into the Union, so that a single State had no right to tax the public property of the United States; and for entire certainty, it was so expressly agreed and stipulated by each State in which any of the public lands lay. It is just for all to observe the law and fulfill their engagements; and these alike forbade the taxation of the public lands. Had the right of taxing the public lands existed, and no agreement been made, for what should the new States have taxed the United States lands? Not for any charge or care they had over them. On this ground they might as well claim to tax the light or the air. But it is said they made roads, school-houses, and improvements. Certainly, as fast as the States were settled, and so did every other State in the Union. The hardships of settling the new States, after we had become a nation, was nothing compared to that of the early settlements. The history of the colonies, or of the settlement of Kentucky, as told in the adventures of Colonel Daniel Boone, will fully prove this; but it is a fact known to all. These public lands did not lie, like a single lot of a non-resident landholder, in a settled community, where all the lands around it were taxed, but in an unsettled wilderness, in large tracts hundreds of miles in extent, into which, as the lands were sold, the settlements slowly advanced in the same manner in the new States as it would have done if it had still remained a territory. There was no reason why the new States should tax the public lands, if they had had the power; and they had no such power, and never claimed or attempted to exercise such a right. These new States were admitted with boundaries beyond the settlements, on the lands sold, and including public lands unsold, at their own request and for their own benefit-to have the benefits of State government, and to have a State of proper size. But Congress did not grant to them-and they did not seek to gain, by their admission, a right to burden the public domain of the United States with taxes. Congress would have been most unwise, indeed, to have admitted new States with boundaries including many millions of acres of the unsold lands, if they lost any rights or interest in those lands, or subjected them to any liability or charge whatever by that act. No such thing was ever designed or intended by the Government, or by the States admitted. And this new argument about omitted taxes, is much higher evidence of genius than of judgment. I deny both the justice and equity of any claim set up by the new States on this account, and deny all pretended right of the new States to tax the public lands. But we have seen an argument that first complacently assumes the new States ought to have taxed the public lands, and then assumes these taxes should be calculated for twenty-five years! Assuming that it has taken fifty years to sell the lands all off; and as some are sold earlier and some later, twenty-five years is a fair average. And the lands within the new States in 1849, are taken to estimate a tax on for twenty-five years, that should have been paid to the new States—assuming, of course, that these lands had been subject to taxation in the new States for fifty years! There is not a land State in the Union that has been admitted fifty years-Wisconsin only three years ago, Iowa five, and Florida six, and so on. Here are three of the largest land States, and yet they are assumed to have had a fifty years' right to taxes on the public lands then lying in the Territories, or not even owned then by the United States. But they had as good a right to taxes then as now; so that the fact that one of these States was admitted forty-seven years afterwards, and others only recently, does not at all weaken the argument. Indeed, this whole argument, as to taxes, is remarkable for boldness of fancy-—and if imagination is the soul of poetry, it is doubtless one of the most poetical ever made in a legislative assembly. There is another remarkable feature in this newly-discovered equity. When taxes are talked of, the old States are sole owners of the lands, and are to pay all the taxes, and the new States are to receive them; but when grants are wanted, the new States have a superior or exclusive right, and are to have all the grants, and the old States none. That is, the old States are to pay all the charges, and the new States are to take all the lands. If all the States were joint owners, if any taxes were to be paid, all must pay their share; as the land States were then near half in number, and over one third in population,they must pay from one third to one half the taxes, and it would take from one third to one half to pay that back, and only the remainder could be of any advantage to them; or, in other words, as all the States would have to pay their share of taxes in each State in which there was public lands, it would be no object to any State to have the lands taxed. Each of the new States now claim all the lands within their limits, and the grants proposed to the old States do not interfere with this claim. The coolness of this argument is refreshing. The old States must pay all cost of purchase, charges, and taxes-as non-resident land-owners; but the new States must have all the lands, as their right is "superior," not to say exclusive. All this talk about taxes is unfounded and absurd; it will not bear investigation; let it go! There is but one item as to taxes worthy of remark, and that is the stipulation entered into by some few of the new States not to tax land sold to settlers until five years after the sale. This deprived those States of a right to tax for that time; but the sole object was to induce more rapid sales and settlements in the new States. It was held out as an inducement to settlers. To the United States it was of little consequence whether they sold land in the new States or Territories. But this was a benefit to the new States, for it increased more rapidly their settlements and population, and added to their wealth and prosperity. It was a benefit, and a much greater benefit to the new States than to the United States. These stipulations were repealed or rescinded long ago as to all the States, or all except Missouri; and would have been as to her, if she had asked it at any time, by unanimous consent. She was not included in the repeal, because it said all States admitted up to 1820-and Missouri was admitted after. But this five years' exemption has been made the ground of a claim, and the new States for this have been allowed one twentieth (five per cent.) of the proceeds of the sales in their States; and by the law of 4th September, 1841, appropriating the proceeds of the public lands, ten per cent. in addition was allowed: so that on all the sales five, and on some fifteen, per cent. have been paid to these States-more than a full equivalent for this exemption. I have taken from an official table, published in 1848, the amount of this five per cent. fund up to December, 1847, in eleven States-Wisconsin was not then admitted-and it is as follows: And this is exclusive of the two per cent. for roads to and through the States, and exclusive of the ten per cent. in addition given by the act of 4th September, 1841. It is in fact the three-fifths of the five per cent. fund only... -$5,242,069 77 Add the two per cent. to this.. 2,096,827 91 The sales for the last four years have been about 8,000,000 of acres, or $10,000,000-five per cent. is.. Add for the ten per cent., (estimated)... Amount..... ..... In these eleven States all the sales have been 96,048,484 acres-one cent per acre annually for five years (the estimate made for Texas) is... Leaving a balance in favor of the States of...... 500,000 00 1,000,000 00 .$8,838,897 68 4,802,420 00 .$4,034,477 68 Thus it appears this five per cent. fund has doubly paid the five years, exemption; which exemption was more beneficial to these States than to the United States, and was repealed in 1847 as to all the States, except Missouri. This, then, is not a matter of complaint by the land States. All the new States have received this five per cent., while the five years' exemption only applied to a few of the States. I think it was four only of the twelve States-Ohio, Louisiana, Missouri, and Indiana. So much for taxes. The five years, exemption has paid the taxes twice over, when the object originally was to benefit the new States; and thus they have had the taxes paid, and about $4,000,000 besides. So much talk about this, proves one thing more clearly than the right to taxes, and that is, the want of any good argument to justify or excuse this partial legislation. When we consider that the new States have had their full share of all that has been sold, and some five or fifteen per cent. more, as the case may be; that they have had grants of land for seats of government, for court-houses, for universities, for public buildings, for deaf and dumb asylums, for canals, railroads, and internal improvements, and for almost every purpose, to more than 55,000,000 |