Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

abodes." But who stayed all this? The discreet and forecasting General Jackson; whose modest boast, it is, that he is wiser than all that have preceded him, and whose greatest glory it is to overthrow all they have erected; and whose name with posterity will be, the Destroyer.

But who are, and whence came, these hardy and adventurous sons of the West? Are they not the sons of the East, whose fathers and brothers are still as hardy and adventurous as they? And whence came these sums which pay for these lands? Were they not drawn, and are they still not drawn, in large proportions from the purses of the Eastern emigrant, who gladly pays his money for lands greatly more valuable to him? The reasons, then, alleged in favour of the project, have no foundation, and the project itself, originating in fraud, is sustained by selfishness. It is opposed by the soundest reasons, which we proceed very concisely to exhibit.

374. The reduction of the price of lands must be required, either, because the Government demands more than a fair price; or because, that price retards, injuriously, the settlement and population of the new States and Territories. It is seen, that by offering the lands for sale in quantities which are attainable by the poorest industrious man, the Govern ment has given the most desirable facility to purchasers, Of the fairness of the price, the best evidence is the briskness of the sales. In four years, from 1828 to 1831, the annual sales had increased from $1,018,308 75 to 3,000,000; and the rate of increase continues; although fluctuations in sales may be expected, as fresh lands, in favourite districts, are brought into market, and according to the activity or sluggishness of emigration.

The Government is the proprietor of the largest quantity of unseated lands in the United States. It cannot reduce the price without injury to the value of all other lands, and particularly of such as are in the Western States, and most, in those which contain, or are nearest to, the public lands; and it would, therefore, essentially, injure the great body of the yeomanry, and, especially, those who have purchased lands, from the United States, at higher prices; who would thus obtain an equitable claim for compensation.

A material reduction of price would excite and stimulate the spirit of speculation which the present price and quantity of land in market, keep dormant; and would, probably, lead to the transfer of large portions of the public domain, from the Government to speculators, to whom the emigrant might

be compelled to give much higher and more fluctuating prices.

Such reduction of price could not increase the population of the United States; but, might very injuriously promote the emigration from several, even, of the oldest Western States, reducing greatly, the price of their lands, their population, and their currency.

And lastly, such reduction must greatly injure the value of the lands which Congress has, within a few years, granted, for internal improvements, to Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Alabama.

The large quantities of land, which remain on hand, after having been long offered for sale, must not be ascribed to the highness of the price, but to the immense quantity which the Government keeps in the market; which the pow er of emigration is wholly incompetent to absorb. Whilst there is more than an adequate supply of the better quality of lands, the inferior will not be purchased.

Nor is a decrease in the price of lands necessary to the rapid increase of population, in the new States. The rate of increase in the whole population of the United States during the ten years, from 1820 to 1830, was 33 per cent; whilst the seven States embracing the public lands, which had a population, in 1820, of 1,207,165, had, in 1830, 2,238,802, exhibiting an average increase of 85 per cent., and demonstrating an irresistible tendency of the human tide to their bosoms.

The cession of lands proposed by the President, comprehends in its consequences, the cession of the whole public domain of the United States; for cessions to the present new States, would certainly be followed by like cessions to other new States, as they should be admitted into the Union. The value of this donation, we have seen, is, at least, three millions per annum; with the certainty of enormous increase. If such a measure be justifiable, it must be from some radical and incurable defect in the power of the General Government, properly, to administer the public domain, which the most successful experience repudiates; since no branch of the public service exhibits more system, uniformity and wisdom, than the administration of the public lands.

If they were transferred to the new States, at the present price, nothing would be gained, as it is not practicable for them to amend the system; on the contrary, new and variant systems would arise, under new and varying laws; and com

petition for the market would, probably, produce dangerous collisions between the vending States, together with a spirit of hazardous speculation. Combinations, would be formed in this and, perhaps, in foreign countries, inducing gigantic and tempting but delusive projects, to which, our history admonishes us, even our legislative assemblies may lend too ready an ear. There is yet another and decisive objection to such a transfer. A new and dangerous relation would arise between the General Government and the new States. The credit on lands was abolished in 1820, because of the hazard of accumlating a large amount of debt, in the co-terminous new States, forming a bond of interest, sympathy and union, possibly prejudicial to the general lien of the confederation.. But if such relations were dangerous, when the purchasers were individuals, how much more dangerous would they become when the purchasers should be States, between whom as debtors there would be a common interest and feeling, adverse to the rest of the Union, rendered more fearful by their remoteness from the centre of federal power? The debt would prove a burden from which they might seek relief, through nullification and secession.

In the State of Illinois, with a population, at the last census, of 157,445, there were 31,395,669 acres of public land; which, at half the minimum price, would amount to $19,622,480. A debt of which she could not pay either principal or interest.

Delinquency on the part of the debtor States would be inevitable, for which there would be no remedy, save force, a remedy worse than the disease; and the only safe alternative would be a release of the debt.

A sale for a nominal price would be a gift; and such gift is forbidden by the express conditions of the original cession from the primitive States to Congress, and by the obligations of the General Government to the whole people, arising out of the fact, that the acquisitions of Louisiana and Florida, and from Georgia, were obtained at the great expense of the common treasure, and for the common benefit. Such gratuitous cession would be a violation of a solemn trust, and a gross injustice to the old States. And its inequality, among the new States, would be as marked as its injustice to the old, would be indefensible. Thus, Missouri, with a population of 140,455, would acquire 38,292,151 acres; and the State of Ohio, with a population of 935,884, would obtain, only, 5,586,834 acres. In a division of the land among the citi

zens of those two States, respectively, the citizen of Ohio would obtain less than six acres for his share, and the citizen of Missouri upwards of two hundred and seventy-two acres, as his proportion.

Such was the system which the administration of the General Government ventured to propose to Congress. No one can feel surprise that it was rejected by large majorities, in both Houses; and that, wise and provident legislators sought other modes to disburden the treasury of the superabundant wealth which was brought into it from this prolific source.

375. This desirable object was supplied by Mr. Clay's bill, which, originating in the Senate, passed Congress on the 2d March, 1833. This bill proposed, upon just and equitable principles, to divide among the several States, the proceeds of a common property, for the term of five years. It provided

I. That, after the 31st of December, 1832, there should be allowed to each of the seven new States, in addition to former grants, 12 per cent. upon the proceeds of all sales of the public lands, made within their several limits, to be applied to some object of internal improvement:

II. That, the residue of the net proceeds of such lands so sold, and wherever situated, should be divided among the twenty-four States, according to their federal representative population, to be applied by their respective Legislatures, to such objects of education, internal improvement, or payment of debt incurred for internal improvement, as they might authorize; reserving to Congress the power to make such future disposition of the public lands, as they may think proper. III. That, the act should continue for five years, unless the country should be engaged in a war.

IV. That, until the 31st December, 1837, there should, annually, be appropriated, for completing the surveys of such lands, a sum not exceeding $ 80,000; and that the minimum price of the lands should not be increased, under the penalty of annulling the act.

V. That, land districts, which in two successive years should not produce net proceeds, to pay the salaries of the officers therein employed, might be discontinued, and the lands be annexed to the adjoining district.

VI. That, certain designated quantities of land should be granted to six of the new States, not to be sold at a less price than the minimum price of lands sold by the United States, to be applied to internal improvements.

376. We have seen, that the President, adopting the views of others, had recommended, and pressed upon Congress, the annual distribution of the surplus funds in the treasury. To this mode of emptying the public coffers, there are several, and, we think, decisive objections. First, it employs an intricate and expensive machinery to take from the people's pockets a large sum of money, in order to return it, through an indirect channel, and in unequal portions; the levy being made upon the ratio of imported commodities consumed, and the distribution upon the principle adopted for determining the congressional representation. Second, the representatives in Congress from the several States, may, by this mode of obtaining funds for their constituents, be induced to increase the taxation, for the purpose of increasing the surplus: and, thus, the expenses of the respective States might be wholly levied through the national treasury. Third, in proportion as this should be the case, the State Govermnenis would become the dependants, the pensioners of the General Government, and the dangers of consolidation would become imminent. And fourth, as the State Governments might not feel the pressure of this mode of indirect taxation, their expenditures might not be regulated by prudential limits; more especially, as an increase of the national imposts might be relied on, for deficiencies.

377. But, it might be supposed, that, the mind which should adopt such a scheme for the distribution of public treasure,a distribution without limits, and which might lead to great evils and abuses, would find no difficulty in approving a distribution which was limited in amount, by principles independent of legislation, and which had no seductive power to effect an increase. Yet, here was a new illustration of the old saw, "Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel." Whilst the President urged upon the nation the adoption of the distribution of the greater portion of the funds against which there were grave reasons of inconvenience, and probably, of unconstitutionality, he rejects the distribution of the minor sum, which is not obnoxious to many of these objections, and is probably free from them all.

The bill for the distribution of the net proceeds of the public lands, passed in Senate, by a vote of 24 to 20; and in the House of Representatives by a vote of 96 to 40. It was received by the President on the second of March, and retained by him, until the meeting of the next Congress, when it was returned with his objections. It appears, that the bill

« ZurückWeiter »