# Niles' Weekly Register/Volume 37/Number 26/Debate in the Senate

Daniel Webster responds to Robert Hayne's January 19 speech.
DEBATE IN THE SENATE.
January 20.
Mr. Foot's resolution being under consideration,
Mr. Webster, of Massachusetts, said, on rising, that [nothing had been further from his intention, than to take any part in the discussion of this resolution. It proposed only an inquiry on a subject of much importance, and one in regard to which it might strike the mind of the mover, and of other gentlemen, that inquiry and investigation would be useful. Although (said Mr. W.)] I am one of those who do not perceive any particular utility in instituting the inquiry, I have nevertheless, not seen that harm would be likely to result from adopting the resolution. Indeed, it gives no new powers, and hardly imposes any new duty on the committee. All that the resolution proposes should be done, the committee is quite competent, without the resolution, to do by virtue of its ordinary powers. But, sir, though I have felt quite indifferent about the passing of the resolution, yet opinions were expressed yesterday on the general subject of the public lands, and on some other subjects, by the gentleman from South Carolina, so widely different from my own, that I am not willing to let the occasion pass without some reply. If I deemed the resolution as originally proposed hardly necessary, still less do I think it either necessary or expedient to adopt it, since a second branch has been added to it today. By this second branch, the committee is to be instructed to inquire whether it be expedient to adopt measures to hasten the sales, and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public lands.
Now it appears, that, in forty years, Mr. President, we have sold no more than about twenty millions of acres of public lands. The annual sales do not now exceed, and never have exceeded, one millions of acres. A million a year is, according to our experience, as much as the increase of population can bring into settlement. And, it appears, also, that we have, at this moment, sir, surveyed and in the market, ready for sale, two hundred and ten millions of acres, or thereabouts. All this vast mass, at this moment, lies on our hands, for mere want of purchasers. Can any man, looking to the real interests of the country and the people, seriously think of inquiring, whether we ought not still faster to hasten the public surveys, and to bring, still more and more rapidly, other vast quantities into the market? The truth is, that rapidly as population has increased, the surveys have, nevertheless, out-ran out wants. There are more lands than purchasers. They are now sold a low prices, and taken up as fast as the increase of people furnishes hands to take them up. It is obvious, that no artificial regulation, no forcing of sales, no giving away of the lands even, can produce any great and sudden augmentation of population. The ratio of increase, though great, has yet its bounds. Hands for labor are multiplied only at a certain rate. The lands cannot be settled but by settlers; nor faster than settlers can be found. A system, if now adopted, of forcing sales, at whatever prices, may have the effect of throwing large quantities into the hands of individuals, who would, in this way, in time, become themselves competitors with the government in the sale of land. My own opinion has uniformly been, that the public lands should be offered freely, and at low prices, so as to encourage settlement and cultivation as rapidly as the increasing population of the country is competent to extend settlement and cultivation.
Every actual settler should be able to buy good land, at a cheap rate; but, on the other hand, speculation by individuals, on a large scale, should not be encouraged; nor should the value of all lands, sold or unsold, be reduced to nothing, by throwing new and vast quantities into the market at prices merely nominal.
I now proceed, sir, to some of the opinions expressed by the gentleman from South Carolina. Two or three topics were touched by him, in regard to which he expressed sentiments in which I do not at all concur.
In the first place, sir, the honorable gentleman spoke of the whole course and policy of the government, towards those who have purchased and settled the public lands; and seemed to think this policy wrong. He held it to have been, from the first, hard and rigorous; he was of opinion that the United States had acted towards those who subdued the western wilderness, in the spirit of a step-mother; that the public domain, had been improperly regarded as a source of revenue; and that we had rigidly compelled payment for that which ought to have been given away. He said we ought to have followed the analogy of other governments, which had acted on a much more liberal system than ours, in planting colonies. He dwelt, particularly, upon the settlement of America by colonists from Europe; and reminded us, that their governments had not exacted from those colonists payment for the soil, and he lamented that we had not followed that example, and pursued the same liberal course towards our own emigrants to the west.
Now, sir, I deny, altogether, that there has been anything harsh or severe in the policy of the government towards the new states of the west. On the contrary, I maintain, that it has uniformly pursued, towards those states, a liberal and enlightened system, such as its own duty allowed and requries; and such as their interests and welfare demanded. The government has been no step-mother to the new states. She has not been careless of their interests, nor deaf to their requests, but from the first moment, when the territories which now form those states were ceded to the union, down to the time in which I am now speaking, it has been the invariable object of the government, to dispose of the soil, according to the true spirit of the obligation under which it received it; to hasten its settlement and cultivation, as far and as fast as practicable; and to rear the new communities into equal and independent states, at the earliest moment of their being able, by their numbers, to form a regular government.
I do not admit, sir, that the analogy to which the gentleman refers us, is just, or that the cases are at all similar. There is no resemblance between the cases upon which a statesman can found an argument. The original North American colonists either fled from Europe, like our New England ancestors, to avoid persecution, or came hither at their own charges, and often at the ruin of their fortunes, as private adventurers. Generally speaking, they derived neither succour nor protection from their governments at home. Wide, indeed, is the difference between those cases and ours. From the very origin of the government, these western lands, and the just protection of those who had settled or should settle ​on them, have been the leading objects in our policy, and have led to expenditures, both of blood and treasure, not inconsiderable; not indeed exceeding the importance of the object, and not yielded grudgingly or reluctantly certainly; but yet not inconsiderable, though necessary sacrifices, made for proper ends. The Indian title has been extinguished at the expense of many millions. Is that nothing? There is still a much more material consideration. Theses colonists, if we are to call the so; in passing the Alleghany, did not pass beyond the care and protection of their own government. Wherever the went, the public arm was still stretched over them. A parental government at home was still ever mindful of their condition, and their wants; and nothing was spared, which a just sense of their necessities required. Is it forgotten, that it was one of the most arguous duties of the government, in its earliest years, to defent the frontiers against the north-western Indians? Are the sufferings and misfortunes under Harmar and St. Clair, not worthy to be remembered. Do the occurrences connected with these efforts shew and unfeeling neglect of western interests? ANd here, sir, what becomes of the gengleman's analogy? What English armies accompanied our ancestors to clear the forests of a barbarous foe? What treasures of the exchequer were expended in buying up the original title to the soil? What government arm held it aegis over our fathers' heads, as they pioneered their way in the wilderness? Sir, it was not til general Wayne's victory, in 1794, that it could be said, we had conquered the savages. It was not til that period, that the government could have considered itself as having established an entire ability to protect those who should undertake the conquest of the wilderness. And here, sir, at the epoch of 1794, let us pause, and survey the scene. It is now thirty-five years since that scene actually existed. Let us, sir, look back, and behold it. Over all that is now Ohio, there then stretched one vast wilderness, unbroken, except by two small spots of civilized culture, the one at Marietta, and the other at Cincinnati. At these little openings, hardly each a pin's point upon the map, the arm of the frontiersman had leveled the forest, and let in the sun. These little patches of earth, and themselves almost shadowed by the hanging boughs of that wilderness, which had stood and perpetuated itself, from century to century, ever since the creation, were all that had then been rendered verdant by the hand of man. In an extend of hundreds, and thousands of square miles, no other surface of smiling green attested the presence of civilization. The hunter's path crossed mighty rivers, flowing in solitary grandeur, whose sources lay in remote and unknown regions of the wilderness. It struck upon the north, on a vast inland sea, over which the tempests raged as on the ocean; all over was bare creation. It was fresh, untouched, unbounded, magnificent wilderness. And, sir, what is it now? Is it imagination only, or can it possibly be fact, that presents such a change as surprises and astonishes us, when we turn our eyes to what Ohio now is? Is is reality, or a dream, that in so short a period even as thirty-five years, there has sprung up, on the same surface, and independent state, with a million of people? A million of inhabitants! an amount of pupulation greater than that of all the cantons of Switzerland; equal to one-third of all the people of the United States, when they undertook to accomplish their independence. This new member of the republic has already left far behind her a majority of the old states. She is now by the side of Virginia and Pennsylvania, and, in point of numbers, will shortly admit no equal but New York herself. If, sir, we may judge of measures by their results, what lessons do these facts read us, upon the policy of the government? What inferenced do they authorize, upon the general questin of kindness, or unkindness? What convictions do they enforce, as to the wisdom and ability, on the one hand, or the folly and incapacity, on the other, of our general administration of western affairs? Sir, does it not require some portion of self-respect in us, to imagine, that if our light had shone on the path of government, if our wisdom could have been consulted in its measures, a more rapid advance ot strength and prosperity would have been experienced? For my own part, while I am struck with wonder at the success, I also look with admiration at the wisdom and foresight which originally arranged and prescribed the system for the settlement of the western country to the full extent of our utmost means.
But, sir, to return to the remarks of the honorable member from South Carolina. He says that congress has sold these lands, and put the money into the treasure, while other government, acting in a more liberal spirit, gave away their lands, and that we ought, also, to have given ours away. I shall not stop to state an account between our revenues derived from land, and our expenditures in Indian treaties and Indian wars. But, I must refer the honorable gentleman to the origin of our own title to the soil of these territories, and remind him that we received them on conditions, and under trusts, which would have been violated by giving the soil away. For compliance with those conditions, and the just execution of those trusts, the public faith was solumnly pledged. The public lands of the United States have been derived from four principal sources. First, cessions made to the United States by individual states, on the recommendation or request of the old congress. Second. The compact with Georgia, in 1802. Third. The purchase of Lousiana in 1803. Fourth. The purchase of Florida, in 1819. Of the first class, the most important was the cession of Virginia, of all her right and title, as well as soil as jurisdiction, to all the territory within the limits of her charter, lying to the northwest of the river Ohio. It may not be ill-timed to recur to the causes and occasions of this and other similar grants.
When the war of the revolution broke out, a great difference existed in different states, in the proportion between people and territory. The northern and eastern states, with very small surfaces, contained comparatively a thick population, and there was generally within their limits, no great quantity of waste lands belonging to the government, or the crown of England. On the contrary, there were in the southern states, in Virginia and in Georgia for example, extensive public domains, wholly unsettled, and belonging to the crown. As these possessions would necessarily fall from the crown, in the event of the prosperous issue of the war, it was insisted that they ought to devolve on the United States, for the good of the whole. The war, it was argued, was undertaken and carried on at the common expense of all the colonies; its benefits, if successful, ought also to be common; and the property of the common enemy, when vanquished, ought to be regarded as the general acquisition of all. While yet the war was raging, it was contended that congress ought to have the power to dispose of vacant and unpatented lands, commonly called crown lands, for defraying the expenses of the war, and for other public and general purposes. "Reason and justice," said the assembly of New Jersey in 1778, "must decide, that the property which existed in the crown of Great Britain, previous to the present revolution, ought now to belong to the congress, in trust for the use and benefit of the United States. They have fought and bled for it, in proportion to their respective abilities, and therefore the reward ought to be predilectionally distributed. Shall such states as are shut out, by situation, from availing themselves of the least advantage from this quarter, be left to sink under an enormous debt, while others are enabled, in a short period, to replace all their expenditures from the hard earnings of the whole confederacy."
Moved by these considerations, and these addresses made it, congress took up the subject, and in September, 1780, recommended to the several states in the union, having claims to western territory, to make liberal cessions of a portion thereof to the United States; and on the 10th of October, 1780, congress resolved, that any lands so ceded in pursuance of their preceding recommendation, should be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States; should be settled and formed into distinct republican states, to become members of the federal union, with the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other states; and that the lands should be granted, or settled, at such times, and under such regulations, as should be agreed on by congress. Again, in ​September, 1783, congress passed another resolution, expressing the conditions on which cessions from states should be received; and in October following, Virginia made her cession, reciting the resolution, or act, of September preceeding, and then transfering her title to her north-western territory to the United States, upon the express condition, that the lands, so ceded, should be considered as a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States, as had become or should become members of the confederation, Virginia inclusive, and should be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever. The grants from other states were on similar conditions. Massachusetts and Connecticut both had claims to western lands, and both relinquished them to the United States in the same manner. These grants were all made on three substantial conditions or trusts. First, that the ceded territories should be turned into states, and admitted in due time into the union, with all the rights belonging to other states. Second, that the lands should form a common fund to be disposed of for the general benefit of all the states. Third, that they should be sold and settled, at such time and in such manner as congress should direct.
Now, sir, it is plain that congress never has been, and is not now, at liberty to disregard these solemn conditions. For the fulfillment of all these trusts, the public faith was, and is, fully pledged. How, then, would it have been possible for congress, if it had been so disposed, to give away these public lands? How could they have followed the example of other governments, if there had been such, and considered the conquest of the wilderness an equivalent compensation for the soil? The states had looked to this territory, perhaps too sanguinely, as a fund out of which means were to come to defray the expenses of war. It had been received as a fund; as a fund congress had bound itself to apply it. To have given it away, would have defeated all the objects which congress and particular states, had had in view, in asking and obtaining the cession and would have plainly violated the condition, which the ceding states attached to their own grants.
The gentleman admits, that the lands cannot be given away until the national debt is paid; because, to a part of that debt they stand pledged. But this is not the original pledge. There is, so to speak, an earlier mortgage. Before the debt was funded, at the moment of the cession of the lands, and by the very terms of that cession, every state in the union obtained an interest in them, as in a common fund. Congress has uniformly adhered to this condition. It has proceeded to sell the lands, and to realize as much from them, as was compatible with the other trusts created by the same deeds of cession. One of these deeds of trusts, as I have already said, was, that the lands should be sold and settled, at such time and manner as congress shall direct. The government has always felt itself bound, in regard to sale and seltlement to exercise its own best judgment, and not to transfer the discretion to others. lt has not felt itself at liberty to dispose of the soil, therefore, in large masses, to individuals, thus leaving to them the time and manner of settlement. It had stipulated to use its own judgment. If for instance in order to rid itself of the trouble of forming a system for the sale of those lands and going into detail, it had sold the whole of what is now Ohio in one mass, to individuals or companies, it would clearly have departed from its just obligations. and who can now tell, or conjecture, how great would have been the evil of such a course? Who can say, what mischiefs would have ensued, if congress had thrown these territories into the hands of private speculation? Or who, on the other hand, can now forsee, what the event would be should the government depart from the same wise course hereafter and, not content with such constant absorption of the public lands as the natural growth of our population may accomplish, should force great portions of them at nominal or very low prices, into private hands to he sold and settled, as and when such holders might think would be most for their own interest? Hitherto, sir, I maintain congress has acted wisely, and done its duty on this suhjeet. I hope it will continue to do it Departing from the original idea, so soon as it was found practicable and convenient, of selling by townships, congress has disposed of the soil in smaller and still smaller portions, till, at length, it sells in parcels of no more than eighty acres; thus putting it into the power of every man in the country, however poor, but who has health and strength to become a freeholder if he desires, not of barren acres, but of rich and fertile soil. The government has performed all the conditions of the grant.—While it has regarded the public lands as a common fund, and has sought to make what reasonably could be made of them, us a source of revenue, it has also applied its best wisdoen to sell and settle them, as fast and as happily as possible; and whensoever numbers would warrant it, each territory has been successively admitted into the union, with all the rights of an independent state.
Is there then, sir, I ask, any well founded charge of hard dealing, any just accusation for negligence indifference, or parsimony which is capable of being sustained against the government of the country, in its conduct towards the new states? Sir, I think there is not.
But there was another observation of the hon. member, which, I confess, did not a little surprise me. As a reason for wishing to get rid of the public lands as soon as we could, and as we might, the hon. gentleman, said, he wanted no permanent source of income. He wished to see the time when the government should not posecss a shilling of permanent revenue. If he could speak magical word and by that word convert the whole capitol into gold, the word would not be spoken. The administration of a fixed revenue, he said, only consolidates the government and corrupts the people! Sir, I confess I beard these sentiments uttered on this floor, not without deep regret and pain.
I am aware that these, and similar opinions, are espoused by certain persons out of the capitol, and out of this government, but I did not expect so soon to find them here Consolidation!—that perpetual cry both of terror and delusion—consolidation! Sir, when gentlemen speak of the effects of a common fund, belonging to all the states, as having a tendency to consolidation, what do they mean? Do they mean, or can they mean any thing more than that the union of the states will be strengthened, by whatever continues or furnishes inducements to the people of the states to hold togethter? If they mean merely this, then no doubt, the public lands, as well as every thing else in which we have a common interest, tends to consolidation and lo this species of consolidation every true American ought to be attached; it is neither more nor less than strengthening the union itself. This is the sense in which the framers of the Constitution use the word consolidation and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. They tell us, in the letter submitting the constitution to the consideration of the country, that "In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds led each state in the convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected."
This, sir, is general Washington's consolidation. This is the true constitutional consolidation. I wish to see no new powers drawn to the general government; but I confess I rejoice in whatever tends to strengthen the bond that unites us; and encourages the hope that our union may be perpetual. And, therefore, I cannot but feel regret at the expression of such opioions as the gentleman has avowed; because I think their obvious tendency is to weaken the bond of our connexion. I know that there are some persons in the part of the country from which the hon. member comes, who habitually speak of the union in terms of indifference, or even of disparagement. The hon. member himself is not, I trust, and can never be, one of these. They significantly declare, that it is time to calculate the value of the union, and their aim seems to be to enumerate and to magnify all the evils real and imaginary, which the government under the union produces.
The tendency of all these ideas and sentiments is obviously to bring the union into discussion, as a mere question of present and temporary expediency—nothing more than a mere matter of profit and loss. The union ​to be preserved while it suits local and temporory purposes to preserve it; and to be sundered whenever it shall be found to thwart such purposes. Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good. It is only regarded as a possible means of good; or, on the other hand as a possible means of evil. They cherish no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. Sir, I deprecate and deplore this tone of thought and feeling. I deem far otherwise of the union of the states, and so did the framers of the constitution themselves What they said I believe; fully and sincerely believe, that the union of the states is essential to the prosperity and safety of the states. I am a unionist, and in this sense, a national republican. I would strengthen the ties that hold us together. Far, indeed, in my wishes, very far distant be the day, when our associated and fraternal stripes shall be severed asunder, and when that happy constellation under which we have risen to so much renown, shall be broken up and be seen sinking star after star, into obscurity and night!
Among other things the hon. member spoke of the public debt. To that he holds the public lands pledged, and has expressed his usual earnestness for its total discharge. Sir, I have always voteed for every measure for reducing the debt, since I have been in congress I wish it paid because it is a debt; an,so far, is a charge upon industry of the country and the finances of the government. But,sir, I have observed, that, whenever the subject of the public debt is introduced into the senate, a morbid sort of fervor is manifested in regard to it, which I have been sometimes at a loss to, understand. The debt is not now large, and is in a course of most rapid reduction. A very few years will see it extinguished. Now I am not entirely able to persuade myself that it is not certain supposed incidental tendencies and effects of this debt, rather than its pressure and charge as a debt, that causes so much anxiety to get rid of it. Possibly it may be regarded as in some degree a tie, holding the different parts of the country together, by considerations of mutual interest. If this be one of its effects, the effect itself is, in my opinion, not to be lamented. Let me not be misunderstood. I would not continue the debt for the sake of any collateral or consequential advantage, such as I have mentioned. I only mean to say that that consequence itself is not one that I regret. At the same time, that if there are others who would or who do regret it, I differ from them.
As I have already remarked sir, it was one among the reasons assigned by the honorable member for his wish to be rid of the public lands altogether, that the public disposition of them and the revenues derived from them tends to corrupt the people. this, sir, I confess, passes my comprehension. These hands are sold at public auction, or taken up at fixed prices, to form farms and freeholds. Whom does this corrupt? According to the system of sales, a fixed proportion is every where reserved, as a fund for education. Does education corrupt? Is the schoolmaster a corrupter of youth? the spellig book. does it break down the morals of the rising generation and the holy scriptures, are they fountains of corruption? or if, in the exercise of a provident liberality, in regard to its own property as a great landed proprietor, and to high purposes of utility towards others, the government gives portions of these lands to the making of a canal; or the opening of a road, in the country where the lands themselves are situated, what alarming and overwhelming coruption follows from all this? Can there be nothing pure in government except the exercise of mere control? Can nothing be done without corruption, but the imposition of penalty and restraint? Whatever is positively beneficent, whatever is actively good whatever spreads abroad benefits and blessings which all can see and all can feel, whatever opens intercourse, augments population, enhances the value of property and diffuses knowledge—must all this be rejected and reprobated as a dangerous and obnoxious policy, hurrying us to the double ruin of a government, turned into despotism by the mere exercise of acts of beneficence, and of a people, corrupted beyond hope of rescue by the improvement of their condition?
The gentleman proceded, sir, to draw a frightful picture of the future. He spoke of the centuries that must elapse, before all the lands could be sold, and the great hardships that the states must suffer while the United States reserved to ilself, within their limits such large portions of soil, not liable to taxation. Sir, this is all, mostly imagination If these lands were leasehold property, if they were held by the United States on rent, there would be much in the idea. But they are wild lands, held only till they can be sold; reserved no longer than till somebody will take them up, at low prices.—As to their not being taxed, I would ask whether the states themselves, if they owned them, would tax them before sale? Sir, if in any case any state can shew that the policy of the United States retards her settlement, or prevents her from cultivating the land within her limits she shall have my vote to alter that policy. But I look upon the public lands as a public fund, and that we are no more authorized to give them away gratuitously than to give away gratuitously the money in the treasury. I am quite aware that the sums drawn annually from the western states make a heavy drain upon them, but that is unavoidable. For that very reason, among others, I have always been inclined to pursue towards them a kind and most liberal policy. But I am not at liberty to forget at the same time, what is due to other states, and to the solemn engagements under which the government rests.
I come now, Mr. President, to that part of the gentleman's speech, which has been the main occasion of my addressing the senate. The East! the obnoxious, the rebuked the always reproached east!! We have come in, sir, on this debate, for even more than a common share of accusation and attack. If the honorable member from South Carolina was not our original accuser, he has yet recited the indictment against us, with the air and tone of a public prosecutor. He has summoned us to plead on our arraignment; and he tells us we are charged with the crime of a narrow and selfish policy; of endeavoring to restrain emigration to the west, and, having that object in view, of maintaining a steady opposition to western measures and western interests. And the cause of all this narrow and selfish policy the gentleman finds in the tariff I think he called it the accursed policy of the tariff. This policy the gentleman tells us, requires multitudes of dependent laborers, a population of paupers, and that it is to secure these at home that the east opposes whatever may induce to western emigration. Sir, I rise to defend the east. I rise to repel, both the charge itself, and the cause assigned for it. I deny that the east has, at any time, shown an illiberal policy towards the west. I pronounce the whole accusation to be without the least foundation in any facts, existing either now, or at any previous time. I deny it in the general, and I deny each and all its particulars. I deny the sum total, and I deny the retail. I deny that the east has ever manifested hostility to the west and I deny that she. has adopted any policy that would naturally have led her in such a course. But the tariff! the tariff!! Sir, I beg to say, in regard to the east that the original policy of the tariff is not hers whether it be wise or unwise. New England is not its author. If gentlemen will recur to the tariff of 1816, they will find that that was not carried by New England votes. It was truly more a southern than an eastern measure. And what votes carried the tariff of 1824? Certainly, not those of New England. It is known to have been made matter of reproach against Massachusetts that she would not aid the tariff of 1824, and a selfish motive was imputed to her for that also. In point of fact, it is true that she did, indeed, oppose the tariff of 1824. There were more votes in favor of that law in the house of representatives not only in each of a majority of the western states, but even in Virginia herself also, than in Massachusetts. It was literally forced upon New England and this shows how groundless bow void of all probability any charge must be, which imputes to her hostility to the growth of the western states as naturally flowing from a cherished policy of her own. But leaving all conjectures about causes and motives, I go at once to the fact, and I meet it with one broad, comprehensive, and emphatic negative. I deny, that in any part of her history at any period of the government or in relation to any leading object, New England has manifested such hostility as is charged upon her. On the contrary, I maintain that, from the day of the cession of the territories by the states to congress, no ​portion of the country has acted either with more liberality or more intelligence on the the subject of the western lands in the new states, than New England. This statement though strong, is no stronger than the strictest truth will warrant. Let us look at the historical facts. So soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make provision for the government and disposition of the territory—the country was to be governed. This, for the present it was obvious must be by some territorial system of administration. But the soil, also was to be granted and settled. Those immense regions, huge enough almost for an empire were to be appropriated to private ownership. How was this best to be done? What system for sale and disposition should be adopted? Two modes for conducting the sales presented themselves; the one southern, and the other a northern mode. It would be tedious sir, here, to run out these different systems into all their distinctions, and to contrast their opposite results. That which was adopted, was the northern system, and is that which we now see in successful operation in all the new states. That which was rejected, was the system of warrants, surveys, entry, and location such as prevails south of the Ohio. It it not necessary to extend these remarks into invidious comparisons. This last system, is that which, as has been emphatically said, has shingled over the country to which it was applied with so many conflicting titles and claims. Every body acquainted with the subject, knows how easily it leads to speculation and litigation—two great calamities in a new country. From the system actually established, these evils are banished. Now, sir in effecting this great measure, the first important measure on the whole subject, New England acted with vigor and effect, and the latest posterity of those who settled northwest of the Ohio, will have reason to remember with gratitude her patriotism and her wisdom. The system adopted was her own system. She knew, for she had tried and proved its value. It was the old fashioned way of surveying lands before the issuing of any title papers, and then of inserting accurate and precise descriptions in the patents or grants, and proceding with regular reference to metes and bounds.—This gives to original titles derived from government a certain and fixed character; it cuts up litigation by the roots, and the settler commences his labors with the assurance that he has a clear title. It is easy to perceive, but not easy to measure, the importance of this in a new country. New England gave this system to the west and while it remains, there will be spread over all the west, one monument of her intelligence in matters of government, and her practical good sense.
At the foundation of the Constitution of these new, northwestern states, we are accustomed, sir, to praise the lawgivers of antiquity; we help to perpetuate the fame of Solon and Lycurgus. but I doubt whether one single law of any lawgiver, ancient or modern, has produced effects of more distinct, marked, and lasting character then the ordinance of '87. That instrument, was drawn by NATHAN DANE, then, and now a citizen of Massachusetts. It was adopted, as I think I have understood, without the slightest alteration, and certainly it has happened to few men to be the authors of a political measure of more large and enduring consequence. It fixed forever, the character of the population in the vast regions north-west of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. It impressed on the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to rear up any other than free men. It laid the interdict against personal servitude, in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper, also, than all local constitutions. Under the circumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision, as a real good attained. We see its consequences at this moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio shall flow. It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. Sir, I should fear the rebuke of no intelligent gentleman of Kentucky, were I to ask whether if such an ordinance could have been applied to his own state, while it yet was a wilderness, and before Boon had passed the gap of the Alleghany, he does not suppose it would have contributed to the ultimate greatness of that commonwealth? It is, at any rate, nor to doubted, that where it did apply it has produced an effect not easily to be described, or measured in the growth of the states, and the extent and increase of their population.
Now, Sir, this great measure, again was carried by the north and by the north alone. There were, indeed, individuals elsewhere favorable to it, but it was supported as a measure, entirely by the votes of the northern states. If New England had been governed by the narrow and selfish views now ascribed to her, this very measure was, of all others the best calculated to thwart her purposes. It was, of all means of rendering certain a vast emigration from her own population to the west. She looked to that consequence only to disregard it. She deemed the regulation a most useful one to the states that would spring up on the territory and advantageous to the country at large. She adhered to the principle of it perseveringly, year after year until it was finally accomplished.
Leaving then, Mr. President, these two great and leading measures and coming down to our own times what is there in the history of recent measures of government that exposes New England to this accusation of hostility to western interests? I assert, boldly, that in all measures conductive to the welfare of the west since my aquaintance here, no part of the country has manifested a more liberal policy. I beg to say sir, that I do not state this with a view of claiming for her any special regard on that account. Not at all. She does not place her of support of measures on the ground of favor conferred—far otherwise. Wbat she has done has been consonant to her view of the general good, and therefore she has done it. She has sought to make no gain of it; on the contrary individuals may have felt undoubtedly some natural regret, at finding the relative importance of their own states diminished, by the growth of the west. But New England has regarded that as in the natural course of things and has never complained of it. Let me see sir, any one measure favorable to the west which has been opposed by New England since the government bestowed its attention to these western improvements. Select what you will, if it be a measure of acknowledged utility I answer for it it will be found that not only were New England votes for it, but that New England votes carried it. Will you take the Cumberland road? who has made that? Will you take the.: Portland canal, whose support carried that bill? Sir, at what period beyond the Greek kalends could these measures or measures like these, have been accomplished, had they depended on the votes of the southern gentlemen? Why, sir, we know that we must have waited till the constitutional notions of those gentlemen had undergone an entire change. Generally speaking, they have done nothing and can do nothing. All that has been effected, has been done by the votes of reprobated New England. I undertake to say, that if you look to the votes on any one of these measures and strike out from the list of ayes the names of New England members it will be found that in every case, the south would then have voted down the west and the measure would have failed. I do not believe that any instance can be found where this is not strictly true. I do not believe that one dollar has been expended for these purposes beyond the mountains, which could have been obtained without cordial co-operation and support from New England.
Sir, I put the question to the west itself. Let gentlemen who have sat here ten years, come forth and declare by what aids, and by whose votes, they have succeeded in measures deemed of essential importance to their part of the country. To all men of sense and candor in or out of congress, who have any knowledge upon the subject, New England may appeal for refutation of the reproach now attempted to be cast upon her, in this respect.
I take liberty to repeat, that I make no claim on behalf New England, or an account of that which I have not stated. She does not profess to have acted out of favor, for it would not become her so to have acted. She solicits for no especial thanks; but in the consciousness of having done her duty in these things, uprightly and honestly, and with a fair and liberal spirit, be assured she will repel, whenever she thinks the occasion calls for it, groundless imputation of partiality and selfishness. ​The gentleman alluded to a report of the late secretary of the treasury, which, according to his reading or construction of it, recommended what he calls the tariff policy, or a branch of that policy; that is, the restraining of emigration to the west, for the purpose of keeping hands at home, to carry on the manufactures. I think sir, that the gentleman misapprehended the meaning of the secretary in the interpretation given to his remarks. I understand him only as saying, that since the low price of lands at the west acts as a constant and standing bounty to agriculture, it is, on that account the more reasonable, to provide encouragement for manufactures. But, sir, even if the secretary, observation were to he understood as the gentleman understands it it would not be a sentiment borrowed from any New England source.—Whether it be right or wrong, it does not originate in that quarter.
In the course of these remarks, Mr. President, I have spoken of the supposed desire, on.the part of the Atlantic states to check, or at least not to hasten, western emigration, as a narrow policy. Perhaps I ought to have qualified the expression, because, sir, I am now about to quote the opinions of one, to whom I would impute no thing narrow. I am now about to refer you to the language of a gentleman of much and deserved distinction, now a member of the other house, and occupying a prominent situation there. The gentleman, sir is from South, Carolina. In 1825, a debate arose in the house of representatives, on the subject of the western road. It happened to me to take some part in that debate, I was answered by the honorible gentleman to whom I have alluded, and I replied. May I be pardoned sir, If I read part of this debate.
"The gentleman from Massachusetts has urged," said Mr. McDuffey., "as one leading reason why the government should make roads to the west, that these roads have a tendency to settle the public lands; that they increase the inducement to settlement, and that this is a national object. Sir, I differ entirely from his views on the subject. I think that the public lands are settling quite fast enough; that our people need want no stimulus to urge them thither; but want rather a check, at least on that artificial tendency to western settlement, which we have created by our own laws.
"That gentleman says that the great object of government, with respect to those lands, is not to make them a source of revenue, but to get them settled. What would have been thought of this argument in the old thirteen states? It amounts to this, that those states are to offer a bonus of their own impoverishment, to create a vortex to swallow up our floating population. Look sir, at the present aspect of the southern states. In no part of Europe will you see the same indications of decay. Deserted villages—houses falling to ruin—impoverished lands thrown out of cultivation. Sir, I believe that if the public lands had never been sold, the aggregate amount of the net total wealth would have been greater at this moment. Our population, if concentrated in the old states, and not ground down by tariffs, would have been more prosperous and more wealthy. But every inducement has been held out to them to settle in the west, until our population has become sparse, and then the effects of this sparseness are now to be counteracted by another artificlal system. Sir, I say if there is any object worthy the attention of this government, it is a plan which shall limit the sale of the public lands. It those lands were sold according to their real value, be it so. But while the government continues as it now does, to give them away, they will draw the population of the older states and still farther increase the effect which is already distressingly felt and which must go to diminish the value of all those states possess. And this, sir, is held out to us as a motive for granting the present appropriation. I would not, indeed, prevent the formation of roads on these considerations but I certainly would not encourage it. Sir, there is an additional item in the account of the benefits which this government has conferred on the western states. It is the sale of the public lands at the minimum price. At this moment we are selling to the people of the west, lands at one dollar and twenty-five cents, which are worth fifteen, and which would sell at that price if the markets were not glutted."
"Mr Webster observed, in reply, that the gentleman from South Carolina had mistaken him, if he supposed that it was his wish so to hasten the sales of the public lands, as to throw them into the hands of purchasers who would sell again. His idea only went as far as this; that the price should be fixed as low as as not to prevent the settlement of the lands yet not so low as to prompt speculators to purchase. Mr. W. observed that he could not at all concur with the gentleman from South Carolina, in wishing to restrain the laboring classes of population in the eastern states from going to any part of our territory, where they could better their condition; nor did he suppose such an idea was any where entertained. The observations of the gentleman had opened to him new views of policy on the subject, and he thought he now could perceive why some of our states continued to have such bad roads; it must be for purpose of preventing people from going out of them. The gentleman from South Carolina supposes; that if our population had been confined to the old thirteen states, the aggregate wealth of the country would have been greater than it now is. But sir, it is an error, that the increase of the aggregate of the national wealth, is the object chiefly to be pursued by government. The distribution of the national wealth is an object quite as important as its increase. He was not surprised that the old states, not increasing in population so fast as was expected (for he believed nothing like a decrease was pretended) should be an idea by no means agreeable to gentlemen from those states. We are all reluctant in submitting to the loss of relative importance—but this was nothing more than the the natural condition of a country densely populated in one part, and possessing in another a vast tract of unsettled lands. The plan of the gentleman went to reverse the order of nature, vainly expecting to retain men within a small and comparatively unproductive territory "who have all the world before them whose to choose". For his own part he was in favor of letting population take its own course; he should experience no feeling of mortification if any of his constituents liked better to settle on the Kansas or the Arkansas,or the lord knows where, within our territory; let them go,and be happier if they could. The gentleman says, our aggregate of wealth would have been greater if our population had been restrained within the limit of the old states, but does he not consider population to be wealth?, And has not this been increased by the aettlement of a new and fertile country? Such a country present the most alluring of all prospects to a young and laboring man; it gives him a freehold—it offers to him weight and respectability in society; and above all, it presents to him a prospect of a permanent provision for his children. Sir, these are inducements which never were resisted, and never will be; and were the whole extent of country filled with population up to the Rocky Mountains, these inducements would carry that population forward to the shores of the Pacific ocean. Sir, it is in vain to talk; individuals will seek their own good, and not any artificial aggregate of the national wealth—a young, enterprising and hardy agriculturalist can conceive of nothing better to him than plety of good, cheap land."
Sir, with the reading of these extracts I leave the subject. The senate will bear me witness that I am not accustomed to allude to local opinions, nor to compare nor contrast different portions of the country. I have often suffered things to pass which I might properly enough have considered as deserving a remark, without any observation. But I have felt it my, duty on this occasion to vindicate the state I represent from charges and imputations on her public character and conduct, which I know to be undeserved and unfounded—If advanced elsewhere, they might be passed, perhaps, without notice. But whatever is said here, is supposed to be entitled to public regard, and to deserve public attention—it derives importance and dignity from the place where it is uttered. As a true representative of the state which has sent me here, it is my duty, and a duty which I shall fulfill, to place her history and her conduct, her honor and her character, in their just and proper light, so often as I think an attack is made upon her, so respectable as to deserve to be repelled.
Mr. W. concluded by moving the indefinite postponement of the resolution.