Weekly national intelligencer., 1851-02-15


the Senator from Missouri who thought that this grant
was to be made beneficial should not be thus restricted To
that the friends f,he bill agreed said myself hoped the
Senate would not concur IN the amendment made in Com
miee but that they would leave the bill unfettered by mi-
tation 10 the time of selling the lands.
Mr. WALKER. II Is that then 10 which my remarks are
applicable far they have been made To the other re-
ply of the Senator from Maryland wish say word He
says am the last one who should object to this proposition
the score of its reducing the price of lands for
have introduced proposition which forty thousand times
beyond thls-audng to my proposition to cede the public
lands Tor the purpose OF actual settlement Now il is sngu
lar that distinction cannot be between this proposition
and such one mine. have continually argued, and
shall still continue to Argue that the proposition which have
Offered to cede the public lands purposes Of actual settle
ment will increase the value of the lands held by individuals
and by States And now will give the reasons for this If
we cede the lands for the purpose Of actual settlement they
will not pass into the hands Of individuals until they
be actually settled and occupied And hope may be per-
mted to use language upon this subject which have
heretofore used in answer to the objection from the Sc
nator from Michigan (Mr. FELcH After noticing bis OBJ
ection which that the would deprecate pro-
Perty now held by States and individuals. said
Why sir the very opposite would be its effect 10 the
country the city not the price demanded paid for
one lot OF land that increases the value of that adjoining bur
the improvements made and the biness done UPON IT, Take
the land owner in settlement Of the West and could
do him greater favor than give the about him to
those who would settle and improve necessity
Tor and the means TO support schools roads, mills workshops
and villages Or take the New York Boston Land Com.
pany whose lands stretch the State Illinois, could
you benefit them than by settling the lands about Them
and hemmpg in theirs with improved farms The same may
be said Of the school and other lands Of the States
Any body, 1t me- will see that this will increase
the value Of property owned by States and individuals But
what the difference between that proposition of and the
before us Here is proposition to the title of
portion Of the public lands within State in another State
be held by that State at its price, at not less than
dollar and quarter As the bill stands the State
may sell to whom peases speculation any quantity
peases and not to be improved increase the
ascent property to promote the interests Of the States
where the lands located BY the policy which propose
the lands would be settled and cultivated but here dis
nction, and hope may be drawn and hope least
that those who represent the States will the dnc
ton, and that they will not in policy suicidal
and which would to be inacion upon the best and
what ought be the dearest interests of those States
The other view which have presented of State and
political consideration. believe to be bad policy for
the General Government to be the public lands with
in the States. And much would it be if one State
should bo the proprietor of lands in another for if the State
within which the land situated allowed it,
great injustice would be done and if it allowed
IT. how would get at the collection of it, except by sale of
the land and dvesng of the title Of the other State If this
were not done, there must be conflict between States of
kind other and God forbid that there should be
more conflicts prospect Of conflicts between the States.
trust this bone of contention will not be thrown in among
them.
Mr. PEARCE. suppose the first part Of the Senator'S
argument may be answered by question How is the price
Of body of land be raised by giving away another and
much larger body of land The Senator supposes that by
giving lands to the landess the price of the lands will
be raised suppose that when get land for
thing he not very likely to give any price for it. Probably
no emotion of instinct of interests will
prompt him to buy what he may have for the asking do
not therefore, how that idea of the Senator be
allied, especially the bouHy land law is likely
cheaper the public lands much and indeed in great
measure to stop their sale. He is mistaken too in the idea
that this bill proposes to make State proprietor Of
lands within the limits Of another State It is provided that
when State has suitable lands within its limits it
may select lands within the territories Of the United States
That excludes his conclusion.
Mr. WALKER. That was expressly disavowed at the last
session of Congress If the debates of the last session upon
this bill be consulted, it will be found that it expressly
disavowed that the selection be confined the Terri
tories do not think, for one that the phraseoogy of the
bill will admit the construction put upon by the SEN
ator from Maryland. The Senator portion Of
argument by asking question will reply BY asking an
other question DO propose that the States which you
desire give lands within other States right that
shall go and improve the land and produce wheat pork,
rice tobacco and corn to improve the value of adon
ing school lands university lands, and farm lands No, sir
No such thing is proposed But 1t is proposed that
State shall hold lands within the limits Of another without
regard to the interests Of State within which the lands
situated When give lands actual settler, he goes
there, poughs the land fences in, builds houses and barns
raises the products have mentioned and contributes the
general wealth by increasing the value of property and thus
yields the State and the nation. There is the
difference between the policy here proposed and the policy
which propose.
Mr. PEARCE. It is not proposed, to be sure, that the
States to whom the lands granted shall improve and
cupy them But the bill makes the duty of the States to
offer the lands for sale Immediately and to sell them at the
earliest practicable day. That is tho provision Of the BILL
suppose those whom they sell the lands will 20 to work
Immediately and cultivate them.
Mr.. BORLAND. As representative Of one Of the new
States, desire to say word partly n response to the
marks OF the honorable Senator from Wisconsin, in regard to
the duties of of States in which there are
large bodies Of the public lands in favor Of this b
and it to that the which govern my judg
ment and opinion in regard it and all the
objections which the Senator from Wisconsin has urged He
says his object H the epresentve of State to bring
the public lands into private hands, and into cultivation,
that the States may become 10 the and faithful meaning
of the term, soveregns of the SOIL with the right Of taxing
and deriving from it. He also wishes TO enhance
the value Of other lands in the vicinity by bringing them into
cultivation and private possession
Sir, 1t seems to that this bill contributes to this very
end directly, materially, snd most vauably proposes
dves the United States of all title the land and put into
the possession of the Staes but not the Senator from
wisconsin seems 10 suppose for the States to hold in its pre-
sent condition, unoccuped and uncuvaed but with the
provision that shall be brought into private possession
and cultivation That strikes the object and effect Of
the bill.
The Senator speaks of the holding these lands by the
States Of the holding in dead hands, he called it. and
deriving from it. The object of the bill is to raise
fund for particular purpose How that fund be raised
derived from dry land cannot be derived except by selling
the land and putting il in private hands, We then
making provision by which the general improvement and
prosperity Of the andholdng States will be promoted and
by which will be yielded those States by enabling
them to tax the lands.
think the Senator is mistaken in supposng that this bill
either requires permits States in which there public
IN