The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-01-25
CONGRESSIONAL.
DEFERRED DEBATE.
THURSDAY. JANUARY %, 1859.

tee OF The whole ihe bill Is ~ granting The right Of
way and making grant OF land 10 the State of Iowa,
IN and OF the construction OF certain railroads in said
State
Mr.. DOUGLAS said: The State of Illinois has been
referred 10 IN the OF this debate and therefore
feel bound 10 say word or two in explanation The
allusion 10 the bill passed yesterday for The State OF m
nols, authorizing selection OF lands away from the line
OF the canal TO which applied is not at all applicable 10
The bill under consideration. The reason why these
lands 10 be selected elsewhere than on The line Of
The canal was that Congress had granted them nearly
twenty years ago TO the State of Illinois for making
nal, and the United States afterwards sold part of the
lands thus granted received the money and put il in the
treasury. And now you only give refuse lands else
where, less vasabe than those originally granted and
that after we had made the work ia compliance with
your own act OF Congress
With regard to the bill granting lands to the State OF
Limos at The last session, have also word 10 say
That bill involved the same principle as the one now un.
der consideration Hence ii was perfectly fair TO refer TO
that bill in illustration of this But deny that what has
been said IN regard TO donations, special avos. and par
al distribution OF the lands to the States has the
slightest foundation in the bill before u.s. or The act OF the
last session granting lands 10 Illinois Sir, il is
question OF the distribution OF the public lands amorg the
States is not question of Donation il were either
should be opposed 10 IT, am opposed to the distribu-
ton oil the public lands, either by partial system or
general system am opposed 10 aiding State by giving
lands as donation.
The friends OF this bill do not rest il upon any such
grounds. We ask the opponents OF the bill TO meet us
in argument upon the grounds which assume,
swer our arguments in favor of it, and not 10 i'm
agnary objections OF their The ground upon which
we place 1t IS this the government OF the United States
is great land owner she has vast bodies of land
which she has had in market for thirty forty years.
and experience proves that she cannot sell them. Shall
she keep them thirty or forty years longer and then not
be able TO sell them What advantage will they be to
the government while they are thus held9 The difficulty
IN The way OF their sale does not arise from the fact that
the lands not fertile and susceptible of cultivation
but that they distant from Market and in many
destitute OF timber No matter how fertile and produc-
tive they may be, still they vaueess unless the pro
duce will bear the expense OF the transportation TO
market It's on account OF the distance from market
and absence OF timber that you cannot sell the lands,
and cannot have them brought under cultivation.
The question then is, 'What you TO do TO remedy
the evil and enable you sell your lands and get the
money for them into the treasury and also 10 bring the
country into state of cultivation " Let ask each
senator what he would do il the his own I
What would you doll you were the landowners your
selyes Suppose you owned three hundred miles square
OF land which you could SELL and that you found
often the that the land you owned the poorer
you were in consequence OF the payment OF taxes these
lands; and suppose that would say TO you, gve me al
ernate sections OF six miles through those lands cond
ton that will make railroad through them, and enable
you 10 sell the remaining lands for double The price which
experience had proven you could not get for the whole
would you gladly adopt the proposition as being
good arrangement Tor your personal interest? Would
not the half OF the lands thus remaining you be worth
more alter the read made than the whole would be
before II was constfuciedl That is the simple question
and, viewing 1t such satisfied that there is not
single senator on this floor who would gladly make
the arrangement II he the individual landowner.
And u this would be good arrangement for any senator
here, why would il not be good policy for the country
and for the government of the United States TO adopt
landowners Mr. President, insist that these grants
in aid OF the construction of railroads enhance the value
OF the land fund. Instead of diminishing the revenue
that will be dervabe from public lands. we con-
tend that 1t will increase IT, Instead OF diminishing your
fund by this course, increase It's value instead OF de-
prylng you OF anything which is really valuable you
we show you way whereby you can make that valua-
BILE which, under your present policy is entirely value
less This is the ground which defend this policy
and II it not deiendabe this ground, there be
no justification OF The grant.
Now, take this particular case. Here is proposition
10 make railroad through the centre of the Stale of
Iowa. II you make this grant, you will double the
value and double the price of the alternate sections and
you will thus obtain for half all that you pretend TO
ask for the whole Now submit the senator from vir
ginia MIR HuNrERl whether, with road running
through them, these lands better worth two dollars
and a half per acre than they now worth dollar
and quarter without such road Bot he will perhaps
reply that experience will show in the Of time that
they will not be worth two dollars and half and that
then applications will be made 10 reduce the price But
il they not likely be worth dollars and half
per with the road, will they be likely TO yield
the government dollar and quarter per without
in IT, then, the road doubles the price OF your adjacent
lands, you lose nothing; and doubt whether there is
man within the sound OF my who does not believe
that the construction OF this road through these lands
would more than double their value, and enable you to
sell them quicker al that price than the price you
ask for them without the road
But SIR with regard TO this bill and others OF like
nature the argument is stronger than in the case of the
Illinois bull II IS this The road will not only run
through your public lands and increase their value along
the line, but in this will from the Mississippi
river 10 the Indian territory and thereby open market
for all he lands which you have west OF the Missouri
river TO The Rocky mountains And insist that the
construction OF railroad through the State Of Iowa 10
the Missouri would enhance the value OF Your lands
west of that river than times the value OF the
lands granted IN aid OF the road. The same would be
the result in regard 10 the east and west lines through
the State OF Missouri and also regard 10 the Arkansas
road, and presume generally in regard 10 the other
bills which have been referred 10 By the senator from
Virginia. These bills, however, not under
sldealion. II will be time enough 10 Judge oil them
when they up for action Besides, sir, more than
one-ha OF your transportation account Of your army
and the Indians Is aiming 10 90 To that Indian territory
west OF Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas These roads run
through the very section OF country over which your
supplies and munitions must be transported The gov
therefore, has peculiar interest IN The con-
stfucton Of these roads
But the senator from Virginia has told that the ques
ton would stand in different position in his view, il
we to be confined 10 the lands which lie the
line OF the road Why sir, this is The very proposition
OF the bill The grant is confined TO the line OF the road
Ii asks for alternate sections oi the width oi miles
on either sde with stipulation that you shall not go
beyond fifteen miles in The event that any OF the land
has been sold in the sections which you would be
titled by the bill ask, them il the construction OF
railroad in a country distant from market does en-
hance the value OF all land within fifteen thirty
miles Are not the beneficial Influences felt to the
tent OF fifty miles II, then, select the land no
further than the benefits extend on each side of the road
the principle applies with its full force. We might ex
tend this limit from fifteen fifty miles and then find
ourselves clearly within the circle of the beneficial n6u
resulting from the road IN enhancing the value OF
the remaining lands. But wished not TO 20 into ex
IRENE We wished 10 confne ourselves 10 the
principle that the United States is in fact receiving