The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-01-29

making grant OF land TO the State of Iowa. aid OF the
ohsuucuon oil certain railroads in the State OF Iowa
Ihe pending question being on the substitute reported
from Inc Committee on Public Lands, model BILL in
relation TO all grants OF lands for the construction OF rail-
Mr. UNDERWOOD said Mr. President, when the
adjournment took place on Thursday last about to
pay my respects to the senator from Illinois. [Mr DouG
LAS and 10 notice his argument will now proceed 10
perform the task which have allotted TO myself and
will doit with AS much brevity possibly can In the
commencement OF his argument the senator said that this
was not question OF the distribution of the proceeds of
sales, or donation of public lands to the States He
sald tnat II u were question OF "distlibuon'
I" Donation" he should oppose either, thereby showing
give the lands to the several States constituting our
confederation But il seems TO me that my friend from
Illinois feli into most striking Inconsistency before he
got through his remarks Although he was opposed
to everything like donation TO the States, he wound
up oy stating that he was in hopes the policy would
DC adopted OF donating TO individuals. who should
constitute actual settlers upon the lands. Il seems
70 me that II there be no considerations OF public pol
ICY which VIII justify donations to the States. there
are are none which would justify donations 10 individuals
hey are both gifts; they are both gralues. Viewing
them in the light OF Donations their policy can only be
defended upon the ground that the improvement and
tlement OF the country constitute objects OF such value
that you will be justified in making donations to actual
settlers II mere settlement and improvement justify
donation to private individual, why may not public
advantages, resulting from improving the country by rail-
roads and canals equally justify grant or donation 10
State Where is the difference in principle There
be none, For in making distributions or donations to
the States, act the idea that the interest of the
grea whole IS promoted by IT. and in making donations
TO actual settlers, you only do upon the idea
seems, too, that any principle which toeraes dona
uon TO settlers for the Improvement of the country equal
susains the grants to States, when the grant
nected with such improvements clearly conduce the
general welfare. In using national property and in CIV
ing il away, the gentleman doubtless means 10 benefit the
nation can see no difference in principle between the
dement, resulting from settling and improving the country
and mat which arises from the construction OF railroads
and canals.
The whole argument Of my friend from Illinois is based
enrey upon the ground that the remaining lands, after
you grant The alternate sections for railroads and canals
are increased in value by the grant such extent thai
the government OF the United States loses nothing In
nation or distribution merely. After taking position Of
that SORT ne saw that this bill would be attacked on the
ground that il was donation which he had condemned
was therefore, necessary for him to show that the bill
occupied position which escaped his condemnation ;
and TO DO that, be goes upon the principle that by grant
ne alternate sections you increase the value OF those
loses nothing Now, is true that the government loses
nothing by these grants Of alternate secons Is true
mat the retained sections become sufficiently valuable to
indemniy the government Tor giving away half the pub
lc lands within Six miles either side of the road
In the rst place, let me remark that when you double
lhe price upon the retained sections, you postpone the
sale upon those sections Tor ten weve perhaps for
hiteen years You do not bring the reserved sections
INTO market until after the Improvement has been made
do not know that any OF these reserved sections have
been brought into market in any instance since
have granted alternate sections for internal improve
menis They may have been sold, for aught know. II
So my friend from Michigan. MIR. FELcH,l the chair
form me, and shall be glad TO know from him whether
any OF the reserved sections have been brought into
ket and been sold.
MIR. FELCH. As understand the matter, the sections
lying along the line of the canal for which grants have
heretofore been made in Indiana and Illinois, have been
sold. The alternate sections the line of that canal
have been brought into market and sold at double the
usual prce; that is, at So so per recolect very
well that at The last Congress application was made by
some persons who wished to buy portion OF these lands
with bountyand warrants, which could not at that time
be used for the purpose. We passed a law authorizing
bounty land warrants TO be received 10 payment for pub
lie lands at the rate of 81 25 acre Time enough has
not yet elapsed the passage OF the laws oil last Con-
gress granting lands Tor Improvement purposes 10 know
how many OF the alternate sections have been sod but
am quite certain that the provision OF the law doubling
the price OF the reserved sections has been faithfully
ried out do not know OF any instance where II has
Nj Mr. UNDERWOOD No doubt the provision Of the
law will be carried out But the point which wish TO
make is that, when il carried out 1t is done only
fve ten een years after the grant has been made
the State, and after the reservation takes place.
Mr.. JONES, OF Iowa The alternate sections OF land
reserved TO the United States kept OF market only
until the line OF particular railroad is designated. As
soon as that done, or at least as soon as is surveyed
the lands reserved by the government the line OF the
road are brought into market
MIR. UNDERWOOD. do not know the length OF
time they are kept out OF market have called for in
formation No doubt my friends from the land States are
better informed on the subject than am. They have
given their statements TO the Senate Ii appears at all
events that these reserved lands kept back from sale
for time How long the time is does not distinctly
appear. My friend who last addressed says they
brought into market just soon as the line OF the
canal railroad Is designated, and the selections are
men sustans is proportionatey diminished II the time
long, the injury which the government sustans pro-
portionatey increased Whether the time be short
long, the government sustans injury IN proportion 10 the
time by Withholding the lands from market, and IN keep
ing money ou, OF the treasury during the delay There
can be avoiding this conclusion. ii II be the policy OF
the government TO obtain money and put II into the
execution OF that policy, by Withholding the lands from
market you infct propoonate injury upon the coun-
Try al large
A SENATOR having intmaied his dissent
Mr. u. said Well II II is injury keep money out
OF the treasury by delay suppose the government would
sustain none II money was Fever brought into il again
The argument is argument OF time and the gentle
inmacs that time is OF consequence--ihat time
not element OF importance. But be gotten
round in that way. Time is element in the considera
ion of this question: aud has it's weight in proportion
the delay,
which he jushes these grants for railroad purposes rests
entirely the ground that the reserved lands are in.
creased in value He admits that ii this bill is not de-
fensibe upon that greund there can be no Jushcaton
for it. Il would have been strange process OF reason
ing had the senator from Illinois undertaken to prove
that granting lands actual settlers for nothing would
increase the value OF the land fund.- which at one time in
his argument he seemed anxious TO husband and I'M
prove he had suggested in regard to settlers the same
rule which this bill applies to the Satcto w.t. the grant
OF alternate sections and doubling the price OF those re-
taned-he might have made something out OF the argu.
ment but his Willingness donate the lands to ac-
tua scilersfor tina, is his language-wthoutr reserv-