Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-05-27


g II cannot be doubted that the speedy settlement
Of those lands constitute the true interests Of the
Republic. The wealth aud strength Of a country
sre its population and the best part Of the popula-
ton, are eultivators Of the soil Independent far
mers are everywhere the basis Of society, and the
true friends Of liberty"
tsIt seems to me 10 be our true policy that the
public lands shall cease, as soon as practicable to
be source Of revnue and tbat they be sold to set
tiers in limited parcels at prices barely sufficient to
reimburse the United States the expense Of the
present system, and the cost arising from our lndi-
an contracts"
It is desirable, however, that the right Of soil,
and the future disposition Of it. be SURRENDERED to
the States, respectively in which il lies"
The adventurous and hardy population Of the
West besides contributing their equal share Of tax
alton under the mpost system, have, in the progress
Of our Government for the lands they occupy, paid
into the Treasury large proportion Of forty mir
lion dOlar, and Of the revenue received therefrom
but a small portion has been expended among them.
When to the disadvantage Of their siuatien in this
respect we add the consideration that 1t is their
labor alone that gives real value to the lands, and
that the proceeds arising from these sales chiefly
distributed among States that had not originally
any claim to tbom, and which have enjoyed the IN
divided emoluments arising from the sales Of iheiI
own lands il cannot be expected that the new
States will remsn longer contented withthe present
policy, after the payment Of The public debt. To
avert the consequences which may be apprehtnled
from this cause TO stop forever all partial and infer
ested legislation on this subject aud to afford every
American citizen Of enterprise the opportunity Of
securing an independent freeb old, it seems 10 me
therefore best to abandon the idea Of raising fu
tuIe revenue cut Of the public lands"
Then We have standing before US, in advocacy Of
this great principle, the first writer Of laws Moses
next we have Vattel and in the third place we have
r.mn rhafIr fhrrn hos
been any homestead policy in the United States -
By turning TO our statutes, we find that the frs
homestead bill ever introduced into the Congress Of
the United States was in 1871. know that It is
said by some, and sometimes cantingly and slur-
ringy reiterated in the newspapers, that this is
demagogical movement, and that some person has
introduced and advocated this policy purely for the
purpose Of pleasing the people. want to see who
some Of these demagOgues are; and before read the
Of this statute will refer in connection with jack
and these other distinguished individuals to the
fact that Mr. Jefferson, the philosopher and states
man, recognized and appreciated this great doctrine
In 1884, the first bill passed by the Congress Of the
United States recognizing the homestead principle
is in the following words:
ssThat four hundred acres Of land be given -
That is the language Of the statute. We do moi
assume in this bill to give land. We assume that
consideration passes; but here was law that was
based on the idea that four hundred acres Of LAND
were to be given
-''tO each Of those persons who in the year 1888
we're heads Of families at Vincennes OF the Illinois
country, or the Mississippi, aud who, since thai
time, have removed from one Of the said places tC
the other; but the Governor of the Territory north
west of the Ohio is hereby directed to cause the
same TO be laid out for them at their own expense
&c.
Another section of the same act provides:
"That the heads Of families at Vincennes, or in
the Illinois country theyear 1888, who afterwards
removed without the limits of said Territory are
nevertheless entitled to the donation of four hun
dred acres Ofland made by the resolve OfCongress,
&c.
That act recognized the principle embraced in the
homestead bill If this Is the idea Of a demagogue
if it is the idea Of one catering or pandering tC
the public sentiment to catch votes, it was inro-
duced into Congress in 1871, and received the ap-
proval of Washington. the father Of his country
presume that if he LIVED at this day. and we're tC
approve the measure, as he did in 1871, he would
be branded, and put in the category Of those per
sons who are denominated demagogues. Under his
administration there was another bill passed of a
similar import, recognizing and carrying out the
great homestead principle. 50 We find that this
policy, far as legislation concerned commenced
with Washington, and received his approval early
as 1891. From General WashiDgton's administra.
ton there foEty-foUrprecedens running through
every administration of this Government, down to
the present time, in which this principle has been
recognized aud Endorsed.
We discover from this historical review that this
is no new idea that it is no recent invention; that
tits no new movement for the purpose of making
votes but 1t is principle well nigh as old as the
Government itself, which was Endorsed and approx
ed by Washington himself
This would SEEM Mr.. President, to settle the ques-
ton of power know 1t has been argued by some
that Congress had not the power to MAKE donations
Of land; but even the statute, to which have re-
ferred, makes use Of the word give" without con-
siderstion 1t was considered CONSTITUTE onal by the
early fathers to give away land We proceed Ia this
bill upon the principle that there is consideration
If we're disposed TO look for precedeuts, even for
the donations Of the public lands l could instance
the bounty land act could take you through other
acts donating land, showing that the principle has
been recognized again and again, and that there IS
not now question as to its cOnstituuOnality. be-
Eeve there Is a clear difference in the power Of the
Federal Government in reference to its apprOpria-
tons Of money and its appropriations Of the public
land. The Congress of the United States has power
to lay and collect taxes duties mposts, and excuses
pay the debts and provide for the common defense
aud general welfare. l believe II has the power to
lay and collect duties for these legitimate purposes
but when taxes have been laid collected, and paid
into the Treasury do not think it has that general
scope or that latitude in the appropriations Of money
that it has over the public lands. Once converted
into revenue, Congress can only appropriate the
revenue TO the specific objects Of the Constitution
L. may derive revenue from the public lands, and
being revenue, it can only be appropriated to the
purposes for which is raised under the Con-
situtiOn.
But when we turn to another provision Of the
Constitution, We sind that Congress has power 4" to
dispose of and make all needful rules ard regula-
lions respecting the territory other property be-
longing TO the United States" Congress has, in the
of all the Territories and in the admis-
sion Of new States, recognized the principle most
clearly of apprOpriating the public lands for the
benefit Of schools, colleges. and academies. Il has
granted the sixteenth and thirty sixth sections in
every township for school purposes; it has granted
lands for their public buildings and various other
am very clear on this point that
in the disposition Of the public lands they should
be applied TO national purposes II we grant the
public lands to actual settlers as to induce them to
settle upon ard cultivate the public lands there
be anything more national In its character? What
is the great object Of acquiring territory Is it
not for settlement and cultivation? We may acquire
territory cy the exercise Of the treaty making power
We may be engaged in a war; and as terms or con
ditions Of peace we may make large acquisitions Of
territory to the United States. But what is the
great idea and principle which you acquire terri
tOryl Is it not to settle and cultivate it
am aware that the argument Is used, If you can
dispose Of the public lands for this purpose that
purpose cannot you sell the public lands and apply
the ro,eeds TO the same purpose? think there is
a clear distinction between the two cases. Il is
equally clear to me that if the Federal Government
can set apart the public lands for school purposes
in the new States, it appropriate lands to enable
the parent to sustain his child whilst enjoying the
benefits conferred upon him by the Government in
the shape Of education. The argument is as sound
in the one case as It is in the other If can
grant lands in the one case in the other. If
without making contract in advance, you can grant
your public lands grauties, as donations to men
who 90 out and fight the battles Of their country,
after the services have been rendered, Is it not
strange passing strange that you cannot grant land
te those who till the soil and make provision to
sustain your Army while it is fighting the battles Of
the country? Ii seems TO me that the argument is
clear / do not intend TO argue the constitutional
question, for l think there can be really no doubt
on that point l DO not believe any a. this day
will seriouely make any point on that ground
against this bill. Is its purpose a national one =
The great object is to induce persons to cultivate
the land and thereby make the soil productive. By
doing this you Induce hundreds Of persons through
out the United States, who are now producing but
little TO come in contact with the soil and add TO
the productive capacity Of the country, and thereby
promote the national veal.
nov come now to the amendment offered by the
-