Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-05-05

the present property of this government.
 The House bill is destitute of symmetry and sympathy, and of any provision which is calculated to improve the revenue thathas hitherto been derived from the public lands. The Senate bill, while going upon the idea of aiding the settler gives him the land at low price, but ill the mean time gives him the right to pay the full price, and to perfect his title at any time during the five years After he has settled the land and improved if for two or three years, he may reflect, II may die tomorrow, and 1 may leave my wife and children without protection" II am we'll enough off now to pay for the land; 1 will pay the government price at once; 1 will have my title perfected; and then, if die, 1t will go to my family with out any question; 1 will pay the money, and sleep easy in my bed at night" We have put in the bill provision allowing the settler to pay for his land at any time within the five years. According to the statistics furnished by past experience, un- der circumstances less favorable than this, seventv-two per cent. of the settlers came forward and paid the full price before the expiration of the time, when they could obtain perfect titles under the donation acts. This point desire to address to the attention of democratic Senators, who have been most strenuously opposed to the whole system.
 This Senate bill offers to the settler the right to pay the full price and to perfect his title at any time during the five years; and this the statistics prove will secure full price for seventy-two per cent. ot all the en- tries that are attempted to be made under | the act, at the rate of twenty-five cents an acre. Upon this point 1t is but proper that | I should read to the Senate some statistics which have been furnished me by the com- missioner of the general land office. It is moi to be concealed that serious objection to the whole measure has been that, in the 1 first place, it was gratuity-a giving away of the public property for nothing. That was the great point that oppressed the minds of all who opposed the original bill; and now, when this bill proposes to require the payment of the original cost of the land to the government-twenty-6 cents an acre still, l have no question that its reduced price will be q serious source of objection in the minds of great number of persons, and nav. and | presume will, lead some to vote against the passage of the bill. There are some statistics on this point which, l con less, were to me surprising; but they are the actual results of the experiment of donation acts in the cases of Oregon and Florida. In those cases donations of land were made up on condition of four years settlement; at the end of which time the settlers were to have perfect title without paying single cent. Tn response to my inquiries as to the result of these laws, l will read what the commis- sioner of the general land office, Mr. Will son, says. And first in regard to the Ore gon act; law passed in 1850, upon four years settlement, gave to the parties who settled on the land six hundred and forty acres for those who were there already, and there hundred and twenty acres to the heads of families who might go and settle thereat- ter. In reference to my inquiries as to the practical workings of this act, the commis- sioner says:
 q have the honor to submit the result of an ex- animation made in five hundred and eighty-one of the oldest cases of donation under the act of 2lth September, 1850, and acts amendatory, which have been proved up.
 Of this number, there are for donations, after the full period of settlement, three hundred and sixty-six.
 Paid in, under acts of 1853 and 1854, two hun dred and fifteen."
 The acts of 1858 and 1854 were acts pro- cured by the Senator from Oregon as a delegate in the other House, allowing these people, on their urgent petition to Congress, to come forward and enter their land and pay the whole price, rather than to be kept four years in that condition that they did not know whether they would get the land in the end or not, although 1t was pledged to them by an act of Congress as dona- tion. What was the result? It is some what striking. The delegate came here and earnestly pressed their application to be allowed to pay for their land. Congress said: Very well; if they choose to aban don the right of taking this land for noth- l ing in quantities of six hundred and forty acres for all settlers who were there before the passage of the act of lS0O and three hundred and twenty acres for all heads of families who went there after the passage of the act; if they choose to abandon those good terms and pay the full price of the land they shall be permitted to do so, and receive their patents." What was the et feet? The commissioner says that two hundred and fifteen paid for their land, and
 "Of the three hundred and siXty-si1 claims in virtue of the full settlement period, two hundred and eighty three or about seyenty-seven per cent, rejected before the passage of the act of le50"
 The first settlements were made when the settlers had no thought that Congress would ever extend to them so great a credit:
 "Of the two hundred and ninety-seven claims under settlement subsequent to the passage of the donation act of 1850, only eighty three, or about twenty eight per cent, were allowed m virtue oi the iull period of settlement"
 Only cighty-three out of the whole num- Der ever staid long enough to get the benefit of the act. The commissioner continues;
 "The progress of that period having brought them within the purview of the purchase acts of lS53-'5l the settlers avaied themselves of those acts and made the payment required, in cases amounting to seventy two per cent"
 Of all who started to take the benefit of the donation act, seventy-two per cent. ac tuallv paid the full price of the land and obtained their patents without waiting for the expiration of the period of settlement at which they would obtain titles for noth- ing. Then what is the objection that can exist on this side of the house against this measure on the ground that it IS consuming and sezing and carrying away all the pub lie lands, when absolutely but twenty-eight per cent ever got the benefits of donation act where there was the most palpable in ducement to which they could be subjected? l think this point IS demonstrated by the test of facts and actual experience with such clearness and ditinctness that 1t can need no further argument in support of 1t. In the letter from which l have already quoted, the commissioner of the general land office says further:
 "The preponderance of paid settlement claims has steadily increased; for we find that of the claims returned under settlement originating in lS54 only allowed on settlement to sixty two, or about-eigh per cent, on payment"
 It is astonishing. I had never thought that such facts existed; but here they are under the working of system almost parallel with what was the original propo- sition of the House of Representatives cratuitous gift; and if that be so under those