The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1870-06-10


rapidly diminishing volume Of the
1 public lands. When these are ex
hausted subsidies must cease; anC
the policy will be telO de Sc, killed by
the destruction Of what it feeds on
Secondly. BY this policy three
iOurths of the lands within the linn
its of the grant are withdrawn from
the operation of the homestead laws
half being given to the company,
and homesteads limited to eighty
acres in the remainder. Then lands
given are with or without condition.
II with the condition that they shall
be sold to settlers only in quantities
not exceeding a quarter section to
one person, and for not exceeding
" % per acre, then supposing this
condition to be efectual, three
fourths of the land within the limits
OF the grant may and all the good
lands will be disposed Of only for
that price The lands may be set
tied sooner by men ofmeans, at
least enough to pay the price; but
what becomes of those who have not
the means to buy, of whom there
are many in all parts of the country! I!
Are they not driven beyond the lin
its'of the grant to obtain home
stead? And will it not soon become
impossible to obtain homestead at
all?
The dedication Of the public lands
to homestead settlement was not an
idle thing, Mr.. Speaker. It was a
munifcient provision by the Govern
ment for needy people; and hav-
ing sOlemnly declared that the lands
should be open to homestead settle
ment, it is bad faith for the Govern
ment now to Withdraw them. One
hundred and sixty acres of land, at
80 per acre, will cost $4OO. How
many thousands think YOU, Mr..
Speaker, are there in this broad land
who would gladly avail themselves
of the homestead law that will be IN
able to obtain home within the lin
its of a railroad grant? Four hun
dred dollars may be a contemplate
sum in the estimation of gentleman
who count their wealth BY millions
or by thousands, who toll not. and
do not spin. But there are thous-
ands Of men who, with willing hearts
and strong hands, toll upon the
farms and in the workshops, and
factories of this country to whom
| S400 would be a fortune. How many
laboring men, even in the factories
Of Massachusetts, to enable whom
to receive remunerative wages we
are urged to, and in fact do tax the
whole country by protective tariffs,
have q surplus Of $500? And ifthey
have these savings, of how many
years Of toll is it the result? 1t is
unjust, Mr.. Speaker, to the laboring
men Of this generation and to those
Of all time to come, to withdraw the
public lands or any part of them
from homestead settlement.
But, Mr.. Speaker, while I am in
favor, if grants are to be made at all
of imposing the condition that the
lands shall be sold to settlers in quar-
ter sections at not more than $3.50
an acre. have very little faith in
the condition as a security against
monopoly; nor would my faith be
much increased by more specific pro-
visions. The company is not bound
to sell the land within a given time.
and after the road is built and the
lands become valuable by reason
thereof, it would be easy to see with
plausibility, not to say equity, they
might ask a future Congress to be
relieved. Suppose lands in the vi
cinity of the road, worth twenty or
fifty dollars per acre by reason of
the road, and somebody wants to
settle on them and pay but $3.50 per
acre, where would the equity be, Mr..
Speaker? Where would Congress
find in to be? Would it be unjust
that the company should realize the
value of its land, which was given
as an inducement o build the road:
Would it, on the other hand, be Just
that it should be compelled to sur
render it for tenth or a twentieth
of its value to a mousirg speculator,
who for the bargain would settle on
the land? 1t seems to me it would
be easy to determine the equities in
the case, and that the company would
be relieved.
Thirdly. The public lands are the
common property of the whole coun-
try; and it is unequal and unjust
that they should be exclusively APP
propriated in aiding improvement
in those States and sections only in
which they may be found. True,
grants have not always been Oflands
contiguous to proposed improve
ments, and bills are pending asking
grants Of lands distant from and not
by proposed improvements;
but these may be regarded, perhaps,
as exceptional cases. Partly as an
against such bills, and
partly arguments against land grants
generally, but also. if the policy of
lands in aid of public works
should continue to be adhered to,
to enable me to claim in behalf Of
my own people the right to partici-
pate in the common property Of the
country, and to equal recognition in
benefits to be conferred in aiding rail
roads, l introduced a bill myself
asking a grant of lands in aid of
roads in my own State, which is pen
ding.
As an argument against land grants
generally or in special cases,
however, l need not have introduc-
ed it; because bills have since been
for grants in aid of
road from Norfolk to New York,
Of line of steamers to the Mediter-
anian, and of a submarine telegraph
across the ocean, which are better
than my bill.
If Congress may appropriate
lands. it may appropriate scrip or
money in aid of railroad; aud if it
may make such appropriation to in
ducc settlement and cultivation, by
creating means of access, transpOr-
tation, and Il market, it may, and a
tortiori ought to make such appro-
priation to furnish means Of trans
portation and a market for lands al-
rendv Settled and under cultivation.