Year: 1872

Mr.. SPEAKER l had the honor OF
introducing, some weeks ago, the follow
ing resolution proposing an amendment
to the Constitution in relation to the dis
posal of the public lands of the United
States, which l propose to make the basis
Of my remarks at this time


Joint resolution proposing an amendment


to the Constitution in relation to the


disposal of the public lands.


Resolved by the Senate and House OF
Representatives. Of the Uetted States OF
America m Congress assembled, two
thirds of each House concurring therein
That the following article be proposed to
the Legislatures of the several States, as
an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, which, when ratified by
three. fourths of said States, shall become
and be held part of the Constitution OF
the United States


ARTICLE.


SECTION /. The public lands of the
United States shall not be disposed OF
except to actual settlers thereon, fol
homestead purposes only, and in quaint
ties limited by general laws.


| know of no question so vitality inter
csting to the people Of the United States
rs this. | introduced this proposed
amendment because hold the following
propositions to be true that the public
lands belong to the people; that they
should only be parted with in small guam
titles as homesteads for the poor, and
that this result can only be reached by
constitutional amendment.


The first of these propositions is so sim
pie that it would seem to need only its
statement to verify its truth for in all
times and under all Governments the
chief power in the nation has assumed
and has been conceded the right to dis
pose by gift or otherwise of all lands ac-
quired by the Government by treaty, sale
or conquest, the title to which was not
claimed by private individuals. Thus
we find the kings of Great Britain grant
ing to individual subjects the wild lands
in the American colonies. This being
the case, it follows that III this Republic,
where the people are sovereign, they have
the sole right to ALLEVIATE or dispose OF the
public lands.


That the public domain should be parted
with only in small quantities as home
steads for the poor seems to me equally
apparent.


AS long as poor human nature is con
stituted as it now is, self interest will be
IA strong motive power, and by this system
you would build up thousands and mill
ions of land holders whose interest in the
soil would in turn educate them and their
families into tens of thousands and tens
of millions of stubborn and determined
defenders of the integrity of the Republic,
All history teaches that the land-holder
is friend to stable government. He has
too much ut stake to allow slight causes
or chimercal wrongs to lead him into
revolt. The agitator assaults him with
fancied injuries in vain, for he knows that
revolution may lift the roof from over the
heads of his children, and even deprive
him of the title to his homestead itself.
Nor is this all. There is higher impulse
still. Ownership of the land promotes
and fosters pure patriotism. The land
owner, no matter how small his domain,
by his near relations to the Government,
by that lively affection for his home
which all men feel, is filled with glow.
ing love for his country and veneration
for her laws; for has he not a part and
parcel of her soil The bereaved mother
who raises her streaming eyes to heaven
has u greater love and alteration for it.
shining portals and golden streets because
she knows it is the home and abiding
place of her darling who has gone before
And so it is here. That man has a great.
er love and affection for his country who
knows that while she exists he and his
children have a permanent home and
abiding place on her domain.


But again, the adoption of this rule will
check the tendency to a kind of modern
feudalism, which | conceive to be the
growing evil of the times. The concen-
tration of immense tracts of land into the
hands of the few, of necessity must create
landed aristocracy, and place at its feet
bound hand and foot, the labor interest
of the country. We have read history
in vain, Mr.. Speaker, ii it has not taught
us that landed aristocraey must have
some kind of slavery or serfdom to sup.
port it. That it cannot exist in Repub.
lie where all men are free our own history
teaches. The antagonism of slavery and
a system of small landed proprietors i.
strikingly exempifed by the rapidity
with which the "peculiar institution >
disappeared from the Eastern States, and
the late gigantic struggle with the SoutI
has only too wildly portrayed the tenacity
with which the large landed proprietor
clings to system without which his larg,
estates are cumbersome and of no value
! When you destroyed slavery at the