"Despise not these Squatters."
The bill to
encourage agriculture, commerce, manufactures, and all other branches of
industry, by granting to every man who is the head of a family, and a citizen
of the United States, a homestead of one hundred and sixty acres of land out of
the public domain, upon condition of occupancy and cultivation of the same, for
the period herein specified, being under consideration, in Committee of the
Whole—Mr. BROWN said:
MR. CHAIRMAN: — It
is my purpose to submit a few remarks on the proposition before the committee,
and, however tempted by the example of others, I shall endeavor to keep within
the lines of legitimate debate on the bill and the pending amendments.
I claim to have been
among the earliest, as I have certainly been among the most steadfast friends
of the wise and humane policy of providing homes for the homeless.
This government is
the largest landed proprietor in the world. Its acres of untilled soil are
numbered by the hundreds of millions. Of the area embraced within the limits of
the Union, only about one-third is in the hands of private individuals. Nearly
two-thirds belong to, or are subject to the disposition of the federal
government. Under the general authority to dispose of and make
all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and
other property of the United States, Congress has from time to
time disposed of the territory for cash, and on a credit. Congress has disposed
of the territory for school purposes and for internal improvement purposes,
giving it to the states, to corporations, and to private
companies, for these and other purposes. Congress has, from time to time, voted
bounties to soldiers, to be paid in land; and these bounties have been voted in
times of war, as an inducement to volunteer, and in time of peace as a naked
gratuity. This legislation—these modes of disposing of territory—has received
the sanction of all the presidents, and of every class of politicians.
Precedent, I grant you, is the weakest of all authority, but so far as it goes,
it settles the question of power in this case. If Congress can sell the public
lands on a credit, or for one dollar and a quarter cash, per acre, why may we
not sell them for one dollar, or for ten cents, or for one cent per acre? If we
can give the new states, as we did in 1842, five hundred thousand acres each
for internal improvement purposes—if, as in the case of every new state, the
sixteenth section in each township can be given for common-school purposes-if,
as in the case of my own and most of the new states, we can give lands for
seats of government, and for colleges and for universities-if, as in the case
of the Mexican war, and later, in the case of all our Indian and other wars,
the honorably-discharged soldier can have lands given him, is
it not idle to dispute the plenary power of the government to dispose of
these lands-to give them, if you choose, to actual settlers?
The government holds
the lands of Oregon by the same title—certainly by no higher title than it
holds the lands in Mississippi, Minnesota, and other states and territories—and
it is within the recollection of all of us, that during the last Congress
we gave lands to the settlers in Oregon—to some a whole
section; to some a half section, and to some a quarter section. Here is a
precedent exactly in point, and it covers the whole question of power.
No one doubts my
disposition to construe the powers of this government strictly-to confine it
within the sphere of its delegative powers. And yet, looking at the unlimited
authority given by the Constitution to dispose of the territory as property, I
am free to confess that my mind is not only clear, but it is free from any
shadow of doubt as to the power.* It is given in express terms, and nothing is
left to implication. That the power may be abused is certainly true; and that
abuses may violate the spirit of the Constitution is just as true. It is
expected of Congress that it will dispose of the territory judiciously, and for
the common good. A prodigal and wasteful disposition of it would be an abuse of
power, and therefore a violation of the spirit of the Constitution.
The abuse, or the
apprehended abuse of a power, does not at all affect the question of its
existence. Congress, for example, has the power to declare war, and to this
there is no limit. An unnecessary or wanton declaration would violate the
spirit of the Constitution, but it would not affect the question of power. No
one can dispute the power of Congress to declare war, however much we may
deprecate its exercise in a given case.
The power to dispose
of the public lands is just as clear as the power to declare war, and it is
quite as unlimited.† I apprehend, therefore, that gentlemen are mistaken when
they deny the constitutional power of Congress to pass this bill. The power is
one thing, the propriety of its exercise is another, and a very different
thing.
This brings us to
consider the expediency of passing this bill. If it shall be found promotive of
all the essential interests of the government, I take it, there can be no
dispute about its expediency. And if it shall be found expedient, we shall be
excluded from the conclusion that it is violative of the spirit of the Constitution.
No exercise of a specific grant of power can violate the spirit of the
Constitution, when it is only carried to the extent of promoting the general welfare.
If the bill shall
pass in the form in which it was moved by my honorable friend from Tennessee
[Mr. Johnson], or if the substitute moved by myself shall be preferred, in
either case the great essential object aimed at by the friends of the homeless will
have been attained. Homes will have been provided for all.
I shall presently
contrast the relative advantages of the original bill and the substitute. But
before entering upon this branch of the subject, allow me to submit a few
general remarks on the point as to how the general interest of the country is
to be promoted by the passage of this bill. The field for observation which
opens at this point is a large one, and I do not propose to occupy the whole,
nor indeed any considerable part of it.
It is indisputably
true that every government has a general interest, as every good man certainly
has a special interest, in preserving and promoting the public morals. Homeless
people are generally an idle people, and idle people almost always become
vicious. It has been aptly said, "an idle mind is the devil's
work-shop." Men with homes are sometimes vicious, but men without homes
are generally so. As a conservator of the public morals, I would pass this
bill, and thus promote the general welfare.
We all have a stake
in the happiness of our kind. Poverty and happiness are not incompatible.
Indeed, they may be found in very good companionship. But when poverty becomes
so inexorable as to turn a man, with his wife and children, out of doors,
happiness is very apt to take its departure. A very sublime degree of piety
might enable one of us to exclaim, "the foxes have holes, and the birds of
the air have nests, but the son of man hath not where to lay his head,"
and yet be happy. But, I take leave to say, it has fallen to the lot of but few
of us to be blessed with such a sublimity of piety. As one who looks to the
happiness of the people, I will vote for this bill, and in this way promote
the general welfare.
Every man who loves
his country will sow the seeds of patriotism, not among thorns, nor upon stony
ground, but upon good ground, where they may vegetate and bring forth fruit,
ten, sixty, and an hundred fold.
When the hundreds
and thousands of your homeless people look out upon your vast domains, and see
them tenanted only by wild beasts, they will ask, is my poverty so great a
crime that my government prefers these beasts to me? am I to be kept in penury
and want, and leave to my children no inheritance but poverty, whilst my
government guards, like a surly mastiff, this mighty wilderness, which God in
his providence has created for man, and not for beasts? These men's hearts will
become stony, and the seeds of patriotism, though sown therein by your wisest,
purest, and best political husbandmen, will not vegetate. Withdraw, then, your
sullen, dogged watch over these lands. Say to your people, Heaven, in its
bounteous providence, has given these lands and their fulness for your benefit:
go and enjoy them.
Their hearts will
leap with joy; the seeds of patriotism, though sown by such poor husbandmen as
ourselves, will spring up and grow. They will put forth shoots that will
entwine themselves about the country, and, growing stronger as they grow older,
they will knit the hearts of the people to the government as with threads of
steel. As I would encourage patriotism, I would pass this bill, and thus
promote the general welfare.
The whole country as
a unit, and all its parts, is and are interested in the profitable employment
of the productive industry of the nation. It has been well said that "the
man who makes two blades of grass grow this year, where but one grew last year,
is a benefactor of his race." How much more must he be a benefactor who
subtracts hundreds and thousands from the consuming, and adds them to the
producing classes; or causes by his judicious policy, a barren wilderness to
pour its millions into the nation's store-house! As I would employ labor—as I
would reduce the number of consumers and increase the number of producers; as I
would reap rich harvests next year, where nothing has been planted this year—I
would pass this bill, and in this way promote the general welfare.
If the public morals
may be improved, the public happiness promoted, patriotism enlarged, and the
wealth of the nation increased by the passage of this bill, why shall we not
pass it?
We have seen there
is no lack of power. It seems to be promotive of the general welfare. If there
be well-founded objections to its passage, they must therefore exist in some
other quarter. This leads me to inquire whether any general or local interest
will be injured if the bill passes?
It has been urged by
the representatives from the old states that it will draw off their population.
That the new states will grow strong under its operations, whilst the old states
will grow proportionably weak. This objection is not well taken.
That there will be
an impetus given to emigration, if the bill passes, is possible, but of its
character, in the main, there can be no question. The landed proprietors—those
who have comfortable homes, and are living independently—will find no
sufficient inducement in the provisions of this bill to abandon those lands,
give up their homes, and seek the privations incident to a new country. The
well settled and prosperous portion of your citizens will not leave you to
embrace the advantages of this bill.
In all the old
states there are large numbers who are landless and houseless, who are
dependent on the bounty or favor of others for the means of living. There are
many thousands who belong to the consuming rather than to the producing class.
Is it your interest or your policy to retain such a population? Is it not
better to give them up, let them go, and even encourage their exit? I do not
mean to say that these people, under other circumstances, might not be good and
profitable citizens. I intend to say that a man without a house, and without a
home, is very likely to fall into bad habits, and to become an incubus upon the
country in which he lives. And that it is therefore better to encourage this
emigration to a country where he can have land, a house, a home, and where he
will be almost certain to become a useful citizen. Of the thousands in the old
states who have neither lands nor houses, how few will ever rise above their
present position! Some, I know, will set poverty at defiance, and move on to
independence, or, it may be, to fortune. But the great mass will live and die
as they have begun life, with no estate but penury.
In this view of the
subject, the local interests of the old states will not be injured, but must,
on the contrary, be essentially promoted by the passage of this bill.
I can imagine no
worse condition of society than where a considerable portion of the people are
without homes of their own, nor any better condition than where every man is
his own landlord. Instead of sending sheriffs with armed posses to
collect rents for the lordly proprietor, let us say to the unhappy tenants,
Give up these lands, and take others that are better. They are the free-will
offering of your government. In all this I see no sacrifice, but rather the
promotion of the local interests of the old states.
The fear has been
expressed that the passage of this bill will encourage an influx of foreigners,
and that, instead of 500,000 per annum, we shall have 1,000,000 of emigrants to
our shores. I do not think so. All come now that can get here. They come for
freedom, and not for land. But suppose this prediction should prove true, I
shall not be appalled. Let them come; yes, sir, let them come. They are of the
same great family with ourselves. Heaven made this mighty continent not for our
benefit alone, but for the use and benefit of all mankind. Let them come to it
freely. It is the gift of God, and we have no right to withhold it from his
people.
What is the
objection to an increase of our foreign population? I have heard but one that
is worthy of consideration; and that is, that they congregate about our towns,
oftentimes become unruly, and too frequently swell the calendars of crime. This
bill strikes down this objection at a single blow. It encourages these people
to abandon the purlieus of your towns and cities; to give up vagrancy and
crime, and become the owners, occupants, and independent cultivators of the
soil. Does any man object to the Irish or German emigrant who cultivates the
soil with his own hands? Is he not as orderly, as quiet, and as law abiding a
citizen as your native sons? And do not the products of his labor go as far
towards an increase of your national wealth? For one, I am willing to receive
all who come to us from abroad, if they come to cultivate the soil.
Heaven has bounded
our republic with two mighty oceans, thus placing a barrier deep and wide
between us and the despots of the old world. I would not impiously defy the
protection of Providence by crossing this barrier to attack despotism in its
stronghold; but upon every breeze that sweeps the Atlantic I would send a
message to the oppressed millions of Europe, bidding them come—come to an
asylum on these shores, prepared by the Almighty, and defended by his chosen
people.
It is said again,
that this is a scheme of the Jesuits to extend the Catholic religion in our
country, and to cripple or put down the Protestant faith. I was raised a
Protestant believer, and I hope to die a professor of the Protestant religion.
But it is no part of my Protestant faith to fear the Catholics. I am no more
afraid that the Catholics will upset the Protestant church, than I am that the
subjects of crowned heads in Europe will overturn Democracy in America. To the
Catholic as well as to the Protestant emigrant, I extend a hearty
greeting, and a cordial welcome. If he cultivates the soil, he will most likely
be a Democrat; and whether he worships in a Catholic or Protestant church, he
will make us a good citizen.
I have heard it
said, the effect of this bill, if it becomes a law, will be to encourage
foreign emigration, and that as most of these come to us with strong
anti-slavery prejudices, we of the South are but nerving the arm of an enemy
when we advocate its passage. If slavery is to be defended by excluding those
from abroad who have prejudices against it, its doom is fixed, and the sooner
the fiat for its extinction goes forth the better. I place my defence of this
institution on the high ground of moral, social, religious, and political propriety,
and if I cannot defend it on this ground I will not defend it at all. The right
is never so much in danger as when its advocates shrink from an open and manly
vindication of it. Justice may be overthrown if its votaries skulk and
prevaricate in its support. Resting the defence of slavery upon high moral
principles, I do not fear its overthrow, unless by the brute force of superior
numbers. An untamed multitude, revelling in the insolence of unbridled power,
may tear down the Constitution and bury slavery beneath its ruins. If this is
the destiny to which the mighty North is conducting us, it does not matter
whether we reach it during our pilgrimage on earth, or leave the journey half
concluded, and entail on our children the melancholy task of following it to
the end.
If American-born
citizens will do their duty, we have nothing to fear from our emigrant
population. If the native son refuses to do his duty, and wages war upon the
Constitution, and upon the rights of his neighbors, we have then nothing to
hope from any quarter. We must stand firmly by our section, and self-poised in
the vindication of our rights.
If we contrast the
relative position of the two great sections as to the public domain, we shall
see how little there is in the idea that this bill gives an undue advantage to
the North.
There is
comparatively little soil in the Southern States belonging to, or under the
control of the United States, and that little is of inferior quality. There are
vast tracts in the Western States and territories, and much of it is of very
superior quality. It follows, therefore, that, under the present system of
disposing of the public lands, emigration to the Southern States must fall off
rapidly at first, and presently cease altogether, whilst the stream to the West
will increase in volume, and continue for a great while. The refuse lands in
Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Missouri, and Arkansas, will never be
occupied at $1.25 per acre, and out of these states we have little or no
government lands in the slave states. The good lands in Illinois, Iowa,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the western territories, will very soon be occupied
at $1.25 an acre, or even at a higher figure.
I am for changing
the policy so as to give us occupants for our refuse lands; and if in doing
this, we send tenants to your virgin soil a few years earlier than they would
otherwise go, I do not still perceive but that we shall be more gainers than
losers by the operation.
I submit to my
southern friends whether it is not better to divide the emigration with the
North for a few years at least? Is it not better to take an addition to our
population of a million in five years, and give the North two millions in the
same time, than to stop emigration to the South entirely, and let the North
have her two millions at the end of ten years? I take this to be true, that
without a change of policy we shall never get our poor lands settled; and it is
just as true, that the virgin soil of the West will be occupied in a few years,
whether we change our policy or not. I want a change. It will people our lands,
and if it has the effect of giving to the North as many emigrants in five years
as she would otherwise get in ten, let it be so. It is only a
question of time with them. Emigrants will go to them after a while under any
policy. With us it is different. Our lands have all been picked and culled, and
the refuse tracts may be peopled under this bill, but never at a cost of $1.25
per acre. I throw out these observations to show my southern friends that this
is not a losing business to us.
I admit the
obligation of a representative to guard the interest of his own constituents,
and in this view I am for reform. I admit my sectional predilections—prejudice,
if you please—and yet in this view I am for reform. Regarded in any and every
light, I am for that policy which will populate our vacant lands, and give
homes to the homeless and houses to the houseless.
The people who will
be chiefly benefited by this bill, are among the most meritorious and yet the
least cared for of all our population. The landless, the homeless, the
houseless—who are they, and what are they in the old states? Hardy sons of
toil, slighted by the world for the crime of being poor, and elevated to the
dignity of freemen only on election days. In the new states, under the
operations of this bill, they will become freeholders and householders, and
will be at all times, and in every season, equal to the proudest nabobs in
Christendom.
I know something,
Mr. Chairman, of squatter life. It was my fortune to have been raised in a new
and unsettled country. I know something of the toils, and hardships, and
privations encountered by the squatters. I shall not detain you with a recital
of all that I have seen, and heard, and felt. One incident I may relate. I will
tell you why my heart is with these people. When I was a boy—a very little boy—an
honest, but poor man settled (squatted is a better word) in the country where I
yet reside. Removing from South Carolina, he pitched his tent amid the unbroken
forest in the dead of winter. He had two sons able to work. He was in a strange
land, without money and without friends. But with an iron will, such as none
but squatters have, he attacked the forest. It receded before him, and in three
short months the sun, which had been shut out for many centuries, was permitted
to shine on a spot of earth in which the squatter had planted corn. Day by day
he might have been seen following his plough, while his two sons plied the hoe.
Toil brought him bread-and he raised up his sons to know, as Heaven's wise
decree, that "by the sweat of their brows they should gain their
bread." Industry and economy brought not wealth, but a competency. The
elder of the two sons followed the example of the father, and cultivated the
soil. Fortune smiled and he prospered. The younger, with such moderate
qualification as a frontier country could afford, studied law and practised
with success. In an evil hour for his private fortune, he was drawn into
politics. He was elected to the state legislature, to Congress, judge of the
circuit court, governor of his state, to Congress again and again, but he never
forgot that he was the squatter's son. He stands before you to-day the humble
advocate of the squatter's rights.
That, which was my
father's fortune, and the fortune of his sons, has been, and may be again the
fortune of others in a more pre-eminent degree. Nature has created no
aristocracy of intellect. Despise not these squatters. Among them is many a
rough diamond. They and their sons may rise to the first honors in the
republic. Reared in no hot bed of aristocracy, never enfeebled by the
enervating influences of wealth and luxury, their bodies are capable of
unlimited endurance, and their minds are prepared for that rational progress
which is the pride and boast of "Young America," and of the age in
which we live. Is it at all wonderful, Mr. Chairman, that my heart should be
always open to the privations and hardships, the wants and sufferings of the
squatters on the public lands?
My associations with
these people have never ceased, and I trust they never may. I have partaken of
their fare. I have eat their bread, and slept beneath their humble roofs.
Generous to a fault, with hearts free from guile, they receive their guests
with an open, frank, and manly bearing, that says at once, You are welcome. A
squatter never says from his lips I am glad to see you, and in
his heart wish the devil had you. This is a refinement on duplicity which
belongs alone to the "rich and well-born."
I approach that
point in this discussion which, of all others, is the most interesting: The
best and most certain means of securing every man a home. How may this be done?
My friend, the mover of the main proposition [Mr. Johnson of Tennessee], thinks
this end will the most certainly, and in the best manner be secured, by giving
to every man the right to settle on the public lands, and by conveying to him
the title in fee simple, after a continuous residence of five
years.
I am not going to
make an argument against my friend's proposition. I honor the head that
conceived it. The heart that is capable of such appreciation of the poor man's
wants, is entitled to and receives the homage of my poor esteem. The nation,
and, indeed, all mankind, should yield a grateful tribute to the mind that,
almost unaided, has forced the consideration of this subject upon the American
Congress. No; I am not about to oppose the main proposition; but I am about to
inquire whether, in its details, it offers us the best guarantee that the first
great object sought by us, that of giving homes to the homeless, will most
certainly be obtained.
It proposes to
surrender to the occupant the absolute title, after a continuous residence of
five years on the land. If all men had capacity for managing with success their
own private affairs; if all were provident, and we had security against the
misfortunes of ten thousand kinds to which men are subject; if we had not
already a full realization of the fact, that
"Man's inhumanity to man,
Makes countless thousands mourn;"
if men would learn
to "love their neighbors as themselves;" then I should think that no
better scheme had ever been devised than that of my friend from Tennessee, for
securing every man a home. But we must look at men as they are, and shape our
acts accordingly.
I feel under no sort
of obligation to give land to any man by my vote, to be used in paying debts
improvidently or viciously contracted. I shall not undertake to pay debts
forced upon any man by misfortune. If debts have been contracted in consequence
of disease or death; or of fire or water, or any other misfortune; or if, as is
too often the case, they have been contracted by a foolish improvidence, or by
drinking and gaming, I cannot and will not, in my legislative capacity,
undertake to provide the means for their payment.
Suppose you give
these lands in the mode proposed: Is there not great danger, that at the end of
the five years' occupancy, a great deal of them will pass into the hands of
sharpers and speculators, as the bounties to your soldiers have passed? It is
no disparagement to mankind to say, that hundreds and thousands of them have no
capacity for the transaction of business. God has made them so. May not a class
of men more cunning than those for whom you are providing, draw settlers into
contracts, involve them in debt, and at the end of five years, seize the very
land you are now so generously giving?
It is not more a
matter of reproach than of pity, that men will drink and gamble, and thus waste
their substance. One man plies another with intoxicating drinks, or decoys him
to the gaming table. In the one or the other case, he is made the easy victim
of craft or villany, and this land which you are now voting in a spirit of
generosity, may go to settle the account between them.
It is no man's fault
that misfortunes fall upon him, and yet disease may prostrate him and involve
him in debt. His domestic animals may die. Too much rain or too much drought, a
late spring or an early frost, may cut off or destroy his crop. Floods, storms,
or fires, may lay waste his property. A thousand misfortunes like these may run
him in debt; and then inexorable creditors may come and take away his land, and
leave him no better off than before you gave it to him.
To all this I am
opposed, and against all these contingencies I would provide, as far as
possible; and hence the substitute which I have proposed to the original bill.
The leading idea of
my substitute is, that the settler shall have the right of occupancy so long as
he chooses to remain on the land, being never required to pay for it, but
always at liberty to do so whenever it becomes his desire and his interest to
own the soil in fee simple. The fee under my substitute
remains in the government until the occupant can receive it with safety, of
which he is made the judge. If the substitute is adopted, it will make no
difference how a squatter's debts may have been contracted—whether by
improvidence or dissipation or misfortune his home is secure. The government
gives him the right of occupancy, and no power on earth can take it from him.
Secure in its possession, the energies of his mind and body will be free to
expand and rise above the petty tyranny of a neighboring creditor. He will not
be afraid to improve his grounds, or repair his fence, or stop the leaks in his
cabin, lest he excite the eye of cupidity. He will not watch the clouds with a
aching brow, lest it fail to rain upon his growing crop, thus dooming it to
destruction, and himself to bitter disappointment in getting the means to buy
his preemption. Let fortune smile, or fortune frown; let it rain, or let it
shine; let storms or devastating floods come upon him, he may look them all in
the face, and say, this is my home, this the castle of my defence: my
government stretches over me its strong protecting arms, and bids my heart be
still, for in this, at least, I am secure. I fix no five years of
security; and after that, nor any other period, expose the poor man's home to
execution sale; but for five years, and for all time thereafter, he is made
secure in its occupancy. He need not look with a sad heart to the end of the
five years, nor fear that his creditors will then come to take possession of
his home, and turn him out of doors. His wife need not water with her tears a
favorite plant, nor count the hours that are bringing the moment of her
separation from her humble cottage. His children may pursue their childish
sports, nor sigh as they look for the last time on some favored spot, made
sacred by the recollection of many an happy hour spent there in childish
revelry. Whatever may be his and their relations with the world, the whole
family—husband, wife, and children—may rest secure in the possession of their
home. There they may cluster around them the comforts of life-nor disturb their
moments of quiet or repose with anxious fears, lest some inexorable creditor
shall snatch it from them. Such, sir, is my substitute.
If fortune smiles on
the humble occupant; if, by his labor, he has enhanced the value of the land,
and for this, or for any other reason, he desires to possess it in his own
right, he may pay for it at the minimum price of $1.25. This is his privilege;
but it is a privilege that belongs to no one else. If, by his labor, he makes
the land worth $10 an acre, he may still buy it for $1.25; and this he may do
at the end of five years, or twenty years, or at any other time that suits him
best. And if he never does it, the government will never permit another to take
it from him. If he has made an unfortunate location, my substitute allows him
to change it; and this he may do as often as he chooses-it being stipulated
that whenever a place is abandoned or given up by an occupant it is again
subject to entry or occupancy by any one who may choose to take it. If the
husband dies, his right of occupancy survives to his widow. If both husband and
wife should die, leaving infant children, the fee passes
to these children, and it may be sold for their benefit. This provision has
been inserted for two reasons: first, infant children cannot occupy the land
alone; and secondly, these objects of misfortune, thrown, without father or
mother, on the charities of the world, are entitled to our protection. If they
find a parent's care nowhere else, I would let them to this extent, at least,
find it in their government.
I have purposely
excluded the adult children from all interest in the homestead, and for the
reason that, as they become of age, each one acquires the same right that his
father had before him; and I desired to encourage the rising generation to
enter upon the active duties of life at an early age, instead of lingering
under the parental roof.
That the new states
within which these lands lie might have no just ground of complaint, I have
expressly reserved to them the right of taxation. It will be the privilege of
states to tax the settler, and in default of payment to sell his right of
occupancy. The purchaser at such sale will acquire the same and no greater
right than the settler. That is, he will acquire the right of
occupancy for an indefinite term, with the privilege of
entering the land at his pleasure, and to suit his own convenience.
There is one feature
in my substitute which I must not omit to mention. It perpetuates the existing
preemption laws. The same parties who are entitled to preempt under the law as
it now is, will have the right if the substitute is adopted, and they will
enter upon the lands under the same regulations and in the same way that they
now do. The only alteration proposed being in the removal of the twelve months'
limitation, and all other limitations as to the time when the right of
occupancy shall cease. The right of occupancy without payment, under my
substitute, is unlimited, it being the exclusive privilege, but never the duty,
of the occupant to buy the land. The perpetuation of the existing law of
preemption is better than the enactment of new laws. First, because the old laws
have been adjudicated by the courts; second, because they have been construed
by the executive departments; and thirdly, because the people generally
understand them, and will need only to be told, if the substitute passes, that
the law exists just as it did before, with the single exception that they will
not be compelled to pay until it suits them.
I have already
pointed out some of the public and private advantages which will result from
the passage of the original bill. All these will result in an equal degree from
the adoption of the substitute. I have pointed out some of the advantages which
are peculiar to my proposition; but there are others to which I must advert.
The proposition has
been assailed on the ground of its squandering the public lands and cutting off
the revenue resulting from their sale. I shall show that there is nothing in
these objections. What is it that you give under my substitute? Nothing but the
right of occupancy, the right to occupy a bit of land in the wilderness, and
therefore unproductive-and the right to improve and cultivate that land, and
make it useful to the occupant and beneficial to the general wealth. In this
there is not only a private, but public advantage. You make that productive
which was before useless, and of no public or private benefit. But you answer,
that I put an occupant on the land who may be a drone -one who will not
cultivate or buy it himself, and yet, by his occupancy, keeps off all others;
and generally that these unlimited rights of occupancy will prevent sales, and
therefore destroy the land revenue. In all this, I think you are mistaken. That
which a squatter on the public lands most needs is to have his energies—physical
and mental left free. This twelve months' limitation hangs like an incubus about
him. It paralyzes his body and disturbs his mind. Whilst he can hope to pay for
his land at the expiration of the time limited by law, his energies are
unshaken; but when hope dies-when, from any one of a thousand causes I could
name, he foresees that he cannot pay, his energies sink-then it is he becomes a
drone. He will not work, because he sees that every lick he strikes enhances
the value of his little home, and more strongly attracts the eye of the
speculator. These are the shackles that have bound many an honest and
industrious man, and made him an easy victim to idleness and vice. Let us knock
them off -let the man's mind and body have fair play. Give him plenty of time
and plenty of land to work out his fortune, and nine times in ten he will do
it.
Your present
preemption system is a curse to the settler. He is first inveigled on to a
piece of public land, and then he is afraid to improve it, lest some
speculator, with more money than himself, shall take it from him. It is this
fear that cramps his energies, and makes him idle, and sometimes vicious.
I have great confidence in the squatters, if you will only give them an open
field and a fair fight.
But, as a revenue
measure, I should advocate this bill. Its earliest advantages will be found in
the increased productions of the country. It will, as I said before, subtract
largely from the consuming classes, and add as largely to the producers. I need
not attempt to estimate the advantages to the national wealth, if all the
loafers and idlers in the Union can be set to work. The advantages would indeed
be incalculable. This measure proposes a bonus to all who will cultivate the
soil. How many thousands will accept it I cannot say-but that many will I have
no doubt.
The next advantage
which I anticipate, will be found in the increased sales of the public lands.
Yes, sir, instead of diminishing, I anticipate an increase of revenue from this
source; and particularly if my substitute is adopted. When a man has settled on
a piece of land, and has by his labor increased its value from one dollar and a
quarter to five or ten dollars per acre, he will find many reasons for desiring
to possess himself of the freehold; first, because he may want to sell it, and
thus increase his active wealth; or he may, and in many cases he will, prefer
to own the land in his own right, that he may enjoy the privilege of making an
equal distribution of it among his children; and then there is a certain
feeling of independence which all men experience in owning, by a clear title,
the lands and houses they occupy. These are some of the reasons which will
induce the settlers to purchase the land. What we ask of you is simply the
right to occupy, free from all restraint and apprehension; and we give you the
guarantee which these and other reasons afford, all of which are founded in
human nature, that your sales will be increased instead of being diminished.
I pass over the
general advantages resulting from early settlement on your frontiers; I say
nothing of the gregarious habits of men-how one man goes because another has
gone before him. I will not pause to count how much more land men will want
when their industry has lifted them up in the world. These and many other
considerations I pass over, because my time is almost out.
A word in conclusion
to the friends of this measure.
It is an old trick
in this House, when the enemies of a bill cannot slaughter it in an open field,
to attack it in ambuscade. Many important bills have been killed off in this
way, and you could no more discover the hand that strikes the blow, than you
could tell "who it was that struck Billy Patterson." The bounty-land
bill was disposed of in this way for ten years.
The modus operandi is
this: We go into committee of the whole on a bill. Here the ayes and noes are
not recorded, and consequently no responsibility attaches to any man's vote.
All manner of amendments are offered. Some intended in good faith to perfect
the bill, but much the greater portion to make it ridiculous. They are passed
on a division, or by tellers indiscriminately, until finally the features of
the bill are so distorted that its friends do not recognise it, and they turn
from it in disgust. It is then left to the tender mercies of its enemies, and
they table it without compunction or hesitation.
We are about closing
the debate on this bill, and then we shall be brought to vote on amendments. I
anticipate the usual course of proceeding. I shall not be surprised to see an
amendment proposing to give every man a horse and a plough; another to supply
him with all the necessary farming utensils, and a third to give him a negro to
work his land, and others of like kind, and all intended to bring the bill into
ridicule, and finally to destroy it. I need not say that such a mode of attack
is ungenerous. Give us a fair record vote; let every man take the
responsibility, and if the bill is lost, the country will know who were its
friends and who its enemies, and with this we shall be satisfied.
I call upon the
friends of this measure to stand by it and protect it as far as possible in
committee against these amendments. If amendments are proposed in good faith,
let us give to them a just, fair, and proper consideration. But let us stand
united against all ridiculous and frivolous amendments meant only to destroy
the bill. If improper amendments are adopted in committee, let us not on that
account abandon the bill, or allow it to be tabled in the House. We can have
the ayes and noes in the House on each amendment, and thus vote them out or
force gentlemen to stand by them on the record. This is the only policy that
will save this bill from the fate of many of its predecessors.
With an ardent
desire that this measure may pass-that it may be sent as a messenger of joy to
the humble abodes of the squatters; and that, as a harbinger of mercy, it may
visit the landless, the houseless, and the homeless everywhere, I take my leave
of it for the time being, and commend it to the paternal care of its friends in
the House.
_______________
* See art. 4, sec.
3, U. S. Constitution.
† This proposition
may be stated too broadly. General Millson inquired of Mr. Brown, at a later
period of the debate, whether Congress could give the whole of the public lands
to the President of the United States? Mr. Brown answered, "Yes; Congress
has the power. To exercise it would be a monstrous abuse
of power, and would, therefore, violate the spirit of the
Constitution." General Millson reminded him that the compensation of the President
could not be increased during his term of service. Mr. Brown
admitted, that in this view of the subject, he had stated his proposition too
broadly. If the gentleman from Virginia had asked him (Mr. B.) if the
President's compensation could be increased by giving him land, Mr. B. would
have answered, No. But this was rather a question as to the
power to receive on the part of the executive, than the power to give on the
part of the legislature.
Mr. B. admits that
the power of Congress over the territory, as given in the third section,
article 4, of the Constitution, may be limited (as in the case cited by General
Millson) by the prohibitory clauses in other parts of the Constitution. But he
maintains that there is no such prohibition in regard to the settlers or other
citizens, and therefore that the power is plenary as to them. It was this class
of people that Mr. Brown had in his mind's eye when he stated his proposition
that Congress had as unlimited power over the public lands as it had to declare
war. And in this view of the case he adheres to his first proposition.
SOURCE: M. W.
Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon.
Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, pp. 304-16
No comments:
Post a Comment