Connecticut, with a population in 1790 of 237.964, was given 5 Representatives, or 1 for every 47,592, while under the present apportionment Connecticut, with a population of 1,114,756, has the same number of Representatives she had in 1790. She now has 1 Representative for every 222,951.

New York, with a population in 1790 of 340,120, had 6 Representatives, or 1 for every 56,686 people, while under the present apportionment New York, with a population of 9,113,614, has 43 Representatives or 1 for every 211,943 people.

New Jersey, with a population in 1790 of 184,139, was given 4 Representatives, or 1 for every 46,034 people, while under the present apportionment New Jersey, with a population of 2,537.167, has 12 Representatives, or 1 for every 211,430 people. Pennsylvania, with a population in 1790 of 434,373, was given 8 Representatives, while under the present apportionment Pennsylvania, with 7,665,111 people, has 36 Representatives, or 1 for every 212,919 people.

Delaware, with 59,096 population in 1790, was given 1 Representative, while under the present apportionment Delaware with a population of 202,322 still has but 1 Representative. Maryland, with a population in 1790 of 319,728, was given 6 Representatives, or 1 for every 53.288 people, while under the present apportionment Maryland, with a population of 1,295,346. still has 6 Representatives or 1 for every 215,557 people. Virginia, with a population in 1790 of 747,610, was given 10 Representatives, or 1 for every 74,761 people, while under the present apportionment Virginia, with 2,061,612 population, has 10 Representatives (the same number as in 1790), or 1 for every 206,161 people.

North Carolina, with a population in 1790 of 393.751, was given 5 Representatives, or 1 for every 78,550 people, while ander the present apportionment North Carolina, with a population of 2,206.287, has 10 Representatives, or 1 for every 206.287 people.

South Carolina, with a population of 249,073, was given 5 Representatives, or 1 for every 49,814 people, while under the present apportionment South Carolina, with a population of 1,515,400, has 7 Representatives, or 1 for every 216,485. Georgia, with a population of 82,548, was given 3 Representatives, or 1 for every 27,516, while under the present apportionment Georgia, with a population of 2,609,121, has 12 Representatives, or 1 for every 217,426 people.

Sub

Congress has been very conservative in adopting a basis for representation in the House. If we had the same basis of representation now that was adopted for the first Congress, the membership of the House would be approximately 1,700. sequent Congresses, as to the size of the House, have been much less radical than the framers of our Constitution and we can safely trust Congress at all times in the future to adopt a basis of representation that will be reasonable and proper.

In calling your attention to the fact that the House of Commons had a membership of 615, I intended to state that there is less reason for the House of Commons having a large membership than there is for increasing the membership of the House of Representatives. The British Empire, while nominally monarchial in form, is nevertheless governed by Parliament through ministers chosen by Parliament. The House of Commons does not enact all laws by which the British Empire is governed. Many of the laws and regulations are mere orders promulgated by the ministers. I refer to orders in council or orders issued by the ministers and which have the force and effect of laws as though enacted by Parliament. The real details of the administration of the British Empire are generally worked out in council, and all orders in council have the effect and force of law. The primary function of the British Parliament is to formulate and declare national policies and to enact general laws, leaving to the ministry the making of administrative provisions. Yet Great Britain, with a population of about one-third our population and with about onefourth of the wealth of the United States, has 615 members in the House of Commons and approximately 1,000 members in the House of Lords.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. LOZIER. I regret that I can not yield now, but I must complete this statement. It is argued that the House with a membership of more than 435 would not function and that it would be unwieldy. In answer to this I say that the House of Representatives, with a membership of 435, functions more efficiently than the Senate with a membership of 96. The House of Representatives functions more efficiently than any other parliamentary body in the world. Under its rules and practice the House can at all times speedily and effectively work its will. Ours is a government by political parties. The majority party in the House controls all the committees, and with this legisla

LXIX-568

tive machinery the House can dispose of legislation with unprecedented celerity. No one who knows anything about proceedings in this House will say that it would function more efficiently if it has only 200 Members, and with this legislative machinery a House of Representatives with a membership of 500 or 600 would function just as expeditiously and efficiently as with the present membership.

But some of my colleagues are still afraid that a House with 500 or 600 Members will be "too big." Why, gentlemen, this is a big country, and why should we fear to have a House comparable in size with our greatness as a Nation? Ours is the greatest Nation the sun smiles upon in his steady stride through the far-flung universe; ours is the greatest and most benevolent Government conceived in the minds of men since the morning stars sang together and the curtain went up on human history. Our wealth of farms, fields, factories, forests, mills, mountains, and plains far exceeds that of any other nation. Ours is a complex and exceedingly complicated industrial and economical system. Our interests and activities are tremendously diversified and antagonistic, and the government of 125,000,000 people is a big job. There are so many economic cross currents and political rip tides that the enacting of laws for the government of 125,000,000 people is no easy task. Five hundred or six hundred men or even more are not too many men on whose shoulders the government of the mighty Nation rests. In 25 years the population and business of this Nation will have grown so enormously that Congress will have at least 700 Members, and in 50 years 1,000 Members of Congress will not be too many.

Under the well-established and smoothly working rules by which the House of Representatives operates, the addition or subtraction of 100 from the present membership will not militate against the expeditious disposition of legislation, although any substantial reduction in the membership will make the body less representative, less responsive to popular will, and more subject to the pernicious influence of a corrupt lobby. Under the present machinery of the House, legislation approved by the leaders can and is put through by the leaders with a celerity seldom equaled and never surpassed in the history of representative government. The leaders of the majority may be slow in reaching a decision as to what legislation they will enact, but after a decision is once reached the approved legislation is almost invariably considered at once and enacted. Debate can be limited to a few minutes or hours, and this to all intents and purposes is the same as no debate. So there is absolutely no basis for the claim that a larger House could not function efficiently.

Mr. SCHAFER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. LOZIER. I regret I can not yield further. I want to call the attention of my colleagues to a quotation from a book written by my friend the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LUCE], one of the most versatile and scholarly men in the House. I have not always agreed with him. I think he is often wrong, and if you will permit the expression, I think he is frequently "economically unsound," but no one will challenge his versatility and profound learning. In his very valuable work on Legislative assemblies" he discusses the question as to whether or not a large legislative body functions more efficiently than a small one. He sums up the arguments in favor of a large legislative assembly, as follows:

"Large houses are likely to secure representation of a greater variety of social interest by having in their membership men of all the professions and many pursuits. A much more extensive knowledge of local conditions and local opinion is available. Venal influences can not turn a large body from the path of duty. Bribery and corruption have less chance; logrolling is harder; all secret influences are hampered. In speeches and votes personal friendships are less likely to embarrass or swerve. Many more citizens can profit by a share in the educating effect of legislative service, and in turn schooling in public affairs is much more widely diffused by them throughout the community. More voters know their representatives and therefore take personal interest in the work of the legislature. State-wide

acquaintance is fostered. Large bodies move more slowly and there

fore with less danger from hasty change. There are more men among whom to divide the work of committees."

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri has expired.

Mr. LOZIER. Will the gentleman from Mississippi yield me a little more time to finish this apropos quotation from this most excellent treatise of the gentleman from Massachusetts? It goes to the heart of this question, and I want the proponents of the pending bill to hear these words of wisdom from the gentleman and prophet from Massachusetts.

Mr. RANKIN. I yield to the gentleman seven minutes more. The CHAIRMAN (Mr. ELLIOTT). The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for seven minutes more.

Mr. BEEDY. Do I understand the gentleman is reciting this to prove that Mr. LUCE is wrong? [Laughter.]

Mr. LOZIER. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LUCE] is sometimes wrong, but when he wrote this admirable volume he was right; dead right! But if he has any intention of voting for this pending legislative monstrosity he is as wrong in his attitude toward this bill as he was right when he wrote this book, and I would be constrained to appeal from Philip drunk on partisanship to Philip sober, who, in the volume mentioned above, so convincingly states the reasons in favor of a large membership in the popular branch of the Government of a free people. Our distinguished colleague in the same volume sums up the arguments in favor of a legislative assembly with a smaller membership.

Mr. ENGLEBRIGHT. Is that in the same book?

Mr. LOZIER. Yes; and on the following page. After giving the arguments pro and con the learned author then gives his own views in the following language:

Such a contradiction of arguments SO numerous makes it gross presumption for any one man to speak dogmatically. Appreciating the need of modesty where so many thoughtful men have failed to reach anything like agreement, I venture a conclusion of my own with no other hope than that as an opinion it may count for one. It is to the effect that for the purpose of embodying the common will in statutes of general purport concerned with principles and policies, the larger the House the better; and that for the purpose of transacting the business of government, the administrative business now so unwisely imposed on representative bodies elected by popular vote, the smaller the House the better. When the time comes that these two distinct functions are separated, with the legislature restricted to principles and policies and with the making of rules and regulations transferred to some sort of administrative agency, then the type of house found in New Hampshire and Massachusetts or at Washington will prove the safer and wiser.

The learned author says that for the purpose of embodying the common will in statutes of general purport concerned with principles and policies, the larger the House the better. And that is true. After all, our structure of government is built around the Congress. It is the body primarily designated by the Constitution to express the will of the people and to determine national policies. Congress alone can enact laws. Congress alone can initiate legislation, and those who wrote the Federal Constitution made the House of Representatives the more important branch of our legislative system because it expressly provides that all legislation involving the levy of taxes and the collection of revenue must originate in the House of Representatives and can not originate in the Senate. other words, under the Constitution the power to enact tax legislation is vested exclusively in the House. This is a wise provision, because every battle for human freedom has been fought around the standard of taxation, and in order that the masses may control taxation the House of Representatives should have a membership sufficiently large to give all important vocational groups a voice and vote in this the popular branch of our legislative system, to the end that Congress may reflect the will of the people and determine national policies in harmony with an enlightened public sentiment.

In

The supreme purpose of all law is to promote social justice, and the Congress of the United States was established to the end that the common will of the people might be established by statutory law. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri has again expired.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members speaking on this measure may have five legislative days in which to extend their remarks.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it is so ordered.
There was no objection.

Mr. FENN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. SINNOTT].

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized. Mr. SINNOTT. Mr. Chairman, the actual trail to the far West, its hardships and difficulties, are well known. The story of the covered wagon has made them so. The legislative trail to the far West is not so well known. It, too, had its hardships and difficulties.

So that the legislative trail may be better known, I ask unanimous consent to extend in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD data regarding the legislative history of the Lewis and Clark expedition, the objections to the passage of the Oregon donation act, and the objections to the homestead act, as revealed in the debates in Congress.

The misgivings expressed in the congressional debates about the wisdom and possible effect of these measures were never realized. On the contrary, these measures made for the development and splendor of our country. So may it be with pending measures for the further development of the West-the misgivings may never be realized.

The data which I desire to insert in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD was prepared in the legislative reference service of the Library of Congress by Miss Rita Dielmann, who is entitled to great credit for the painstaking way in which she has gleaned through the RECORD.

Hon. N. J. SINNOTT,

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Washington, March 30, 1928.

Chairman Committee on the Public Lands,

Room 347, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In response to your letter of March 17, asking for information as to the objections made in Congress to the Lewis and Clark expedition, the Oregon donation act, and to the homestead law, I submit the three following typewritten studies:

The legislative history of the appropriation for the Lewis and Clark expedition.

A statement of the objections in Congress to the Oregon donation act. Objections to the homestead act as revealed in the debates in ConVery respectfully,

gress.

H. H. B. MEYER, Director Legislative Reference Service.

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE LEWIS AND CLARK EXPEDITION

On January 18, 1803, President Jefferson addressed a confidential message to Congress on the renewal of the act for maintaining trading houses with the Indians. He asked for an appropriation of $2,500 "for the purpose of extending the external commerce of the United States." (Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 24–26.)

The legislative history of the act for " extending the external commerce of the United States" discloses no opposition to the bill or to the appropriation. The Annals of Congress contain no record of debate. The bill granting $2,500 for extending the external commerce of the United States became a law February 28, 1803. (Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 27, 32, 81, 82, 91, 207, 522, 534, 543. Appendix, p. 1566.)

Something of the state of the public mind and of Congress on exploring the Northwest may be gleaned from Jefferson's correspondence. As early as December 4, 1783, Jefferson wrote to Gen. George Rogers Clark:

Some of us have been talking here in a feeble way of making the attempt to search [the country from the Mississippi]; but I doubt whether we have enough of that kind of spirit to raise the money." (F. G. Young, The Lewis and Clark Expedition, p. 16.)

On February 27, 1803, Jefferson wrote to Doctor Barton asking for notes on botany, zoology, and Indian history:

"You know we have been many years wishing to have the Missouri explored, and whatever river heading with it that runs into the western ocean. Congress, in some secret proceedings, have yielded to a proposition I made them for permitting me to have it done." (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Washington ed., vol. 4, p. 470.)

On February 28, 1803, Jefferson wrote to Casper Wistar asking him to treat his letter confidentially:

"I have at length succeeded in procuring an essay to be made of exploring the Missouri and whatever river heading with it that runs into the western ocean. Congress by secret authority enables me to do it." (Ford edition VIII, p. 192.)

To Meriwether Lewis, April 27, 1803:

"The idea that you are going to explore the Mississippi has been generally given out. It satisfies public curiosity, and masks sufficiently the real destination." (Ford edition VIII, p. 193.)

To Benjamin Rush, February 28, 1803 :

"I wish to mention to you in confidence that I have obtained authority from Congress to undertake the long desired object of exploring the Missouri and whatever river heading with it that leads into the western ocean." (Ford edition VIII, p. 219.)

Professor Cox points out that the expedition was planned and the appropriation granted before the Louisiana Territory was actually pur chased. Hence the expedition was managed with considerable secrecy and deception. The act conveying the appropriation bore a misleading title and the expedition purported to be a scientific and literary one in order to allay any disquietude of British fur traders and Spanish officials. (I. J. Cox, The Early Exploration of Louisiana, pp. 16-18.)

Lewis showed some eagerness to present the results of his explorations to Congress, and when he had nothing to show for the appro priation granted in February, 1803, except the construction of his boat at Pittsburgh, he asked President Jefferson to permit him to some little side expedition before the Eighth Congress opened in

make

pecial

session on October 17, 1803. To this departure from the main object of the expedition Jefferson did not consent. (I. J. Cox, p. 20.)

On August 11, 1803, Jefferson wrote to Isaac Briggs, a Government surveyor :

“ Congress will probably authorize the exploration of the principal streams of the Mississippi and Missouri." (I. J. Cox, p. 39.) Jefferson forwarded to Lewis a map of the Missouri, and added: The acquisition of the country through which you are to pass has inspired the country generally with a great deal of interest in your enterprise. The inquiries are perpetual as to your progress. The Federals alone still treat it as a philosophism, and would rejoice at its failure. Their bitterness increases with the diminution of their numbers and the dispair of a resurrection. I hope you will take care of yourself and be a living witness of their folly." (I. J. Cox, p. 22.) By the middle of November, 1803, Jefferson spoke of the interest in the expedition as general. On November 16 he wrote to Lewis:

"I have proposed in conversation, and it seems generally assented to, that Congress appropriate ten to twelve thousand dollars for exploring the principal waters of the Mississippi and Missouri. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, memorial edition, vol. 10, p. 433; I. J. Cox, p. 22.)

Professor Cox remarks:

"The result of Jefferson's quiet personal work among the members of the Eighth Congress appeared in a report dated March 8, 1804, from the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures." (I. J. Cox, pp. 40-41.)

February 18, 1804, Mr. Moore, Representative from Virginia, offered a resolution instructing the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures to inquire into the expediency of authorizing the President of the United States to employ persons to explore such parts of the province of Louisiana as he may think proper. Passed, ayes 53. No debate. (Annals of Congress. 8th Cong, 1st sess., vol. 13, p. 1036.)

On March 8, 1804, the House heard the report of Mr. Samuel L. Mitchill, from the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures:

"By a series of memorable events the United States have lately acquired a large addition of soil and jurisdiction. It is highly desirable that this extensive region should be visited, in some parts at least, by intelligent men. Important additions might thereby be made to the science of geography [and] the Government would thence acquire correct information of the situation, extent, and worth of its own dominions.

"There is no need of informing the House that already an expedition, authorized by Congress, has been actually undertaken and is going on, under the President's direction, up the Missouri. The two enterprising conductors of this adventure, Captains Lewis and Clark, have been directed to attempt a passage to the western shore of the South Sea.

"The committee submit the following opinion:

"That it will be honorable and useful to make some public provision for further exploring the extent and ascertaining the boundaries of Louisiana; and

"That a sum not exceeding $be appropriated for enabling the President of the United States to cause surveys and observations to be made on the Red River and the Arkansas, or either of them, or elsewhere in Louisiana, as he shall think proper for these purposes."

The report was referred to the Committee of the Whole on Wednesday next. (Annals of Congress, 8th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 1124-1126.) The House of Representatives was absorbed in the debate on the civil government of Louisiana and failed to pass the appropriation bill for the exploration of Louisiana in that session.

On March 13, 1804, Jefferson wrote to William Dunbar, a scientist, of Mississippi, that he expected Congress to authorize him to explore the greater waters on the western side of the Mississippi and Missouri to their sources, and that preparations would be made at Natchez and New Orleans under Dunbar's care, but that Congress was hurrying their business so for adjournment that he expected them to leave some details unfinished. (Washington edition, IV, pp. 540-541.)

On May 14, 1804, Lewis and Clark passed up the Missouri, crossed to the Pacific, and reached St. Louis September 23, 1806.

On February 19, 1806, President Jefferson communicated to Congress a report of the Lewis and Clark expedition with a letter from Captain Lewis. (Annals of Congress, 9th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 1036-1147.)

It was almost a year before the House of Representatives appointed a committee (January 2, 1807) to inquire what compensation ought to be made to Lewis and Clark and their companions for their services in exploring the western waters.

Mr. Dawson, of Virginia, said he was induced to invite the House to consider such compensation from the communication of the President which held out the idea that the sum which the House had appropriated in 1803 was but a part of what might be necessary. (Annals of Congress, 9th Cong., 2d sess., p. 246.)

On January 23, 1807, the committee reported a bill which was read twice and debated on February 16. The Annals of Congress give no report of this debate. The consideration of the bill was resumed on February 20.

Mr. Lyon, Representative from Kentucky, opposed the provision that land warrants granted to the explorers might be received at the land office at the rate of $2 an acre.

Representatives Tallmadge, of Connecticut; Joseph Clay, of Penn| sylvania ; Ely, Quincy. and Cook, of Massachusetts; and D. R. Williams, of South Carolina, supported the position taken by Mr. Lyon. It was contended that double pay was a liberal compensation and that this grant was extravagant beyond all precedent. It was equivalent to taxing more than $60,000 out of the Treasury, and might be perhaps three or four times that sum, as the guaranties might go over all the western country and locate their warrants on the best land, in 160-acre lots. A motion to recommit the bill carried with 66 ayes "after considerable debate." The bill was read and passed on February 28, 1807.

The Senate received the bill the same day, reported it on March 2, and passed on it March 3. (Annals of Congress, 9th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 96, 98, 383, 501, 591, 658, 659.)

The act of March 3, 1807. authorized the Secretary of War to issue land warrants to Lewis and Clark for 1,600 acres each, and to each of their associates 320 acres. The land warrants might be located on any public lands of the United States west of the Mississippi or bef receivable at the rate of $2 an acre in payment for public lands. The Secretary of War was authorized to double the pay of Lewis and Clark and their associates during the time they served on the expedition to the Pacific Ocean. The bill appropriated $11,000 for that purpose. (Annals of Congress, 9th Cong., 2d sess., p. 1278. [Rita Dielmann, March 26, 1928.])

A statement of the objections in Congress to an act entitled: “An act to create the office of surveyor-general of the public lands in Oregon, and to provide for the survey, and to make donations to settlers of the said public lands." September 27, 1850. (9 U. S. Stat. 496.)

The debate shows that there were two principal objections to the bill:

1. As to persons

Objection to the discrimination against American settlers already in Oregon in favor of new settlers;

Discrimination against Americans in favor of emigrants; Objection to granting land to half-breed Indians on more favorable terms than to white American citizens.

2. As to lands

Favoritism to Oregon over other States and Territories of the United States, giving the bill the nature of special legislation. Too rapid exhaustion of the public lands.

Objection to the use of public lands for military reservations. 1. As to persons

Mr. Hubbard, Representative from Alabama, objected to "giving away lands in large tracts without any price to Indian half-breeds when Congress had refused to sell public lands to the worthiest citizens unless they paid more than double its value." (Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., p. 1093, May 28, 1850.)

Senator Dawson, of Georgia, raised objection to the provision of the bill permitting emigrants to take land in Oregon on declaration of intention to become citizens. * the information will go all over the continent of Europe. Foreigners will throw themselves into your country, and as soon as they land make a declaration of intention to become citizens. Before the three years expire the whole of your immense lands will be gone. They will turn loose their whole population, and especially their pauper population." [They have rendered no service to the country, paid no taxes, sacrificed nothing, and scarcely a dollar will bo returned to the Treasury. American citizens must pay for purchasing land for the benefit of foreigners. The States of the Union pay a great proportion of the expenses and receive none of the benefits of the public lands. ] (Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., p. 1845, September 17, 1850.)

Senator Underwood also opposed granting lands "to quasi citizens. who may emigrate from the Old World and settle in this and make their declaration to become citizens.

"Now, I am not willing to give that bounty to those who hereafter may come to the country. I am willing to let those who are now in the country have the benefit [of a grant] because of the difficulties they have had in getting there and in settling themselves in a wild country; but to hold out a bounty in behalf of those who may come to the country from Europe in preference to our own citizens, giving them equal advantages, and thus opening the doors of the poorhouses of all Europe to flood us with their paupers, is a proposition that I can not agree to. It offers too strong an inducement for foreign corporations to provide the means of emigration for these people who are to receive a bounty when they come here." (Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., p. 1846, September 17, 1850.)

2. As to lands

Mr. Cobb, Representative from Alabama, in opposing the bill argued that the public lands were being disposed of too rapidly. They would be exhausted. He opposed a grant larger than 160 acres. (Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., p. 1094, May 28, 1850.0

Senator Yulee, of Florida, opposed the bill on the grounds of special privilege to Oregon:

"This bill proposes a gratuity of half a section of land to every person who will go to live in Oregon. This introduces an entirely new policy. It offers a stimulus to the settlement of a particular Territory which was not allowed to any other Territory of this Union, and has not been allowed to any State of this Republic at any time. Heretofore the highest benefit that we have allowed to any settler has been to give him a preemption-a first right to purchase at the Government price of a dollar and a quarter the land upon which he settles in the new State or Territory, and even that was limited to a quarter section. This bill proposes to give half a section to every one who will go to Oregon to settle there. Now, if this section is to remain in the bill. I shall certainly expect, as a matter of fairness and in order that other Territories and States where there are public lands may be placed upon the same footing as Oregon, that the same inducement to settle in these States and Territories shall be held out. Otherwise, nothing can be more unfair than that all the migration should be directed to Oregon, and that the other States and Territories should be left without any such stimulus to their population.

As a matter of policy, it seems to me that this provision is a very unfair one. I submit to the Senate whether there is any reason--whether it is a wise policy to stimulate migration to the other side of the Rocky Mountains? It is to be apprehended that the migration has been much beyond what the natural inducements of the country would justify, thus far, and I learn that a very large number of the emigrants are anxious now to return, and will return during the fall, if they can possibly obtain the means to return to this side of the Rocky Mountains.

"We know that the emigration overland already this year is stated to be near 50,000, and that 10,000 of those persons are said to be settlers of Oregon. There are attractions enough, either imaginary or real, to draw to that country all the surplus population that can be spared from the Atlantic States.

"I ask whether it is a wise policy to hold out inducements to the people of the Atlantic States to transfer themselves to the Pacific in greater numbers than the natural attractions of the country there would induce? We have the Territory of Minnesota and other new Territories nearer to the Atlantic States and which would keep our population more compact, but for the settlement of which no inducements are held out by legislation. And when we consider the fact that the migration to the Pacific Territories far surpasses, without other than natural inducements, the migration which has ever taken place to any other Territory of the United States and is altogether unsurpassed and unprecedented, I can conceive of no propriety or wisdom in a policy which would induce us to stimulate still further that transfer of our population to the Pacific by offering inducements which have never been offered heretofore for the settlement of any new Territory."

[The bill does not provide for similar grants in California and Nevada, and no such provision has been made concerning the public lands of any other Territory.] "I object to this special legislation

; if it is desirable to stimulate the settlement of public lands in the new Territories, let it be done by a general bill, which will open them for settlement everywhere." (Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., pp. 1841-1842, September 17, 1850.)

Senator Bell opposed the bill because Oregon already offers "greater inducements to settlers than any other portion of our unsettled domain. The riches to be found in the immense forests accessible to navigation and exportation from the ports of Oregon, and the immense demand for lumber now existing in California and which must continue to exist there while perhaps this Government stands; this alone will form a most attractive. inducement to any enterprising and honest man who may desire to better his fortunes. That is not all. They have perhaps a population of one hundred and fifty or two hundred thousand in California, not the one-hundredth part of whom subsist by the cultivation of the soil but who depend on the adjacent countries for their continual subsistence. The flour, I understand, which now supplies California is drawn from the coast of Chile, and if I am not misinformed in regard to Oregon it is most productive in wheat. Thus there is no portion of the country that is at this moment better situated or offering higher inducements to emigrants than the Territory of Oregon. Let us not adopt this general policy of stimulating settlements by the giving away of our richest and most valuable lands." (Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., p. 1842, September 17, 1850.) Senator Walker from Wisconsin :

*

.

* it seems to me that the arguments [in favor of the bill] refer merely to the present moment, and the selfish interests of those who exist at the present day I say to those gentlemen that the time will come when people will go to Oregon without this bounty, and when they get there, mark my words, they will not thank Senators for having given these lands in whole sections to the individuals who have gone there before them. Then, sir, those who go there seeking for a home will look back on this legislation with disapprobation and regret. Sir, if you desire to legislate for the permanent interests of Oregon and for the permanent interests of the whole country, do not adopt the policy of granting this land in large amounts to individuals; but on the contrary, let the grants be as small as the

ultimate interests of the country will demand; so that, when the population becomes heavy and dense, the lands of the country shall be as equally distributed as the then present and the now future interests of the country may require." (Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., p. 1843. September 17, 1850.

Senator Atchison:

"I think the giving of donations of land now, for the purpose of inducing further settlements in that Territory, will fail to secure the object. It is a well-known fact that a common laborer in the Territory of Oregon gets at this time higher wages than anywhere else, except it be in California. A field hand gets $4 a day, and the commonest mechanic gets $8 a day, and everything in that Territory bears a proportion to that. Then there is no necessity to hold out any inducement to new settlers, in the shape of land, in order to lead them to Oregon." (Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., p. 1847. September 17, 1850.)

Senator Douglas from Illinois opposed exempting lands to be set aside as military reservations from the provisions of the act. He wished to make the act apply only to lands not occupied, cultivated, and improved prior to the passage of the act. He stated that the Secretary of War had authorized the Delegate from Oregon to assure the people that their farms and improvements would never be taken for military purposes. He argued that military reservations were often too large and prevented the settlement of the country. In closing he said, "I dread to run the risk of giving to a military officer the right to oust these settlers.” Mr. Downs followed similar argument. (Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., pp. 1739-1742, September 3, 1850.) OBJECTION TO THE HOMESTEAD ACT AS REVEALED IN THE DEBATES IN CONGRESS

(NOTE. A homestead bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on March 27, 1846, by Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee. The subject was before Congress repeatedly from that time to the final passage of the bill in 1802. The Thirty-sixth Congress passed an act which was vetoed by President Buchanan on June 22, 1860. The homestead bill became a law on May 20, 1862.)

The objections to the bill are:

*

..

1. CONGRESS HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DISTRIBUTE PUBLIC LANDS They are the property of the people of the United States in their capacity as a corporation Congress exercises delegated power, and has no right to dispose of any part of the public domain or public property except according to the powers delegated. (Senator Dawson, of Georgia, Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., January 30, 1850, p. 265.)

I wish to ask the friends of this bill, who are calling it a people's bill, whether they do really design to give these lands to the people, or whether they design to take away that which belongs to the whole and confine their beneficence exclusively to a part, to the express exclusion of the rest? (Mr. Averett, from Virginia, Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 2d sess., January 23, 1851, and May 10, 1852, pp. 313 and and 1312.)

Mr. Fuller, Representative from Maine, objected to the bill as illegal, unjust, and partial in its provisions, and if he were before a tribunal differently constituted he would move to dismiss the bill. He denied the right of partition. He denied that this Government held the public domain by such tenure as was susceptible of such partition. He asked by what right a certain specified class of persons, aliens, foreigners, or American citizens of limited age, of particular condition in domestic and pecuniary affairs, should here come and ask this Government gratuitously to assign them any portion of the public domain, the common property of the people of the United States, to the exclusion of a much greater portion, having equal rights and equal privileges? If there was any subject of legislation on which the American people were more tenacious than another, it was against any principle of legislation which made an invidious distinction in the bestowment of gov ernmental favors, pensions, and patronage.

He was opposed to the schemes now pending before Congress, by which to rid the General Government in the shortest possible time of the public domain. (Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 1st sess., March 30, 1852, p. 926.)

Mr. Averett of Virginia:

these

I rise as one of the Representatives of the rural districts of United States, claiming an equality of right in the public domain, as the property of all; to enter my solemn protest against any measure, no matter under what pretense it comes before us, that tends to give to any class in this community, rich or poor, an exclusive right in that public domain. (Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 1st sess., April 18, 1852, pp. 1018, 1020.)

The clause of the Constitution which conferred upon Congress the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations re specting the territory or other property belonging to the United States, did not confer unlimited power in regard to the disposition of oublie domain. (Mr. Millson of Virginia, Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 1st sess., April 29, 1852, p. 1208; Mr. Beale of Virginia, Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 1st sess., May 6, 1852, p. 1277.)