Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Congress has no more right to give away public property for charity than to establish charitable Institutions iu any State. (Mr. Howard of Texas, Congressional Globe, ,'(2d Cong., 1st Spss., May 0 and 10, 1852, pp. 1279 and 1815; Mr. Clark of Iowa, Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 1st Bbss., May 6, 1852, p. 1282.)

The clause which );ives Congress power to dispose of and make needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States applied to the territory ceded to the Tinted States by the old States. The United States held that territory under solemn compact that It should be appropriated to defray the expenses of this Government and for no other purpose whatsoever. (Mr. Averett, of Virginia, Congressional Globe. Slid Cong.. 1st seas., May 10, 1852, p. 1312; Mr. Millson, of Virginia, Congressional Globe, K2d Cong., 1st scss., April 28, 18.12, Appendix, 524; Mr. Dent, of Georgia, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sews., February 21. 1854, p. 459; Mr. Smith, of Virginia, Congressional Globe. 33d Cong., 1st sess., February 21, 1854, p. 401.)

The bill is directly at wur with the constitutional principles I have been accustomed to hold sacred. I had supposed that the regulation of th? social relations of the citizen were left by the Federal Constitution to the States and that of commerce and foreign affairs to the General Government. 1 had supposed that, for the protection of the family hcnrth, the regulation of the household duties, and the descent and transfer of property we were to look to the States and not to tho Federal Government. • • • Tile effect of the bill will be to bring the General Government to bear directly upon the peeple of the States, making ilself deeply and sensibly felt ill all the relations of life, while the State law, In Its peculiar province, will be inoperative. Against Buch annihilation of State influence I earnestly protest. (Mr. Perkins, of Louisiana, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st Bess., March 6, 18G4, p. 544.)

When the public lands were ceded by those States whieli hnd claims to them, they were supposed to be a great national estate, to be administered Justly, prudently, and wisely by the Federal Government, with a view to the benefit of all the States of the T'nlon; and in this view it was necessary that we should establish some system under which they should be sold. (Senator Penrce, of Maryland, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st Bess., July 17, 1854, p. 1771.)

1'ublic lands ceded by the Stat?s to the Government are held by compact between the States and the Government. These public lands can not be given away. (Senator Toombs, of Georgia, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st scss.. July 19, 1854, p. 1810.)

The States ceded their lands as property that should be used as a fund for the common benefit of all the States in proportion to the charges upon these States. (Senator Mason, of Virginia, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., July 10, 1854, p. 1817.)

This Government has no right to tax the people and buy land, and divide that land, and give it away to the worthless. The Government has the right to acquire property, and when that territory has been acquired it has the right to devise the means of disposing of it under the Constitution of the Vnited States. » • • disposing of the public land for the public benefit requires it to be sold at such rates as we believe to be promotive of the public Interests: but as a homestead, as a gift, is contrary to the power of the Government * » • If you pass this bill which ties up the public lands for five years, and which authorizes the principle which will enable you to tie them up forever. State rights are destroyed. (Senator Green, of Missouri, Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 1st sess., May 9, 1860. p. 1994^1995.)

It. THB BILL MAKES AN UNFAIR DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLASSES OF CITIZENS

I do not regard those persons who have no property—nothing to keep them at home—as the most meritorious class of the community. 1 have a great many constituents, honest, industrious men, who will not tind it practicable to leave their homes and emigrate to the West. Yet these men pay taxes and contribute to the support of the Government. (Senator Clingman, of North Carolina, Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 1st sess., May 6, 1852, p. 1281; Mr. Clark, of Iowa, Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 1st Bess., May 0, 1852, p. 1282.)

It is not Just to give laud free to persons who have risked nothing for winning the lands, when the soldiers who served in the war are selling their land warrants at $20 to $23 each. (Mr. McNair, of Pennsylvania, Congressional Globe. 32d Cong., 1st sess., May 10, 1852, p. 1313; Mr. Smith, of Virginia, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., February 21, 1854, p. 461; Mr. Colquitt, of Georgia, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., March 2, 1854, p. 523.)

I am opposed to the principle of this bill which, disguise it as you may, is at last but taxing one portion of the people for the benefit of another; taking money out of the pockets of a portion of the people and placing it in the pockets of others by legislation. (Senator Adams, of Mississippi, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., April 19, 1854, p. »44; Senator Clingman, of North Carolina, Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 1858, pp. 2304, 2306.)

1 say, decidedly, that the whole system of giving away the public land In my day has been unjust in every respect. There has been no

justice; there has been no equality; there has been no good sense; there has been no fairness In the system.

The truth is that a man who can not sustain himself is n drone; he is not worthy of protection. Measures like this, that give your lands away, will destroy enterprise in that class to whom you give them. It will make them drones in the common hive. (Senator Ilaync, of South Carolina, Congressional Globe, 35tb Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 1858, p. 2304; Mr. Keid, Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 1858, p. 2308; Senator Crittenden, of Kentucky, Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., 1st scss., May 22, 1858, p. 2307.)

Mechanics do not want to abandon their business and turn landowners. (Senator Clingman, of North Carolina, Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 1st sess., p. 12!)4, March 22, 1860.)

I am not willing to pass a bill here which excludes every slaveholder from moving Into a Territory; because no man who owns a negro is going to move on 160 acres. We have no pauper population in the South. Those who do not own slaves own land, or are respectable, industrious mechanics, attached to their homes and tho institutions of their particular section. They are not going to move off. The only effect of the bill Is to nil that country with paupers. We are under no obligation to provide for your paupers. We are under no obligation to provide for the pauperism of Kurope. (Senator Wigfall of Texas, Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 1st sess., April 4, 1860, p. 1539.)

The necessary effect of the law would be to transplant, by the allurements of land gratuities at the public expense, people from the nonslaveholding Slates to preoccupy these lands in the Territory to the exclusion of those from the slaveholdlug States; and I believe that if the policy should be adopted It would be followed up on the part of the people of the free States by bringing to the aid of the law emigrant-aid societies to force out that sort of population. (Senator Mason, of Virginia, Congressional Globe, 30th Cong., 1st sess., April 11, 1860, p. 1650.)

The bill Is unfair to those who settled without such inducements and cleared the wilderness and bore the hardships of pioneer life. It gives tho.-e who come after an advantage over those who went before. The pioneers are Ignored and those who settle now, who can come by means of railroads, are given free grants.

It is unfair to the soldiers who fought against Mexico. (Senator Rice, of Minnesota, Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 1st sess., May 10, 1860, p. ^032.)

III. THB GRANT OP I.AXD TO 8KTTI.ICKS GIVES THK IMMIGRANT FROM EUROPE A 1'REFEREXCE OVEB AMERICAN CITIZENS

"* * * when the foreigner goes to any State where those public lands lie and takes his land he is to have It free from all charge, whereas the native American has to pay." (Senator Douglas, of Illinois, Congressional Globe, 31st Coiig., 1st sess., January 30, 1850, p. 264.)

You offer an Insult to every soldier who holds a land warrant given him as a reward for serving his country when, by this bill, you give 160 acres of land to the foreign pauper for nothing but simply because he has none. (Mr. Averett, of Virginia, Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 1st sess., April 1, 1852. p. 1018.)

I think we have already sufficient inducements for emigration to this country, as they are now flocking here from various parts of Europe; and if you shall hold out this further inducement, we shall be overflooded with a population from Kurope. (Mr. Moore, of Pennsylvania, Congressional Globe. 32d Cong., 1st sess., May 10, 1852, p. 1318; Mr. Dent, of Georgia, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., February 21, 1854, p. 459.)

This bill will not benefit the poor classes; it will not benefit the old States; It will benefit the new States but little. It will benefit Europe most and the population which will come thence upon us. They are tile men who will settle upon these lands. (Mr. Dowell, of Alabama, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., March 2, 1854, p. 527; Senator Clayton, of Delaware, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., July 10, 1854, pp. 1063-1064.)

Senator Adams, of Mississippi, objected to taxing the native born and adopted citizens of this country for the benefit of foreigners. He opposed granting land to those who had no participation in the acquisition of the territory, who had paid no taxes, who had not defended the country, and had no interest iu the Government. (Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., April 19 and July 12, 1854, pp. 944, 1702.)

The deserters from your battle fields and the men who fought against those who won your territories might come and take possession of your lands, to the exclusion of those who were more worthy. (Senator Butler, of South Carolina, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., July 12, 1854, p. 1703.)

This Government, after having for more than 40 years sold to her own children, native American citizens, the public lands at a fixed price, now proposes to give lands free of charge to all, Including foreigners. Americans purchased lands, endured the hardships, and made Improvements which enhance the value of adjacent lands. Now, this bill proposes to invite foreigners to come and settle free of charge upon those lands. You propose by this policy to Introduce foreigners and allow them to enjoy for a period of five years nil the privileges of society and protection of citizenship, without contributing one cent toward the support of the Government in the way of taxation while the lands of the native American citizens lying within the State are being taxed. (Senator Clay, of Alabama, Congressional Globe, July 12, 1854, 33d Cong., 1st sess., p. 1704.)

The bill will only increase native Americanism. * • • If we are to convert this Government into a charity asylum, let us lavish its bounty upon citizens rather than foreigners. (Senator Clay, of Alabama, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., July 12, 1854, pp. 1705-1706.)

IV. THE BILL OFFERS THE WROXO KIND OP INDUCEMENTS TO EUROPEAN

SETTLERS

The granting of public lands is a premium to the patriots of Europe; It is a great national charity for Europeans who have neither sacrificed their lives for Its protection, nor paid taxes for Its purchase; it is an inducement for those who resist oppression In Europe to cease their struggle and settle down in America. (Senator Dawson, of Georgia, Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., January 30, 1850, pp. 264-265.)

It is well known that Id Europe a man having 160 acres of land is regarded as n large proprietor; and if the news goes forth to Europe, and to Asia, and to all parts of the world that in this country we give 160 acres of the public domain to American citizens, to naturalized foreigners, and to those who may eome here and be naturalized, they will instantly bridge the Atlantic and Pacific, and in 10 years your public domain will be swallowed up by those who, I fear, may some day change our laws, our Institutions and even, perhaps, our religion. (Mr. Etlieridgc, of Tennessee, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., March 3, 1834, p. 534.)

While I would not interpose any obstacles to the wilderness being settled up, I do not sympathize with the policy that seeks to settle it up too quickly by inviting emigration. I look with despair upon the day when the vast wilderness will be settled up, for depend upon it that with that day comes the end of the Republic, and anarchy and chaos. (Mr. Boyce, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., March 3, 1854, p. 530.)

This bill offers a bonus to those men in Europe who are unwilling to remain there under the hazards of the approaching war to emigrate to this country. It tells those men who, because they do not wish to stand by their king and country, if you will flee to the United States we will set you up with a nice little farm of 160 acres. (Senator Thompson, of Kentucky, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., April 10, 1854, p. 040.)

VI. THE HOMESTEAD LAW WOCI.D CAUSE TOO RAPID EXPANSION

The effect of the bill would be to depopulate the old States. If the old States do not lose their population, then, of course, our people can get no benefit from the bill at all. If no man would leave the old States for the purpose of availing himself of the opportunity of locating the quarter section of land which the bill allows him, then the benefit of its provisions Is confined exclusively to the new States. But, if our citizens do leave us to avail themselves of these privileges, then we are sufferers, both lu the loss of our people and in the loss of the land, which is the common property of all States. (Mr. Millson, of Virginia, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., March 2, 1854, p. B2G; Mr. Simmons, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., March 2, 1854, p. 521.)

By this bill you propose to give 160 acres of land, provided It is occupied and cultivated. It is not possible for a poor man to cultivate 100 acres of land. Instead of peopling the West, over which is rolling the great tide of civilization, you arc providing against Its settlement. You dot it over with individuals, one to every 100 acres. The really poor man will stand upon his laud for five years without the means to cultivate It. (Mr. Perkins, of Louisiana, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., March 6, 1854, p. 544; Mr. Crlttendeu, Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., 1st scss., May 22, 1858, p. 2308.)

Instead of this land empire being a gradual outlet and receptacle for our increasing population, under a law ot gradual progress which human legislation can not control, migration would be unnaturally stimulated, by holding out Incentives for a rush and scattering of population over an immense surface, followed by a recoil, and all its disastrous consequences. An Immigration, forced on under such circumstances, will disarrange the progress of the public surveys which heretofore has always been accommodated to the existing actual necessities of settlers, and will likewise, for the same reason, enormously increase governmental expenses for the protection of far-off pioneers. (Senator Johnson, of Arkansas, Congressional Globe, 30th Cong., 1st sess., May 10, ISIiO. p. 2036.)

VII. TO GIVE AWAY PUBLIC LANDS IS A WILD SCIIKME OF SOCIALISM

Next year the manufacturers, the mechanics, and artisans will come to us and say, "You have given away the public lands In which we were jointly Interested; we do not understand farming; as you have Riven away our property, now make us equal by giving us money with which to buy bread, fuel, and raiment." (Mr. Howard, of Texas, Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 1st sess., May 6, 1852, p. 1279.)

Disguise It as yon will, It Is the commencement of a division of the property and the making of all equal. (Senator Adams, of Mississippi, Congressional Globe, 33d Cone., 1st sess., July 12, 1854, p. 1702; Senator Mason, of Virginia, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., July 19, 1854, pp. 1814, 1817.)

This Is an agrarian system which would enable a central power to tax the whole people—the Industrious, the energetic, the active, those who work and those who save—to give to the low, the worthless spendthrifts who never made a dollar, who will never save a dollar, but scatter all you give them. (Senator Green, of Missouri, Congressional Globe, 30th Cong., 1st sess., May 0, 1860, p. 1992.)

Till. THE PCBLIC LANDS CAN NOT BE GIVEN AWAY, BECAUSE THEY ARE PLEDGED AS SECURITY FOB THE PUBLIC DEBT

Senator Badger. (Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., January 30, 1850, p. 264.)

Mr. Beale, of: Virginia. (Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 1st sess., May 6, 1852, p. 1277.)

Senator Thompson, of Kentucky. (Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., April 19, 1854, p. 040.)

Mr. Morrell, of Vermont. (Congressional Globe, 37lh Cong., 2d sess.. December 18, 1801. p. 130.)

After the war began the question of credit was an urgent one. Senator Crittenden urged holding the public lauds as the best means of maintaining the credit of the United States. (Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 2d sess., p. 138.)

I do not think it wise, when we rely upon loans for the means to defray the expenses of the Government, that we should dispose of iny of the available properly of the Government out of which means could be had to enable us to repay those loans. To the extent that the Treasury would be replenished by the receipts arising from the sales of the public lands, the taxes upon the people will have to be Increased if we give aw.iy the lands and dispose of them without adequate consideration. (Senator Carlisle, of Virginia, Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 2d sess., May 2, 1802, p. 1910.)

IX. THE PRICE OF LAND WILL BE DIMINISHED

Mr. Averctt, of Virginia. (Congressional Globe, 32d Cong., 1st Bess., May 10. 1852, p. 1320.)

The Government holds double the quantity of land held by all her citizens; when she makes the public domain free as air to foreigners, as well as citizens, private lands must be depressed in value. It will injure the landholders not merely by depressing the price of their land but by cheapening all Its products. Yon will lower the profits of agriculture and injure the agricultural class, which you affect to benefit. (Senator Clay, of Alabama, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st ness., July 12, 1854, p. 1705.)

I. THE POLICY Or OIVINO AWAY PUBLIC LANDS IS A SECTIONAL ONE TENDING TO DISUNION

Senator Dawson, from Georgia. (Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1st sess., January 30, 1850, p. 265.)

I look upon this bill as the most agrarian measure that has been offered since I have been in Congress. It bears upon Itg face, to my mind. Indications, I will not say of the approaching dissolution of this Government, but it looks as if tho American representatives of States had come at last to consider that this great and glorious partnership of ours, which has stood so long and which has been the admiration of the world, Is hereafter to be a partnership without effects and assets; how long It shall endure when there is no longer a single link of common Interest to bind the Slates, I know not. (Senator Clayton, of Delaware, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., July 10, 1S54, p. 1665.)

A person who Is a citizen of an old State may acquire land free of charge only by becoming a citizen ot a new Stale. This Is, therefore, one enactment in favor not of the people of the United States but for the citizens exclusively of the States within which the lauds He. Although the people from every section of the country may go to obtain the benefits of these provisions, It is not as the citizens of their States that they are entitled to get the lands, but when they take them they must cease to be citizens of their State and must become citizens of the State in which the land lies. (Senator Pratt, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., July 20, 1854, Appendix, p. 1104.)

The nonslaveholders of the South, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, are landholders. This bill Is not intended to provide for them. • • • The effect of the bill is to free-soil the territory of the country. • • • It may be coming to that complexion; I know not; but I shall not, by any vote of mine, hasten the catastrophe. (Senator Wigfall, of Texas, Congressional Globe, 30th Cong., 1st sess., April 4, 1S60, p. 1530; Senator Green, Congressional Globe, 30th Cong., 1st sess., April 5, 186<>. p. 1556; Senator t'rltti nden. of Kentucky, Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 1st si'ss., April 10, 1800, p. 1798.)

XI. THE HOMESTEADERS WOULD BECOME TENANTS OF THE GOVERNMENT FOB FIVE YEARS

I am opposed to tenure by bounty. It is a new tenure. I may designate it a tenure by bounty upon the public lands within one of the sovereign States. Anyone who settles upon the public lands, under such, a tenure, has not a responsibility to the State In which he lived, equal to the responsibility of other citizens. You make him a Federal tenant. (Senator Butler, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., July 19, 1834, p. 1812.)

XII. TUB RESULT OF THE HOMBSTEAD ACT WII.I, BK TO TIIKOW THE PUBLIC DOMAIN INTO THE HANDS OF A FEW MONOPOLISTS, AND TO PLACI IT BEYOND THE REACH OF THE HONE.ST CULTIVATOR

Whenever property Is given away tlie possessor esteems it at little

value and is willing to transfer it for a very moderate compensation. (Mr. Howard, of Texas, Congressional Globe, P.id Cong., 1st sess., May 0. 1H52. p. 1279: Senator Walker, Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess.. July 14, 1854, p. 1747.)

XIII. WHEN THB SALH OF Fl'BUC LANDS DOES NOT TIBT.D REVENUE FOB THE KXI'EN.SKS OF GOVERNMENT. THE gUESTION OF UA18INU THE TABI1T WILL COME I'P

Senator Daw.ton, of Georgia. (31st Cong., 1st sess., Congressional Globe, Jimunry 30, 1850, p. 205.)

In this bill Congress seta up us a friend of the poor and at the same time lays a duty and tax upon everything that men, women, or children eat, drink, and enjoy, at the rate of 30 cents in the dollar and charge ~% cents for collecting that tax. (Mr. Averett, of Virginia, Congressional Globe, 32d Cong.. 1st s^ss., April 8, 1852. p. 1020; Mr. Beale, of Virginia, Congressional Globe. 32d Cong., 1st Spss., May 6, 3832, p. 1277: Mr. Clinginan. Congressional Globe, 35th Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 1858, p. 2304; Senator Wigfall. of Texas, Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 1st sess., April 4, 1800. p. 1538.)

In addition to the data assembled by Miss Dielmann I desire to insert in the Record extracts concerning the homestead law from History of the I'eople of the United States, by McMaster:

HISTORY OF THE I'EOPLE OP THE UNITED STATES M'.MASTEH

(Vol. VIII. p. 108)

In the House Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, became the champion of the landless, introduced a homestead bill, and strove manfully in its behalf, till in the spring of 1852. when Congressmen were soon to be nominated, JO Meml>errt of the House, fearing the consequences of opposition, absented themselves, and the bill passed. Then went up from some of the old States a cry ot opposition. It would draw population from them, leave them to pay the debt incurred In acquiring the public domain, depreciate the value of their lands, for who would buy a farm In North Carolina when he could get one for nothing In Alabama or Missouri, and would tempt the scum of society of the Old World to come and squat on our public domain and scatter seeds of political pestilence on the frontier—and in a little while the agrarian laws of Rome would be reenaeted In America. This wholesale robbery of the old States for the benefit of the new should be denounced by every honest man the land over. Will not the good sense of the Senate strangle this political monstrosity?

Besides the Injury done to the old States by depriving them of their property in the public lands and draining off their population, the agrarian character of the bill is most objectionable. It Is the most flagrant act of depredation on the public domain yet attempted by demagogues. Property and usefulness are the fruits of Industry and Belf-dependence, not of Government bounties and land plundering. There is no way of demoralizing any class more certainly than by means of gratuities. Undoubtedly many citizens would rather have a farm given them than buy it. But they are greatly mistaken if they think they are the people of the United States. The people approve not of such agrarian and Utopian schemes. Congress has no power to dispose of the public hind save for national purposes. If it may donate land to the landless, it may give money to the poverty-stricken and take the- value of 160 acres out of the Treasury and bestow It on each Individual of the favored class. Instead of giving land to the homeless, the bill will unsettle the homes of many honest persons who have bought their farms with hard earnings by bringing them Into competition with other farms received as an alms by men too Indolent and Improvident to acquire them as others have.

Also extracts from the message of President Buchanan, June 22, 1860, vetoing the homestead law. President Lincoln took a different position and signed the homeslead law in 1862.

[Kxtracts from the veto message of President Buchanan, June 22, 1860) I return, with ray objections, to the Senate, In which it originated, the hill entitled "An act to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain, and for other purposes,1' presented to me on the 20th instant.

***»*»• IV. This bill will prove nncqu.il and unjust in Its operation, because, from its nature, it Is confined to one class of our people. It Is a boon expressly conferred upon the cultivators of the soil. While it is cheerfully admitted that these are the most numerous and useful class of our fellow citizens and eminently deserve all t!ie advantages which our laws have already extended to them, yet there should be no new legislation which would operate to the injury or embarrassment of the large body of respectable artisans and laborers. The mechanic

who emigrates to the West and pursues Ills calling must labor long before he can purchase a quarter section of land, while the tiller of the soil who accompanies him obtains a farm at once by the bounty of the Government. The numerous body of mechanics In our large cities can not. even by emigrating to the West, take advantage of the provisions of this bill without entering upon a new occupation for which their habits of life have rendered them unfit.

• *••**• That laud of promise presents in itself sufficient allurements to our

young and enterprising citizens, without any adventillous aid. The offer of free farms would probably have a powerful effect In encouraging emigration, especially from States like Illinois, Tennessee, and Kentucky, to the west of the Mississippi, and could not fail to reduce the price of property within their limits. An Individual in States thus situated would not pay Its fair value for land when, by crossing the Mississippi, he could go upon the public lands and obtain a farm almost without money and without price.

• »•*••• The people of the United States have advanced with steady but rapid

strides to their present condition of power and prosperity. They have been guided In their progress by the fixed principle of protecting the equal rights of all, whether they be rich or poor. No agrarian sentiment has ever prevailed among them. The honest poor man, by frugality and industry, can, In any part of our country, acquire a competence for himself and his family, and in doing this he feels that he eats the bread of Independence. He desires no charity, either from the Government or from his neighbors. This bill, which proposes to give him land at an almost nominal price, out of the property of the Government, will go far to demoralize the people and repress this noble spirit of Independence. It may introduce among us those pernicious social theories which have proved so disastrous In other countries.

Mr. FENN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 25 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Jacobstein].

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 25 minutes.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I do not think we get anywhere by rehashing the legislative history of 1921 and calling each other names. Nothing is gained by impugning the motives of each other. As I was not a Member of the House in 1921, I can not be charged with having had any selfish motive in any particular position I may have taken on the census bill, or the reapportionment bill, since that time.

Moreover. In view of the fact that my own State—New York— stands a good chance of losing one Member in a reapportionment based on a membership of 435, it surely can not be said that I have any private motive in favoring the passage of this bill.

Furthermore, the passage of this bill is likely to affect the party to which I belong disadvantageously; and from this standpoint, too, it can frankly be said that my interest is purely nonpartisan. I am for this bill, because it provides a solution to a difficult situation which may confront us in 1930. For without it we are liable to get a repetition or recurrence in an aggravated form of the very situation which has been described in the debate here this afternoon.

I am willing to subscribe to everything that has been said by the gentleman from Michigan, by the gentleman from California, by the gentleman from Mississippi, and the gentleman from Missouri, so far as the deadlock is concerned.

Now, what is the deadlock? Why, gentlemen, many of the gentlemen who voted to recommit the bill in 1921 wanted reapportionment. Is not that so? Michigan, California, and other States wanted reapportionment, because they realized they were entitled to more membership in the House. But what was the situation V Because they opposed increasing the size of the House, because they wanted to confine the House to 435 Members, they were put in a position where they voted against reapportionment.

Is there anything that is going to happen between now and 1930 to change that dilemma? On the contrary, the situation will become more aggravated, because while in 1921 it would have taken only 483 Members to have satisfied every State in the Union, in 1930 it is going to take 535 Members.

Mr. RANKIN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. If the gentleman from Mississippi will pardon me, I am going to take about 15 minutes in explaining my views on the bill. Then I shall be glad to yield for questions which will help elucidate the bill, and I will be glad to yield lirst to rhe gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. RANKIN. I was just going to say that the gentleman has said those who voted to recommit the bill in 1921 were in favor of reapportionment.

Mr. JACOP.STEIN. I think many of them were.

Mr. RANKIN. He should also state that those who voted against recommitting the bill were in favor of reapportionraent.

Mr. JACORSTEIN. That is true in part, too. I will simply say this: There are gentlemen here who wont reapportionment but do not want a larger House. Let us agree on that first. I have talked to the membership of this House. I am a member of the committee and I know the feeling of my colleagues. There are many Members of the House who want reapportionment but do not want an increase in the size of the House.

Then there are Members of the House who do not want any reapportionment unless the membership of the House is increased to a point where it will prevent their States from 'losing a singe Member. That number is 535, approximately. Then there is a small group that want no reapportionment, because their States would lose their proportionate ratio of the House voting strength no matter how large the House may be. It is a question of simple mathematics. Even if you raise the size of the House to 535, the States whose population has not increased proportionately will lose out in the reapportionmont. Their votes in this Chamber would be less proportionately, because the population in their States is either stagnant or declining.

Mr. Laguardia. But their salaries would be the same.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Yes. My friend from New York says their salaries would be the same. Therefore you have a deadlock. You have a deadlock because you have a block of votes here which will vote against a bill for reapportionment that provided for more than 435, but not enough to protect every State in the Union. Now, it is not likely you are going to get a bill for 535, and, therefore, you will have the States of Missouri, Mississippi, and a lot of other Slates that are going to lose joining hands with those who do not want more than 435, and, therefore, you are likely to get no legislation in 1930.

The rest of us are not interested in taking votes away from ', Mississippi and in taking votes away from Missouri, nor are we interested in giving votes to Michigan. Florida, or California, i I for one am interested merely in upholding the Constitution. , I want representative government. That is all. I do not care ( who wins or who loses.

There is bad sportsmanship here. Why are we afraid to take chances on what is going to happen in 1930? The man who is a good sport will say, "All right; whatever the population under the census of 1030 proves to be I will take my chances on that, and if my State loses, all right, and if my State gains, all right." In passing let me repeat that my State can not gain, and according to the estimates thus far made it is likely to lose one if not two seats in the House.

Of course, it is clearly apparent that the States whose population has increased faster than the average fo.r the country will gain and those whose population has relatively declined will lose proportionately. This is true no matter what the size of the House may be. It we raise the House to 535, no State will lose its present quota but others will increase their quota. So that their relative voting strength depends on the percentage gain or loss in population in 1930 over the 1910 basis. The following table shows the population in 1910 and the probable (estimated) population in 1930. with the percentage of gain or loss. This will give us a background and a picture of what to expect by way of reapportionment in 1930:

[table]
[table]

1 Population Jan. 1, 1920; no estimate made.
1 Population State census 1925, no estimate made.

The population of the United States has increased from 91,000,000 in 1910 to approximately 12r>,000,000 in 1930. Imagine a country increasing by 30,000,000 and not having a reapportioument, which is the situation we may have in 1930. We have skipped once and may do so again. Now, any man who has good statesmanship in him and who is not interested merely in politics, or who is not interested in preserving a few votes for his State, will take a statesmanship view of this question and say, "We do not want this deadlock to occur; we want reapportionmeut, and we believe in representative government." How can we accomplish this? By taking the vote now, to-day or to-morrow, when there is no direct or immediate selfish interest, involved. If you wait until 1930 your own particular seat may be at stake. I am not charging any man here with that kind of selfishness or saying that he is going to vote that way, but if you wait until 1930 you will Lave a very vexatious problem, and gentlemen whose States are going to lose are going to find it difficult to vote for reapportionment.

Now, 17 States may lose in 1930. according to the population estimates made by the Bureau of the Census. Seven States, representing over 200 Congressmen and representing 34 Senators, and you can readily understand what little chance you will have of getting u bill through this House that does not satisfy everybody, and everybody means a House of 533 Members. I doubt if any Member seriously contemplates that size of a House. That would be so unwieldy a8 to defeat the purpose of representative government.

The following table represents the States which would lose one or more Members with the House on the basis of preliminary estimates of population for 1930 and assuming the House to retain its present 435 membership:

Alabama 10

Indiana 13

Iowa U

Kansas H

Kentucky 11

l.'nii .i inn 8

Maine 4

Massachusetts 16

Mississippi 8

Missouri 16

Nebraska 6

Now York -43

North Dakota

Pennsylvania 36

Tennessee -» 10

Vermont 2

Virginia 10

Total 215

Mr. KETCHAM. Before the gentleman leaves that point, will he state how many States are involved in the situation as it is under the census of 1920 and how many more States will be involved under the census of 1930?

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Why, of course, the disease is an aggravated disease. I wish I could use your medical terminology, Doctor Sirovich, but you have here a germ disease which becomes more and more malignant. In 1920 only 11 States would have lost seats in the House with a membership of 435. In 1930 17 will lose seats.

[table]

Mr. SIROVICII. Tlie gentleman stated it was a monstrosity.

Mr. JACOBSTK1N. It is n malignant disease like a cancer, and it is going to grow and cat into the body politic and is going to become more dangerous and more serious as time goes on. Our duty is to check it now by enacting this legislation.

Let us not do as England did KH) years ago. drift along until they had no representative government and almost had a revolution in 1832 as a result of the rotten borough system. Let us avoid that How? By to-day or to-morrow when the vote is taken simply pass a hill which does what?

The proposition has been misrepresented here, sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally, but the bill is very simple and I think very fair, very just In its operation. What does it do? It provides, first of all, we are going to take a census at a time favorable to the agricultural population. In the Census Committee I argued all the time that the rural sections should get a square deal in the taking of the census. May 1 is the most favorable time for an agricultural census of population. That is the date provided for in the census bill reported favorably by the committee.

So, after the census of 1930 is taken, we say to the Bureau of Census, "According to the formula we prescribe for you, tell us what the population is in the various States of the Union, and then having found the population of the various States of the Union, tell us how many Representatives Alabama and Wyoming and all the other States of the Union lire entitled to."

The Director of the Census has no discretion in the matter. Any clerk operating in that department under the direction of the Director of tho Census has a very specific and a very definite formula to work with. Every authority that appeared before our committee agreed that this method prescribed is accurate.

This method admits of no discretion on the part, of the Director of the Census, be he Republican or Democrat. He takes the formula and says that according to the census of 1930 Alabama is entitled to so many, New Jersey to so many, New York to so many, Wisconsin to so many, and he submits this report to the Congress on the first day of the session in December. 1030, and then Congress must act.

If the second session of the Seventy-first Congress does not act, and fails to do its duty by March 4 of the following year, then the figures or the statements submitted to us, the Congress of the United States, are submitted to the secretaries of the various States of the Union by tlie Clerk of the House and these figures become the reapportionment figures until Congress chooses to act.

Congress neither surrenders nor abrogates any of its powers. Congress is free at all times to act. It can order a reapportionment any time it sees fit to do so. There is just this difference: So long as a future Congress fails to take affirmative action, then under the provisions of this bill the reapportionment herein provided is to remain in force and effect. That is. on the basis of the 1030 census, until 1040, and then on the 1040 basis, and so forth. The method of major fractions is prescribed, and this I will explain in detail in a few minutes.

There is nothing very mysterious about this. Is there anything unfair about it? We, the Congress, are telling the Census Bureau how to operate. We give it a very accurate, a very

specific formula. It is not as mysterious as the gentleman from Mississippi tried to make it out to be. I think I can explain it to you in live minutes, and I am going to take the five minutes in order to do it, because I find so many Members are unable to explain it to those who really want to know, not because it is obscure but because it has not been explained in simple, language. Kvery authority that knows anything about mathematics at all agree that the formula here laid down for the Director of the Census is a formula so accurate and so definite and so specific that, there is no discretion left to the executive departments. There is not^in this bill the discretion that is given to the Tariff Commission, which has to decide what the costs of production are here and abroad, nor the discretion that is given to the Interstate Commerce Commission, which lias to very delicately adjust freight rates, nor the power given to the Treasury Department, which issues regulations involving the levying of internal taxes and import duties too. There is no discretion in this bill. The Director of the Census absolutely goes through certain motions prescribed by Congress.

We say to the Director of the Census. "After you have taken (he census of the jyopulation of 125.000,000. or whatever it may be, tell us how many are in Pennsylvania, how many in New York, how many in New Jersey, and then with that population, using the method of major fractions, allocate the representation to the States, and submit the statement to Congress in December, 1930."

Now, what is this method of major fractions? I am going to tjike a minute to explain it.

Every Member of this House is holding a seat here according to a mathematical method which was used in the Census Bureau. It was not specifically written in the bill, but was used in tabulations presented to the Census Committee. The gentleman from Mississippi and the gentleman from Missouri were right. The reapportionment bill of 1010 and 1920 did not siwittcally say that we were going to use the method of major fractions, because after a bill comes out on the floor here it merely tells how many Members each State would have. But obviously there must be some method in allocating the Representatives to the several States on the basis of the population of those States and of the country as a whole.

How do they get that Membership? New York received 43 in 1910 because, according to the method of major fractious, that is what she wfts entitled to. How do you get 36 in Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey? Because under major fractions that is what Pennsylvania is entitled to. It makes no difference whether the Director is a Democrat or a Republican. You can not make it any less nor any more. It is simple, accurate, and air-tight.

How do we work it? I will now illustrate what we mean by this method of major fractions prescribed in the bill. First, take the population of each State—I will take the population of New York, my own State, for instance, a population of 11.000.000. and you divide that by iy2. 2Vi, 3M-. 4'/i. 5i/2. 6%. up the scale and so on. You do tlie same for Pennsylvania and for Mississippi, and for every other State. That Is, you get a series of quotients by dividing the population of each State by 11/>. 2*/2, 31/., 4V6. ^Va. and so forth. Now you arrange these quotients in order of size, as shown here in this table [pointing to it].

The following table illustrates the manner in which the method of major fractions oj>erated in the 1010 reapportionment:

[table]
« ПретходнаНастави »