XXVII.

SPEECH ON THE PROSPECTIVE PRE-EMPTION BILL, JANUARY 12, 1841.

THE bill to establish a permanent prospective pre-emption system in favour of settlers on the public lands, who shall inhabit and cultivate the same, and raise a log cabin thereon, being the special order of the day, was taken up, the question being on the proposition by Mr. Crittenden to recommit the bill, with instructions to report a bill to distribute the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the states; which Mr. Calhoun offered to amend, by substituting a bill to cede the public lands to the states in which they lie, upon certain conditions.

Mr. Calhoun said: I regard the question of the public lands, next to that of the currency, the most dangerous and difficult of all which demand the attention of the country and the government at this important juncture of our affairs. I do not except a protective tariff, for I cannot believe, after what we have experienced, that a measure can again be adopted which has done more to corrupt the morals of the country, public and private, to disorder its currency, derange its business, and to weaken and endanger its free institutions, than any other except the paper system, with which it is so intimately allied.

In offering the amendment I propose, I do not intend to controvert the justice of the eulogium which has been so often pronounced on our land system in the course of this discussion. On the contrary, I believe that it was admirably adjusted to effect its object, when first adopted; but it must be borne in mind that a measure, to be perfect, must be adapted to circumstances, and that great changes have taken place, in the lapse of fifty years, since the adoption of our land system. At that time, the vast region now covered by the new states, which have grown up on the public domain, belonged to foreign powers, or was occupied by numerous Indian tribes, with the exception of a few sparse settlements on the inconsiderable tracts to which the title of the Indians was at that time extinguished. Since then a mighty change has taken place. Nine states have sprung up as if by magic, with a population not less, probably, than two fifths of the old states, and destined to surpass them in a few years in numbers, power, and influence. That a change so mighty should so derange a system intended for an entirely different condition of things as to render important changes necessary to adapt it to present circumstances, is no more than might have been anticipated. It would, indeed, have been a miracle had it been otherwise; and we ought not, therefore, to be surprised that the operation of the system should afford daily evidence that it not only deranged, but deeply deranged, and that its derangement is followed by a train of evils that threaten disaster, unless a timely and efficient remedy should be applied. I would ask those who think differently, and who believe the system still continues to work well, Was it no evil, that session after session, for the last ten or twelve years, Congress should be engaged in angry and deeply agitating discussions, growing out of the public lands, in which one side should be denounced as the friends, and the other as the enemies, of the new states? Was the increasing violence of this agitation from year to year, and threatening ultimately, not only the loss of the public domain, but the tranquillity and peace of the country, no evil? Is it well that one third of the time of Congress should be consumed in legislating on subjects directly or indirectly connected with the public lands, thereby prolonging the sessions propor tionally, and adding to the expense upward of $200,000 annually? Is

no evil that the government should own half the lands within the limits of nine members of this Union, and over which they can exercise no authority or control? Is it nothing that the domain of so many states should be under the exclusive legislation and guardianship of this government, contrary to the genius of the Constitution, which, intending to leave to each state the regulation of its local and peculiar concerns, delegated to the Union those only in which all had a common interest? If to all these be added the vast amount of patronage exercised by this government through the medium of the public lands over the new states, and through them over the whole Union, and the pernicious influence thereby brought to bear on all other subjects of legislation, can it be denied that many and great evils result from the system as it now operates, which call aloud for some speedy and efficient remedy?

But why should I look beyond the question before us to prove, by the confession of all, that there is some deep disorder in the system? There are now three measures before the Senate, each proposing important changes, and the one or the other receiving the support of every member of the body; even of those who cry out against changes. It is too late, then, to deny the disordered state of the system. The disease is admitted, and the only question is, What remedy shall be applied?

I object both to the bill and the amendment proposed by the senator from Kentucky (Mr. Crittenden), because, regarded as remedial measures, they are both inappropriate and inadequate. Neither pre-emption, nor distribution of the revenue received from the public lands, can have any possible effect in correcting the disordered action of the system. I put the question, Would one or the other contribute in the smallest degree to diminish the patronage of the government, or the time consumed on questions growing out of the public lands, or shorten the duration of the sessions, or withdraw the action of the government over so large a part of the domain of the new states, and place them and their representatives here on the same independent footing with the old states and their representatives, or arrest the angry and agitating discussions which year after year distract our councils, and threaten so much mischief to the country? Far otherwise would be the effect. It would but increase the evil, by bringing into more decided conflict the interests of the new and old states. Of all the ills that could befall them, the former would regard the distribution as the greatest, while the latter would look on the pre-emption system, proposed by the bill, as little short of an open system of plunder, if we may judge from the declarations which we have heard in the course of the debate.

As, then, neither can correct the disease, the question is, What remedy can? I have given to this question the most deliberate and careful examination, and have come to the conclusion that there is, and can be, no remedy short of cession-cession to the states respectively within which the lands are situated. The disease lies in ownership and administration, and nothing short of parting with both can reach it. Part with them, and you will at once take away one third of the business of Congress; shorten its sessions in the same proportion, with a corresponding saving of expense; lop off a large and most dangerous portion of the patronage of the government; arrest these angry and agitating discussions, which do so much to alienate the good feelings of the different portions of the Union, and disturb the general course of legislation, and endanger, ultimately, the loss of the public domain. Retain them, and they must continue, almost without mitigation, apply what palliatives you may. It is the all-sufficient and only remedy.

Thus far would seem clear. I do not see how it is possible for any

one to doubt that cession would reach the evil, and that it is the only remedy that would. If, then, there should be any objection, it can only be to the terms or conditions of the cession. If these can be so adjusted as to give assurance that the lands shall be as faithfully managed by the states as by this government, and that all the interests involved shall be as well, or better secured than under the existing system, all that could be desired would be effected, and all objections removed to the final and quiet settlement of this great, vexed, and dangerous question. In saying all objections, I hold that the right of disposing of them as proposed, especially when demanded by high considerations of policy, and when it can be done without pecuniary loss to the government, as I shall hereafter show, cannot be fairly denied. The Constitution gives to Congress the unlimited right of disposing of the public domain, and, of course, without any other restrictions than what the nature of that trust and terms of cession may impose; neither of which forbids their cession in the manner proposed.

That the conditions can be so adjusted, I cannot doubt. I have carefully examined the whole ground, and can perceive no difficulty that cannot be surmounted. I feel assured that all which is wanting is to attract the attention of the Senate to the vast importance of doing something that will effectually arrest the great and growing evil, resulting from the application of the system, as it exists, to that portion of the public domain lying in the new states. That done, the intelligence and wisdom of the body will be at no loss to adjust the details in such manner as will effectually guard every interest, and secure its steady and faithful management.

In the mean time, I have adopted the provisions of the bill introduced originally by myself, and twice reported on favourably by the Committee on Public Lands, as the amendment I intend to offer to the amendment of the senator from Kentucky (Mr. Crittenden), as containing the general outlines of the conditions and provisions on which the lands may be disposed of to the states with safety and advantage to the interest of the government and the Union, and great benefit to those states. The details may, no doubt, be greatly improved; for which I rely on the intelligence of the body and critical examination of the committee, should the amendment be adopted and referred. At the present stage, I regard nothing but the great principles on which it rests, and its outlines, to be at issue; and I do hope that all who may concur with me on principle will give the amendment their support, whatever imperfection they may suppose to exist in its modifications. A measure relating to a question so vast and complicated can be perfected in its details, however sound the principles on which it rests, or correct its general outlines, only by the joint consultation and counsel. With these remarks, it will not be necessary for me, at this stage, to give more than a general summary of the provisions of the proposed amendment.

Its object is to instruct the committee so to amend the bill as to dispose of all the public lands lying in the states of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, with the exception of sites for forts, navy and dock yards, arsenals, magazines, and other public buildings; the cession not to take place till after the 30th of June, 1842, and then only on the states respectively agreeing to the conditions prescribed in the amendment; that is, to pass acts irrevocably to adhere to those conditions, the most prominent of which is to pay annually, on a day fixed, to the United States sixty-five per cent. of the gross proceeds of the sales of the lands; that the land laws, as they now stand, and as proposed to be modified by the amendment, shall re

main unchanged, except with the consent of Congress; that the cession shall be in full of the five per cent. fund thereafter to accrue to those states; that they shall be exclusively liable for the cost of surveys, sales, extinction of Indian titles, and management generally; that the states may, within certain prescribed limits, gradually reduce the price of the lands that may remain unsold after having been offered for sale ten years or upward; may grant, for a limited period, the right of pre-emption for ninety days to the actual settlers, at each step in the reduction of price; and, finally, that if the conditions of cession be violated by a state in any particular, all titles or grants to land thereafter sold by the state to be null and void: thus giving the measure the force and solemnity of a compact, and placing the whole under the protection of the courts, which would pronounce the titles to be void if made after an infraction of the conditions of the cession.

It is not my intention to go into an investigation of these various conditions at this time. On a question of reference, where the principle only is at issue, it is not necessary. It is sufficient to say that the leading object is to make as little change in the land system, as it now exists, as is consistent with the object in view, and to adopt such provisions as will enforce the faithful performance of the terms of cession on the part of the states, with the least compensation for their expense and trouble, and loss to the government, in a pecuniary point of view, consistent with the arrangement. If it can be made to appear that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the states will faithfully comply with these conditions, and that there will be no pecuniary loss to the government, compared with the system as it now stands, in consequence of the proposed disposition, it would seem difficult to conceive what substantial objection there can be to the measure.

I am thus brought to the great, I might say the only question admitting a doubt as to the expediency of the measure. Will the states adhere to their contract? or, to express it differently, would there be danger that the government would lose the land, in consequence of the states refusing to comply with the conditions of the cession? And if not, will the pecuniary loss to the government be such as to make it inexpedient, even if there be full assurance that the terms of cession will not be violated?

Before I enter on the discussion of these important points, it will be proper to make a few remarks on the extent of the interest that would be embraced in the cession. Without it, there would be but an imperfect conception of the subject.

The quantity of public lands lying in the new states, and embraced in the amendment, was estimated to be, on the 1st of January, 1840, about 160,000,000 of acres. It has been reduced since by sales, the exact quantity not known; but it will not materially vary the amount. The Indian title has been extinguished to nearly the whole, and about three fourths have been surveyed and platted, of which a larger part has been long in the market (much more than twenty years), and has been picked and culled, over and over again, with the view of taking all worth having, at the present price, even during the great expansion of currency, and consequent rise in price, and speculation in public lands, in 1835, 1836, and 1837. If compared in quantity to the remainder of the public do main, it will be found to be not equal to one sixth part of the whole. In this respect, it is a far more limited measure than that proposed by the senator from Kentucky, to which mine is an amendment. That embraces not only the proceeds of the whole public domain, exceeding 1,000,000,000 acres, but includes, in addition, the large sums drawn from the duties on imports, which are annually expended on its sales and management, all

of which he proposes permanently to distribute.

It is also more limited

in its application than the original bill, which embraces all the lands to which the Indian title is extinguished, as well territories as states, which greatly exceeds the quantity lying in the latter.

Having now shown the object and the character, with the scope of this measure, I shall next proceed to the great, and I must say, in my opinion, the only question that admits of controversy, Will the states adhere faithfully to the terms of the cession? Or, on the contrary, will they violate a compact solemnly entered into, on just and liberal principles, mutually beneficial to both, and which will place them, as to their domain, on the same independent footing on which the other states stand?

I would ask, at the outset, Is there anything in their history to justify a suspicion of a want of good faith? Have they been in the habit of violating contracts? If so, point out a single instance? Instead of giving ground to excite suspicion, I rejoice to say their history affords many and striking examples of exact and faithful compliance with their engagements. They all have standing compacts with the government, entered into on their admission into the Union, which impose important limitations on what otherwise would be their unquestioned right as independent members of the Union; and, among others, the important one, not only of not taxing the vast portion of their domain held by the United States within their limits, but also, for the period of five years after sale, the portion held by purchasers. To their honour be it said, that, in the long period which has elapsed from the admission of the oldest of these states, there has not been a single instance of a violation on their part of their plighted faith. With so striking an example of fidelity to engagements, with what justice can it be objected that the states will violate their plighted faith to a contract every way advantageous to them, as well as to the rest of the Union?

But I take higher ground, and put the question, With what propriety can we object to the want of faith on the part of the states to their engagements? What is our Constitution but a compact between the states? and how do we hold seats here but in virtue of that compact? And is it for us to turn round and question the faith on which our system stands, and through which we have our political existence; and this, too, when it is notorious that the state governments have adhered with far more fidelity than this to the constitutional compact? Many and great violations are charged, and truly charged to us, while few, very few, can be justly attributed to them.

But, admitting there might be danger of losing the lands, should they be disposed of as proposed, from the want of good faith on the part of the states, I boldly assert that the danger of their being lost is far greater if the present system should, unfortunately, be continued, and that, too, under circumstances vastly more disastrous to the peace and safety of the Union. What I have asserted comes from deep and solemn conviction, resulting from a long and careful examination of this vast and complicated subject.

Those who have not given special attention to it, and the progress of our land system, can form no just conception of the danger to which the public lands are exposed. The danger is twofold: that they will be lost by the mere progress of settlement, without payment, in consequence of the vast quantity beyond the wants of the country, to which the Indian title is extinguished; and if that should not be the case, they will be from the growing conflict between the old and new states, in consequence of the rapid increase of the latter, and the great difference in their respective views of the policy proper to be adopted in reference to them. Both