SPEECH OF MR. WALKER, OF WISCONSIN, ON THE BILL TO CEDE THE PUBLIC LANDS. DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, AUGUST 13 , 1850 . The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the following bill: A BILL to cede the public lands of the United States to the States, respectively, in which they are situated ; on condition that the said States shall severally grant and convey the said lands to actual occupants only, in limited quantities, for cost of survey, transfer, and title muniments merely. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the public lands of the United States, not reserved for forts, arsenals, dock yards, navy-yards, or other needful buildings or special purposes, or appropriated for other special uses, except such as are known to contain mines of the precious or gross metals, or precious stones, be, and the same are hereby, ceded and granted to the several and respective States in which the same do lie : Provided, however, That none of the said lands shall vest in either of the said States, until the Legislature thereof shall provide bylaw, and enact the following provisions and stipulations, to operate, and be deemed and taken as a solemn and inviolable compact between such State and the Government of the United States, to wit: First. That such State will grant and convey the land, so ceded to it, to actual occupants only of the land to be conveyed, in a quantity, to each occupant, not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres, or a quarter section, as near as may be, for the cost of survey, transfer, and procuring muniments of title merely, not exceeding in each case the sum of five dollars : such occupant, in every case, to be a citizen of the United States, or a person who has declared his or her intention to become such, according to the laws of the United States, the head of a family, or having reached the age of twenty-one years; and in each case a person who is not the owner of other land in the United States, the quan tity of which, together with that to be granted, would exceed one hundred and sixty acres, or less, as the quantity may be limited by such State. Second. That the land so to be granted to any such occupant shall be and remain forever exempt from forced sale, ex¬ tent, or levy, on execution or decree from or by any court of law or equity. Third. That any such grantee, his heirs, devisees, or grantees, shall be forever prohibited from alienating or convey¬ ing the land, or any part thereof, so to him granted, to any person or corporation which owns, or would thereby become the owner, of more land than the quantity limited by such State as aforesaid ; and, if a married man, without the vol¬ untary consent of the wife given in the deed of conveyance. Fourth. That such State shall require the occupancy aforesaid to be manifested by an actual residence upon and cultivation of a part of the land to be couveyed for at least one year previous to any conveyance to such occupant ; which residence and cultivation, with the other requisites of a grantee as aforesaid, shall be proved, by the oath or affir¬ mation of two credible witnesses, before conveyance. Fifth. That such State will reserve one section for school, and oue section for village purposes, a* near as may be to the centre of each township. The section so reserved for village purposes to be laid out into building lots, parks, and public grounds, the building lots to be granted to actual occupants only, not exceeding one lot to each, in the same man¬ ner and on the same conditions as the agricultural lands are to be granted : Provided, That the same individual shall in no case receive a grant of both a village lot and agricultural land : And provided, also. That if there shall be important water-power in any township, the reservation of one section for village purposes may be so made as to embrace such water-power, and which water-power may be so improved, for the use of the village and neighborhood, as the State may provide or direct. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That ns soon as practicable after the President shall have been officially notified that any or either of the said States has made the provisions and stipulations aforesaid, it shall be his duty to cause to be made out, and properly certified, copies of all treaties, maps, olats, records, surveys, field notes, or other muniments or evidences of title to the land in such States, and to torward the same to the marshal of the proper State, whose duty it it shall be to deliver the same to the Governor of such.State, upon receiving, for the use of the United States, the cost of transcribing and making such copies, and the transmission thereof as aforesaid. Sec. 3. Ajii he it further enacted. That from and after the delivery of such copies as aforesaid, all acts of Congress inconsistent with or repugnant to this act, shall i-ta‘nd and Re repealed ; and all right, title, and mteiest of the United States to and in the said lands shall c<*ase, and they* vnia shall vett in such State. 2 Mr. WALKER said: Mr. President: The bill now under consideration involves questions of greater magnitude, in my opinion, than any other which has engaged the attention of the Senate at this or any previous session. It may be that I shall not be able to make this mani¬ fest; but I may be able to present such views and considerations aS will aid the reflection of others to fill up the deduction, and arrive at a correct view of those questions. As I. view the bill before us, it involves a consideration of the rights oi man, as man, to the means of life, freedom, and self-subsistence. I shall offer no argument to prove man’s right to life ; for a denial of it would involve a censure upon the Creator for granting it, against which it would be impious to offer a vindication. But, assuming this right to be conceded, I proceed to the consideration of the right, or rightful power, of society to deprive him of the means of its enjoyment. What are those means ? I shall consider such only as are indispensable. The first is food ; the second raiment; the third shelter—embracing security against the elements by a habitable mansion. These are indispensable to the enjoyment of the right to life, or to lice. I do not mean by the term “enjoyment,” 'pleasure or happiness; but I mean simply use. I say, then, that food, raiment, and shelter are indispensable means to the use of the right tolive. Has society the right, or the rightful power, to deprive individual man of these means? In words, I shall be answered, no ; and the inquiry will be addressed to me no doubt—when did society ever attempt to do this? I answer—every day, in modern times, since society was organized as it now is, in its relations to land. Things that have become familiar, cease to strike us as pecu¬ liar ; and it requires thought and reflection to get beneath the surface ; to divest ourselves of second nature—to see the true operations of causes, which from their familiarity and continued ope¬ ration—we are disposed at first to deny are causes at all. Ever since the laws of society have permitted some to accumulate to themselves, to the exclu¬ sion of others, more land than they could use, a portion of mankind have been deprived, to some extent, of food—the first indispensable to the enjoyment of the right to life. If I am told that but few have starved—I answer that some have ; and that more have not, is not by reason of the cause being inadequate, if suffered to operate to its results; but because charity, in some form, has granted the food to which the individual was entitled, as a product of his own labor in the right¬ ful occupancy and cultivation of so much land as would yield it. But charity is not a right; and he who lives by charity, does not live through the exercise of a right. Men never demand chari¬ ty, either in the form of alms or employment, as a right; and when society says to the individual— live by charity if you have not land from which to produce the means of life, the individual has the right to reply—you have no rightful power to deprive me of land on which co exercise the powers and faculties which God has given me, to produce the means to use independently , and loithout charity, the right to live. This I could do—this I would be willing and happy to do ;— but the reply has been hitherto unavailing. So it has been in regard to raiment; and when I am told, as before, that but few have gone naked, I again answer, that some have ; if more have not, it has not been because the means used by society were inadequate in their tendency ; but because charity, again, either in alms or employment, has afforded the clothing to which individuals were entitled, as the product of independent labor. But no labor is independent when employed by charity—labor has no right to charitable employment; but it has a right to employ itself inde¬ pendently, upon so much land as will yield the food and raiment indispensable to life ; or else the permissive sentence of the Creator, that man shall till the ground, and eat bread in the sweat of his brow, is a mockery. Sir, when we come to shelter, including habitable mansion, what shall we say ? If the laws of the country or society were strictly enforced—and that they are not, is again a dole of charity, and not of legal right—there are nowthousands in this Republic who would not only not possess the privi¬ lege of shelter or mansion, but would have not even the privilege of breathing the air of heaven. What are some of those laws? As regards land, one of them is, that he viho hath dominion in the soil, hath dominion to the heavens. This is the maxim of the law upward ; the maxim downward is, that he who owns the surface, owns to the centre of the earth. Now where is the landless man to build his shelter or mansion ? On the unowned or unoccupied land ?—there is none. It is all owjied or occupied, either by individuals or the Government. He can build his shelter on the land of neither but as a tresspasser, or at best by sufferance ; and if the latter, he does so not by right, but by charity. Shall he build it in the highway ?—that would be a nuis¬ ance, which would and must be abated. If he build it over the land of another—if that were possible—he is equally a tresspasser, or tenant by permission , and not of right. If he burrow un - der the land of another, the case is the same. There is then, no spot upon, above, or below God’s earth, where the landless have the legal right to shelter—an indispensable means to use the right to live. But suppose he dispense with sheller—where has he the right —not as a tresspasser, or by permission—to stand up, sit, or lie down ? On the land of another ?—there he has no right. In the highway ?—there he would be trodden or.run over, or be liable to removal as a nuisance or a vagrant. Then, wherever the landless-may-st-a-ndr nit, or lie down—to breathe, to rest, to warm, or to slumber—he is either a tresapassef or a dependant upon charity, as the law now **PP>,1 k 3 etands. He has no legal right to do so auywhere. If I am told that these are extreme deduc¬ tions—that the law is rarely so enforced—that charity and hospitality mitigate the rigor or' the ] av v—I answer that I am not expressing strictures upon, or censuring the charity or hospitality of man—God only knows what the poor would do without it!—but I am speaking of the rights of man, and how those rights have been subverted—how the mere tolerance, charity, or permission of the more favored, has been made to usurp the place of those rights. Aside from these, the law leaves the landless man the right to no place whereon to live, to rest, or to die ; and charity only lends him a grave in which to repose when dead. It the legal organism of society thus deprives the landless of the means oflife, how much more must it deprive him of the means to enjoy or use his right to freedom ? What a mockery is the sound or name of freedom to him who has the right to no place whereon to rest or where to die, but by permission of another! I would not be understood to mean that the landless have no in¬ dependence—that they are to be bent to base purposes or ends ; far from it. I know' there are thousands of our countrymen, who have no home or abiding place of their own, who could not be thus swerved or bent—they would suffer the chord oflife to be snapped first; but I mean that they do not possess the means of freedom to control their time and labor, or to enjoy their social and domestic rights and relations. When we come to consider the right of man to the means of self subsistence, we approach di¬ rectly the inquiry—what are those means 1 They are the means to produce the food—to pro¬ duce or fabricate the clothing—to construct and inhabit the shelter or mansion, necessary to the right to live ; and this by his own exertions, independent upon charity, or the permission of an¬ other ; and not only for himself, but for his family also—that the family circle may be kept in¬ tact ; and not for the purpose merely of keeping soul and body together, but for the further pur¬ pose of self-improvement and culture, and the education of children. The occupations commonly pursued to these ends, are either the mechanic arts or agriculture. He who exercises a mechanic art for self-subsistence, must have shelter for himself and family ; and to have it, he must have land on which to rest it; else he will possess one of the means to live, not independently, but by permission or sufferance. If he exercise the pursuit of agricul¬ ture, he equally requires shelter for himself and family ; and besides, he requires an object on which to apply his agricultural skill and labor ; and this object is land. If he have not this of his own, he does not subsist himself, but is subsisted by another through charity ; for, although he la¬ bor, and earn hard the food, raiment and shelter he uses and occupies, the privilege to labor is but a boon granted ; and it is always granted at a sacrifice on the part of the laborer, proportioned to his necessities, and the number of those pressed by like necessities. If this number be great, and his necessities be pressing ; if they have reached that stage when hunger craves bread—when the vital energies demand warmth and shelter from the elements ; he must either surrender the right oflife, or beg as a charity the privilege of laboring to preserve it. His right of self subsistence is already denied—he is a pittance slave. His family circle being broken up—its members scatter¬ ed—the education of his children becomes impossible. Separated from parental care, influence, and advice—subjected to the evil example of the vicious—they grow up in debasing ignorance, vice, and squalid misery. This would rarely be, if man’s right to independent self-subsistence were acknowledged and practised, upon, by granting his right to land, from which to produce food and raiment—on which to establish his home and shelter from the elements, as a means of life and freedom, and where to keep unbroken the family circle. If it be said that the land of the country being granted free to actual settlement, there would still he a class of mere laborers ; I answer—I admit the fact; and further : I claim that it would be necessary to the beauty and harmony of the system. But then, labor icould be emancipated; the demand would be proportioned to, and commensurate with the supply ; the laborer, no longer pinched by hunger, thirst, and cold, would have the command of his own labor. Instead of being under the necessity, as now, of begging the poor privilege of laboring for bread, raiment, and shelter lor himself, his wife, and children—his labor would be on a par with other necessaries of society—would be sought as they are sought ; and the laborer would have the power to demand that reward for it, which would not only afford the means of life—such as lood, clothing, and shelter—but such as would furnish besides these, the comforts of social and domestic life—of re¬ creation, mental culture, and improvement—and a home, where wife, mother and children, could enjoy protection and comfort, and offspring be reared in the nuture and admonition of Heaven ; to become useful members of society and defenders of the State, instead of paupers, vagrants, felons, or outlaws. Has society the right to deprive itself of these blessings, and to impose upon itself such curses, at a cost of so much individual suffering, and the sacrifice of so much individ¬ ual freedom, comfort, and enjoyment ? I think not: and I hope the hitherto low murmur for re¬ form may be raised by the people to a voice that may force public men to the performance of the duty so long neglected, of restoring to man, as man, the God-given right to a home and footing upon earth ; with the right to till the ground—to eat the bread of free labor—to build his taber¬ nacle there—to sitfdown with wife, children, and friends, under his own roof, without the fear of molestation. 4 Am I told that the evils I apprehend are remote 1 I answer—to some extent they are upon us now ; that the remainder are not, is but an argument that we should provide the preventive before they are. When they have fully come, prevention will be impossible ; and a remedy will require the foundations of society to be torn up—the lands to be distributed as in France in 1793—to silence the cry for bread, clothes, and shelter. “Be wise to-day to-morrow, or next year, or in a few years at most, the public lands will have passed from under your dominion—they will have passed into the hands of the few who have the means to buy them ; it will then be too late to lay the foundation of the system demanded by the people, and now under consideration. There was a time when the happy peasant of Ireland saw not the silent operation of causes which were laying the foundation of the wretchedness, want, and famine that have now overtaken his pos¬ terity. Because he did not, or could not cast his eyes into the future, anticipate the evil, and ap¬ ply the preventive—his posterity now, with plenty around them—while able and willing to toil— must beg the food, raiment, and shelter necessary to life ; and too often failing even thus to ob¬ tain them, must famish and starve. The same may be said, to a great extent, of England. In England and Ireland both, there is a population of about 30,000,000. Of this population, but about 60,000 are land owners—but one in every five hundred ! —one person controlling the soil, while Jour hundred and ninety-nine go without rightful food, clothing, or shelter, or a spot where they can claim the right to labor, sleep, or rest. Famine came upon Ireland in 1822; an appeal was made in England, and about $1,520,000 were raised for her relief. During tnis same year there was exported from Ireland, in articles of subsistence alone, the value of $22,594,160. These exportations amounted for the years 1821-2 — 3 to more than $80,000,000 : yet thousands starved to death, according to law, and by the legal grace of God ! This could not have happened, if each adult in Ireland had possessed but one acre to cultivate ; but land monopoly could and did do the work of the destroying angel, as it is now again doing in that unhappy country. I tell the Senate now—and warn it of the fact—that men will never starve to death in a republic—that they will never see their wives and children starve and die before their eyes in this republic—while there is plenty of land to yield subsistence, but which is monopolized to their exclusion. Such things can only be inflicted in a monarchy—ab¬ solute or limited—where political freedom is hand-cuffed and manacled by a power which the people cannot reach. Here there is no such power ; and hence no power to impose upon Ame¬ ricans, by either positive or negative means, the unmitigated miseries of European w'ant and des¬ titution. England herself cannot much longer impose them—even she is too limited in her powers. To show more in detail the condition of things in England and Ireland under the effects of land monopoly, I will present an extract from the last address of the “ Industrial Congress ” of the National Reform Association, held at Cincinnati: “ A few examples of the extent of this monopoly may he instructive. The following facts are reported from the electoral divisions of Belmullei and Birminghamstown, both of the Union of Beilina and the county of Clare: Area ... 182,376 acres. Poponlation in 1841 - -- -- -- - 22,775 Occupiers of lands - - - - - - 392 “ Area cultivated ........ 2,775 “ “ Here are 182,376 acres, only 2,775 of which are the people permitted to cultivate, while out of 22,775 persons, 392 occupied the whole ! “ The following facts are reported from Jjewcastle Union, in the county of Limerick : Area ------- -- 171,862 acres. Population ------- - 60,000 Land cultivated - -- -- -- - 38,722 “ v “ Here we find abundant proof that Great Britain is not overpopulated ; for if 60,000 persons can live from 38,722 acres, the whole territory of Newcastle Union will feed over 250,000. Many other similar statements could be made. All Ireland stands thus : Area - In crops for human use in 1847 20,808,271 acres. 5,238,575 “ “ Here we find only a little more than one- r ourth of the territory of Ireland cultivated for the support of man. In¬ stead, therefore, of there being a necessity of starvation in Ireland, she has abundant land for the support of at least three times her present population. Abolish land monopoly, and it can be done. “ We find the following facts in relation to England : Area - -- -- -- -- 32,342,400 acres. In cultivation ------ , 25,332,000 “ Arable and garden -----r_ 10 552,600 “ Meadow and pasture ------- 15,397,400 “ “ Here we see that three-fifths of the extent cultivated are devoted to the pleasures and aggrandizement of the wealthy few, while two-fifths are cultivated for the supply of the millions. Besides all this 7.000,000 acres are not under culti¬ vation. A writer in one of the London quarterlies estimates that the United Kingdon of Great Britain and Ireland can sustain in high comfort from 120 to 180,000,000 people. And yet they devote hecatombs of human beings as a sacrifice to mammon, while the population is not 30,000,000.” Let us see now what effect the same cause has produced upon the price of labor. The British Government, a few years since, instituted an inquiry into the rate of wages in various countries in Europe, and the following table is prepared from the answers of her consuls, and other documents: Country and Dis¬ trict. Description of Servants. Sterling currency. Yearly Wages. Sterling currency, Daily Wages. With or with¬ out board. With or with¬ out dwelling. Yearly ave rage. FRANCE. Calais - Ploughmen 100 s to 160s - - - With With 130s 4* Shepherds 250s - - 4 4 «• 250s 4 4 Laborers - - 7 l-2d - 44 without - Bologne 1 - Ploughmen 144s - - • 4 with 141s 44 Laborers - - 5d - without without - Havre - Farm Servants generally 160s to 240s - - with with 20 I)s B rest - Laborers - 48s to 120s — — 4 4 44 84s Nantes - 4 4 - 8 l- 2 d without without - Cliarente - - Farm Servants 60s to 160s — — with with 11 Us Bordeaux - - Laborers • - 12d to 15d without without - Bayonne - - 4 4 9d to 12d - 44 4 4 - Marseilles - Shepherds 200s to 240s - - with with 220 s 44 Laborers - - 4 l-2d to 7d 44 without - Corsica - 4 4 - lid - without 44 - GERMANY. Dantzic - Farm Servants 52s to 64s — — with with 58s 44 Laborers - - 4 3-4d to 7d without 44 - M ecklenburg - Farm Servants 100 s — - with 4 4 100s 44 Laborers - 7d — without 4 4 - Halstein - - Harm Servants 73s 6 d to 100s - — — with 44 86 s Id 3fr 4 ( Laborers - - 7d - without 44 NETHERLANDS. 4 South Holland - Farm Servants 200s to 250s - — — with with 225s 4 4 4 ( Laborers - - 3d to 4d — 44 4 4 - North Holland - 44 - 20 d — without without - Friesland - - Farm Servants 50s to 166s 8d - — _ with with 108s 4d 44 Laborers - - 6 d to lOd — without without - Antwerp - - Farm Servants 78s 9d - — - with with 78s 9d 44 Laborers - - 5d — without without - West Flanders - Farm Servants 06s to 104s — — with with 100s Trieste - Laborers - - 12d - without without 4 4 4 4 - 6 d - with with Istria - 4 4 - 8d to 1 Od — without without - 4 4 “ - 4d to 5d _ with with - Genoa - Farm Servants 60s to 100 s — — Si 44 80s 4 4 Laborers - - 5d to Sd — 41 without - 44 .1 - 12 d — without without - Tuscany - - Farm Servants 40s - - with with 40s 44 Laborers - - 6 d - without without - Lower Austria - - - 10 l- 2 d — 44 - - Illyria - - - 8d - 4 4 - - - Tyrol - - lOd — — “ - - lOd Galicia - - - - 5 1 2d — 4 4 - - - Lorn bard v _ - 12d _ 4 4 — — 12d Venice - - 12d - 44 - 12d Yearly average, Federal currency, with board and dwelling ______ §05 67 Daily average (sterling) _________ - -8 l-2d What, sir, is to prevent similar results and consequences here, if things are permitted to pro¬ ceed as they are now tending? Nothing. As sure as redundant population shall come—and come it will—the few will have possessed themselves of the permanent means of life ; while the millions will be in want, wretchedness, and starvation. Experience has shown in all countries under the old system, that the greater the amount of individual wealth of which they could boast, the greater* amount was there of corresponding poverty and destitution—and the less prospect of relief to the suffering. So it will be in our country ; for the same causes are operating to make the rich richer, and the poot rqore helplessly poor. But if the action and policy of this Govern¬ ment shall be such as to secure its vast domain in limited quantities, as homes for the landless, free from sale on execution ; and if the States in their policy shall co-operate in achieving this end, these evils will to a great extent be prevented. One of the duties of the States will be to limit the quantity ofland each individual may hold. If it shall be said that a limitation suited to our present population would not be suited to the population years hence, I have only to say in answer, that the difficulty can easily be met by a system of graduated legislation to meet exigen¬ cies as they arise ; trusting that Providence will send no greater population than the bosom of the earth will nourish and sustain. With an area of 1,584,243,200 acres properly distributed, the day must be remote indeed, when such would not be the case. But if at last a day shall come, to prove that the system has failed—that it was not perfect, or adequate to the end—it will but prove what is known of all human systems and institutions, that they are not perfect. I am no perfectionist—I aim not at perfection. All I claim is, that we should do what good we can, and 0 leave the rest to a higher and a wiser power. Nor am I an “ agrarian.” The maxim of the agrarian is, “ that while one lacks the necessaries, none should be allowed to enjoy the luxuries of life.” This begets a continual and violent levelling policy, to be deprecated every where, and at all times. I contend only, that man should not he permitted to speculate or traffic in that which he cannot produce, or the quantity of which he cannot increase. I of course use the term “ produce” in its ordinary sense, and not in the sense of create —and I mean to include in it the idea of fabrication. In whatever he can produce, or in any thing lawful of which he can increase the quantity, he should be allowed and encouraged to traffic, though it bring the highest luxury ; for then it is but the enjoyment of the product of labor. But man cannot produce land, nor can he increase its quantity, any more than he can produce or increase the quantity of air or water; yet he is permitted to speculate and traffic in land, and incidentally, as I have shown, to traffic and speculate in the very elements of fire, air, and water. The doctrines I hold on this subject are those which were held by Aristotle, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Jefferson, Jackson, and Channing. While Rome, Athens, and Sparta were in thtir glory, these views and sentiments were held by all their leading statesmen ; nor did those coun¬ tries fall until these doctrines had been abandoned, or the systems embraced by them been over¬ thrown. But a misfortune is, that, in entertaining these doctrines and views in modern times, too many run into the ridiculous and odious doctrines of socialism and the community system ; and come to contend that all things should be held in common—as if the occupancy of land, as a natural right for the procurement of the means of life, would destroy in man all evil passions or proneness to vice. The socialism of Proudhon is an abandonment of all ideas of, and dependence upon Christianity? and a presumptuous arrogation of self-sufficiency to man, that, unaided by divine in¬ fluence, he can, of himself, put off his grosser nature, and stand forth in spotless purity. When the suffering and death of the Saviour shall have redeemed man from the thraldom of sin and the effects of the fall, and not till then, may this be expected. Let us now leave general considerations, and view the measute before us in its bearing upon the Government and the States which contain no public land. As regards the Government, it can only be considered in its effects upon the revenue. I have long believed that the Govern¬ ment should cease to consider and treat the public lands a source of revenue ; and I ask no better or higher justification for this belief than the authority of President Jackson. In his message of December 4th, 1832, he says : “ It seems to me to be our true policy that the public lands shall cease, as soon as practicable, to be a source of revenue, and that they he sold to settlers, in lim¬ ited parcels, at a price barely sufficient to reimburse to the United States the expense of the present system,” &c. Again: “ To put an end forever to all partial and interested legislation on the subject, and to afford to every American citizen of enterprise the opportunity of securing an independent freehold, it seems to me best to abandon the idea of raising a future revenue out of the public lands.” The same idea is repeated in his veto message of December 4, 1833 ; and as far as I know or believe, he held these views till he died. Until direct taxation shall be resorted to, the great and important source of revenue to the Gov¬ ernment must be dutips on foreign imports. ISow, every one knows that the amount thus to be received is enhanced, as the number of consumers of foreign imports is increased. Hence I con¬ tend that the revenue would be vastly increased by the policy proposed ; for, by increasing the number of agricultural producers, you increase the number of import consumers, and their ability to consume—or, in other words, their ability to purchase for consumption. The Government, I have no doubt, would be the gainer in her revenue after sacrificing her receipts from the public lands. If this argument be correct, to the extent of the augmentation of the revenue, the measure be¬ fore us would be beneficial to the non-landholding States; and to a further extent: for we pro¬ pose to relieve them and the Government from the burdens of the present land system. But, beyond all this, the old States, equally with the new, are interested in the adoption of the proposed system. We have no population but what was once theirs—ours are now landholders. When the old States join in ceding the public lands to the use of the settler, they join us in ceding them to their own citizens as well as ours ; and they thereby increase incalculably the number and ability of the consumers of Northern fabrics of all kinds, and of the Southern products of sugar, cotton, rice, and tobacco ; as well as the amount to be transported over their canals and railroads, and in their shipping. I will venture the prediction that, in five years after die system shall be established, one year will yield to the old States more value in this way, than five would by way of profit on the sales of the public lands. Why, sir, the whole revenue last year from lands was but $1,688,959: the nett proceeds would not exceed .$1,300,000. The benefits which the individual States would derive from this, would not eqaal the benefits to be derived from the simple addition of fifty thousand to the able consumers and shippers of the new States. As a matter of pecuniary interest, therefore, the old States should be in favor of this system. Whether we view the measure, then, in its bearings upon the interests of the Government or of the old States, it is one of correct policy and sound expediency. To present anotner view of this subject, I will read an extract from an article in the “ Working Parmer,” for Ociober, 1849: “Of the |>opulation of 17,431,852, we find employed as follows: Agricultural pursuits, 1 to every 4 1-2 persons; manufacturing trades, 1 to 22 ; navigation, 1 to every 305 persons ; learned professions, including engineers, 1 to every 289 persons; commerce, 1 to every 140 persons. “ Thus it will be seen that, notwithstanding those engaged in agriculture form by far the most important class, still not an acre of the public domain lias ever been appropriated for their especiai benefit. Every application for an appropria¬ tion of land for experimental farms, agricultural colleges, &c., lias been promptly denied ; while the applicants, after being told that agriculture was a noble art , and that, the farmers were the bone and sinew of the country, have returned home, minus their expenses to Washington, with nothing to the credit of the account but a list of empty compliments from legislators, and a request to vote for their continuance in office as a fair teturn for these compliments.” I propose now to examine the different propositions which have been submitted to the Senate by the Senators from Illinois, Massachusetts, and Texas. That of the Senator from Illinois has the virtue, at least, of being a bill proposing to do some¬ thing, and not a mere abstract resolution, asserting a truism, or proposing an inquiry into a tru¬ ism. But I deem it an imperfect bill. It proposes, it is true, to grant land to the actual settler ; but an actual settler may be a man of wealth, and already a landholder. The bill, then, fails in this particular to secure the grant to the landless and homeless, as it should do. Again, it does not guard the hind when granted from being monopolized by the land speculator, or from again accumulating in the hands of the few, to the privation of the great mass. Further, the bill of the honorable Senator does not provide for the protection of the land to be granted, from forced sale on execution. Without this the grant would be of little avail to the poor, already burdened perhaps by the incumbrance of debt and liability, imposed upon them by the crafty, through the medium of their necessities or misfortunes. While it grants the land, the bill does not propose to relieve the Government of the present system for the disposal of the lands. This can only be done by the plan proposed by the bill under consideration—by letting the States intervene be¬ tween the Government and the settler. The bill of the Senator from Illinois is, then, nothing more than a measure to give away the public lands—unguarded for any of the great and far- reaching purposes for which I have been contending, and for which alone should such a measure be entertained at all. I am satisfied that the distinguished Senator from Illinois—who, I believe, through the whole course of his life, has had his intentions politically right—must now see that he has fallen short in his bill of making those provisions which would secure the great end and object to be held in view— the security and protection of the 'public domain us a home and abiding-place Jor the otherwise homeless. While the proposition of the Senator from Texas is obnoxious to all the objections I have been noticing, it dovs not possess even the virtue of being a bill for any purpose, but a mere resolution of inquiry, And the proposition of the late Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster) is not only a mere resolution,but is a resolution involving a mere aostraction or truism. It is as follows : *'■ Resolved, That, provision ought to be made by law that every male citizen of the United States, and every male per¬ son who has declared his intention of becoming a citizen, according to the provisions of law, of twenty one years of age or Upwards., shall be entitled to enter upon and take any one-quarter section of the public lands which may be open to entry at private sale, for the purposes of residence and cultivation ; and that when such citizen shall have resided on the same land for three years, and cultivated the same, or if, dying in the mean time, residence and cultivation shall he held and canied on by his widow or his heirs, or devisees, for the space of full three years from and after making entry of such land, such residence and cultivation for the said three years to be completed within four years from the time of such entry, then a patent to issue for the same to the person making snch entry, if living, or otherwise to his heirs or devisees, as the case may require: Provided . nevertheless, That such person so entering and taking the quarter section as aforesaid shall not have, nor shall his devisees or heirs have, any power to alienate such land nor create any title thereto in law or equity, by (feed, transfer, lease, or any oiher conveyance except by devise by will.” The resolution is in substance (except the proviso) nothing more than a repetition and declara¬ tion in favor of the provisions of my bill; and why was it necessary to thus bring the measure again before the Senate in this abstract and impracticable form ? But I would ask the honorable Senator, were he now here, if he really meant what he asserts in the proviso to his resolution ? If so, he would establish here a more odious system of life entail than that which succeeded the feudal system of England : he would restrict all transfer during life, except by the last act of the occupant—his last will and testament. Why do this ? Why not permit the occupant to sell and transfer his land, provided he do so to another non-landholder? Why impose this restriction upon the man who may wish to change his location or his business? A free transfer of land or its occupancy, as regulated by the bill under consideration, would not be a trafficking in land, but in the products and improvements of labor. And why should this be restricted or prohibited ? There is another question I would ask the late honorable Senator—and there is no man alive more competent to answer it: Has Congress the power to impose, within the States, such a res¬ triction as that contained in the proviso to his resolution? I presume he would not so contend His proposition, then, is not only an abstraction, hut an unconstitutional abstraction. The bill under consideration is without any of the difficulties upon which I have commented. It secures the grant to the landless in limited quantity; it secures the grant against transfer, ex¬ cept to the landless ; it secures it against forced sale on execution for debt. But it docs not pro- 8 pose to do these things by a direct exercise of power by Congress; the States are introduced to provide the detail of limitation—restriction upon transfer, and exemption from forced sale—thus keeping in view the distinctive powers of the State and Federal Governments. In view, then, of its constitujionality—of its propriety of provision—of the pecuniary interest and policy of the Government and of the old States, the bill before us would seem to be proper and expedient. But the measure is not intended to be based upon State or Government interest or expediency, as bodies politic ; but upon the individual rights of man, as man , to the enjoyment of the means of life, freedom, and self-subsistence. Here its friends plant themselves—here they will stand, and here triumph. If not now, it will not be long before they do. You may not now heed the petitioning voice that has reached you; but if not, the next session of Congress shall see a petition here that will be heeded. This matter has taken hold upon the hearts, feelings and reason of the democratic laboring millions of the land ; they cherish it as the consummation of their hopes— they cannot be put down or silenced. Secret societies of the most powerful and holy kind that were ever formed for secular ends, have been based upon the doctrines of land reform. These doctrines are working themselves into the very soul of society—they must and will have a hearing. Land Reformers have suffered much, and struggled long for a hearing here—they now have it. It is a question for gentlemen to decide for themselves, whether they will now obey the prompt¬ ings of duty and support this bill, or await the stern censorious voice of command. The democracy, the people, are beginning to perceive that that government is the best which secures the greater amount of aggregate individual happiness. They have been inquiring, to what good end is our republic—though of the happiest form on earth—if the result of its action is to be, on the one hand, bloated wealth, large landed proprietorships—the means of life and freedom mo¬ nopolized by the few; and, on the other, a dependant tenantry, with abject servitude, squalid want, poverty, nakedness, homelessness, and starvation 1 ? They have been asking: what worse could the most absolute monarchy impose ? They have at last found the answer: that the true freedom and glory of their country consist in the fact, that the prevention and remedy of the evils which they suffer and apprehend are left to themselves; to be exercised, not through violence or insurrection, but through the ballot-box. Aye—and they have determined to apply the re¬ medy and preventive ; let him who would longer resist them, mark thi writing on the wall ! While there is yet a vast public domain, they demand that it shall be thrown open to free settle¬ ment by landless occupants, in limited quantities, so checked and guarded as to remain the home of the otherwise homeless, and not monopolized or aggregated by the hands of the few to the exclusion of the many. They have determined to put down the doctrine, “ that the Govern¬ ment should take care of the rich, and the rich take care of the poor." To accomplish these ends and these blessings, are the provisions and principles of the bill now under consideration, adapted and designed ; and I can and will here pledge one State of this Union— Wisconsin —that never will she cast her suffrage for the man who shall oppose them. Though young, she has stood fore¬ most for this reform ; she will see it accomplished, or sacrifice, to tne extent of her voice, the last and every legislator who shall oppose it. I am happy to have heard so many distinguished Sen¬ ators express their concurrence in the principles of the measure before us, and will not believe it can fail, until I am convinced by a vote of the entire Senate. If this shall happen now, I give notice that, at every session while I have the honor of a seat here, I shall renew and urge the measure till it triumph, as my highest earthly ambition. If an appeal here be in vain, I appeal to the agricultural, mechanic, and 'aboring multitudes of the country to sustain me in the effort. Let them hold their meetings —let them draw up, sign, and send on their petitions, in the lan¬ guage of men who have the right to be heard, and who will be heard— and success and triumph WILL BE THEIRS.