INSANE AND HOMESTEAD BILLS-CLAYTON AMENDMENT. 
 
 V I E YV s 
 
 9 , 
 
 RICHARD 
 
 i 
 
 4 
 
 EXPRESSED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 BRODHEAD 
 
 July 5, 1854. 
 
 The Senate having resumed the consideration of 
 the President’s Message vetoing the Indigent In¬ 
 sane Bill— 
 
 Mr. BRODHEAD said: 
 
 Mr. President: This is a proper occasion to 
 consider the insane and the homestead bills. 1 
 propose to say a few words in regard to both; my 
 rrw.in object, however, being to assign the reasons 
 for the vote i intend to give against the one last 
 named. The message of the President, refusing 
 his sanction to the insane bill, brings it oefore us 
 for reconsideration. Some of his reasons, if good 
 against the one, are equally conclusive, in my opin¬ 
 ion, against the other. Upon this point, however, 
 there is much dispute am^ng his friends, not only 
 in this body, but elsewhere. In view of this 
 fact, if 1 wished to embarrass him, and could so 
 far disregard my duty as to desire to do so on a 
 great measure of this kind, 1 would vote for the 
 homestead bill, and send it to him either to be 
 signed or vetoed. But, sir, I am governed by no 
 such motive. I consider the positions taken by 
 the President against the insane bill impregnable, 
 and his reasoning unanswerable; and l will en¬ 
 deavor to show that some of them commit against 
 the homestead bill. But whether they do or not, 
 1 think l can show good cause for the vote I in¬ 
 tend to give against it when it comes up. 
 
 The following giant of power is found in the 
 fourth article of the Constitution: 
 
 “ The Cqugress sjrill have power indispose of, and make 
 all needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory or 
 other property belonging to the United States.” 
 
 This clause when considered alone would cer¬ 
 tainly seem to confer upon Congress absolute and 
 unqualified jurisdiction over the public lands, but 
 in order to comply with a sound rule of construc¬ 
 tion, it must be considered in connection with 
 other grants and restrictive clauses in the same 
 instrument. Under it Congress passed the bill now 
 about to be reconsidered, granting ten millions of 
 acres of the public lands (not to be sold for less 
 than $10,000,000) for the support of the indigent 
 insane in the several States, and to be divided 
 among the several States in proportion to size and 
 representation. The proceeds of the sales of the 
 said lands to be managed in pursuance of the 
 terms of the grant by State authority. 
 
 j Under the clause of the Constitution which I 
 j have just cited, the advocates of this bill contend 
 ! that Congress has the same power to grant or give 
 away, or ** dispose ” of the public lands, that a man 
 'owning a farm in fee simple, would have, and 
 hence that Congress has a right to grant the pub¬ 
 lic lands for the benefit of the insane poor in the 
 States. I cannot concur in opinion with them. 
 The Federal and State governments seldom, if 
 ever, have concurrent jurisdiction on any subject. 
 The Federal Government is one ofgranted powers, 
 and all power not granted is retained by the States. 
 Now, it will not be contended that theStates have 
 not power to make provision for the support of the 
 insane poor, or the poor not insane, or the poor 
 orphan, and hence for the Federal Government to 
 attempt to do it, would be a violation of State 
 sovereignty and a reversal of the great leading and 
 , fundamental idea upon which the Federal Govern¬ 
 ment is founded,to wit: the independence and the 
 sovereignty of the States. A private owner of 
 land is under no restraint as to alienation. A father 
 may dispose of his land so as to do great injustice 
 to his wife and children. Partiality or caprice may 
 control him. But Congress has no such power 
 over the public lands when the whole scope and 
 meaning of the Constitution is considered. It is 
 a trustee for the people of all the States, controlled 
 by the restrictions’and limitations of the Constitu¬ 
 tion. For example, the Constitution says, “Con¬ 
 gress shall make no law respecting an establish¬ 
 ment of religion,” and therefore Congress could 
 not dispose of the public lands for the benefit of 
 any particular church or denomination of Chris¬ 
 tians. Congress cannot order the public lands to 
 be sold and the proceeds to be paid to the differ¬ 
 ent States for the purpose of paying the judges and 
 governors thereof. 
 
 In addition to the authorities cited by the Pres- 
 j ident in support of the strict construction and 
 State-rights doctrine upon which he bases his 
 objections to this bill, I beg leave to read brief ex¬ 
 tracts from the proceedings of the conventions of 
 ; some of the States called for the purpose of ratify- 
 j ing the Constitution for the purpose of showing 
 j how much power was granted, and how much 
 retained by the States. The great objection to the 
 I Constitution was, that it conferred too much power 
 J on the General Government, and therefore it was 
 
ratified with a sort of Protestando, and an amend¬ 
 ment was afterwards adopted in accordance with, 
 and almost in the language suggested by the State 
 conven tions. 
 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 “And as it is the opinion of this convention that certain 
 amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would 
 remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of 
 the good people of this Commonwealth, and more effect¬ 
 ually guard against an undue administration of the Federal 
 Government, the convention do therefore recommend that 
 the following alterations aud provisions be introduced into 
 the said Constitution : 
 
 “First. That it be explicitly declared that all powers not 
 expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are re¬ 
 served to the several States, to be by them exercised.” 
 
 South Carolina. 
 
 “ This convention doth also declare, that no section or 
 paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a construction 
 that the States do not retain every power not expressly 
 relinquished by them, and vested in the General Govern¬ 
 ment of the Union.” 
 
 4/Vet o Hampshire. 
 
 “First. That it be explicitly declared that all powers not 
 expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Con¬ 
 stitution, are reserved to the several States, to be by them 
 exercised.” 
 
 Virginia. 
 
 “ IHrst. That each State in the Union shall respectively 
 retain every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by 
 this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United 
 States, or to the departments of the Federal Government.” 
 
 4 North Carolina. 
 
 “First. That each State in the Union shall, respectively, 
 retain every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not bv 
 this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United 
 States, or to the departments of the Federal Government. 5 ' 
 
 •Amendment afterwards adopted. 
 
 “The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
 Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved 
 to the States, respectively, or to the people . 55 
 
 But, Mr. President, as I do not wish to repeat 
 the arguments of the President and Senators who 
 have preceded me in opposition to this bill, I will 
 conclude by saying, that I thank the President for 
 resisting one of the evil tendencies of the times, I 
 mean the tendency to consolidation. This Gov¬ 
 ernment seems to be fast becoming: one vast, con- 
 solidated empire—the Executive having more 
 power and patronage than was ever dreamed of 
 by the framers of the Constitution. The States 
 seem to be fast becoming mere corporations, de¬ 
 pending upon the Federal Government for sup¬ 
 port. There being a large surplus in the Treasury, 
 obtained by indirect taxation through custom¬ 
 house duties, Congress is constantly besieged to 
 overstep its legitimate powers. To this surplus 
 treasury is added a surplus quantity of land. It 
 seems almost impossible to resist those who come 
 here to capture the public Treasury, or to ap¬ 
 propriate to themselves the public lands. The 
 restrictions and limitations of the Constitution 
 seem to be of no avail when ambition prompts or 
 interest leads the way. Wherever there is money 
 and power, there seems to be a disposition to use 
 the one and abuse the other. Notwithstanding the 
 general and great purpose of the Union was to 
 protect us against foreign invasion, domestic com¬ 
 motions, and insurrections, _and to regulate our 
 intercourse with foreign nations, we are asked to 
 attend to the business of the Slates, by aiding in 
 the construction of railroads, the support of the 
 poor and insane, &c. Stale politics and politicians 
 are made subordinate to Federal power, although 
 the reverse was intended. My opinion is, and I 
 
 2 
 
 have before expressed it to the Senate, together 
 with some of the views which I havejust advanced, 
 that if discord among the States, rebellion, and 
 anarchy, shall ever destroy this fair land, it will be 
 I because this Government has assumed powers not 
 ! granted by the Constitution. With these remarks, 
 1 press forward to the execution of my main pur- 
 ji pose, which is to assign my reasons against the 
 j homestead bill, which has not yet been much dis¬ 
 cussed, and which i consider much more objec- 
 
 I tionable than the one now before the Senate. 
 
 HOMESTEAD BILL. 
 
 The first section provides that any free white 
 person, whether the head of a family or not, and 
 who is a citizen of the United States, shall have, free 
 of cost, one quarter section (one hundred and sixty 
 acres) of land. The sixth section enlarges the 
 operation a little, and extends the privilege to 
 foreigners now resident in the United States, and 
 j who have filed their declaration of intention to 
 become citizens; but it say 3 they shall not have a 
 j{ patent for the land until they become citizens under 
 
 II our naturalization laws. And why should its ben- 
 ij efits be confined to aliens now in the United States? 
 
 Are not those who intend to come as good as 
 j those who are now here? Why give land, de¬ 
 ll signed for the use of man, to those who come this 
 year, and not to those who come next? And why 
 withhold a patent from aliens until they have been 
 | five years in the country, and complied with our 
 naturalization laws. Many of the advocates of 
 this bill refused to support, with me, the Clayton 
 amendment to the Nebraska bill, which withheld 
 the right to vote from aliens until they had com¬ 
 plied with our naturalization laws, and become 
 citizens. So that they are willing to give aliens, 
 
 | not citizens, the right to take part in elections and 
 \ govern—for the right to vote is the right to govern 
 j —and yet will refuse them the means wherewith 
 to live. Sir, in view of many considerations, I 
 I would much rather give them land as soon as they 
 arrive in the country, than I would the right to 
 vote before they have complied with our naturali¬ 
 zation laws and become citizens, as was done in 
 the Nebraska bill. Several Democratic papers in 
 Pennsylvania, of abolition proclivities, attempted 
 to raise a hue and cry against me for sustaining 
 the Clayton amendment, and congratulated the 
 country upon its defeat; but, in so doing, they only 
 followed the example of two Senators, [Chase and 
 Seward,] v/ho are so much distinguished for their 
 advocacy of abolition doctrines. Immediately 
 after the defeat of the Clayton amendment, the 
 i honorable Senator from Ohio [Mr. Chase] said: 
 
 “The rejection of the [Clayton J amendment, upon 
 ij which we have just voted, is a grpat t?:umph of principle, 
 i not the less valuable because coerced from its opponents by 
 a necessity to which they have yielded so reluctantly.” 
 
 Upon the same occasion,the distinguished Sen¬ 
 ator from New York [Mr. Seward] taunted 
 those who had voted for the amendment in about 
 the same style, and informed the Senate that he 
 had, a day or two previous, met twelve thousand 
 foreigners, who had just arrived in one day in the 
 country, and were on their way to take possession 
 of the new Territories. The truth is, the yielding 
 of the Clayton amendment was a concession to 
 the spirit of abolitionism, in violation of the spirit 
 of the Constitution, and nothing more. 
 
 The second section provides that the person 
 desiring one hundred and sixty acres of land, shall 
 
3 
 
 make an affidavit before the register of the land 
 office; and at the end of five years he must prove, 
 by two witnesses, before the same officer, that he 
 has cultivated the same for five years, and has 
 not alienated the same, &c. So that the register 
 of the land office is made a kind of judicial offi¬ 
 cer. The door to perjury is opened wide; for a 
 man’s title depends upon his own affidavit, and 
 that of two of his friends; and a large business is 
 provided for lawyers in the shape of litigation. 
 
 The third section ptpvides that the register 
 shall note the applications on the tract books, &c.; 
 and the fourth section says, that the land “ shall, 
 in no event, become liable for the satisfaction of 
 any debt or debts contracted prior to the issuing 
 of the patent therefor,” thus making a kind of 
 bankrupt law for the new States, and not for the 
 old ones, contrary to the clause in the eighth sec¬ 
 tion of the Constitution, which says: “ Congress 
 shall have power to establish uniform laws upon 
 the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United 
 States.” What right has Congress to say that a 
 man’s land within a State shall not be liable for 
 his debts? In the Nebraska bill we established 
 the non-intervention rule, even in the Territories. 
 
 The last section which is material confines the 
 entries to be made on each alternate quarter sec¬ 
 tion “as near as may he practicable,” &c. Upon 
 this I will comment before I conclude, and show 
 that it is of no benefit whatever, and might as 
 well be out, so far as any practical benefit may 
 result to the Government. The section wasplaced 
 in the bill for the purpose of enabling its advocates 
 to say that it would not diminish the receipts from 
 the sales. But the quarter sections retained are 
 not doubled in price, as in the case of railroad 
 grants; and I will hereafter show that the section 
 is a mere pretext to avoid an objection to the bill. 
 
 There are some considerations, Mr. President, 
 that would induce me to favor this bill. Some of 
 my esteemed colleagues in the House think it a 
 good one, and have urged its passage with great 
 zeal and ability. The Whig and Democratic con¬ 
 ventions, which recently assembled in my State, 
 passed resolutions in favor of it; but, believing, as 
 1 do, that it is a bill subversive of principle, and 
 injurious to my State, I feel bound, by a stern 
 sense of duty, to oppose it to the utmost of my 
 ability. The resolutions to which I have just al¬ 
 luded may be regarded by some as amounting to 
 instructions to my colleague and myself; but I do 
 not so consider them. I have a proper regard for 
 enlightened popular opinion, but do not think con¬ 
 ventions and State Legislatures always its true 
 exponent. I claim to know something about the 
 wishes of the people myself, and especially of the 
 old Iine-strict-construction Democrats. The Whig 
 party in Pennsylvania are not in the habit of 
 sanctioning what the Democrats call strict-con- 
 struction views, and hence, perhaps, their support 
 of the bill. 
 
 The State is entitled not only to my industry^ 
 but to my judgment. I give it upon this occasion 
 against the bill, notwithstanding the resolutions 
 of the two conventions. The conventions and the 
 Legislature sometimes start wrong in Pennsylva¬ 
 nia upon great national questions. They started 
 wrong, in my day, on the question of the Bank 
 of the United States, on the question of the Sub- 
 Treasury, and the Wilrnot proviso, and it took 
 the people some time to put them right The 
 
 i; 
 
 i; 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 I! 
 
 
 recent Democratic convention which renominated 
 Governor Bigler started wrong, by passing a reso¬ 
 lution in favor of the homestead bill; and, by some 
 species of political thimble-rigging, a few mem¬ 
 bers thereof made the convention dodge the ques¬ 
 tion contained in the Nebraska bill. Nay, more, 
 they prevented a majority from passing a resolu¬ 
 tion in favor of it; for there were a large majority 
 in its favor. If the convention thought proper to 
 express an opinion in regard to one great measure 
 before Congress, it surely should not have been too 
 timid to consider another of equal importance in 
 every point of view. But I feel assured that the 
 distinguished gentleman the convention placed be¬ 
 fore the people for Governor, will not shrink from 
 a proper support of one of the measures of the 
 Democratic party. He maintained, with great 
 power and ability, the true faith upon the same 
 subject when he was a candidate in 1851, and was 
 successful. It may be policy for public men not 
 to meet fairly, or to withhold an expression of 
 opinion, upon great questions; but I never thought 
 so. I have always acted upon the belief that the 
 course of sound policy was the course of true duty. 
 
 There has been considerable sentiment worked 
 up throughout the country in favor of this bill; 
 many sentimental and eloquent speeches have 
 been made, but not quite as many as were made 
 in behalf of the Wilrnot proviso. The title of 
 the bill, as introduced into the House of Represent¬ 
 atives, is a very captivating one. It is called a 
 “ Bill to encourage agricultwe, commerce, and man¬ 
 ufactures, and ALL OTHER BRANCHES OF INDUSTRY,” 
 &c. It is the same title, I believe, that it has had 
 since Felix G. McConnell, a member from the State 
 of Alabama, introduced it in the House of Repre¬ 
 sentatives almost ten years ago. I well recollect 
 the occasion. Since that it was brought conspic¬ 
 uously before the country by Mr. Johnson, 
 now the Governor of Tennessee; but the bill 
 which he advocated did not go so far as this—it 
 only gave land to the landless heads of families; 
 under the present bill a man in Iowa, or any other 
 State, can sell or rent his farm, and take another 
 one hundred and sixty acres he may want in the 
 neighborhood, before the people from Pennsylva¬ 
 nia, or any of the old States, could move out. If 
 it is really a meritorious bill, I do not know why it 
 should have such a title 
 
 If it was only intended to catch a popular breeze, 
 
 I think I could suggest an amendment, so as to 
 make it read “A bill to encourage agriculture, 
 commerce, and manufactures, and all other 
 branches of industry, to give everybody everything, 
 and to hasten the millenium.” It is certainly a bill 
 of large promises, and, I think, I will be able to 
 show, of little performance. It ought to be called' 
 a bill to diminish the value of every acre of land 
 in the old States, and especially in Pennsylvania, 
 and to build up the new States; a bill to throw 
 the expenses of the Land Department upon the 
 customs; to tax the people of the old States to 
 purchase lands to give away to foreigners who 
 have not yet become citizens by complying with 
 our naturalization laws; a bill to discriminate 
 against the mechanic and other persons not ac¬ 
 quainted with agricultural pursuits; a bill to des¬ 
 troy the value of land warrants to be granted to 
 the old soldiers. 
 
 I stated in my opening that the message under 
 consideration contained sentiments which com- 
 
4 
 
 mitted the President against this bill; and I will 
 now proceed to prove that, to be consistent, he 
 would be obliged to veto it. The President, 
 after quoting a portion of the act of 1847, pledging 
 the proceeds of the sales of the public lands for 
 the redemption of the $23,000,000 war loan, and 
 saying that it would be a violation of the pledged 
 faith of the Government to grant the lands to the 
 States for the benefit of the insane poor, proceeds 
 to argue as follows: 
 
 “ I have been unable to discover any distinction, on con¬ 
 stitutional grounds, or grounds of expediency, between an 
 appropriation of ,$.10,00(1,000 directly from the money in the 
 Treasury, for the object contemplated, and the appropria¬ 
 tion of lands presented for my sanction ; and yet 1 cannot 
 doubt that if the bill proposed $10,000,000 from the Treas¬ 
 ury of the United States for the support of the indigent 
 insane in the several States, that the constitutional ques¬ 
 tion involved in the act would have attracted forcibly the 
 attention of Congress. 
 
 “ I respectfully submit that, in a constitutional point of 
 view, it is wholly immaterial whether the appropriation be 
 in money or in land. 
 
 “ The public domain is the common property of the 
 Union, just as much as the surplus proceeds of that, and of 
 duties on imports, remaining unexpended in the Treasury. 
 As such, it has been pledged, is now pledged, and may 
 need to be so pledged again, for public indebtedness. 
 
 “As property, it is distinguished from actual money chiefly 
 in this respect, that its profitable management sometimes 
 requires that portions of it be appropriated to local objects 
 in the States wherein it may happen to lie, as would be 
 done by any prudent proprietor to enhance the sale value 
 of his private domain. 
 
 “ All such grants of land are, in fact, a disposal of it for 
 value received, but they afford no precedent or constitu¬ 
 tional reason for giving away the public lands. Still less 
 do they give sanction to appropriations for objects whicli 
 have not been entrusted to the Federal Government and 
 therefore belong exclusively to the States.” 
 
 It will be perceived that the President distinctly 
 says, that, in a constitutional point of view, there 
 is no difference between money and land. And I 
 add, that I have no more power to giveaway one 
 hundred and sixty acres of land, without considera¬ 
 tion , than I have to give away or go and take $] 60 
 from the public Treasury. But it is said that the 
 President would sign this bill because the alternate 
 sections are retained, and that a prudent proprietor 
 might give away a part, in order to enhance the 
 sale value of the parts retained. And this allegation 
 raises a question of fact: How much, if any, will 
 this bill diminish the receipts from the sale of the 
 public lands? The answer to this question will 
 determine the position of the President. I say it 
 will nearly, if not entirely, destroy the land rev¬ 
 enue, and charge $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 per 
 annum upon the customs. Is that right? Is that 
 the way a prudent proprietor would act? We 
 now have a communication on our tables from the 
 Postmaster General, asking us to appropriate over 
 $2,000,000 from the customs to sustain that De¬ 
 partment, when the Democratic rule used to be, that 
 the Post Office should sustain itself. So, also, 
 with the Land Department. 
 
 A man wishing to build up a city, or a town, 
 might well afford to give away every other lot, 
 provided the purchaser would improve it, but not 
 so with a vast tract of country, useful only for 
 agricultural purposes. The best sections will be 
 taken under this bill, and those adjoining the Gov¬ 
 ernment will seldom, if ever, sell. The truth is, 
 the settlers will use them without compensation, 
 under what is called thessttlers’law. A man would 
 
 I 
 
 not want to purchase one without having the con- i 
 sent of the neighbors, and he could not get it. It j 
 seems to me that any person who will reflect for : 
 
 a moment must conclude that the land revenues 
 will be diminished at least three fourths. People 
 will not purchase farming land when they can get 
 it for nothing. They will go a mile or two further 
 in order to get a farm for nothing Only about 
 two or two and a half millions of acres are re¬ 
 quired annually for settlement and cultivation. 
 
 Mr. President, I know very well that it is sound 
 policy and true duty to dispose of the public land 
 chiefly with a view to settlement and cultivation. 
 I know that we should not make merchandise, 
 without regard to cost, of that which was intended 
 for the use of man. I know that freeholders are 
 the natural and best supporters of a free govern¬ 
 ment. I am in favor of a liberal policy toward 
 those who lead the way in bringing into subjec¬ 
 tion the wild and unbroken lands of the wilder¬ 
 ness. Hence it was that, when I first became a 
 member of this body, I brought forward a bill to 
 graduate and reduce the price of the public lands; 
 and on the 15th of March, 1852, made a speech 
 in its favor, which can be seen in the Congres¬ 
 sional Globe. I had two objects in view; first,to 
 give cheap homes to poor settlers, without viola¬ 
 ting principle; and second, to confront the railroad 
 and other land speculating schemes with a coun¬ 
 ter proposition. But, in carrying out the policy 
 of making freeholders, is it necessary or proper to 
 violate other maxims of political economy? Is it 
 necessary or proper to collect taxes from all the 
 people, rich and poor, of all the old States, to 
 purchase lands to give away to those who are not 
 poor; for to the really poor this bill affords no 
 relief; they have not the means to build a house 
 and commence farming. Is it according to the 
 requirements of the Constitution to collect money 
 by means of impost duties from the people of all 
 the States, to pay out for the benefit of a few 
 States? The answer to this inquiry is fatal to 
 the argument advanced by the advocates of this 
 bill. 
 
 Again: is it proper to create an idea that wealth 
 and prosperity are to be attained, not by industry 
 and economy, but from Government bounties? 
 Is not such an idea fatal to liberty ? Was not the 
 days of Roman liberty numbered when the people 
 consented to receive their supplies from the public 
 store houses? Was not the days of the French 
 Republic numbered when Lamartine and others 
 established public workshops? As we now have 
 a surplus of near $30,000,000 in the Treasury, 
 suppose a member of Congress would bring for¬ 
 ward a bill to pay every poor man and woman in 
 the United States above the age of twenty-one 
 years $160 out of the public Treasury, would that 
 be a “ bill to encourage agriculture, commerce, 
 manufactures, and all other branchesof industry," 
 or would it be a bill to encourage loaferism ? And 
 would the cry go up against a man who would 
 oppose such a measure, that lie was opposed to 
 the poor; and, as the poor greatly outnumber the 
 rich, would he be voted out of office for opposing 
 such an act of political prostitution? Suppose a 
 candidate for the Presidency in 1856 should de¬ 
 clare himself in favor of such a bill, would he 
 succeed against a pure patriot and profound 
 statesman who would refuse to make any such 
 donation ? I hope not, although 1 confess that 
 demagogueism has gone pretty far in this country. 
 There is, however, some republican purity left 
 yet. I believe descendants of the men of 1776, 
 
5 
 
 of the war of 1812, the sons of the old Indian 
 fighters, (who have heretofore been obliged to pay 
 for land if they wanted any,) however poor, would 
 scorn to live either upon the charity of their 
 neighbors, or the bounty of thfeir Government. 
 What is the object of Government? Is it not to 
 give protection to person and property, and to tax 
 the people as little as possible for that purpose? 
 
 It is said, however, that the Government is a 
 hard landed proprietor; that it follows and exacts 
 the earnings of the pioneer; that it has no right to 
 prevent the people from entering upon and culti¬ 
 vating land, &e. How is the fact? Suppose the 
 Government had not gone a head of all, put up for¬ 
 tifications, purchased the Indian title, removed the 
 Indians west, had the lands regularly surveyed, 
 and systematically prepared for the use of the set¬ 
 tlers, and those who prefer frontier life, would our 
 settlements be half as far west as they now are? 
 Would there not have been a constant scene of 
 border warfare; would there be any certainty in 
 regard to titles? I do not believe, all things con¬ 
 sidered, that the Government has ever yet received 
 adollarof net revenue from the public lands. They 
 cost as much, if not more, than we get for them. 
 Since I have been a member of this body, we paid 
 five millions for the extinguishment of the Indian 
 title in Minnesota, besides large sums to extin- 
 quish titles in other sections of the country; and 
 treaties, we are informed, have been made for the 
 extinguishment of Indian titles in Nebraska and 
 Kansas. 
 
 Has not the Government adopted a liberal pol¬ 
 icy toward the western States and people? Has 
 it not paid the expenses of territorial govern¬ 
 ments, and given each State a kind of outfit when 
 it came into the Union. By compact with the 
 new States, upon their admission into the Union, 
 five per cent, of the net proceeds of the sales of 
 the public lands is set apart for the use of such 
 States. Three per cent, is to be annually paid to 
 the respective (new) States, and two per cent, to 
 be used in constructing roads to and through 
 them. Generally the whole five per cent, has been 
 paid to them. Out of this three and two per cent, 
 fund, near five millions have been paid to the new 
 States, independent of what was expended in con¬ 
 structing roads to and through them. We have, 
 too, a liberal preemption system in force. Be¬ 
 sides, over one hundred and twenty-five millions 
 of acres of public lands have been granted to the 
 new States, for the purpose of education, internal 
 improvement, &c., &c , &c. And look, as a con¬ 
 sequence of this liberal policy, at the unexampled 
 growth and prosperity of the western and south¬ 
 western country v It is unexampled in the history 
 of nations. To no one does this afford more sin¬ 
 cere pleasure than to myself. It is a great and 
 glorious spectacle to see the human family thus 
 going out, not lawlessly, hut under wise laws, 
 peaceably to possess the earth, and to enjoy its 
 fruits. The new St tes now possess great polit¬ 
 ical power. They grow, multiply,and prosper, and 
 I presume they will continue to do so until they 
 have the numerical strength to control the Gov¬ 
 ernment. And why this desire to build up pre¬ 
 maturely the western States and country by Gov¬ 
 ernment bounties? Why not let population grad¬ 
 ually diffuse itself over the western country ? Have 
 not settlements progressed West fast enough ? 
 Why this hot-bed system ? A natural growth is 
 
 always more healthy and enduring than an artifi¬ 
 cial one. Why offer a premium to the people of 
 the Old World and old States to settle in our west¬ 
 ern country? May we not want some land fifty 
 or one hundred years hence for our own people 
 gradually to go out upon? May we not want 
 them hereafter, as we have heretofore, to pay our 
 debts, or raise money upon? 
 
 Let me now, Mr. President, allude to the prac¬ 
 tical effect of this bill upon the good old State of 
 Pennsylvania, which I have the honor, in part, to 
 represent. Does it not proceed upon the idea of 
 a redundancy of population and an amount of 
 pauperism there that does not exist? Who will, 
 or who can in that State, accept its provisions? 
 Not the loafers and drinking people about the 
 towns and cities. They are too lazy to work, 
 and too cowardly to steal, and have not the means 
 or the energy to make a settlement on one hun¬ 
 dred and sixty acres. If farmers and industrious 
 laboring people, who have got means, accept its 
 provisions, they are obliged to leave the State; 
 and is not the State of Pennsylvania as good a 
 place for this class of people as any other State 
 in the Union? And the more who leave the less 
 valuable our land will be, and the less will be the 
 number left to pay the taxes and do the work. 
 And if they do go West, they will go upon a 
 delusive idea. Before they can get out there the 
 most valuable sections will be taken up. Those 
 living in the new States in the neighborhood know 
 where the most valuable sections are; and when 
 our Pennsylvania people would arrive out, they 
 would find settlers upon the most valuable sections. 
 Our mechanics cannot accept its provisions, be¬ 
 cause they are unaccustomed to agricultural pur¬ 
 suits, and yet they have helped pay for these 
 lands, and have an interest in them, because they 
 paid their proportion of the taxes by which they 
 were purchased. Have we not large bodies of 
 good uncultivated lands in Pennsylvania? The 
 truth is we have, and the liberal land policy 
 of the General Government west has prevented 
 their sale and settlement for the last fifty years 
 and more. And why should the Federal Gov¬ 
 ernment purchase land west to give away, and 
 notin Pennsylvania? Our people have not only 
 paid for their land, but they have agreed to tax 
 themselves to construct railroads and canals over 
 which the western people transport their produce. 
 Will not the best portion of the foreign popula¬ 
 tion, those who have some means, energy, and 
 industry, push on west to accept its provisions, 
 leaving the pauper portion of the emigrants in 
 Pennsylvania and other Atlantic States? 
 
 I regard this measure as more objectionable than 
 any of the land schemes which have been brought 
 before Congress. It is more so than the distribu¬ 
 tion policy, because, although that proposed legis¬ 
 lation outside the Constitution, it was for the bene¬ 
 fit of all the States. 11 is inferior to the proposition 
 to cede the public lands to the States in which they 
 lie. That would be a concession to State sover- 
 eignty; and while we “disposed” of the land, we 
 would get clear of most of the expenses incident 
 1 to the land system. One fourth of the expenses 
 of this Government, legislative, executive, and ju¬ 
 dicial, relate to the public lands. One fourth of 
 the President’s patronage arises under the system. 
 One fourth of the jobbing in and about Wash- 
 i ington has reference to it. Hence I feel very much 
 
6 
 
 inclined to favor the bill introduced in the House 
 of Representatives by Mr. Speaker Boyd, and ad¬ 
 vocated with so much ability by a distinguished 
 Representative from Louisiana [Judge Perkins.] 
 It proposes to cede the public lands to the States 
 in which they lie, upon certain conditions. One of 
 which is, that the States accepting shall pay 
 seventy-five per cent, of the net proceeds to the 
 General Government. To graduate and reduce 
 the price of the public lands, or to extend the 
 preemption system would be much more prefer¬ 
 able; because, whilst the Constitution and princi¬ 
 ple would not be violated, cheap homes would be 
 furnished to poor settlers, the receipts from the 
 public lands would approximate the expenses. 
 Several amendments, and one or two substitutes, 
 have been offered to the bill; and when they come 
 up I may have a few further remarks to make, and 
 s one or two amendments to suggest my- 
 
 THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA BILL. 
 
 . In Senate, May 24, 1854. 
 
 The bill providing territorial governments for 
 Kansas and Nebraska, having been returned from 
 the House of Representatives with an amendment, 
 striking out the “ Clayton amendment” prohibit- 
 ingaliens or persons not naturalized from voting: 
 
 Mr. BRODHEAD said: 
 
 Mr. President: It has been correctly stated 
 by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] that 
 this is the same bill which we passed in the Senate 
 sometime since, with the exception of one very im¬ 
 portant provision, respecting the rights of unnat¬ 
 uralized citizens. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. It may be well to state that 
 it contains some verbal alterations in its grammati¬ 
 cal construciion, but there is no variation in sense 
 with the exception mentioned by the Senator. 
 
 Mr. BRODHEAD. The Senator is correct; and 
 as 1 do not wish to open the debate on the merits 
 of the bill again, I will only consider the section 
 respecting the qualification of voters, which the 
 honorable Senator from Maryland [Mr. Pearce] 
 has moved to amend by striking out the clause 
 authorizing unnaturalized citizens to vote. The 
 section authorizes all free white persons above 
 the age of twenty-one to vote at the first election, 
 including foreigners who have not become citizens, 
 but have declared their intention to become such, 
 andexcludingtheofficersand soldiers of the Army. 
 So that a foreigner, unacquainted with our lan¬ 
 guage or laws, not twenty-four hours in the Ter¬ 
 ritory, and who has not been in our country ten 
 days, can vote without paying a tax, and General 
 Scott, if he happened to be there commanding our 
 troops, could not. The Senator from Maryland 
 has moved what is called the Clayton amend¬ 
 ment, which restricts the right to vote to those v/ho 
 are citizens, either native-born or those who havp 
 become such under our naturalization laws; and 
 as 1 voted for it when the bill was before the 
 Senate upon another occasion, and have seen no 
 reason for changing my vote, I will do so again, j. 
 The right to vote and take part in the Govern¬ 
 ment is a high privilege, and I hold that it should 
 only be exercised by those who have become citi¬ 
 zens and entitled to the rights and immunities, and 
 who have incurred the obligations of citizenship, m 
 
 perhap 
 
 self. 
 
 I will hereafter state how an alien may become a 
 citizen. 
 
 There has been many misrepresentations made 
 respecting the effect of the proposed amendment. 
 It has been said that those who support it desire 
 to disfranchise foreigners, which is not the fact. 
 It has been said that the Clayton amendment was 
 stricken out by the House, in accordance with the 
 example furnished in the bills erecting the Terri¬ 
 tories of Utah and Mew Mexico , when the truth is, 
 that the Clayton amendment makes it conform to 
 those bills, as I will presently show. And those 
 bills were part of the compromise measures of 
 1850, and better considered than any others. The 
 amendment now under consideration, is, in my 
 judgment, required by the true spiritand meaning 
 of the Constitution, by sound policy, and justified 
 by precedent. 
 
 The Constitution, in the eighth section, says, 
 Congress may “ establish a uniform rule of natu¬ 
 ralization.” Therefore, whenever Congress acts, 
 it must make the rule uniform. Well, Congress 
 has established a rule by an act passed in 1802, 
 requiring five years residence before admission to 
 citizenship, and now it is proposed to establish 
 another rule for Nebraska. And what good rea¬ 
 son can be given for it. Why should an alien 
 have greater privileges in Nebraska than in Penn¬ 
 sylvania? I voted to extend the present natural¬ 
 ization laws over the Territory of Nebraska, 
 nothing more. By whom should this Govern¬ 
 ment be carried on—by citizens either native-born 
 or naturalized, or by foreigners? And how does 
 an alien become a citizen in this country ? Only 
 under the clause of the Constitution which I have 
 cited and the act of Congress passed in pursuance 
 thereof. And can the right to vote properly apper¬ 
 tain to another than a citizen ? If foreigners can 
 have and enjoy the rights and privileges of citizens^ 
 the highest one of which is to vote,why did our fore¬ 
 fathers “ establish a uniform rule of naturaliza¬ 
 tion?” and why have so many aliens conformed 
 to it? The section under consideration says, any 
 free white man above the age of twenty-one years 
 (and such is the law in all the States) shall vote, 
 &c. So that we require a native-born person, 
 acquainted with our language, educated in our 
 schools, &c., to be twenty-one years of age be¬ 
 fore he is thought fit to exercise the high privilege 
 of an elector. Our forefathers wisely thought that 
 foreigners should take five years to become trained 
 in the ways of republicanism, acquainted with 
 our people, our law's, our complex machinery of 
 government, &c., and 1 concur in opinion with 
 them. This Government can or lv be maintained 
 by an intelligent exercise of the elective franchise. 
 Hence we have always heretofore confined the 
 right to vote to free while persons above the age 
 of twenty-one years, w'ho are native-born, and to 
 aliens who have been in the country five years, 
 and complied with the provisions of our natural¬ 
 ization laws. Our views of constitutional liberty 
 differ very much from European notions of liberty. 
 
 It may be profitable, Mr. President, to examine 
 the action of Congress under the clause of the 
 Constitution requiring an “uniform rule of natu¬ 
 ralization.” In 1789 the Government went into 
 operation under the present Constitution, and on 
 the 26th of March, 1790, the first naturalization 
 law was passed, requiring t.vo years’residence, 
 one year in the State where -toe implication is 
 
7 
 
 made, oath to support the Constitution, &c. To-! 
 ward the dose of Washington’s administration, 
 on the 29th of January, 1795, an act was passed 
 requiring five years’ residence, three years’declar¬ 
 ation of intention, oath, and proof of good moral 
 character, &c. In 1797, the old Adams party 
 came into power, and on the 18th of June, 1798, 
 an act was passed requiring fourteen years’ resi¬ 
 dence, five years in the State in which the appli¬ 
 cation is made, oath, and proof of good moral 
 character, &c. In 1801, the Jeffersonian Demo¬ 
 cratic party came into power, and on the 14th of 
 April, 1802, passed an act requiring five years’ 
 residence, declaration of intention two years’ re¬ 
 nunciation of allegiance to any foreign Prince, 
 &c., oath to support the Constitution, proof of 
 good moral character, &c. This law has now 
 been in force for more than fifty years. It was 
 intended to be a liberal one, for the country was 
 then almost a wilderness. It was satisfactory 
 to the alien at that time, and should be so now. 
 Any attempt to modify it, or to denounce those 
 who are willing to stand by it, on the part of the 
 emigrants, will create a counter sentiment, highly 
 injurious to them. The statistics of emigration 
 show that up to 1840, only one million of emi¬ 
 grants have arrived in the country; now we receive 
 annually, near four hundred thousand. During 
 the next three years, we will receive as many as 
 we did for thirty-five years prior to 1840. I have 
 no feeling of hostility to them. I want them to 
 come here and enjoy religious and political free- j 
 dom, protection to person and property, and in 
 due season to become citizens and take part in the 
 government; to vote and to hold office. Anyman 
 who pretends anything more for them is not their 
 true friend. The wise portion of them do not 
 wish any thing more themselves. Up to the 
 present time foreigners came here to be American¬ 
 ized, not to un-Americanize us. But, I confess I 
 have witnessed some recent demonstrations that 
 do not please me. The movements of Kossuth ! 
 in this country did him no credit, and since he i 
 returned, he has issued an address to the German 
 eople of this country to take action against the 
 enate of the United States for rejecting a gentle¬ 
 man nominated by the President for consul at 
 London. German meetings have been held in 
 different parts of the K ited States to denounce 
 those who support this bill; and I believe they 
 went so far, in some places, as to burn the hon¬ 
 orable and distinguished Senator from Illinois in 
 effigy. P"f. sir, { do not hold the great mass of 
 them res, !e for these acts. The honest and 
 
 industry '-man does not wish to meddle un- 
 
 seasona politics, nor does the generous and 
 
 warm-hearted Irishman whose heart beats respon¬ 
 sive to le bold anthem of “ Erin-go-braugh.” 
 Those who set themselves up for leaders among 
 them, who claim to be the special guardians of 
 their rights, who pretend to have the same religion 
 that they have, that they may sell them out in 
 election times, either for money or office, are their 
 worst enemies. I liar e seen a good many claim 
 office on the allegation that they influenced this 
 or that portion of the alien vote, and threaten 
 those in power with the displeasure of the voters 
 of foreign birth if they were not gratified. Did 
 we not see General Scott, the gallant old chief, 
 who four mg the war of 1812 upon our 
 
 northern , and who had carried the stars 
 
 and stripes of our country in triumph to the halls 
 of the Montezumas, talking during the last presi¬ 
 dential canvass about the “ rich Irish brogue, and 
 the sweet German accent.” It was a humiliating 
 spectacle. For my part, sir, I do not wish to see 
 our candidates making appeals either to or against 
 any portion of our emigrant population. I wish 
 them to feel as American citizens, and act as such 
 at the proper time. But when they hold separate 
 meetings, why, of course, they induce native-born 
 American citizens to hold meetings and organize 
 against them. 
 
 Mr. President, I think I have pretty clearly 
 shown that the spirit of the Constitution, and 
 sound policy, require aliens to become citizens un¬ 
 der the clause of the Constitution I have referred 
 to, and the act of Congress passed in pursuance 
 thereof, before claiming the right to vote. Our 
 own people, moving from one State to another, 
 cannot vote in the State into which they move until 
 they have resided therein for some time, and paid 
 tax. In most of the States it is two years; in 
 some one year, and in a few six months. Some 
 time is supposed to be necessary to enable them to 
 become acquainted with the laws and the people 
 among whom they reside. I will now proceed to 
 show that the section, as it comes to us from the 
 House, is a departure from previous legislation. 
 
 The celebrated Ordinance of 1787, organizing 
 the Northwestern Territory, prior to the adoption 
 of the Constitution, contained this provision. The 
 Southwestern Territory was afterwards organized 
 with a similar provision: 
 
 “ Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified toaet 
 as a representative unless he shall have been a citizen of 
 one of the United Stales three years, and be a resident in 
 the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district 
 three years, and in either case shall likewise hold in hi? 
 own right, in fee simple, two hundred acres of land within 
 the same : Provided, also. That a freehold in fifty acres of 
 land in the district, having been a citizen of one of the States, 
 and being resident in ltie district, or the like freehold and 
 two years residence in the district, shall be necessary to 
 qualify a man as an elector of a representative.” 
 
 In J808 Congress passed the act alluded to by 
 the Senator from Maryland. It not only required 
 citizenship, but a certain amount of property. It 
 reads as follows : 
 
 “ That every free white male person in the Mississippi 
 Territory, above the age of twenty one years, having been 
 a citizen of the United States, and resident in the said Ter¬ 
 ritory, one year next preceding an election of representa¬ 
 tives, and who has a legal or equitable title to a tract of 
 land, by virtue of any act of Congress, or who may become 
 the purchaser of any tract of land from the United States 
 of the quantity of fifty acres, or who may hold in his own 
 right, a town lot of the value of $100 within the said Terri¬ 
 tory, shall he entitled to vote for representatives to the Gen¬ 
 eral Assembly of said Territory.” 
 
 In 1819 Congress authorized the people of the 
 Territory of Michigan to electa Delegate to Con¬ 
 gress, and then a slight departure took place, but 
 still not so great as is now proposed. A residence 
 of one year, and the payment of a tax, was re¬ 
 quired to qualify an inhabitant of the Territory to 
 vote. The section under consideration neither 
 requires prior residence, payment of tax, nor evi¬ 
 dence of intention to remain in the Territory, or 
 naturalization. The following is the law to 
 which I refer: 
 
 “ Sec. 2. Jlvd he it further enacted, That every free 
 white male citizen of said Territory, above the age of 
 twenty one years, who shall have resided therein one year 
 next preceding an election, and who shall have paid » 
 county or territorial tax, shall be entitled to vote at soefa 
 
election fora Delegate to the Congress of the United States, 
 in such manner-, and at such times and places, as shall he 
 prescribed by the Governor and judges of said Territory.” 
 
 In 1838 Congress organized the Territory of 
 Wisconsin, anti in 1838 the Territory of Iowa, ij 
 The territorial law passed for Iowa is in the same 
 language as that contained in the Wisconsin bill. 
 The fifth section of both contains a significant 
 proviso: j 
 
 “ Sec. 5. Jlnd be it further enacted, That every free 
 white male citizen of the. United States, above the age of 
 twenty one years, who sh r .'< have been an inhabitant of said 
 Territory at the. time <>* its organiza. 1011 , shall be entitled 
 to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office j 
 within the said Territory; bur the qualifications of voters 
 at all subsequent elections shall be such as shall be de- j 
 termined by ihe Legislative Assembly : Provided, That the 
 right o f suffrage shall be exercised only by citizens of the 
 United States .” 
 
 In 1848 the Territory of Oregon was organized, 
 and then a still greater departure took place; but 
 still the law required a residence in the Territory 
 at the time of the passage of the act, and in this re¬ 
 spect it differs from tne iegi Iation now pi . cj[. 
 
 Then, sir, we come to the legislation <$|0Rned 
 in the compromise measures of 1850. There has 
 been a great misrepresentation in regard to the 
 legislation upon this subject in the two bills organ¬ 
 izing the Territories of Utah and New Mexico. 
 
 It has been represented, over and over again, that 
 both of these Territories nave been organized in 
 such a manner as to give the inhabitants, whether 
 native-born, naturalized, or unnaturalized, tlie right 
 to vote. It is not so. The biil organizing the 
 Territory of New Mexico was approved on the 
 9th of September, 1850; the Utah bill was ap¬ 
 proved the same day. This provision is contained 
 in both: 
 
 “ Sec. G. Jlnd be it further enacted, Thai every free white 
 male luhabiiant, above llie age of twcuty-oue years, who 
 *hall have been a resident of said Territory at the time of 
 the palace of this act. shall be entitled to vote at the first 
 election, arid shall be eligible to any otliee within the said 
 Territory; but the qualifications of voters and of holding 
 office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be 
 prescribed by the Legislative Assembly : Provided, That 
 the rizht of suffrage, and. of holding office, shall be exercised 
 only by citizens oj the United States, including those recog¬ 
 nized as citizens by the treaty with ike Republic of Mexico, 
 concluded February '2, 1848.” 
 
 I am justified, therefore, in saying that the pro¬ 
 posed legislation is not only contrary to the pro- | 
 visions and spirit of the Constitution, and to 
 sound policy, but it is contrary to ihe weight of ij 
 precedent upon the subject. I believe we have 
 organized eighteen Territories, and in a majority 
 of them the right to vote is confined to citizens of 
 the United States. In 1838, on the question of 
 the admission of Mi Wigan as a State, Mr. Cal¬ 
 houn and Mr. Clay both contended, especially 
 Mr. Calhoun, that even a State could not be ad¬ 
 mitted into the Union whose constitution author¬ 
 ized unnaturalized aliens tc vote. There seemed ji 
 to be no doubt in the mind f either that unnatu- jj 
 
 ralized persons should not be permitted to vote in 
 the Territories. 
 
 What do we propose to do now? It is proposed 
 to pay millions for this territory to extinguish the 
 Indian title. We paid five millions to extinguish 
 the Indian title in Minnesota. We propose now 
 to pay millions to extinguish the Indian title in 
 Nebraska and Kansas; and we are asked to turn 
 over the government of both Territories into the 
 hands of foreigners, and thus permit them to lay 
 the foundation of two States. And we are also 
 asked by the advocates of the homestead bill to 
 give each one a farm besides. 
 
 Mr. President, in view of what has taken place 
 upon this Nebraska and Kansas bill, well dis¬ 
 posed persons may well inquire whether Congress 
 is capable of legislating on any subject where sla¬ 
 very and the rights of aliens may be called in 
 question. There seems to me to be a quailing 
 before the spirit of Abolitionism arid a foreign in¬ 
 fluence, which may well suggest the inquiry to 
 which I have just aliuded. The excitement about 
 slavery in the Nebraska country shows that na¬ 
 tions, as well as individuals, are more troubled 
 about imaginary than real evils. I have been 
 denounced all over my osvn State by the open or 
 secret enemies of this bill, or by those whose 
 malice against me has long had the upper hand of 
 their sense of justice, as voting to disfranchise 
 aliens, and as being the only Senator from a free 
 State who voted for the Clayton amendment. 
 Well, sir, it is true that 1 am the only Senator 
 from a free State who voted for it—anil what of 
 it? A majority of my brother Senators voted for 
 it, and a majority of the Democrats of this body. 
 The Free-Soil, or Abolition Senators, as they are 
 called, of course, voted against it. 1 voted with 
 the distinguished Senators from Virginia. 
 
 Mr. HAMLIN. Will they vote with you now? 
 
 Mr. BRODHEAD. I do not know whether 
 they will or not. 1 do not ask who is going to 
 vote with me or against me. I inquire whether it 
 is right, as 1 did when the Wilmot proviso was 
 first presented. I stood almost single-handed and 
 alone against that. 1 do not care who votes with 
 me on this amendment. It is right. It is right 
 and just to the aliens themselves. It is for the 
 purpose of maintaining the Constitution and the 
 rights of American citizens, and I will vote for it, 
 be the consequences to myself what they may. I 
 know that my course may be misrepresented be¬ 
 fore the alien voters, and that 1 may thus incur 
 their displeasure; but I will do my duty,and incur 
 the hazard. When the amendment wasfirst pro¬ 
 posed by the honorable Senator from Delaware, it 
 was late at night. 1 was acting as the Presiding 
 Officer, and could not give the reasons by which 
 I was influenced! i ha 1 , e endeavored to do so now, 
 and respectfull}' submit, them to the consideration 
 of the Senate, and those I have the honor to rep¬ 
 resent on this floor. 
 
 — -- - : ' - — — 
 
 Printed at t!ie Congressional Globe Office.