SPEECH 
 
 HON. JOHN L. DAWSON 
 
 OF PENNSYLVANIA, 
 
 THE HOMESTEAD BILL. 
 
 P 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON TUESDAY, 
 
 JANUARY 9, 1855. 
 
 * 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED BY A. O. P. NICHOLSON. 
 
 1855. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 I '! !.'?<! 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 - . v, 
 
 
 
 ■ ■ ^ * 
 
 
 
 
3 3U. 1 
 
 r * ■ 
 
 SPEECH. 
 
 The House having under consideration the pending amendment to the graduation bill, 
 granting one hundred and sixty acres of land to actual settlers— 
 
 Mr. DAWSON addressed the House as follows : 
 
 Mr. Speaker: Twice before the present occasion it has been my 
 fortune, in a somewhat prominent sense, to be the advocate before you 
 of the great subject to which I have again to ask your attention. The 
 thanks of the country are eminently due to this honorable body for the 
 reception hitherto bestowed upon this measure, and the warm support 
 which has here been extended to it. 1 am well aware that the signal 
 favor which the homestead has met at your hands is in no degree ow¬ 
 ing to any merit in the advocacy of the bill, but solely to its own in¬ 
 trinsic excellence. It is yet appropriate to remark upon the ability and 
 eloquence which the measure has heretofore elicited in its support from 
 members of this House, by which its advantages have been illustrated 
 to the mind of the country ; and to hope that the same ardor and una¬ 
 nimity of sentiment which characterized your former action in regard 
 to this subject, will be now once more manifested in its favor. 
 
 It will be recollected, Mr. Speaker, that, at the last session of Con¬ 
 gress, the bill commonly known -as the homestead bill was sent to the 
 Senate, sanctioned b$ the overwhelming decision of this House, and 
 that the Senate, avoiding a direct vote on its provisions, adopted,fin 
 lieu of it, the substitute of Mr. Hunter. To that substitute there are 
 many and grave objections, and it is now my purpose to seek a re-es¬ 
 tablishment, with a few alterations, of the original bill. An examina¬ 
 tion of the Senate’s substitute shows it to be a measure for the benefit 
 of States, railroads, and speculators. Its adoption would be disastrous 
 to the purity of legislation in the land States. Who does not know 
 what a scramble would ensue in these States, amongst incorporated 
 companies, to get possession of the lands of which that which has been 
 carried on in Congress would be but a magnified reflection'? Wh 
 does not see the innumerable charters which, under the influence of lu c 
 rolling in the legislatures, would be brought forth to absord for railroad 
 purposes all the lands .in these States, to the utter exclusion of the set¬ 
 tler ; which would cause immense quantities of bonds to be spawned 
 over the country, make the competition for money unparalleled, and in¬ 
 crease the rates of interest to an unprecedented extent. The starting 
 of*so many immature and impracticable schemes, by creating a ficti¬ 
 tious demand for labor and the necessaries of life, would be most per • 
 nicious in its influence. Little by little the gigantic bubble would con- 
 
4 
 
 tinue to swell and glisten until it should burst, and bankruptcy, in its 
 most stupendous form, be the sequel. This is no picture of fancy, but one 
 with which the American public are in fact unfortunately too familiar. 
 
 The provision of the substitute which professes to ingraft the home¬ 
 stead principle, viz: the eighth section, is a mockery. It apparently 
 allows every head of a family, or male person of the age of twenty-one 
 years, to enter a quarter-section of unappropriated public lands, upon 
 the condition of payment according to a graduated scale of twenty-five 
 cents per acre. But whether the settler shall be able to take any ad¬ 
 vantage at all of this provision, depends upon the adoption, or other¬ 
 wise,'by the States, of this provision of the Senate’s substitute; since 
 the States have the privilege, under another section, of acquiring the ab¬ 
 solute right to the public lands within their limits; and of disposing of 
 them, and at such higher prices as their wisdom shall direct, thus su¬ 
 perseding the claim of the settler entirely. It is, at all events, manifest, 
 that this graduation feature is one for the benefit of capitalists. Its ef¬ 
 fect will be to pass into the hands of such men millions of acres which 
 will remain in a wilderness condition, it may be, for centuries, thus de¬ 
 feating the settlement of the country, and tending to build up a landed 
 aristocracy. It is in direct antagonism to the policy of Mr. Jefferson, of 
 destroying the rights of primogeniture and entail, and the removal of 
 all unjust restrictions which tend to tie up property beyond the reach 
 of the cultivator. It will be an approximation, so far as the different 
 genius of the two governments will allow, of the policy of the British 
 government, which has at length concentrated in the hands of some 
 thirty thousand individuals, all the landed property of the kingdom. 
 
 'The reason for the policy of graduating and reducing the price of the 
 public lands was in order that, by promoting large sales, the govern¬ 
 ment might be better enabled to discharge the public debt; but with the 
 extinguishment of all the old debt, an inconsiderable existing debt and 
 an overflowing treasury, this reason has ceased. There being now no 
 need of revenue from the lands, there should be a Reversal of this poli¬ 
 cy, and the lands so disposed of as best to promote settlement, and thus 
 subserve the general interests of the country. The revenue from the 
 customs is already more than sufficient to support the government; and 
 perhaps the greatest evils of our present political condition are those 
 resulting from the struggles to get possession of the surplus of the treas¬ 
 ury. The true policy of the country is a poor treasury and a rich people. 
 
 I feel, Mr. Speaker, in once more approaching this question, that we 
 have already exhausted upon it the resources of argument. I propose, 
 at this time, only a few remarks, such as seem warranted by a review 
 . of the whole question, by the light of the recent searching discussion 
 which it has undergone in the coordinate branch of the national legis¬ 
 lature. So far from sinking, in any degree, under the weight of that dis¬ 
 cussion, I trust it is now apparent that at no time has this measure oc¬ 
 cupied a stronger position before the country than at present. A combi¬ 
 nation of untoward circumstances, quite unconnected with the merits ot 
 the homestead, have, for a time, interfered to prevent its passage by 
 the Senate; but the “ still small voice” of the people, speaking in the 
 calm majesty of might and justice, is already rising above the jar of 
 sectional and partisan interests, and insisting upon the adoption into the 
 
5 
 
 legal policy of the country of this, their favorite measure. Once more 
 let us discharge our dut} T towards it. Let us calmly place before our 
 fellow-citizens the grounds upon which rest the justice and policy of the 
 homestead, and give it the sanction of our decided approval; and we 
 can afford to wait the subsidence of these elements of opposition, 
 which, varied and conflicting in their nature, are destined to a brief du¬ 
 ration. A persevering, earnest, and steady support, is what the coun¬ 
 try looks for at our hands—is what she has a right to expect—and will 
 finally enable us to prevail. 
 
 It may be thought, indeed, by some, that the passage, at the late ses¬ 
 sion, of the land graduation bill, has taken away much pretext for the 
 further pressure of the homestead, and has accomplished all that could 
 be desired or hoped for by the friends of that measure. Surely, nothing 
 can be further from the truth. It mav be admitted, indeed, that the 
 enactment of that bill was advancing a step in the right direction; but 
 how limited the benefits it confers in comparison with those sought by 
 the measure under consideration. It is seen at once that, except as re¬ 
 gards lands which have been ten years in market, the old land system 
 remains unchanged by the graduation bill—a feature which renders it 
 inapplicable to much of the land in the land States, and entirely so to 
 that of the Territories. It is seen further, that as regards that class of 
 lands which has been ten years in market, the reduction is only twen¬ 
 ty-five cents an acre—a reduction which, as regards the class of set¬ 
 tlers sought to be benefited by the provisions of the homestead, is quite 
 too insignificant to be appreciated. The further reductions to seventh 7 - 
 five, fifty, twenty-five, and twelve and a-half cents an acre—according 
 as the lands have been fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, and thirty years in 
 market—are still liable to the same objection. It is only when the lands 
 have been thirty years subject to private entry, and, in consequence, are 
 reduced to the minimum rate provided by the graduation bill, that the 
 benefit becomes appreciable for that large class of settlers for whom the 
 homestead bill was intended chiefly to provide. The conditions, how¬ 
 ever, under which the public lands become reduced to the lowest rates, 
 are such as to limit it to the smallest and most worthless portions of the 
 lands in the States, and in the Territories it can have no application 
 at all, and that, therefore, the great objects sought by the homestead 
 remain still to be accomplished. 
 
 Let us proceed, however, to notice the few objections which, in the 
 scrutinizing analysis which the subject has recently undergone in the 
 other wing of the Capitol, senators have thought proper to insist upon 
 against the principles of the homestead bill. Thus, it has been con¬ 
 tended by certain senators of the old States that the public lands not ac¬ 
 quired since the deeds of cession cannot be disposed of, except in ac¬ 
 cordance with the conditions of these instruments ; and that, as regards 
 subsequent acquisitions, the distinction proposed by this bill would be 
 unequal, and therefore unjust. It can be successfully shown, however, 
 as regards the first branch of this proposition, that, in order to comply 
 with that requirement of the deeds of cession, that the lands ceded 
 should be regarded as “a common fund for the use and benefit of such 
 of the United States as have become, or shall become, members of the 
 confederation or federal alliance of the United States, according to their 
 
6 
 
 usual proportions in the general charge and expenditure,” that it is ne¬ 
 cessary to have reference to the conditions imposed by the eighth arti¬ 
 cle of the constitution of the confederation, namely: that the proceeds 
 from these lands “should be paid into the national treasury according 
 to the amount of real estate held in private hands in each State; and if 
 any portion remain unexpended, that it shall be paid back, in the same 
 proportion, to the States from which collected,” and not distributed 
 through the treasury for general purposes. 
 
 Such was the rule under the confederation, but it is evident that un¬ 
 der the present constitution it is wTolly inapplicable, and impossible to 
 be carried into effect. The revenue of the country, whether collected 
 from the customs or the sale of the public lands, is paid into the na¬ 
 tional treasury, without any reference to the rule embodied in the deeds 
 of cession, and is applied for the “general welfare” under the limita¬ 
 tions imposed by the constitution of 17S9, and without any reference to 
 the eighth article of that of the confederation. It is no longer possible 
 to ascertain the proportion of each State in the “general charge and 
 expenditure ”—that phrase having relation to a status which has been 
 wholly changed by the new constitution—and no longer possible in 
 the same way to pay back to the several States, parties to the “fede¬ 
 ral alliance,” the surplus over the expenditures fixed by Congress. 
 
 It can be maintained, on the other hand, with irresistible strength of 
 argument, that the States which were parties to the deeds of cession 
 were also parties to the constitution of 1789—an article of which confers 
 the amplest powers of disposal of the public lands, which the passage of 
 the homestead calls for. So incontrovertible is this fact, and so complete 
 is the abrogation by the present constitution of all conditions precedent 
 in the deeds of cession, that it can hardly again be drawn into question. 
 
 As to the principles of the homestead being unjust to the old States, 
 as regards the territory acquired since the deeds of cession, the objection 
 will scarcely be deemed tenable—the subsequent acquisitions having 
 been made subject to all the conditions and limitations of the constitution, 
 and falling, therefore, under the same rule of distribution. Besides, it is 
 to be remembered, that the old States have originally received grants of 
 the lands within their limits, and have since converted and applied the 
 proceeds. They have been also, and still continue, the objects of govern¬ 
 ment bounty in other ways. Have not liberal appropriations been 
 made, from time to time, for the improvement of rivers and harbors in 
 the old States? Has not the public money been expended there pro¬ 
 fusely for the construction of light-houses, coast defences, and public 
 edifices ? And have they 7 not been the greatest sharers in all the great 
 measures of legislation which mark the history of the country ? If we 
 speak only of the States of Aew England, and the sugar-growing States 
 of the South, have they not been the greatest gainers by the system of 
 high duties'? But it is impossible, by the same act of legislation, to 
 benefit, in the same degree, a new country in the wdlderness and States 
 which have a dense population, with few unoccupied lands. It is, how¬ 
 ever, sufficient to prove the impartial and paternal character of the gov¬ 
 ernment, if all interests are duly remembered and benefited in turn. 
 
 But again, when we speak of benefiting the old States, surely we 
 mean the people of those States, and not anything whatever of an inan- 
 
7 
 
 imate nature, whether mountain or plain, field or forest, town or country. 
 If so, the homestead is a measure in which the people of the old States 
 will participate the most largely, because they have the largest number 
 within their limits who can take advantage of its provisions. I know' 
 indeed that this very circumstance is made an objection to the home¬ 
 stead, because it is pronounced a temptation, an inducement, to a large 
 class of the people of the old States to settle on the public domain. 
 
 But, if it be true that portions of the valuable citizens, w T hether native 
 or foreign, of the old States, shall feel inducements presented them 
 by this bill to emigration, is it any reason for withholding such induce¬ 
 ments, that the landholders of New England, New York, and Pennsyl¬ 
 vania, would thereby be deprived, to some extent, of their tenants, or 
 that the demand for farms might be somewhat less active ? Have the 
 rights of labor no claims to recognition on the part of the National Legis¬ 
 lature, except as secondary and subsidiary to those of landholders ? 
 Sir, I am free to confess that my reflections upon this subject have led 
 me to very different conclusions. I am of opinion that government, 
 then, best discharges its multifarious and responsible duties, as far as 
 practicable and legitimate, within the scope of its powers, by advanc¬ 
 ing every interest under its control. Sir, I feel convinced that no such 
 remnant of feudal bondage, no such slavish doctrine as would tie the 
 tenant to the soil of his employer, will ever find sanction in the free 
 hearts of this land. Our ancestors had done with all that centuries ago, 
 in the mother country, when, from the reign of Edward I, through 
 that of Henry VII, and in that of Charles I, they finally succeeded in 
 extinguishing the tenure of villemge , and converted all lands in the 
 Kingdom into free and common socage. The legal systems of these 
 States recognise nothing else. Our theory of social rights, embodied in 
 that immortal preamble of Jefferson, recognises nothing else 
 
 The assumption, however, that the passage of this bill would, for a 
 time, operate unequally towards the old States by reducing the price of 
 property there, is not well founded. Surely such a consequence would 
 not be more likely to follow this measure than it Avould the preemption 
 system. Whatever irregularity might be the result of the introduction 
 of the new polic}^, I believe it would be of brief duration, and quite in¬ 
 appreciable. Such are the energies of industry—such the stimulus of 
 free institutions, that no field of enterprise will long remain unoccupied. 
 The flood of prosperity which is continually rolling over the land, like 
 water, is ever tending to a uniform level. 
 
 But to dispel the apprehensions of gentlemen, let us refer to the re¬ 
 ality of things as exhibited by the experience of the country for the 
 last seven years. A period of unprecedented prosperity in the depart¬ 
 ments of commerce, agriculture, and internal improvements—in which 
 so many avenues of intercourse have been constructed betw'een the 
 seaboard and the valleys of the Mississippi and the St. Lawrence; and 
 in which more than one hundred and forty-five millions of acres of the 
 public lands have been disposed of, a good portion of which has been 
 reduced under cultivation—there never was a period in which the 
 prices of produce and real estate in the old States have been better 
 maintained. Thus, notwithstanding the vast amount of the products 
 of the interior which have been brought into competition with those of 
 
8 
 
 the old States, and notwithstanding the mighty stream of emigration to 
 the W est, by which their population has been annually carried off, the 
 effect upon prices has not only been wholly unfelt, but the latter have 
 even continued to advance. 
 
 A kindre objection to the last, is that which represents the free 
 grants proposed by this bill as doing injustice to those who have here¬ 
 tofore purchased of government, at $2 and $1 25 per acre. Here you 
 make a distinction, it is said, which works injustice to former purchas¬ 
 ers. But you made the same distinction, and created an inequality 
 which worked the same injustice, when you reduced the price of the 
 lands from $2 to Si 25 per acre; and still later, when, at the last ses¬ 
 sion, you passed the land graduation bill. By this argument, whatever 
 policy in regard to our land system we may first, by accident, have 
 stumbled upon, that, with unchangeable tenacity, should be maintained. 
 Such an argument is of no avail. You cannot tie up the hands of your 
 successors in legislation ; and the policy which is good for one genera¬ 
 tion ma} 7 be totally unadapted to the next. “ Tempora mvtantur , et nos 
 mutamur in Mis.” The times change, and we with them. Doubtless, the 
 feudal system, in the warlike times in which it flourished, in the middle 
 ages, was a wise and useful institution. So, in the condition of things 
 existing in Europe, a monarchy in some form may be the best govern¬ 
 ment lor any given nation ; though the progress of ideas, and of social 
 amelioration, may in the next age find it obsolete and functus officio. 
 Sir, it is one thing to require a price for your domain, when the country 
 is in need of a revenue, and another and quite different one to give it free 
 to actual settlers, when it is no longer needed for revenue, and in order to 
 carry out a great scheme of policy not less favorable to individuals than 
 to all the great interests of the country—a policy which, more than any 
 other, will offer its appropriate inducements to labor; will build up into 
 organized societies the untenanted wilderness, and people the solitary 
 leagues of fertile soil which stretch away from the confines of the States 
 to the Western ocean. 
 
 It was insisted with much earnestness by a distinguished Senator 
 from Delaware, [Mr. Clayton,] that this is a partial measure; that it 
 is class legislation; that all men cannot turn farmers; and that, there¬ 
 fore, in order to equalize your bounty, you should grant money to those 
 who cannot use land. But, tried by the test, it may safely be said, 
 that never has a law of a beneficial character obtained a place upon 
 your statute-book, but what the interests for which it provided have 
 been partial and limited. If this is a true objection, let me ask once 
 more, does it not lie just as strongly against the preemption system'? 
 Does it not lie just as strongly against a bill for the benefit of manufac¬ 
 turers?—for the benefit of soldiers and marines?—or for a bill raising 
 the salaries of judges? If a man desires the special benefits of this 
 legislation, let him bring himself within the class upon which the bounty 
 is conferred. Let him fight the battles of his country ; let him engage 
 in the working of metals or the spinning of cotton; in the culture of 
 cane and the boiling of sugar; or let him become a dignitary of the 
 bench, and he will share directly in the benefits of the legislation, if it 
 be special. These are all staple interests of the country, and it is 
 competent for all to engage-in them without let or hindrance. Who 
 
9 
 
 ever thought of making it an objection to the law allowing land bounty 
 to the widows of soldiers, that unmarried women could receive no bene¬ 
 fit therefrom? Who ever objected to the imposition of a forty per centum 
 duty upon iron, that it did not benefit the boiler of salt? Or, who ever 
 considered it doing injustice to the rest of the community that }mu ap¬ 
 propriate money for the construction of marine hospitals, open only to 
 seamen or boatmen? 
 
 Sir, the objection that the homestead will not directly benefit every 
 class of industry in the country, and in equal degree, is of a kind similar 
 to that in the instances just mentioned; and it is equally futile in all. 
 Every man, whether rich or poor, has the power or privilege, if his cir¬ 
 cumstances will permit him—of which, as in other cases, he is left to 
 be the judge—of becoming an actual settler on the public domain, 
 and thus participating directly in the benefits conferred by this bill. 
 We claim it, however, as a most positive and favorable distinction of 
 this measure—which regards the cultivation of new soil, and bringing 
 under civilizing influences new territory—that it does benefit, not the 
 less surely and decidedly, because indirectly, the great interests of 
 manufactures and commerce, and in a higher degree than any other 
 special measure whatever. 
 
 Another ground of opposition, much insisted on by distinguished 
 Senators, is the favor shown by the bill to American residents of foreign 
 birth. But what is the condition of things under the existing system? 
 Foreigners, not even citizens, are allowed to settle on the public lands 
 under the pre-emption laws of 1S30 and 1S41, and it has been deemed 
 sufficient if they have become citizens at the reception of the patent for 
 their locations. And by the very liberal provisions of the graduation 
 bill passed at the last session, and approved August 4, 1S54, “ any 
 person” can enter as an occupant, and settle upon the lands, and ac¬ 
 quire a title and patent at the graduated and reduced rates. Upon 
 what reasons of policy, of justice, of humanity, should more rigorous 
 conditions be imposed upon any of the objects upon whom the pro¬ 
 visions of this bill will operate? Is it proposed to exclude foreigners 
 altogether? Then you must repeal the naturalization laws, and adopt 
 a policy worthy of ancient Egypt, or modern Japan. But let us be 
 careful, in doing so, that we belie not the great principles which lie at 
 the basis of our government, and that we prove not ungrateful to the 
 memories of our fathers, and to those noble and self-sacrificing spirits 
 who were prodigal alike of their money and their blood, throughout the 
 two wars which secured us in the establishment of our independence; 
 and to the thousands who since have come to cast their lots with ours, 
 incorporating themselves with us, becoming assimilated to our institu¬ 
 tions and usages, and infusing an element of incalculable strength into 
 our republican system. 
 
 I believe, sir, that it is a futile notion that, by any policy short of a 
 repeal of the naturalization laws, and perhaps even a prohibition to 
 the exile of a “ home and a country,” you will be able to stop the in¬ 
 flux of foreigners. The premium held out by our republican institu¬ 
 tions will attract crowds, till the population of the continents shall at 
 last be equalized. You cannot stay this resistless wave of immigration. 
 The over-crowded districts of the Old World will heave it upward and 
 
10 
 
 onward, and it must struggle for a subsistence and a home. It is, then, 
 far more philosophical to seek such a disposition of it as, from a source 
 of mischievous irritation, shall convert it into one of profit to the State ; 
 and, while assimilating it to our institutions, shall make it tributary to 
 the general prosperity. 
 
 It has, again, suited the purposes of the opponents of the bill to view 
 it as designed to offer bounties to interfere with the natural course of 
 industry, converting the followers of commercial pursuits and mechanics 
 into farmers; and great evils have been predicted to follow from this 
 disruption of old pursuits. The farmer, it is said, will not only have 
 his land cheapened in the old States, by the withdrawal of popu¬ 
 lation, but the price of produce will be reduced by the competition of 
 the number of those who have turned farmers. In this anticipation, 
 however, no account is taken of the overstocking of trades, professions, 
 and business pursuits, and by the numbers which the advance of each 
 fresh generation is annually pouring in their ranks. Poverty and want 
 are the inevitable result to large numbers. "By this bill, we only pro¬ 
 vide a refuge for this surplus, where by the “ sweat of the brow” they 
 may, at least, obtain a livelihood; for agriculture, as a pursuit, has this 
 favorable peculiarity, that it enables its followers to obtain the means 
 of living, if it does not furnish them with any great surplus for ex¬ 
 change. While, in other callings, the ability of an individual to sus¬ 
 tain himself depends upon the quantity of his peculiar products which 
 may be wanted by others, the agriculturist can live in a great measure 
 on what he produces. Sir, if the prosperity of the old States depends 
 upon a large surplus of poor population, so that labor shall be cheap 
 and abundant, and if we are called upon to sustain this prosperity by 
 so shaping our legislation as that the masses shall be kept ground down 
 to the earth, I, for one, shall ever protest against the wrong. I prefer, 
 rather, a policy in accordance with the noble sentiment of the poet; 
 “Fiat j'icstitia ruat coclum .” Let justice be done, though the heavens fall. 
 
 But the argument against the bill on the ground of injury to the old 
 States, in the several phases in which we have considered it, is not 
 borne out by the facts. It is shown, incontrovertibly, by statistics, that 
 while the western Si ates have been forming, the progress of the old States 
 in wealth and population has been proportionate. An examination of the 
 facts thus collected, discloses the interesting truth, that while in the last 
 ten years the old States have advanced in population one hundred per 
 centum faster than the most flourishing of the European States, the land 
 States have, at the same time, received from them more than one-fourth 
 of their whole population. There is, in truth, no antagonism ; and it is 
 in vain that the opponents of the measure would attempt to create an} r . 
 A benefit conferred upon one State is quickly diffused among all—thus 
 resembling mercy in the quality ascribed to it by the great dramatist. 
 
 A Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Bayard,] distinguished alike for his 
 learning and legal acumen, has been pleased to term the measure “an 
 illusion;” mark the words, sir, “an illusion”—there is nothing in it, he 
 says, “it is all an illusion.” I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that to the 
 Jacobites of the seventeenth century, the abdication of James the I, 
 and the accession of William of Orange, seemed at first “an illusion ” 
 But the succession of one line of the Stuarts was then broken, and the 
 
11 
 
 House of Hanover is still upon the throne of England. No doubt, when 
 it was first urged, the claim of the Americans to the right of taxing 
 themselves seemed to the whole people of England an “illusion,” as 
 did the plan of independence to the royalists in the Revolution ; but this 
 right has lately received a formal acknowledgment b}’ the House of 
 Lords with reference to Canada, and our independence has long been 
 firmly established. Later still, the project of Catholic emancipation 
 was, for years, deemed by Lord Eldon, and other tory leaders in the 
 Lords, as an “ illusion but the Catholic relief bill is upon the statute- 
 book as a law* of the British realm. Illusions, too, were regarded, no 
 doubt, the projects for reform in the English system of representation 
 and the corn laws ; yet everything necessary for the security of popular 
 rights, in regard to these subjects, has been yielded to the perseverance 
 of the people, supported by a great and just cause. 
 
 A distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Brodhead,] has 
 been pleased to plant himself in decided opposition to the measure upon 
 the ground of constitutional difficulties, and upon a variety of other 
 grounds, which he rather touches upon than develops. My answ r er to 
 the Senator’s speech shall be brief and to the point. 
 
 On the constitutional topic, I will, in the first place, cite the third 
 section of the fourth article: “ Congress shall have the power to dispose 
 of,\ and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory 
 and other property of the United States.” I will next refer to the prac¬ 
 tice ofthe government under this provision, and will point to the incor¬ 
 poration of the homestead principle in the bills for the organization of 
 the Territories of Oregon and New Mexico. In illustration of the exer¬ 
 cise by Congress ofthe general right to dispose of the public lands, I 
 would instance, also, the grants to railroads and for school purposes, 
 for the construction of canals, the improvement of navigable streams, 
 and internal improvements, &c., which, in the aggregate, are found to 
 have amounted, on the 30th September, 1S54, to more than one hun¬ 
 dred and fifty millions of acres. 
 
 I would next instance, in support of the same power, the opinions of 
 the most eminent for ability and patriotism, and the most popular of 
 our statesmen, living and departed. I would mention, as names which- 
 have sustained the theory and approved the practice, those of Jefferson, 
 who proposed the settlement of a portion of the Louisiana purchase 
 west of the Mississippi, by conditional grants of one hundred and 
 sixty acres of land—of Monroe and his Cabinet, of whom were 
 Calhoun and Crawford, who, in 1819, approved the giant to the Con¬ 
 necticut asylum, of lands in Kentucky; and that of James K. Polk, 
 who approved the incorporation of the homestead principle directly in 
 the act erecting the Territory of Oregon. I would refer, for the same 
 purpose, to that of Franklin Pierce, in his approval of an act passed at 
 the last session of Congress, making gratuitous grants of lands to actual 
 settlers in the Territory of New Mexico. I would also refer to the grant 
 made to Isaac Zane, during the administration of Washington, of three 
 tracts of land, for blazing a bridle-path from Wheeling to Maysville, 
 Kentucky; to the Florida settlement law, granting a quarter-section of 
 land on condition of occupancy for the term of three years; to the 
 law of 1791, by w r hich grants of land were made to settlers at Yincen- 
 
12 
 
 nes ; to the act of 1792, by which grants were made to the Ohio com- 
 pan}^ for actual settlers ; and to the law of 1795, making a similar pro¬ 
 vision for settlers at Galliopolis. The principle has had the judgment 
 and sanction of Jackson and Webster—names above suspicion for 
 ability and patriotism—and is sustained by the highest authority of our 
 living patriots and statesmen. The constitutional right of Congress to 
 dispose of the lands in such way as their judgment may approve, is in 
 clear and explicit language ; and in the face of the unlimited exercise of 
 the power, from the foundation of the government to the present time, 
 there is no man who can wink so fast that he cannot see it. 
 
 It has been remarked that none but “ drunkards and loafers” will take 
 advantage of this bill; that its benefits will inure almost exclusively 
 to that class of our citizens. And is it to terms like these, stigmatiz¬ 
 ing as criminal and subjecting to ridicule the misfortunes of a portion 
 of our countrymen, that we are called upon to listen as to overwhelm¬ 
 ing arguments against the policy of this measure? Abusive and de¬ 
 preciating epithets are cheap, and ask not the aid of talents to give 
 them point and effect. Their empkyment, on the contrary, argues the 
 want of better capital for the service. The same style of argument 
 w*as employed against the°principle of free government, the great prin¬ 
 ciple of political and civil equality as proclaimed by Jefferson ; and 
 even the benign religion of Christianity was derided in the persons of 
 the humble fishermen who were its first propagators. 
 
 The class of men for whom this bill is intended to provide are not 
 “ drunkards and loafers.” They are the same class who, under Wash¬ 
 ington, in 1776, erected the batteries upon the heights of Dorchester, 
 and entered the town of Boston as General Howe withdrew. They 
 are the same who, in the trying march from field to field, never lost a 
 spark of their patriotic devotion, but, in the hour of disaster, like their 
 gallant leader, still cast their eyes to the mountains as the dernier resort 
 and final refuge of their liberties. With Washington they fought brave¬ 
 ly at Brandywine and Valley Forge, and witnessed, with him, the sur¬ 
 render of Cornwallis at Yorktown—the closing scene of the Revolution. 
 They are the same class who, afterwards, in the struggle which began 
 in 1812, in which the young America was again called upon to contend 
 with the power of England for the freedom of the seas, were found by 
 the side of Jackson, at New Orleans, braving, with dauntless breasts, 
 the British bullets and bayonets, and sending up the victorious shout 
 from under that glorious banner which they had borne to immortal 
 triumph. They are the same who, with General Taylor, gathered unfa¬ 
 ding laurels upon the deadly field of Buena Vista; who landed with Scott 
 at Vera Cruz, and accompanied him in his heroic march through the 
 valley of Mexico to the gates of the city; and they are the same who, 
 under its beetling walls, having extinguished, by sure aim, the lights 
 upon the ramparts, fought afterwards through the gloom and confusion 
 of night, and until the broad splendors of the meridian sun shone upon 
 their flag of victory waving over the Plaza. They are not “ drunkards 
 and loafers,” but of that class who, in time of peace, turn the furrow 
 and gather the harvest, and who constitute the bone and sinew of the 
 land from Maine to Texas. They are the men who repel savage vio¬ 
 lence from the frontiers, who fell the forests, and who are everywhere 
 
13 
 
 the chief producers of the substantial wealth of the country. They 
 are of that class who swing the hammer and drive the plane ; who 
 plan and who build ; and who are found at the awl and the last, at the 
 printing-press and the loom; of that class which tend the locomotive 
 and guide the steamer ; which constitute our mercantile marine ; and 
 which fill every class of industrial pursuits. It is the class which has 
 produced Franklin, and Rittenhouse, and Godfrey, and Fulton, and 
 Morse. I may go a step further, and say it is the class which pro¬ 
 duced Powers, and Cleavenger, and Greenough, and CrawFrd, and 
 Mills, who, as with the chisel of Praxatiles, could almost make the 
 marble speak; and West, who, as with the pencil of Raphael, could 
 almost “make the brook murmur down the painted landscape.” 
 
 But, to take leave of the objections, and the ingenious gentlemen 
 who urge them, let us pass, for a moment, to the merits of the bill. It 
 strikes me, Mr. Speaker, that the proper point from which to survey 
 this subject, is that which enables us to contemplate it as a great ques¬ 
 tion of policy for the settlement of the public lands, and their remo¬ 
 val from the balls of legislation. The unwieldiness and expense of the 
 present system, and the degree to which it monopolizes and embar¬ 
 rasses congressional action, are potent reasons for a change. That a 
 change must be made at no distant day 7 , there can be no doubt; for 
 these evils are increasing with each recurring year. In the new dispo¬ 
 sition which is to be made of this public property, I desire that, first 
 and foremost, the actual settler should be remembered. Nor is it 
 just that you should regard the disposition by this bill as a gift. It is 
 right rather, to consider, in addition to the consideration of fourteen 
 and one-half cents per acre, which obviates any fancied constitutional 
 scruples, and covers the original cost of purchase, and the extinguish¬ 
 ment of the Indian title, the five years’ occupation and cultivation as 
 an ample compensation, as far better fulfilling the great object of dis¬ 
 posing of the public lands, namely—of settlement, and the development 
 of their resources—than the present system of selling at SI 25 per acre, 
 to persons who buy with no intention of ever occupying the lands 
 themselves, but solely to profit by the rise in value consequent upon the 
 improvement of the neighboring lands by the labors of the actual settler. 
 
 In great questions of policy, it has been well said, other elements are 
 properly to be considered, besides those of revenue; and a greater ad¬ 
 dition is thus made to the positive wealth of the country, and to her 
 means of defence, than it is possible to procure by means of revenue 
 arising from the sale of the lands. 
 
 We find, in referringtothe history of that country from which we derive 
 our representative system, and the doctrines of the common law, that the 
 tendency of the best minds of the century that has just passed, was to the 
 conclusion, as a distinct principle, that government lands are most wisely 
 administered in private hands. This principle has received emphatic 
 recognition from one of her wisest statesmen. It was Edmund Burke, 
 who,in the English Parliament, more than seventy ymars ago, in advocat¬ 
 ing a policy, in its important aspects similar to that now proposed, ut¬ 
 tered that remarkable declaration in regard to the alienation of the Crown 
 lands ot Great Britain, that “they should be thrown into the mass of 
 
14 
 
 private property, by which they will come, through the course of circula 
 tion, and through the political secretions, into well regulated revenue.” 
 
 Once more let us revert briefly to the origin and progress of the prin¬ 
 ciple of free grants, in consideration of settlement, which we now pro¬ 
 pose to erect into greater prominence in our land policy. In a speech 
 which I had the honor to make before you at the recent session in ad¬ 
 vocacy of this measure, I was at pains to collect from our colonial his¬ 
 tory many striking instances in which, for the express purpose of set¬ 
 tlement, extensive tracts of territory—portions of these now populous 
 and flourishing States—were granted to one or a few individuals by 
 governments much less favorable to individual rights than our own. 
 The grants now proposed, though small in amount, are, in part, for the 
 same recognised purpose; and, while the land subject is thereby dis¬ 
 posed of in this respect, the measure has this incidental recommenda¬ 
 tion: that it is chiefly the laboring class of our people—those for whom 
 no direct legislation has ever been had hitherto—who will receive the 
 first benefit of the measure. We may remember that it has been often 
 urged as an argument tor a high protective policy, and for a United 
 States Bank, that those measures would “better enable the rich to take 
 care of the poor.” But if government action may be invoked to favor 
 directly the interests of a class who are capitalists and proprietors, in 
 order that a benefit may flow indirectly to labor, what is there in rea¬ 
 son to prevent us from conferring the same benefit more surely and 
 directly? But the bill creates no odious or unjust distinction; and the 
 wealthiest citizen, alike with the poorest, becomes entitled to the same 
 privileges upon the conditions of settlement and cultivation. 
 
 Possessing, as this measure does, in my estimation, an importance 
 far above the fluctuating influences of the times, I did not hesitate at an 
 early day to give to it the whole of my humble influence. I have, in 
 consequence, enjoyed the high honor o'f seeing it twice carrh d by a 
 decided vote through this the popular branch of the National Legisla¬ 
 ture, and of missing only by a little the seal of the senatorial approba¬ 
 tion. And still the measure stands as high in my regards as ever. I 
 still see it as far-reaching and salutary in its influence, and worthy of 
 the most earnest attention of the most eminent statesmanship. It is still 
 a measure promising more than any other lo impart strength to the State, 
 by unfolding her natural resources, and by providing her with a numer¬ 
 ous population, attached to her by the ties of gratitude—by a love for 
 the soil which furnishes them with a subsistence and a home, and which is 
 their own —a population which is interested, in the highest degree, in the 
 preservation of our republican institutions; and whose virtues should be 
 kept alive as the true vestal fires, which will preserve in its integrity the 
 matchless fabric of American liberty for which our fathers fought. 
 
 It has been ascribed as the peculiar danger to the perpetuit} r of - 
 Democratic governments, the temptation to yield to measures which 
 
 E romise a present, but temporary benefit, to the neglect of those whose 
 enefits, though ever so great and decided, are yet remote. The con¬ 
 sequence is, a restless and excited career, terminating early in national 
 ruin. The remedy is, to be wise in time; and so to shape, by legisla¬ 
 tion, the policy of' the country, as that, while the external prosperity of 
 the individual may be promoted, the best guarantees may be provided 
 
15 
 
 for his advancement in intelligence, and his establishment in virtue. 
 If the history of nations teaches anything at all, it is the emphatic les¬ 
 son that Democratic institutions depend for their permanence less upon 
 the intelligence than upon the virtue of the people. Hence the wisdom 
 of those laws which tend to encourage such dispositions in the masses, 
 and hence an argument, not inferior in strength to any, for the enact¬ 
 ment of the homestead. 
 
 With the obstacles which, since its first introduction into this House 
 as a distinctive measure, the homestead has encountered, and the strug¬ 
 gles through which it has passed, we are all familiar. It is to this 
 body that belongs the honor, which will perpetually endear them in 
 the hearts of the people, of the initiative in recognising, on a basis the 
 most decided and liberal, of the great principle of cheap homes. 
 
 A word or two as to what I consider will be the most important effects 
 - of the measure. One, the most obvious, and not the least important, will 
 be the removal, in a great measure, of this subject of the public lands, 
 which has been so long the fruit of bitter contention, from the nails of legis¬ 
 lation, and the arena of politics. Let us pass this bill, and we shall prove 
 that governments are not essentially selfish and exacting—treating the 
 masses as subordinate to their rulers, and consulting much more the 
 interests of favorites, of classes and corporations, than the rights of 
 individuals, but that they are capable of rendering justice to all. Pass 
 this bill, and you will strengthen the arm of the government, by cre¬ 
 ating a community of interest, and thus strengthening the ties which 
 bind together the government and the citizen. Mr. Jefferson, in one of 
 his letters to John Jay, remarked that “cultivators of the earth are the 
 most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most inde¬ 
 pendent. the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country, and 
 wedded to its liberty and interests, by the most lasting bonds.” 
 
 While the form of our government secures equality of political rights, 
 this measure will go far to secure equality of social condition; and we shall 
 thus witness a reversal of the old system, by which, instead of exacting 
 contributions from the citizen, the government assumes the truly pater¬ 
 nal function of encouraging him by its bounty. Let us pass this bill, 
 Mr. Speaker, and incalculable are the benefits which we shall thus 
 confer, not only upon the present, but unborn generations. You will 
 thus send rejoicing into the bosom of many a family where, before, the 
 discouragements of life had stifled ambition and effort. You will carry 
 joy to thousands of firesides, and gladden the hearts of myriads through¬ 
 out the county. Under its benign operation, the unreclaimed wastes 
 in the great basin of the Mississippi shall spring into a beauty and 
 loveliness which shall be truly worthy of this golden age. There, 
 upon the sea-like prairies, and far away upon the sources of the Yel¬ 
 lowstone, the Columbia, the Arkansas, and the Colorado, and many a 
 stream which now “ hears no sound save its own dashing”—under the 
 shadow of the Stony Mountains and the Sierra Nevada, the happy settler 
 will, under the provisions of your munificent policy, teach the wilder¬ 
 ness to bud and blossom as the rose. Under the hand of industry 
 thus wisely fostered and encouraged, waving fields will enrich the land¬ 
 scape ; lowing herds and the noise of the arts will enliven those now 
 
16 
 
 inaccessible retreats; and still new settlers will rise up to avail them¬ 
 selves of this provision, and to bless you as its authors. 
 
 Under this provision of the homestead, in connexion with that in re¬ 
 gard to the Pacific railroad, which I hope will be so extended as to 
 reach the Pacific, and invite to our shores the trade of Asia, a chain of 
 cities, like that which marked the course of the India trade in Asia 
 and Europe, along the shores of the Mediterranean and the Adriatic, 
 will stud the vast expanse between theAtlantic* and Pacific oceans; 
 and from the sources of the Saskatchawan, on our northern border, 
 even unto the Isthmus, will be eventually gemmed with populous and 
 flourishing communities. Hand in hand these two great measures 
 should penetrate the wilderness. The forest will then fall before them, 
 and the fruits of nature, springing from the seed deposited by the hand 
 of industr} 7 , will everywhere burst the sod. Civilization will then 
 prosecute unimpeded her stately march—bearing with her the virtues, 
 the arts, the graces, and refinements of life. 
 
 By passing this bill you extend the market for manufactures, and 
 press into further requisition the Briarean hands of commerce. The 
 locomotive will achieve fresh conquests over time and space, and the 
 steamboat w 7 ill continue to find new waters still unbroken by its re¬ 
 volving paddles, and with which its tireless strength may contend. 
 Our mercantile marine, multiplied in countless numbers under this 
 genial policy, will groan under kindly burdens, and whiten all the ocean. 
 The world will be our tributaries, and our resistless energies will en¬ 
 gage us in a prosperous exchange with every people upon earth. There 
 is literally no limit to our prosperity, as I believe, to be immensely pro¬ 
 moted by the measure under consideration, if only true to ourselves, 
 and to that matchless bond of union which holds us together. Let us 
 by this measure temper, by the thousand healthful influences springing 
 from agricultural pursuits, the luxurious excesses to which the colossal 
 achievements of our commerce and manufactures are tending, and we 
 may rest in confidence, that, under Providence, the restless and Titanic 
 movements of the age will eventuate in the welfare of the human race. 
 
 With the establishment of this measure, I should feel that my career 
 as a legislator had not been fruitless. On the contrary, I should be 
 proud of the accomplishment of a measure recommended alike by wis¬ 
 dom, policy, and justice. I should covet no higher honor than to be 
 remembered in connexion with legislation like this. I may say further, 
 in view of resigning, with the close of the present Congress, my 
 authority into the hands of my constituents, that I am satisfied that no 
 subject has, within the period of my membership here, come under our 
 deliberations, which, by its importance and beneficial character, was in 
 any degree so well entitled to my labors. 
 
 Of that constituency to which I am about voluntarily to return, I 
 must be indulged in a few words in conclusion. I must be allowed to 
 express my proud sense of the honor which they have done me in twice 
 making me their Representative upon this floor, as well as for that good 
 will of which they have given me the most positive and distinguished 
 testimonials. I am proud that, upon the spot which knew my infancy, 
 and which has witnessed my struggles in the battle of life, I have been 
 favored by the choice of a substantial, an intelligent, an industrious, 
 
17 
 
 and eminently virtuous community, as their Representative in the man¬ 
 agement of public affairs. I am proud to represent here a district, 
 which, in the noble State of which it forms a portion, owns inferiority to 
 none. Others may be more populous, and more favored by commercial 
 advantages, but none surpasses it in the wealth of its agricultural and 
 mineral resources; in its capacity to sustain a great population ; in 
 picturesque beauty, and in the worthy character of its people. It was 
 in this district, where noble mountains stoop their blue summits to fields 
 of golden fertility and culture, and where forest-crowned hill and grassy 
 valley are interspersed with delightful diversity, that the Father of his 
 Country, after the disastrous field of Braddock, made among the first 
 settleme nts upon the waters ot the Youghiogheny. It was there on the 
 banks of the Monongahela, near to the mountains through which its 
 waters break their passage—a river than which no sweeter stream of 
 more gentle or beauteous flow, threads its way to the ocean—that 
 Gallatin found his chosen retreat, of all the States besides. Learning 
 has found, too, in its bosom, a happy abode, and colleges of reputable 
 fame, bearing the names of Washington, of Jefferson, of Madison, and 
 of Greene, are sending forth continual rays of intellectual and moral 
 light to irradiate and beautify the popular mind. The home of enter¬ 
 prise not less than of wealth and of moral excellence, her adventurous 
 sons are found pursuing their useful and thrifty callings along the Ohio 
 and all the rivers of the Mississippi valley, from the mountains to the 
 Gulf of Mexico. To my cherished home in that lovely valley, I am now 
 satisfied to resign myself, conscious that in the discharge of my public 
 duties I have not swerved a tittle, whether it regards part } 7 obligations, 
 the interests of my constituents, or the welfare of my country.