RKMAN GLUB PUBLICATIONS 
 
 I No. 14 
 
 MiWAUK|]d)E, Wis., April 13, 1897 
 
 THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT 
 
 A Wisconsin Episode of 1848-1851 
 
 By John Goadby Gregory 
 
 Printed for the Parkman Club by Edward Keogh 
 
The Land-Limitation Movement. 
 
 A Wisconsin Episode of 1848-1851.* 
 
 A spirit of short-sighted proletarianism was fitfully preva¬ 
 lent in Wisconsin for several years before and after the admis¬ 
 sion of the territory to statehood. It manifested itself in a dis¬ 
 trust and dislike of corporate enterprises generally. It was one 
 of the factors in the fierce and .successful onslaught upon the 
 Milwaukee and Rock River Canal project, overturning a 
 scheme of internal improvement encouraged by a valuable 
 grant of land from the national government, and smugly divert¬ 
 ing the greater part of the proceeds of the grant to other uses 
 than those for which it had been deyised. The same spirit was 
 disclosed in the generally inimical attitude of the Territorial 
 Assembly toward banking enterprises, and saliently displayed 
 itself in the anti-bank article of the draft of a state constitution 
 submitted to the people by the first Constitutional Convention. 
 This article not only forbade the existence of banks of issue, but 
 went so far as to provide that it should be ‘'unlawful for any cor¬ 
 poration, under any pretense or authority, to exercise the busi¬ 
 ness of receiving deposits of money, making discounts, or buy- 
 
 * Note. —The documentary sources from which the materials for this paper have 
 been drawn are the journals of the Wisconsin Legislature of 1851, and the files of Mil¬ 
 waukee newspapers—chiefly the Daily Wisconsin and The Sentinel. The appendix to 
 the Senate journal contains the text of Gov. Dewey’s Message. The appendix to the 
 A.ssemby journal contains the report of Assemblyman W. K. Wilson's committee in favor 
 of the land-limitation bill. The Wisconsin’s files, from 1848 to 1851, contain numerous 
 references to meetings of the Land Reform A.ssociation, and verv full reports of the 
 proceedings in the Assembly, including the text of several of the more important 
 speeches for and against the bill; also correspondence on both sides of the question, 
 and exten.sive reports of the public meetings to discuss the measure which were held 
 in Milwaukee while it was pending in the Legislature. I have talked on the subject 
 with S. M. Booth, William Whitnall and other survivors of the men who were active 
 participants in the controversy. I cannot find that any of the loyal advocates of land- 
 limitation in 1851 have changed their minds. Andrew E. Elmore, writing from Green 
 
90 
 
 333 
 
 THE L A ND-LIMITAITON MO VEMEN T. 
 
 ing or selling bills of exchange, or to do any other banking 
 business whatever.” Another conspicuous exhibition of the 
 same spirit was presented by the land-limitation agitation of 
 1848-1851. 
 
 Let us try to realize what Wisconsin was at the time when 
 this agitation took place. The whole population of the state 
 was 300,000—not greatly larger than that of Milwaukee today. 
 This population was, for the most part, huddled in the eastern 
 half of the southern tiers of counties, Milwaukee county having 
 31,119 inhabitants, and Rock county 30,717, while Washing¬ 
 ton, Waukesha and Dodge came next with 19,000 each. Wal¬ 
 worth had 17,866, Dane 16,654, Grant 16,169, Jef¥erson 15,339, 
 and Racine 14,971. Fond du Lac was the only other county 
 in the state which contained more than 12,000 people. Mil¬ 
 waukee was a city of 20,000, with 325 buildings, which had been , 
 erected at an aggregate cost of $369,000. That is to say, all the 
 buildings in Milwaukee in 1850 represented an investment not 
 greatly larger than one-third of the cost of the present city hall. 
 It was an active population intellectually. There were in Mil¬ 
 waukee seven daily newspapers—four English and three Ger¬ 
 man. It was energetic and thrifty. The industries of farming 
 and lumbering had sprung up into importance, overshadowing 
 the mining industry of the lead region, which had been the lead¬ 
 ing, and, practically, the only, industry of Wisconsin a few 
 years before. The building of plank roads had been under¬ 
 taken with considerable energy, and the construction of rail¬ 
 roads had just begun. A tide of immigration was pouring in 
 
 Bay, where he now resides in vigorous old age, said, under date of April 19, 1897: 
 “Land-limitation was right. Then it might have been put into operation. Now it is 
 very doubtful. But it is just and right now.” Mr. Booth and Mr. Whitnall, in response 
 to quesUons which I put to them, gave answers to the same effect. Mr. Elmore is in 
 possession of printed documents and manu.scripts, stowed away where they cannot be 
 readily got at. that are rich in details—personal and other—relating to the movement, 
 and that will be examined with interest by students of the subject whenever they are 
 brought to light. From the published catalogue of the library of the Wisconsin His¬ 
 torical Societv, I infer that the files of the Free Democrat for the period covered in this 
 paper are not in its collection. Mr. Booth tells me that his report of the Milwaukee 
 meeting of February 19, 1851. was not publi.shed in the body of his paper, but in a 
 supplement, intended to be distributed as a broadside, in order to give it greater 
 circulation, and that, through an inadvertency, this supplement was omitted from the 
 bound file. J. G. G. 
 
THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT 
 
 91 
 
 from the Eastern states as well as from Europe. The number 
 of inhabitants in Wisconsin increased from 30,000 in 1840 to 
 305,000 in 1850. Never since the foundation of the Union had 
 a state advanced so rapidly in population. Naturally, specula¬ 
 tion in farming and timber lands as well as in town-sites and 
 city lots was a business that enlisted the energies of many enter¬ 
 prising men. 
 
 The land-limitation movement did not originate in Wiscon¬ 
 sin. Its birthplace was in the Eastern states, where there was 
 at that time a very respectable element ready to give audience 
 to everyone having or professing to have a new-fangled recipe 
 for abolishing human misery. Eourierism, and a crop of other 
 highly artificial economic panaceas, fascinated the imaginations 
 of these amiable enthusiasts, until the experience derived from 
 the failure of the Brook Earm experiment and kindred attempts 
 to put ideal social conceptions into practice taught them that 
 while human nature remains what it is it will be impossible to 
 banish poverty and make all mankind materially prosperous 
 by law. Horace Greeley, who, in his early days, had a friendly 
 feeling for experimental legislation, delivered, between 1842 
 and 1848, a series of lectures on social problems which are pre¬ 
 served in his book entitled, “Hints Toward Reforms.’’ In one 
 of these lectures, referring to “the newly agitated land question 
 —the right of man to the soil”—he said: 
 
 “Man having a conceded right to live, has a necessary right, 
 also, to a reasonable share of those means of subsistence which 
 God has provided for and made virtually necessary to the whole 
 human family. * * * He can only in truth enjoy the 
 
 rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by being guar¬ 
 anteed some place in which to enjoy them. He who has no 
 clear, inherent right to live somewhere, has no right to live at 
 all. * * Suppose the usage and the law were so changed 
 
 that no man were permitted, in this boasted land of equal rights, 
 to hold as his own more than half a square mile of arable soil 
 (which is enough for fifty men to cultivate) so long as a single 
 person needing land in the community should remain destitute 
 
 1.24513 
 
92 
 
 THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT 
 
 of any, what a mighty and beneficial transformation would be 
 effected in the reward of labor and the condition of the laboring 
 class!’’ 
 
 As the publication of Bellamy’s “Looking Backward” was 
 followed a few years ago by the organization of brief-lived 
 socialistic clubs, and as the publication of Henry George’s 
 “Progress and Poverty” gave rise to a mushroom growth of 
 single-tax clubs, so the proposition of such doctrines as this, by 
 Greeley and other fluent writers and speakers, furnished the 
 incentive for the founding of a National Reform Association, 
 with local branches at various places in the United States. 
 The most active and prominent of these bodies in Wisconsin 
 was located at Mukwonago, twenty-six miles from Milwaukee, 
 on the Janesville plank road, and its master spirit is conceded 
 to have been Andrew E. Elmore, who was a conspicuous per¬ 
 sonal influence in the politics of those days. Mukwonago’s 
 relative importance then was greater than it is now. It was a 
 flourishing post village of 500 inhabitants, on one of the most 
 frequently traveled highways of the state, and Elmore was inti¬ 
 mately acquainted with the politics and the leading men of 
 every part of Wisconsin. Another branch of the National 
 Reform Association was established in Milwaukee. Promi¬ 
 nent among its members was Dr. Erancis Huebschman, who 
 had been a member of the first state Constitutional Convention, 
 and a presidential-elector-at-large on the Democratic ticket in 
 1848. W. K. Wilson, S. M. Booth, William Whitnall, Avery 
 Hill, and William Haywood were among the other leading 
 members, several of whom were high in the councils of the 
 Democrats and the Free Sobers. The membership was not 
 large—not more than twenty-five, Mr. Whitnall thinks; but the 
 organization conducted an active propaganda, in which it was 
 valiantly assisted by Mr. Booth’s anti-slavery newspaper. The 
 Free Democrat, and also by another influential daily newspaper 
 
THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT. 
 
 93 
 
 of that time, Democratic in politics, The Commercial Adver¬ 
 tiser. 
 
 In the fall of 1848 the National Reform Association 
 arrang^ed for the appointment of local committees to secure 
 from candidates for office pledges to support the principles of 
 the association. The local committee in Milwaukee consisted 
 of Messrs. Wilson and Whitnall. 
 
 The pledge which candidates were requested to sign was to 
 the effect that they would use “all their influence, in office and 
 out,” to secure the legal adoption of the following principles: 
 
 “1. To limit the quantity of land any individual may here¬ 
 after acquire in this state. 
 
 “2. To prevent all further traffic in the public lands of this 
 state, and cause them to be laid out in farms and lots for the free 
 and exclusive use of actual settlers not possessed of other lands, 
 in limited quantities. 
 
 “3. To limit the hours of labor to ten, on all public works, 
 and in establishments chartered by law. 
 
 “4. To maintain the present homestead exemption law of 
 this state, and to oppose any changes that shall not recognize 
 the principle that the homestead, whether a farm or lot of a 
 limited quantity, shall be exempt, irrespective of pecuniary 
 valuation.” 
 
 The fourth and last of the principles thus enumerated was 
 merely a reaffirmation of what was already the law in this state. 
 The third, favoring shorter hours for labor, has since been 
 embodied in legislation by Congress and by most of the states 
 of the Union. The principles for which the efforts of the 
 Reform Association were put forth were those enunciated in 
 the first and second paragraphs of the pronunciamento quoted 
 above, and the main endeavors of the association were concen¬ 
 trated upon securing legal enforcement of the innovation pro¬ 
 posed in the first paragraph, restricting the scope of individual 
 ownership of land. It was an effort to accomplish the same 
 thing which Henry George has recently aimed to achieve in 
 another way, and the arguments employed in its favor were 
 
94 
 
 THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT 
 
 similar to those advanced in support of the theories of Henry 
 George. 
 
 In the year 1850 a convention of land reformers, made up of 
 delegates from several states, was held in Chicago, and in the 
 same year a bill embodying the dogma of land-limitation was 
 introduced in the legislature of New York; but I can not find 
 that the movement acquired in any other state anything like the 
 momentum which it attained in Wisconsin. The leaders of the 
 land-limitation crusade in this state were exceptionally active 
 and aggressive men. “Our plan of campaign,” said Mr. Whit- 
 nall, with whom I conversed on the subject, while collecting 
 materials for this paper, “was to question the candidates of all 
 parties, and vote for none who did not pledge themselves to our 
 cause. When William Pitt Lynde ran for Congress on the 
 Democratic ticket, in 1848, he ignored our circular, and to a 
 committee whom we appointed to wait upon him he made a dis¬ 
 respectful reply. But when the day of election drew near, he 
 changed front. He saw that a few votes one way or the other 
 would determine the result, and he wrote the pledge which we 
 desired. The day before election he came to me with Mr. Wil¬ 
 son, and wanted me to go to Mukwonago and tell Elmore. I 
 said I would go if he would pay my livery bill. He agreed to 
 this, and I rode a horse to Mukwonago and notified Mr. 
 Elmore, who sent out word that the opposition to Lynde was 
 withdrawn. Mr. Lynde was elected. So far as I know, how¬ 
 ever, he never did anything to promote our principles.” Mr. 
 Wilson cites the names of Moses M. Strong, Charles Dunn, 
 James. D. Doty and James B. Cross, as those of men prominent 
 in Wisconsin politics at that time who were pledged to the prin¬ 
 ciples of the Land Reformers. 
 
 The Milwaukee newspapers of 1850 show that meetings of 
 the Milwaukee Land Reform Association were held at the nevv^s 
 depot of John Tanner, No. 9 Michigan street, at frequent inter¬ 
 vals during that year. The work of securing pledges from can- 
 
THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT. 
 
 95 
 
 didates was sedulously prosecuted, and when the time for the 
 meeting of the Legislature drew near, the land reformers felt 
 confident that they had a large majority of the members of that 
 body so strongly committed to land-limitation that a measure 
 embodying the principle was certain to become a law. 
 
 The Legislature convened at Madison on Wednesday, the 
 8th of January, 1851. Among the members of the Assembly 
 were several men whose names are written in large letters in the 
 history of the state. Experience Estabrook and Wyman 
 Spooner were members from Walworth county. William E. 
 Smith, afterward Governor, was a member from Dodge, and 
 William L. Utley headed the delegation from Racine county. 
 Washington county was represented by Erederick W. Horn, 
 who was elected speaker. The Milwaukee delegation consisted 
 of William K. Wilson, Charles E. Jenkins, John L. Doran, 
 George H. Walker, Enoch Chase, Tobias G. Osborne and 
 Patrick Carney. 
 
 The annual message of Governor Nelson Dewey, delivered 
 to the Legislature on the second day of the session, contained 
 a passage on the subject of land-limitation, that was referred by 
 the Assembly to a special committee, of which W. K. Wilson 
 was chairman. After arguing in favor of the proposition that 
 the lands comprising the public domain should be ‘'sold only 
 to actual settlers, in limited quantities, at no more than the 
 actual cost,” the message went on to declare that “the concen¬ 
 tration of the right of soil in the hands of the minority is fol¬ 
 lowed by results destructive of the liberty of manand that “it 
 is the oppression of the landlord, as much as the tyranny of gov¬ 
 ernment, that drives the foreign immigrant to the wilds of 
 America;” and that “we are approaching the same monopoliz¬ 
 ing result (perhaps not in the same ratio) in some of the older 
 states in the Eederal Union;” and that “it becomes, therefore, 
 a subject of high interest to the mass of our people” that land- 
 limitation “should be discussed as a question of political 
 
96 
 
 THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT 
 
 economy, and that the legislation of the country should aid in 
 its practical application whenever it can be done without crip¬ 
 pling individual enterprise or violating private rights.” 
 
 Exactly one week from the day on which “that part of the 
 Governor’s message relating to land-limitation” was referred to 
 Mr. Wilson’s select committee, the chairman reported bill No. 
 14A., “a bill to limit the quantity of lands hereafter to be held 
 or owned by any one person,” which was read the first and 
 second times. The text of the bill was as follows: 
 
 “Section 1. From and after the 4th day of July, 1851, no individual shall become 
 owner or possessor, in his or her own right, of more than 320 acres of agricultural 
 land, or, in lieu thereof,not more than two lots of one acre each being within a recorded 
 town, plat, city or village. 
 
 “Sec. 2. Any person now owning or possessing more land than is limited in the 
 la.st preceding section of this act shall have the right to own, po.ssess and enjoy the 
 same during his or her life and at his or her decease to devise it to whom he or she 
 may think proper as now they may under existing laws, and the devisee shall have a 
 title to the same: Provided, however, that within one year from the time when the 
 title of .said devisee shall be recognized said devi.see shall bona fide sell and convey all 
 the exce.ss in quantity of said lands, whether agricultural lands or lots, over and above 
 the said limit named in section first of this act, to other persons, so that the said 
 limitation, including all his laud, may be practically secured. 
 
 “Sec. 3. If any person now owning or possessing more land than is limited in 
 section first of this act shall die intestate his real estate shall descend and vest in his 
 widow, heirs or representatives, in conformity with the intestate laws of the state of 
 Wisconsin: Provided, however, that no one person shall take what would make more 
 than the said limited quantity, and the excess shall be .sold by order of the court and 
 the proceeds divided among the parties interested as the real estate would have been 
 divided had this act not been oassed. 
 
 “Sec. 4. If two or more persons shall have lands together, the total quantity to be 
 held by them shall not exceed the amount which would be formed by the said limita¬ 
 tions to each one. All contracts or bargains, sales and conveyances by and between 
 parties in contravention of this law shall be null and void; and any person granting or 
 coming into possession or enjoyment of land in contravention of this law shall not be 
 entitled to maintain any action in regard to the same, either for trespass, eviction, 
 damage or rent; and any person holding as a tenant under such person so owning or 
 possessing the said lands in contravention of this law may, notwithstaudibg any deed 
 or contract between them, show the «truth of the facts and, upon due proof thereof, 
 shall be exempt from any liabilities to the said party by reason of the premises. 
 
 “Sec. 5 The excess of lands which any person shall contract for or own and 
 possess in contravention of this law, shall, in case the jury shall believe that there was 
 a willful intent to contravene the law, escheat to the state; and one-half thereof, or .so 
 much as shall not, with his or her other po.ssessions, make more than the said limita¬ 
 tions, shall be the property of the informer. 
 
 “Sec. 6. This law shall not apply to cases where lands are bona fide held by 
 trustees, guardians or others, in trust for persons, provided the quantities of laud held 
 in trust for said persons shall not respectively exceed the said limitations as herein 
 enacted. 
 
 “Sec. 7. From and after the 4th day of July, 1851, where the same person owns 
 two or more lots in any recorded town plot or plots, city or village in the state of Wis¬ 
 consin, he or she shall be taxed for the .same, on the principle of a sliding scale, to be 
 adjusted as follows, namely: as one, two. three, four, etc., increasing continually in 
 arithmetical progre.s.siou by the common difference of one on the rate of taxation; 
 provided, however, that if not more than two lots are held by the same person, and 
 one is used for his residence and the other for his own proper business, as a shop, 
 store, factory, or place of work, then the law shall not apply in regard to those two 
 lots, but they shall be taxed as if this law had not been passed; and provided also that 
 where lots are held in a representative capacity, and the person for whose use they are 
 held owns two or more lots, this rule of taxation, with the benefit of the proviso, shall 
 apply in regard to the person for whose use they are held, as if held in his or her own 
 name. 
 
 “Sec. 8. If any person or persons shall make fraudulent nominal transfers of his 
 or her or their lots, or any one or more thereof, or cause them to be held in the name or 
 
THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT. 
 
 97 
 
 names of others, with a view to evade the operation of this law, such person or persons, 
 
 being duly convicted thereof, shall forfeit and pay a penalty not exceeding - 
 
 dollars with cost of suit, one-half of said penalty to the state and the other half to 
 whomever will sue for the same.” 
 
 The news that the bill had been introduced in the Assembly, 
 and the fear that it would become a law, aroused great excite¬ 
 ment, particularly in Milwaukee. People who had paid little 
 attention to the land reformers, believing that they were harm¬ 
 less visionaries who would never get the substantial support of 
 the law-makers, began to think that there was danger to the 
 business interests of the state, and that a counter-agitation, 
 inculcating the principles of conservatism, was necessary to 
 avert calamity. 
 
 The Daily Wisconsin of January 31, 1851, contained a com¬ 
 munication, signed ‘‘Anti-Humbug,” denouncing the land- 
 limitation measure as “a blow aimed at the rights of property,” 
 and affirming: “It attempts to break down the guarantees of 
 the constitution of our state (see Art. VIII., Sec. i,) in its unjust 
 provision in regard to the imposition of taxes. It would put 
 an end to enterprise, and take away every inducement to indus¬ 
 try and prudence, and arrest men in their lawful acquisition of 
 property. It makes every man an informer, to watch the 
 accumulations of his neighbor, and when he discovers that he 
 has, by industry and sagacity, acquired more than this law 
 allows, to discover the fact and carry off the plunder, to be 
 divided between himself and a sovereign state.” This sounded 
 the key-note of a blast of robust criticism directed from various 
 quarters against the proposed law. 
 
 Meantime, Mr. Wilson’s bill seems to have had smooth sail¬ 
 ing in the Legislature. On the 3d of February its author suc¬ 
 cessfully moved that it be made the special order of the day for 
 Monday, February 17. Determining to turn criticism to profit, 
 the friends of the measure considerably strengthened it by 
 amendments made in committee of the whole. The amend¬ 
 ments doubled the quantity of land which might be acquired by 
 one person, setting the limit at 640 acres in the country and at 
 
98 
 
 THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT. 
 
 four village or city lots of one acre each; and furthermore made 
 the operation of the law entirely prospective, cutting out the 
 sliding scale of taxation on city lots. 
 
 There was a test vote on the 6th of February, in which those 
 voting with Mr. Wilson numbered 42, while the opposition 
 mustered only 15. The question was on concurring in the 
 amendments to the bill reported by the committee of the whole, 
 and Mr. Chase, who was against the bill, moved adjournment, 
 which was disagreed to, when the main question was put, with 
 the result in favor of the bill noted above. 
 
 The organized opposition to the bill which had begun in 
 Milwaukee steadily gathered force. The Wisconsin on Febru¬ 
 ary 8th editorially denied that the Democratic party was com¬ 
 mitted to the doctrine of land-limitation embodied in the Wilson 
 bill, and in support of its position quoted “the carefully consid¬ 
 ered resolution adopted at the state convention held in Septem¬ 
 ber, 1849, Democratic state convention held in Wis¬ 
 
 consin 
 
 '‘Resolved, That the public lands should be granted to actual 
 settlers, under reasonable limitations, at the lowest possible 
 prices.” 
 
 The Wisconsin laid stress on the fact that the resolution 
 confined land-limitation to government lands, and contained 
 not one word relative to limiting the private acquisitions of 
 individuals. On February nth five hundred residents of Mil¬ 
 waukee published a call for a mass meeting of citizens “opposed 
 to the provisions of the bill now before the Legislature on the 
 subject of land-limitation,” “for the purpose of adopting such 
 measures as may be deemed expedient, and as the exigencies of 
 the case may seem to require.” The call went on to say: 
 
 “The signs of the times indicate that our young and rising 
 state is likely to be cursed with the blighting, withering princi¬ 
 ples of agrarianism, socialism and a brood of other isms too 
 numerous to mention, unless the intelligent, high-minded, 
 thinking portion of the community comes to the rescue. From 
 
THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT 
 
 99 
 
 the action already taken by the Legislature on the subject in 
 question, this city begins to realize its bitter fruits. Contem¬ 
 plated improvements that would afford employment to num¬ 
 bers of mechanics and laborers are being suspended, and a 
 general want of confidence in the stability of our laws is mani¬ 
 fest in every department of business. Let no man be deceived. 
 There is a crisis in the history of our young state. Apathy now 
 may result in ruin to our fairest prospects; while, on the other 
 hand, action—prompt, efficient action—may avert the calamity. 
 Let, therefore, every man who loves Wisconsin for what she is 
 and what she may be, and has in view the well-being and pros¬ 
 perity of her citizens—who appreciates the benefits and 
 rewards of a life of virtue, industry, frugality and strict integ¬ 
 rity, and deprecates the bribes and rewards held out by dema¬ 
 gogues and political gamblers, to idleness and legalized dis¬ 
 honesty—attend the meeting and cast his influence against one 
 of the monster humbugs of the age.” 
 
 Among the signers of this document were: James S. 
 Brown, E. G. Ryan, J. B. Cross, D. Wells, Jr., D. H. Chandler, 
 H. K. White, E. B. Wolcott, G. Shoyer, John White, John Eur- 
 long, A. Kirby, J. A. Helfenstein, A. Einch, Jr., James D. Mer¬ 
 rill, R. Steinhart and A. Einch. 
 
 The meeting thus summoned was held on the evening of 
 Saturday, Eebruary 15th, at Gardiner’s Hall. Daniel H. 
 Chandler was elected chairman and Jasper Vliet secretary, and 
 a committee consisting of Edward Button, Hans Crocker, 
 Charles H. Larkin, J. E. Gruenhagen and John Eurlong re¬ 
 ported, through its chairman, Mr. Crocker, the following vig¬ 
 orous and able resolutions, which were adopted by the meeting: 
 
 “Resolved, That the evils inflicted on many states of the 
 old hemisphere by the feudal grants and tenures of land, and by 
 the laws of primogeniture and of entails, which have to a calam¬ 
 itous extent made the soil from generation to generation the 
 inheritance of a small and privileged order, can never find a 
 foothold in this free state, where no privileged class exists, 
 where large grants of land are unknown, where, with few and 
 insignificant exceptions, all titles to land come by purchase and 
 are the chief investment which industry finds for its surplus 
 earnings; where entails are unknown, where the distributive 
 
100 
 
 THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT 
 
 rule of inheritance divides and subdivides estates at each suc¬ 
 ceeding generation, and where, as well from the nature of our 
 institutions as from the character of our people, no system of 
 agricultural tenancy can ever find its way; and that while we 
 freely give our sympathies and our prayers to the impoverished 
 people who suffer abroad under remaining fruits of the feudal 
 system, we, who do not share their grievances, can not consent 
 to import from them those movements which there may be the 
 beginning of necessary political revolution, but which here are 
 a simple crusade against the rights of Labor and Property. 
 
 ‘Atesoived, That the law of nature knows no property; that 
 in our political system all property, whether in land or in mov¬ 
 ables, is a right which society creates for the recompense of 
 labor; that with us all property is simply industry rewarded 
 with its just fruits, and that every infringement upon the rights 
 of property is an infringement upon the rights of labor. 
 
 ''Resolved, That property is among the strongest bonds 
 which holds society together, and that every attack upon the 
 rights of property tends to unsettle the foundations of society, 
 and that no state can be prosperous at home, or honored 
 abroad, in which the rights of property are not field sacred. 
 
 "Resolved, That in a free state, peopled by an enlightened 
 and enterprising race, where all men have the same civil and 
 political rights, and the rewards of labor are equally within the 
 reach of all, no class needs legislative protection against the 
 industry, skill or enterprise of another class; but that every 
 limitation of the right to acquire or transmit property, by 
 setting bounds to the rewards of industry, checks individual 
 enterprise and energy, and impedes the general prosperity of 
 the community. 
 
 "Resolved, That there is no difference in principles between 
 limiting the acquisition of land and limiting the acquisition of 
 any other species of property; it is true that man can not create 
 land, but also true that he can create no other thing. Nature is 
 the sole creator; man can but use, combine or apply; and if it be 
 just or politic to limit human industry in the acquisition of land, 
 it is equally just and politic to limit it in the acquisition of every 
 other species of property; and we, in Wisconsin, busy in the 
 middle of the nineteenth century, in the resurrection of the 
 almost forgotten social absurdities of antiquity, when we have 
 resuscitated the Licinian Law, repudiated by Rome over two 
 thousand years ago, should in common consistency astonish 
 the world by the spectacle of disinterring and revivifying the 
 
THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT. 
 
 ]01 
 
 whole theory of sumptuary laws from the ruins of centuries of 
 exploded error. 
 
 '‘Resolved, That in these views we heartily condemn the 
 Land-Limitation Bill, now pending in the Legislature of this 
 state, because it not only sets bounds to the future rewards of 
 industry, but also impairs the rights of present property in land, 
 by limiting the power of transmission. 
 
 “Resolved, That this law, if passed, will speedily exhibit the 
 first fruits of a crusade against the rights and acquisition of 
 property, by repelling the immigration of labor and capital to 
 this state; by depressing the value and diminishing the salable 
 character of land;.by disorganizing all the relations of industry 
 and property, and by fastening everywhere abroad upon this 
 state the name of a fickle and foolhardy undertaker of specu¬ 
 lative and reckless experiments upon her own wealth, pros¬ 
 perity and honor.” 
 
 Harlow S. Orton, Arthur McArthur, Jonathan E. Arnold 
 and James S. Brown addressed the meeting in speeches against 
 the bill, which were enthusiastically received. Mr. Orton con¬ 
 fessed a belief that the bill was sure to pass, and that no meet¬ 
 ing, however large, could defeat it. 
 
 On the evening of the 19th upward of 700 citizens of Irish 
 birth met at City Guards’ Hall to protest against the passage of 
 the bill. Among the signatures attached to the call for this 
 meeting were those of Dr. James Johnson, Thomas Keogh, 
 Edward Hackett, Daniel Kennedy, John Eurlong, John White, 
 Matthew Keenan, Peter Bradley, Peter Lynch, Robert B. 
 Lynch, Paul Eoley, Edward Mahoney, Michael Dwyer and 
 John Gregory. The wording of the call was as follows: 
 
 “meeting at city guards’ hall. 
 
 “We, the undersigned, adopted citizens of Trish Birth,’ 
 invite every Irishman in this city to attend a public meeting, to 
 be held in the Military Hall, Johnson’s Block, at 7 o’clock, 
 Tuesday evening, the i8th instant, to express our condemna¬ 
 tion of the Jacobin, Red-Republican, Infidel and Demoralizing 
 Measure, called the ‘Land-Limitation Bill,’ now before the 
 Legislature. While we give our full assent to every line of the 
 resolutions adopted at the mass meeting at Gardiner’s Hall, on 
 
102 
 
 THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT. 
 
 the 15th instant, and to every sentiment uttered there—never¬ 
 theless, as people born in another land, we desire to speak 
 ESPECIALLY in this matter. 
 
 “We have no fellowship with all the wild infatuations, hum¬ 
 bugs and isms of the day. As we dearly love the land of our 
 birth, we love with no less affection the land of our adoption 
 and her noble institutions. We came to this free land poor and 
 penniless; our children have been born upon this soil; we have 
 all, with few exceptions, accumulated property; the high road 
 to wealth and fame is open to every man, and can we or have we 
 any cause for dissatisfaction? None whatever. We are satis¬ 
 fied with the laws as they are, and want no experimental legis¬ 
 lation. We invite all men to attend and participate in this 
 meeting.’^ 
 
 John White presided at the meeting, which adopted resolu¬ 
 tions presented by Dr. Johnson, breathing the spirit of the call, 
 and requesting the Milwaukee delegation in the Legislature to 
 vote against the Land-Limitation Bill. Speeches antagonistic 
 to the bill were made by Dr. Johnson and James S. Brown. 
 
 There was one more mass meeting in Milwaukee to discuss 
 land-limitation. It was called by friends of Mr. Wilson’s bill; 
 but opponents of the measure, as well as those who favored it, 
 were invited to attend. The place of meeting was Gardiner’s 
 Hall, and the time Wednesday evening, February 19th. 
 Assemblyman Charles E. Jenkins, who was chosen to preside, 
 had all along worked with Wilson for the passage of the bill. 
 The secretary of the meeting was Byron Paine. The anti- 
 land-limitationists were in a cheerful mood, having received 
 information of a sudden change in the situation of affairs at 
 Madison, which foredoomed the bill to defeat. They made no 
 serious effort, therefore, to take the meeting out of the control 
 of the party which had called it. On motion of S. M. Booth, 
 the chairman appointed a committee on resolutions, consisting 
 of Mr. Booth, James Camack, Edward McKeeby, James Pais¬ 
 ley and J. H. Paine. During the retirement of the committee a 
 speech was made by H. H. Van Amringe, a land reformer, who 
 
THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT. 
 
 103 
 
 had been invited to come from Cincinnati to address the meet¬ 
 ing. After speaking for half an hour, he was interrupted by 
 frecjuent calls for Booth. Mr. Booth at length reappeared and 
 read a series of resolutions including the following: 
 
 ^'Resolved, That to preserve to each man the right to his 
 inheritance in the soil, it is essential that a limit should be set to 
 the amount of land which any one may acquire or possess. 
 
 ''Resolved, That the cardinal principles of land reform are 
 homestead exemption, free farms on condition of occupancy 
 and improvement, and land-limitation. 
 
 "Resolved, That it is absurd to limit purchasers in the 
 acquisition of public and state lands, and to allow them to 
 monopolize without limit the possession of private lands. 
 
 "Resolved, That the land-limitation bill now before the 
 Legislature, limiting the future acquisition of land for each 
 individual to 640 acres of farming land, or four city or village 
 lots of one acre each, but allowing each land-holder to retain for 
 life all lands now in his possession, violates no law and no 
 vested rights, is liberal in its provisions, humane and just in 
 principle, and ought to become the law of the state. 
 
 "Resolved, That the meetings recently gotten up in this 
 city by capitalists, land-holders and their attorneys, to condemn 
 this bill, did not represent the sentiments of the people in this 
 city, and that we respectfully request our representatives, as 
 thev regard the wishes and interests of the people, to vote for 
 thebill. 
 
 "Resolved, That whether we succeed or fail at this session 
 of the Legislature, we pledge ourselves heartily to the doctrines 
 of land reform, and we will never cease our efforts till land- 
 limitation becomes the law of the state.” 
 
 On the vote for acceptance of these resolutions, the meeting, 
 which was composed of a thousand or more people, appeared to 
 some of those present to be about equally divided; but the 
 chairman decided that the ayes were in the majority. Abner 
 Kirby moved to amend the resolutions by adding: 
 
 "Resolved, That all the property in the United States, the 
 state of Wisconsin, and the city of Milwaukee, ought to be 
 equally divided every Saturday night, and oftener if considered 
 necessary.” 
 
104 
 
 THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT. 
 
 The chairman declared the amendment ridiculous, and 
 decided that it was out of order. 
 
 After some confusion, Booth made a brief speech and 
 excused himself on the ground of sickness. J. H. Paine spoke 
 in favor of land-limitation, and closed with the emphatic decla¬ 
 ration, ‘T say this law shall become the law of Wisconsin.’’ 
 Someone in the audience shouted back, 'T say it shan’t.” 
 Frederick Fratney, editor of the Volksfreund, spoke in German 
 in favor of the bill. 
 
 As late as the 13th of February, Mr. Wilson had his land- 
 limitation forces in the Assembly in what seemed like good 
 fighting order, though even then there had been desertions to 
 the camp of the enemy. It was on the date named that the bill 
 was read for the third time, and, the question being on its pass¬ 
 age, Mr. Briggs, one of the opponents of the measure, moved 
 its reference to the committee on judiciary, with instructions to 
 investigate how far it might affect vested rights, and, if found to 
 affect such rights, to amend it. This was disagreed to—ayes, 
 24; noes, 36. Later in the day, the pending question being on 
 the passage of the bill, on motion of Mr. Jenkins, one of its 
 friends, the Assembly adjourned. When Mr. Wilson, the next 
 day, moved the suspension of the rules for the further consid¬ 
 eration of the bill, he could not get the necessary two-thirds 
 vote, the call for ayes and noes showing 33 in favor of the 
 motion and 24 against it. The Assembly on this day adopted 
 a resolution calling upon the attorney-general for his opinion 
 regarding the constitutionality of the bill. 
 
 On Monday, the 17th, the bill was taken up, according to 
 programme, the question being on its passage, when George H. 
 Walker moved to lay it aside for the present, which was carried. 
 Later in the day it was again taken up, and a motion by Mr. 
 Wilson that its consideration be postponed till the following 
 Thursday was carried by a vote of 29 ayes to 28 noes. Deser¬ 
 tions were occurring thick and fast. 
 
THE LAND-LIMITATION MO EE ME NT. 
 
 105 
 
 John L. Doran, of the Milwaukee delegation, made a speech 
 against the bill, which caused many who had originally favored 
 it to change their attitude. Mr. Doran was a lawyer, an Irish¬ 
 man by birth, well read and highly cultivated, with a genial 
 manner, which generally gained him the favor of those with 
 whom he associated. He had been a member of the second 
 Constitutional Convention. He attacked the bill on legal and 
 constitutional grounds. An insuperable barrier to the pro¬ 
 posed law, he said, would be found in the fourteenth section of 
 the first article of the Constitution of Wisconsin, which declares 
 all lands within the state to be allodial. “The bill provides that 
 an intestate’s estate shall be sold to the landless; the Constitu¬ 
 tion declares, by this term allodial, that it shall go to his heirs.” 
 He went on to argue that “under the Ordinance of 1787 every 
 acre of land northwest of the Ohio River is owned by an abso¬ 
 lutely allodial title.” “The second section of this Ordinance,” 
 he continued, “provides that the estates of all proprietors—resi¬ 
 dent or non-resident—dying intestate, shall descend to and be 
 distributed among their children—a course of descent the very 
 reverse of the provisions of the bill under discussion.” Finally, 
 he read the fourth article of the Ordinance, to show that any 
 state formed in the Northwestern Territory should be, among 
 other things, subject and conformable to the acts and ordi¬ 
 nances of the United States, and consequently subject to this 
 same ordinance; and that the legislatures of the states should 
 never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the 
 United States. From this he argued in conclusion that as the 
 United States had disposed of the lands northwest of the Ohio 
 River as allodial lands, the Legislature of this or any other state 
 could not alter this descent, nor could even the Congress of the 
 United States. 
 
 The opinion submitted in response to the request of the 
 Assembly by the attorney-general had a staggering efiect upon 
 the supporters of the bill. It is here reproduced at length: 
 
106 
 
 THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT. 
 
 “Madison, February 17, 1851. 
 
 "'Hon. Frederick W. Horn. Speaker of the Assembly: 
 
 “Sir —In compliance with the resolution adopted by the Assembly on the 14th 
 inst., requesting- my opinion as to the constitutionality of ‘A bill to limit the quantity of 
 land hereafter to be held or owned by any one person’, I have the honor to submit the 
 following opinion: 
 
 “By an act of Congress approved August 6, 1846, the United States proposed to pay 
 to the state of Wisconsin, upon the conditions and for the purposes therein named, 5 
 per cent, of the net proceeds of all the public lands lying within the state (after 
 deducting all expenses incidental to the .same) which had been or which should be 
 sold after the state had been admitted to the Union. 
 
 “This act was amended by the act of admission, as to the use the 5 per cent, should 
 be put to, in accordance with the request contained in the fourth resolution appended 
 to the constitution of the state. 
 
 “In consideration of the payment of the said 5 per cent, as aforesaid Congress 
 required the people of this state to bind themselves by a clause in their constitution, or 
 by an ordinance irrevocable without the consent of the United States, never to inter¬ 
 fere with the primary disposal of the soil within said state nor with any regulations 
 Congress might deem' necessary to secure the same to bona fide purchasers thereof 
 
 “The propositions contained in the act of Congress first above referred to are, upon 
 the terms proposed, fully ratified and confirmed by Sec. 2, Art. II, of the constitution 
 of the state. The moment said propositions were accepted a solemn compact, obliga¬ 
 tory upon both, was consummated between the state of Wisconsin and the United 
 States. 
 
 “It seems to me that Sections 1 and 4 of the bill now under consideration are in 
 direct contravention of this compact, and hence unconstitutional. The United States 
 offer to sell and convey in fee, to any individual, any amount of laud for which he will 
 pay. Section 1 of the bill prohibits every individual from becoming the owner or 
 po.ssessor in any manner, or from any source, of more than 640 acres of land, thereby 
 directly interfering with the United States in the primary disposal of the soil. 
 
 “Section 4 of the bill in substance prohibits all compacts, bargains, sales and 
 conveyances for more than 640 acres of the public domain. The right to purchase is 
 incidental to the power to sell, and therefore any law which takes away or conflicts 
 with this right, so far as the disposal of the public lands by the general government is 
 concerned, is, in my judgment, a direct contravention of the letter and spirit of the 
 Constitution and the laws of the United States. 
 
 “S. PARK COON, 
 
 “Attorney General.” 
 
 Speaker Horn was among those who addressed the Assem¬ 
 bly in opposition to the bill. He began with a personal state¬ 
 ment worthy to be studied by politicians as a model of candid 
 avowal: 
 
 “As an explanation of my conduct in this matter is due to 
 the honorable gentleman who introduced the bill, I must state 
 that I had a conversation with him in Milwaukee, when he in¬ 
 formed me that he should bring the land-reform measure before 
 the Legislature, whereupon I told him that I would not only 
 vote for it, but support it, if necessary, by some remarks. I had 
 no idea that such a bill would make its appearance, and when it 
 did appear, I thought it was nothing but a joke, or, if meant in 
 earnest, would not receive half a dozen votes. To my utter 
 surprise and mortification, however, I see that there is danger 
 of having this unconstitutional and impracticable measure 
 passed through the Assembly. I then could not keep my seat, 
 quietly, and this must be my apology to the Assembly for claim¬ 
 ing their attention for a few moments.” 
 
THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT 
 
 107 
 
 In a light and airy vein, Mr. Horn objected to the 4th of 
 July as the date for the new law to go into effect, as that was a 
 day dedicated to the pursuit of happiness. He suggested the 
 30th of February as a more appropriate day. Then, assuming 
 a serious tone, he said: “Our constitution provides that the 
 Legislature shall pass no law impairing the obligation of con¬ 
 tracts. Suppose, as a citizen of another state, I purchase in 
 Wisconsin 800 acres of land from the government. I move to 
 Wisconsin and find that a law is in existence allowing me to 
 enter only 640 acres, and the rest is to be sold, no matter at 
 what price. Now, sir, I did purchase those 800 acres from the 
 United States. I paid a valuable consideration for the same, 
 and entered thereby into a contract with the United States, 
 which contract specified that I should hold the said land to 
 hnyself, my heirs and assigns forever.’ This law, however, 
 steps between us and says: ‘No, your former contract with the 
 United States is null and void. You have no business to leave 
 more than 640 acres to your child, and your contract that you 
 should hold the land to yourself, your heirs and assigns forever 
 is by our laws annulled.’” Such a law, Mr. Horn declared, 
 would ruin the state by driving away its population. “Immi¬ 
 gration from the eastern states and Europe, so necessary for 
 the well-being of a young state, will cease altogether, * * * 
 
 for the reason that man is always trying to better his fortune, 
 and get more. I must confess that not one out of a thousand 
 ever does reach the pinnacle of his worldly ambition as far as 
 wealth is concerned, and that in this respect 640 acres is more 
 than the average of what people generally acquire. Still, the 
 idea that there is a limit to their acquiring more will turn man}^ 
 an immigrant from Wisconsin.” 
 
 On the 20th, Mr. Wilson was fain himself to move the refer¬ 
 ence to the judiciary committee which he had successfully 
 opposed when it was advocated by the enemies of the bill a few 
 days before. Mr. Chase moved to postpone further considera- 
 
108 
 
 THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT. 
 
 tion of the measure till the 4th of July, and, after a day spent in 
 filibustering, the Assembly finally referred the bill to the 
 judiciary committee, by a vote of 32 to 29. On this day George 
 H. Walker came out in opposition to the bill, declaring that if 
 passed, its results would be ruinous to individuals and to the 
 state. 
 
 The bill was in the hands of the judiciary committee till the 
 7th of March, when that body presented two reports upon it. 
 Mr. Biddlecome, acting for the majority of the committee, 
 reported against the passage of the bill, as being in its provi¬ 
 sions both unconstitutional and inexpedient. Mr. Estabrook, 
 representing the minority, reported “in favor of the constitu¬ 
 tionality of said bill, but against the expediency of its passage at 
 this time,” and recommended that the bill be laid on the table. 
 
 A motion by Mr. Jenkins to lay the bill on the table was 
 defeated by a vote of 24 to 42, and the question recurring on the 
 passage of the bill, it was decided in the negative—27 ayes; 
 39 noes. 
 
 The next day there was a great deal of parliamentary 
 sparring over the question of printing the reports of Mr. Wil¬ 
 son’s committee and the committee on judiciary. Finally it 
 was decided that 500 copies should be printed of Mr. Wilson’s 
 report on introducing the bill. 
 
 The Milwaukeeans who had resolved to fight for land- 
 limitation until it became a law, saw other channels in which 
 they could be useful, and the 500 copies of the report in 
 its favor failed to make new converts to keep alive the agitation. 
 That was forty-six years ago, but there has never been another 
 land-limitation movement in Wisconsin, 
 
 JOHN GOADBY GREGORY. 
 
 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, April 13, 1897. 
 
rHE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT. 
 
 109 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 I. 
 
 Following’ is the report in favor of the passag’e of the land- 
 limitation bill, which was made to the Assembly, January IG, 1851, 
 by William K. Wilson, author of the bill, and chairman of the select 
 committee to whom had been referred the portion of the Governor’s 
 message relating to land-limitation: 
 
 “The committee on land-limitation, having introduced a bill entitled, 
 ‘a bill to limit the quantity of land hereafter to be held or owned by any 
 one person,’ ask leave to present their views on that subject in the fol¬ 
 lowing report: 
 
 “Nothing is more important for the prosperity of a nation, especially 
 a republic, than to have the lands of the nation divided among the people 
 in freeholds of reasonable extent, and that a limit be affixed to the quan¬ 
 tity of land which any one person may acquire. In fact, history will 
 inform us that nations have been happy and prosperous, or miserable 
 and weak, just in proportion as this rule has been conformed to. The 
 accumulation of lands in the hands of the Patricians in Rome destroyed 
 the Republic; and the accumulation of lands in the hands of usurers, in 
 the Roman Empire, destroyed finally the Western Empire of Rome. 
 
 “St. Pierre, an able and popular French writer, in his ‘Studies of 
 Nature,’ translated by Hunter, at pages 119 and 120, says, ‘I have often 
 been astonished that there is no law to prevent the unbounded accumula¬ 
 tion of landed property.’ He says many fine things in favor of such a 
 law, and shows the influence of land monopoly in producing embarrass¬ 
 ments among the working people, and in corrupting public morals. His 
 work was published in 1784. In truth, land monopoly in France was one 
 main cause of the terrors of the Revolution in that country; and the more 
 equal distribution of lands, by confiscation and sales, prepared the way 
 for that subsequent strength of France against all her enemies. 
 
 “It is a false supposition, that some make, that in a true state of 
 society, a time will ever arrive when the earth will not present homes 
 for the entire family of man that may exist at one time. A very small 
 place, perhaps about 150 miles square, would afford standing room for all 
 the people that have existed in the 6,000 years since the creation. Reduce 
 10 miles square to inches, and divide this area by 18 inches square (viz., 
 by 324 square inches), and the quotient is 1,239,000,000 of areas, each of 18 
 inches square. There are not more than 800 millions of people on the sur¬ 
 face of the globe, and as there are 1,239 millions of areas, of 18 inches 
 square in 10 miles square, j^ou might collect the whole population of the 
 globe, and one-half more, if you could find them, and stand this entire 
 
110 
 
 THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT. 
 
 population on the District of Columbia, allowing every man, woman and 
 child, including the infant in the mother’s arms, 18 inches square as a 
 space for standing, and all the spaces would not be occupied. So mere a 
 handful are the people of the globe, compared with the space which Prov¬ 
 idence has prepared for them. 
 
 “As the public lands of our country for which no vested title has 
 yet been obtained exceed 1,400,000,000 square acres, you might, in a frater¬ 
 nal state of society, subsist the population of the globe on these lands, 
 leaving the rest of the world unoccupied; but yet under the effects of land 
 monopoly men and nations are starving and perishing from the want of 
 lands, notwithstanding the abundance of provision for all which the 
 Deity has created. 
 
 “The deprivation of the natural right of man to the soil must be 
 injurious to all classes of society. The workingmen born without an 
 inheritance of land or money, are thrown into an over-crowded market of 
 labor, into competition with their brethren, and under the necessity of 
 selling their labor or mechanical skill for a rate of wages barely adequate 
 to sustain life. 
 
 “The surplus laborers, unemployed, are deprived of the right to life, 
 except upon charity, and thus their minds are degraded by ignorance, 
 and their morals by misery and crime. 
 
 “Those who have some property, and who live by manufactures or 
 commerce, are exposed to the ruinous operations of speculation and com¬ 
 petition by overgrown capitalists; and the small employer is in too many 
 instances at the mercy of a larger one, who holds his destiny in his power. 
 
 “To both rich and poor land monopoly is finally injurious, and its 
 sinister results may be beheld in all departments of life and business. In 
 Wisconsin the ill effects of land monopoly are plainly seen. The money 
 expended for lands and amassed by speculators from the toiling masses 
 for the mere land, which God created for the good of all, would, if 
 retained by the working people, to whom it belongs, be an amount of 
 wealth ample for the erection of houses, barns, and for other improve¬ 
 ments, saving them from the hard necessity of resorting to loans from 
 usurers, at an enormous interest. In fact, land monopoly is the monster 
 parent of interest for money; for if lands were free to all, wealth must 
 remain to the producer of it, and the speculator and usurer would be 
 compelled to change their vocations. 
 
 “For at least three years the farmers of Wisconsin have suffered 
 either from short crops or from injuries to grain in harvest, or from 
 difficulty in getting grain to market, by bad roads. Now, may it not be 
 the fact that these evils are the results of land monopoly, at least partly 
 so? Farmers till such large fields that they can not do that justice to 
 their husbandry which would be manifest if smaller fields were well put 
 in. Hence the winters are severe upon their crops. Neither can they 
 gather large fields so well as they could smaller, and better crops, as they 
 have not help, and have parted with the money for land, which should 
 have gone for agricultural machinery. The same reason prevents them 
 from putting up capacious barns and constructing good roads. Their 
 crops, in not a few instances, rot in the fields, or they are prevented from 
 
THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT. 
 
 Ill 
 
 getting them to market, or they are obliged to go to market, in conse¬ 
 quence of debts, at the most unprofitable time of the year. It is the 
 opinion of the committee that if an inquiry were made, land monopoly 
 would be proved to be the cause of great pecuniary distress in this state. 
 There is plenty of money at the East, but the money market must be 
 always difficult and straitening in a new agricultural state under such 
 consequences of land monopoly. 
 
 “Look at the evils also indicted on [the] community from the fact 
 that town, village and city lots are in many instances held by landlords 
 for rent. If a tavern stand, a shoe shop, clothing store, or grocery stand 
 is in a good place for business, the landlord puts on the tenant such a 
 rate of rent that the tenant, after paying all, can perhaps only barely get 
 along with his family. Hence the tenant is compelled to charge his cus¬ 
 tomers such exorbitant prices that the public often complain of extortion, 
 not knowing that they are put under tribute to satisfy the rapacious 
 exactions of land monopolists. This is a great and common evil, and the 
 cause is not enough noticed by the men who suffer from its effects. A 
 few men thus prey upon society. If the owner of a stand occupies it him¬ 
 self, he is still able to charge extravagantly, because he has for his com¬ 
 petitors around him tenants who have to pay high rents, and who have 
 to raise their prices on sales to cover them, and just in conformity with 
 the enormity of their rents. 
 
 “Land monopoly is the root of vast evil to the morals of our citizens, 
 to the cause of education, and to practical religion, and the welfare and 
 happiness of our country demand its extirpation, and the most effectual 
 plan of removing the evil is a land-limitation law of such a nature as 
 has been proposed. 
 
 “Before closing this report, your committee would commend to your 
 consideration the following extract from a report to the legislature of 
 New York: 
 
 “ Tt is contrary to justice that a human being should be born without 
 having the right to a free home somewhere on the earth. According to 
 the theories of political economy, a man who is born in a world already 
 occupied, if his family have not the means of supporting him, and societj'^ 
 have no need of his labor, has not the right to claim any portion of nour¬ 
 ishment, and he is really one too many on earth. At the great banquet of 
 nature, there is no room for him. Whether in a true state of society, and 
 a rightful apportionment of the soil, the earth will ever be over-peopled, 
 is a problem yet to be solved, and which time only can answer. 
 
 “ ‘The all-wise and all-powerful Architect has probably so ordained 
 His government that in a just condition of society overspreading our 
 world, there shall be a natural law of equilibrium between the resources 
 of the earth and the entire population, so that no famine and misery 
 shall then arise. But if it were destined that at any time the earth should 
 be over-peopled, we ought not artificially to produce the horrors of such 
 an event now, in the infancy of society, by land monopoly.’ ’’ 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 Wm. K. Wilson, Chairman. 
 
112 
 
 THE LAND-LIMITATION MOVEMENT 
 
 II. 
 
 To indicate the positions of the individual members of the 
 Assembly with regard to the land-limitation bill, I transcribe from 
 the journal the records of two votes by ayes and nays which were 
 taken at different stages of the bill’s progress. The first was taken 
 on the 6th of February. The report of the committee of the whole 
 being under consideration, and the question being on concurring in 
 the amendments to the bill, Mr. Chase moved that the Assembly 
 adjourn, which was disagreed to. After some time spent in filibust¬ 
 ering, the putting of the main question was carried by the following 
 vote: 
 
 Ayes—Barnett, Biddlecome, Bjornson, Bradley, Cavney, Cole, Cone, 
 Dick, Easton, Estabrook, French, Gifford, Groot, Hale, Hemenway, Hurl- 
 burt, Jenkins, Julius, Kinney, Lessey, Lowth, Malmros, Moorman, Mur¬ 
 phy, Muzzy, Osborne, Perkins, Price, Ray, Seaver, Smith, Snover, Stock, 
 Tinker, Toll, Tompkins, Tregaskis, Utley, Vincent, Whiton, Wilson and 
 Wing—43.* 
 
 Nays—Bird, Boyce, Briggs, Chase, Clothier, Everly, Fuller, H. John¬ 
 son, J. B. Johnson, Moore, Rogan, Spooner, Van Vliet, Waldo and Horn 
 (speaker)—15. 
 
 The vote by which the bill was defeated, on Friday'', March 7, was 
 as follows: 
 
 Ayes—Barnett, Bjornson, Bradley, Cavney, Dick, Eaton, Estabrook, 
 Everly, Gifford, Groot, Hale, Henning, Jenkins, Julius, Lowth, Moorman, 
 Muzzy, Price, Ray, Snover, Tinker, Toll, Tompkins, Utley, Vincent, 
 Whiton and Wilson—27. 
 
 Nays—Banister, Biddlecome, Bird, Boyce, Briggs, Chase, Clothier, Cole, 
 Cone, Doran, Eastman, French, Fuller, Hemenway, Hurlburt, H. John¬ 
 son, J. B. Johnson, Jones, Kinney, Ladue, Lessey, Malmros, Moore,. 
 Murphy, Olmstead, Osborn, Perkins, Rodolf, Rogan, Seaver, Smith, 
 Spooner, Stock, Tregaskis, Van Vliet, Waldo, Walker, Wing and Horn 
 (speaker)—39. 
 
 *This is the vote as recorded on page 253 of the journal of the Assem¬ 
 bly for 1851. It will be noticed that the names foot up 42 instead of 43. 
 It may also be worthy of note that the date placed over this day’s pro¬ 
 ceedings in the journal is “Thursday, February 30,’’ instead of “Thursday, 
 February 6. 
 
 Copyrighted, 1897, by John G. Gregory 
 
PARKMAN CLUB PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 No, 1. Nicholas Perrot; a Study in Wisconsin History. By Gard¬ 
 ner P. Stickney, Milwaukee, 1895. 16 pp. paper; 8vo. 
 
 No. 2. Exploration of Lake Superior; the Voyages of Radisson and 
 Groseilliers. By Henry Colin Campbell, Milwaukee, 
 1896. 22 pp., paper; 8vo. 
 
 No. 3. Chevalier Henry de Tonty; His Exploits in the Valley of 
 the Mississippi. By Henry E. Legler, Milwaukee, 1896. 
 22 pp., paper; 8vo. 
 
 No. 4, The Aborigines of the Northwest; a Glance into the Remote 
 Past. By Prank T. Terry, Milwaukee, 1896. 14 pp., 
 paper; 8vo. 
 
 No. 5. Jonathan Carver; His Travels in the Northwest in 1766-8. 
 
 By John G. Gregory, Milwaukee, 1896. 28 pp., 1 plate, 
 1 map, paper; 8vo. 
 
 No. 6. Negro Slavery in Wisconsin. By Rev. John N. Davidson, 
 Milwaukee, 1896. 28 pp., paper; 8vo. 
 
 No, 7, Eleazer Williams; His Forerunners, Himself, By William 
 Ward Wight, Milwaukee, 1896. 72 pp., portrait, and four 
 appendices, paper; 8vo. 
 
 No. 8. Charles Langlade, First Settler of Wisconsin. By Mont¬ 
 gomery E. McIntosh, Milwaukee, 1896. 20 pp., paper; 8vo. 
 
 No. 9. The German Voter in Wisconsin Politics Before the Civil 
 War. By Ernest Bruncken, Milwaukee, 1896, 14 pp., 
 paper; 8vo. 
 
 No. 10. The Polanders in Wisconsin. By Prank H. Miller, Milwau¬ 
 kee, 1896. 8 pp., paper; 8vo. 
 
 No. 11, Pdre Ren6 Menard, the Predecessor of Allouez and Mar¬ 
 quette in the Lake Superior Region. By Henry Colin 
 Campbell, Milwaukee, 1897. 24 pp., paper; 8vo. 
 
 No. 12. George Rogers Clark and His Illinois Campaign. By Dan 
 B. Starkey, Milwaukee, 1897. 38 pp., paper; 8vo. 
 
 No. 13. The Use of Maize by Wisconsin Indians. By Gardner P. 
 Stickney, Milwaukee, 1897. 25 pp.. paper; 8vo. 
 
 No. 14, The Land-Limitation Movement, A Wisconsin Episode of 
 1848-1851. By John Goadby Gregory. Milwaukee, 1897. 
 24 pp., paper; 8vo. 
 
 IN'PRESS. 
 
 Legler, Henry E.—A Moses of the Mormons. 
 
 IN PREPARATION 
 
 Bruncken, Ernest—The German Voter in Wisconsin Politics. 
 
 This paper will include the period of the Civil War. 
 
 Campbell, Henry Colin—Du Luth, the Explorer. 
 
 Davidson, Rev. John Nelson—Underground Railway Stations in 
 
 Wisconsin. 
 
 Kelly, Frederick W.—Local Government in Wisconsin. 
 
 La Boule, Rev. Joseph S.—Allouez, the Father of Wisconsin 
 
 Missions, 
 
 Legler, Henry E.—Wisconsin Nomenclature. 
 
 McIntosh, Montgomery E.—Cooperative Communities in 
 
 Wisconsin. 
 
 Miller, Frank H.—The Buffalo in Wisconsin. 
 
 Starkey, Dan B.—The Fox-Wisconsin Waterway. 
 
 Stickney, Gardner P.—An Historical Consideration of the Beaver. 
 
 Wight, William Ward—Joshua Glover, the Fugitive Slave. 
 
 An index to the Club’s publications during 1896 will soon be 
 Issued. 
 
 Publication Committee— Henry Colin Campbell, Henry E. Leg¬ 
 ler and John G. Gregory. _ 
 
 The Parkman Club was organized December 10th, 1895, for study 
 of the history of the Northwest. A limited number of copies of each 
 publication are set aside for sale and exchange. Single copies are 
 sold at the uniform price of 25 cents, and the annual subscription 
 (ten numbers) is placed at $2.00. 
 
 Correspondence may be addressed, 
 
 Gardner P. Stickney, Secretary, 
 
 427 Bradford Street, Milwaukee, Wis.