Petitions to that effect were often presented to Congress, but fortunately with no effect. In 1802, General Harrison, then Governor of the Indiana Territory, and afterward the President of the United States, took part in the effort to introduce slavery into the Territory. A memorial of the Governor and Territorial Legislature was laid before Congress. It was referred to a committee in the House of Representatives of which Mr. John Randolph was chairman. The committee reported against the introduction of slavery, and the report was accompanied by the following remarks: "The rapid population of the State of Ohio sufficiently evinces, in the opinion of your committee, that the labor of slaves is not necessary to promote the growth and settlement of colonies in that region; that this labor, demonstrably the dearest of any, can only be employed to advantage in the cultivation of products more valuable than any known to that quarter of the United States; that the committee deem it highly dangerous and inexpedient to impair a provision wisely calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the Northwestern country, and to give strength and security to that extensive frontier. In the salutary operation of this sagacious and benevolent restraint, it is believed that the inhabitants of Indiana will, at no distant day, find ample remuneration for a temporary privation of labor and of emigration."

Both the Senate and the House repeatedly refused the petitions of the inhabitants of Indiana Territory, and sanctioned the Ordinance of 1787. After the Territory was divided into two portions, the contest for slavery diminished in the eastern, or Indiana part, and finally Indiana became a non-slaveholding State in 1816. In Illinois the battle continued till after that State was admitted into the Union; but there also the anti-slavery party triumphed, and never admitted that accursed institution to corrupt the freedom and industry of a young State. The reason why the two States in their early history evinced a tendency to slave

holding was because of their proximity to slaveholding States, and the consequent influence of early settlers who either emigrated from the slaveholding States or were actually slave-owners before the passage of the ordinance, according to the French laws of Louisiana or the laws of the English colonies after 1763. In general, the case was quite different in Ohio. There, with local exceptions in some counties, the settlers were chiefly from the Northern and Eastern States. Connecticut had its "Western Reserve" in regions bordering Lake Erie. The Ohio Land Company had settlements on the Ohio and Muskingum Rivers. Referring to the settlement by the Ohio Company, which was principally a New England enterprise, and which was composed of men of high position and wealth, Washington said: "No colony in America was ever settled under such favorable auspices as that which has just commenced at the Muskingum. Information, property, and strength will be its characteristics. I know many of the settlers personally, and there never were men better calculated to promote the welfare of such a community." "Before a year had passed by," says Bancroft, "free labor kept its sleepless watch on the Ohio."

Besides these settlements, there were also colonies sent out by Symmes and his associates of New Jersey, that settled on the Ohio and the Miami Rivers. The ordinance was prepared for these settlers of non-slaveholding States in the North and East, and the settlers themselves naturally expected an abode for free and industrious men who would subdue Nature and overcome all obstacles for the sake of home and posterity. Ohio had a fair start, and sturdily supported the ordinance. Michigan and Wisconsin concurred with Ohio, and never permitted their virgin soil to be defiled by slavery. The provisions of the ordinance were extended to all the Territories north of 36° 30′, and shaped the history and institutions of the great Northwest.

'Sparks, IX, 385.

* Bancroft's History of the Constitution, II, 117.

To the territory south of the Ohio River the provisions of the ordinance were extended by the Act of Congress, May 26, 1790; but the sixth article was discarded. When the "Missouri Compromise" was repealed in 1854, the ordinance, for a short period, sank into oblivion. Here let us quote from Governor Coles' "History of the Ordinance": “To a cool and dispassionate observer, who has a knowledge of the enlightened origin, the great popularity, and beneficial effects of the ordinance, it seems to be incredible that it should have been repealed, and especially denounced as violating the great principles on which our Government is founded. Yet such has been the fact; and what adds to the astonishment is, that this has been done by men professing to be of the Jefferson school of politics. . . . The wisdom, expediency and salutary practical effects of the ordinance could not be more clearly shown than by contrasting its operations with those of its substitute. Under the ordinance from 1787 to 1854, the Territories subject to it were quiet, happy and prosperous. Since its principles were repudiated in 1854, we have had nothing but contention, riots and threats, if not the awful realities of civil war. . . .”

Indeed, the country experienced "the awful realities of civil war" not long after Governor Coles uttered these words; but the United States now enjoy peace, prosperity, freedom and steady economic growth. The wise and enlightened principles of the ordinance pervade the government and life of the people in the remaining Territories. When they grow in population to the required standard, they too will have State Constitutions, republican in form, and "not repugnant to the principles of the ordinance," and will be admitted into the Union. Then, and only then, will the great colonial and territorial dependencies of the United States in the West cease to exist.

1Coles, 32-33.

GENERAL LAND OFFICE.

The General Land Office is the Government-machinery through which the United States dispose of their public lands. It was instituted under the Treasury Department April 25, 1812, and was reorganized July 4, 1836.

Previous to the organization of the Land Office, Congress enacted from time to time various laws with regard to the disposition of public lands, and sold off portions through its agents. The Ordinance of May 20, 1785, created an office known as "the Geographer of the United States.""1 Thomas Hutchins was the first-appointed Geographer. He had a number of surveyors under his direction. One was elected from each State. The Geographer was not, however, a negotiator of the public lands. His duty consisted chiefly in the supervision of surveys, and in the transmission to the Board of Treasury of the series of plats whenever the seven ranges of townships had been surveyed. The Treasury Board in turn transmitted these plats to the Commissioners of the Loan Office of the several States, who, after the execution of certain preliminaries, sold the lands at public vendue. Thus the Treasury Commissioners and the Loan Office Commissioners constituted administrative officers of the public domain, and sold out the surveyed lands in accordance with the ordinances of Congress.

HAMILTON'S PLAN FOR A LAND OFFICE.

When the new Constitution went into operation in 1789, and a new Congress had assembled, Mr. Scott, of Pennsylvania, argued the necessity of creating a General Land Office, in order that the public lands might be disposed of to the best interest of the people, and especially of the pioneer settlers who had just begun to seek a home in the West. The

1 Journals of Congress, IV, 520. 2 Debates of Congress, I, 99-115.

need of parcelling out the lands in smaller lots than had hitherto been granted, and of granting them directly to actual settlers through agents of the General Land Office, was strongly emphasized by Mr. Scott and his followers, but their efforts bore no fruit.

The importance of the subject was not, however, overlooked by Congress. The House of Representatives called upon Alexander Hamilton, January 20, 1790, for suggestions respecting the best plan of disposing of the public lands. Hamilton transmitted his report to the House on July 20, 1790. The report is said to have formed the basis for the future administration of the public lands. It concerns us here to see what was his idea as to the administrative organ of the public domain. Hamilton reported in favor of instituting a General Land Office at the seat of Congress. He argued this policy from a financial point of view. To institute the General Land Office was to realize the greatest returns from sales of the public lands. He also reported the advisability of opening district land offices for the accommodation of small purchasers.

The General Land Office was not, however, organized till twenty-two years later. But under the act of May 18, 1796, the office of Surveyor-General was created, and in the following year General Putnam was appointed SurveyorGeneral of the Northwestern Territory. By the same act, the Secretary of the Treasury became the chief agent for disposing of the public lands. The act of May 10, 1810,3 established district land offices in the Northwestern Territory, and they were placed under the charge of registers. Hitherto the Surveyor-General transmitted the plats of survey to the Secretary of the Treasury, but from this time forth he was to transmit them to the registers also. Besides the Register, the

1 Public Domain, 198-200. Statutes at Large, I, 465. Public Domain, 201.