remarks' on the resolution at once opened a field for discussion. We need not here examine in any detail the WebsterBenton-Hayne controversy; suffice it to say, Webster ably defended the national land policy. Webster's great speech, however, could not check the dispute; neither did it offer a solution to the vexed question.

APPEALS OF THE "LAND STATES."

During the two decades after the close of the second war with England the United States had increased steadily in wealth and population. The war of 1812 made the nation a debtor of over one hundred and twenty-seven million dollars, but in 1835 the debt was reduced almost to zero. At this period the public lands filled the treasury with their proceeds. In 1836, land revenue exceeded customs revenue by almost one and a half million dollars.

Again, immigrants had begun to pour in from Europe. In the decade from 1822 to 1832, their number increased almost tenfold. These immigrants became prosperous farmers by thrift and industry. Webster, speaking of the settler's prosperity, said: "Selection is no sooner made, cultivation is no sooner begun, and the first furrow turned, than he already finds himself a man of property."2

Such being the settler's good fortune, the public lands were fast taken up. The new States had no authority over the primary disposition of the lands; neither had they a right to tax them till after private ownership was established. Thus the Federal Government was in one capacity a great landlord, and in another a great untaxed proprietor.

When the public lands began to assume an important place in the economy of the nation, and when the legislators brought the land question into a political arena, the Western

'See Benton's Speech, Thirty Years in Congress, I. 131-134. See Hayne's Speech in Congressional Debates, VI. Part I. 43–58.

States, ever alert to their own interest, manifested a strong desire to own the public lands. The legislatures of several States presented memorials to Congress, and they were supported by the anti-tariff party. the reduction of price as well as for the cession of the public lands.

The legislatures petitioned for

The whole question was referred to the Committee on Manufactures, of which Mr. Clay was chairman. This was out of the regular order, because the question had naturally to go to the Committee on Public Lands. The reason why the question was referred to Clay's committee is explained by Clay's biographer, Mr. Colton. He says: "Mr. Clay being a candidate for the Presidency in 1832, it was thought by his political opponents that, by imposing on him the duty of making a report on the land question, he would injure his prospects in the western and new States. They believed that he could not make a report on that subject consistent with his known principles; and having a majority in the Senate, they conspired to impose on him this duty, by referring the subject to the Committee on Manufactures, of which Mr. Clay was chairman. Mr. Clay and his friends protested against it, but it was of no avail. . . . . The duty of preparing the report, as was expected and intended, devolved on Mr. Clay. Such is its origin."

The report was presented to the Senate April 16, 1832. It was a masterly piece of statesmanship, embodying sound views as to the public lands. It deserves to go hand-in-hand with Webster's great speech against Hayne.

Henry Clay fully understood the importance of the public lands, and never, from presidential aspirations, yielded to unscrupulous political schemes. He handled the subject honestly, and boldly reported his recommendations. His right conception of the subject may be judged from his speech, in which he said: "No subject which had presented itself to the present, or perhaps any preceding Congress, was

Colton's Life and Times of Henry Clay, I. 460.

There

of greater magnitude than that of the public lands. was another, indeed, which possessed a more exciting and absorbing interest, but the excitement was, happily, but temporary in its nature. Long after we shall cease to be agitated by the tariff, ages after our manufactures shall have acquired a stability and perfection which will enable them successfully to cope with the manufactures of any other country, the public lands will remain a subject of deep and enduring interest. In whatever view we contemplate them, there is no question of such vast importance.'

991

Clay's prophecy was correct: the tariff is no longer a burning political issue. But the public lands still remain, and form an important branch of administration. The American public is now indignant at the prevalence of systematic fraud and deception committed by unscrupulous land "grabbers." The popular cry is now for a reform of land laws. Again, in such a remote Territory as Alaska, the recent discovery of mineral resources has made that land an important acquisition, and will call the attention of the Government to the administration of that far-off Territory.

We shall now briefly summarize the important points of Mr. Clay's report. After reviewing the history and origin as well as the sale of public lands down to 1832, the committee proceeded to inquire into the expediency of reducing the price of public lands. They said: "There is no more satisfactory criterion of the fairness of the price of an article than that arising from the briskness of the sales when it is offered in the market. On applying this rule, the conclusion would seem to be irresistible that the established price is not too high."

The committee then proved their position by showing, through statistics, the annual increase of the sales of the public lands during several preceding years. Another objection was that the reduction of the price was unjust toward

1 Colton's Clay, I. 457-458.

* See President Cleveland's Message of 1885.

those who were already settled in the West. A further objection raised by the committee was that a reduction of the price would be attended by speculation. They said that "if the price were much reduced, the strongest incentives to the engrossment of better lands would be presented to large capitalists, and the emigrant, instead of being able to purchase from his own Government upon uniform and established conditions, might be compelled to give much higher and more fluctuating prices to the speculator." They cited as an example the military-bounty lands, which gave more benefits to the speculators than to those for whom the lands were intended.

Again, the committee considered that the reduction of the price would materially injure the interests of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, from which States, at this time, emigrants were moving to the West. If the price were reduced, the effect would be to depress the value of real estate in those States, as well as to drain them of their population and currency.

After the committee had refuted most conclusively the objections that the price retarded the sale, and that the price was a tax, they proceeded to the second branch of inquiry-respecting the cession of the public lands to the new

States.

According to the estimate then made, the public lands consisted of more than one thousand and ninety million acres, which, at the minimum price of $1.25 per acre, represented the value of something over $1,362,500,000. Such being the case, the committee justly observed: "It is difficult to conceive a question of greater magnitude than that of relinquishing this immense amount of national property. If they were transferred to the new States, the subsequent disposition would be according to laws emanating from various legislative sources. Competition would probably arise between the new States, in the terms which they would offer to purchasers. Each State would be desirous of inviting the greatest number

of emigrants, not only for the laudable purpose of populating rapidly its own territories, but with a view to the acquisition of funds to enable it to fulfill its engagements to the General Government. Collisions between the States would probably arise, and their injurious consequences may be imagined. A spirit of hazardous speculation would be engendered. Various schemes of the new States would be put afloat to sell or divide the public lands. Companies and combinations would be formed in this country, if not in foreign countries, presenting gigantic and tempting, but delusive, projects, and the history of legislation in some of the States of the Union admonishes us that a too-ready ear is sometimes given by a majority in a legislative assembly to such projects.”

Another objection raised by the committee against the cession of the public lands was the new relation which from the transaction would arise between the General and State Governments. The committee apprehended that among the debtor States a common feeling and a common interest distinct from the rest of the Union would inevitably arise. Again, delinquencies on the part of the debtor States would also inevitably arise, and these would result in the relinquishment of credit through endless petitions and varied manipulations, "or, if Congress attempted to enforce its payment, another and a worse alternative would be embraced." By the "alternative" was meant, probably, secession. Here the committee struck the very root of the evil.1

CLAY'S DISTRIBUTION BILL.

Such were the views and considerations presented by the Committee on Manufactures with reference to the public lands. A bill accompanied the report, and was entitled "An act to appropriate for a limited time the proceeds of the sales of the public lands." This was the so-called "Distribution Bill." The Senate refused to take up the bill, and the subject was

1 See Report in Colton's Clay, I. 453-460.