Chapter CLVI: Distribution of Lands and Money--Various Propositions

The spirit of distribution, having got a taste of that feast in the insidious deposit bill at the preceding session, became ungovernable in its appetite for it at this session, and open and undisguised in its efforts to effect its objects. Within the first week of the meeting of Congress, Mr. Mercer, a representative from Virginia, moved a resolution that the Committee of Ways and Means be directed to bring in a bill to release the States from all obligation ever to return the dividends they should receive under the so-called deposit act. It was a bold movement, considering that the States had not yet received a dollar, and that it was addressed to the same members, sitting in the same chairs, who had enacted the measure under the character of a deposit, to be sacredly returned to the United States whenever desired; and under that character had gained over to the support of the act two classes of voters who could not otherwise have been obtained; namely, those who condemned the policy of distribution, and those who denied its constitutionality. Mr. Dunlap, of Tennessee, met Mr. Mercer's motion at the threshold--condemned it as an open conversion of deposit into distribution--as a breach of the condition on which the deposit was obtained--as unfit to be discussed; and moved that it be laid upon the table--a motion that precludes discussion, and brings on an immediate vote. Mr. Mercer asked for the yeas and nays, which being taken showed the astonishing spectacle of seventy-three members recording their names against the motion. The vote was 126 to 73. Simultaneously with Mr. Mercer's movement in the House to pull the mask from the deposit bill, and reveal it in its true character, was Mr. Clay's movement in the Senate to revive his land-money distribution bill, to give it immediate effect, and continue its operation for five years. In the first days of the session he gave notice of his intention to bring in his bill; and quickly followed up his notice with its actual introduction. On presenting the bill, he said it was due to the occasion to make some explanations: and thus went on to make them:

"The operation of the bill which had heretofore several times
passed the Senate, and once the House, commenced on the last
of December, 1822, and was to continue five years. It provided
for a distribution of the nett proceeds of the public lands
during that period, upon well-known principles. But the deposit
act of the last session had disposed of so large a part of
the divisible fund under the land bill, that he did not think
it right, in the present state of the treasury, to give the
bill--which he was about to apply for leave to introduce--that
retrospective character. He had accordingly, in the draught
which he was going to submit, made the last day of the present
month its commencement, and the last day of the year 1841 its
termination. If it should pass, therefore, in this shape, the
period of its duration will be the same as that prescribed
in the former bills. The Senate will readily comprehend the
motive for fixing the end of the year 1841, as it is at that
time that the biennial reductions of ten per cent. upon the
existing duties cease, according to the act of the 2d March
1833, commonly called the compromise act, and a reduction of
one half of the excess beyond twenty per cent. of any duty then
remaining, is to take effect. By that time, a fair experiment
of the land bill will have been made, and Congress can then
determine whether the proceeds of the national domain shall
continue to be equitably divided, or shall be applied to the
current expenses of the government. The bill in his hand assigns
to the new State of Arkansas her just proportion of the fund,
and grants to her 500,000 acres of land as proposed to other
States. A similar assignment and grant are not made to Michigan,
because her admission into the Union is not yet complete. But
when that event occurs, provision is made by which that State
will receive its fair dividend. He had restored, in this
draught, the provision contained in the original plan for the
distribution of the public lands, which he had presented to the
Senate, by which the States, in the application of the fund,
are restricted to the great objects of education, internal
improvement, and colonization. Such a restriction would, he
believed relieve the Legislatures of the several States from
embarrassing controversies about the disposition of the fund,
and would secure the application of what was common in its
origin, to common benefits in its ultimate destination. But it
was scarcely necessary for him to say that this provision, as
well as the fate of the whole bill, depended upon the superior
wisdom of the Senate and of the House. In all respects, other
than those now particularly mentioned, the bill is exactly as it
passed this body at the last session."

The bill was referred to the Committee on Public Lands, consisting of Mr. Walker of Mississippi, Mr. Ewing of Ohio, Mr. King of Alabama, Mr. Ruggles of Maine, Mr. Fulton of Arkansas. The committee returned the bill with an amendment, proposing to strike out the entire bill, and substitute for it a new one, to restrict the sale of the lands to actual settlers in limited quantities. In the course of the discussion of the bill, Mr. Benton offered an amendment, securing to any head of a family, any young man over the age of eighteen, and any widow, a settlement right in 160 acres at reduced prices, and inhabitation and cultivation for five years: which amendment was lost by a close vote--18 to 20. The yeas and nays were:

Yeas--Messrs. Benton, Black, Dana, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton,
Hendricks, King of Alabama, Linn, Moore, Morris, Nicholas,
Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Tipton, Walker, White--18.

Nays--Messrs. Bayard, Brown, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden,
Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Hubbard, Kent, King of Georgia, Niles,
Page, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Swift, Tallmadge, Wright--20.

The substitute reported by the committee on public lands, after an extended debate, and various motions of amendment, was put to the vote, and adopted--twenty-four to sixteen--the yeas and nays being:

YEAS--Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Ewing of
Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama,
Linn, Lyon, Moore, Mouton, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page,
Rives, Robinson, Strange, Walker, Wright--24.

NAYS--Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Kent, King
of Georgia, Knight, Prentiss, Robbins, Sevier, Southard, Swift,
Tomlinson, Wall, Webster, White--16.

So Mr. Clay's plan of a five years' open distribution of the land money to the States, in addition to the actual distribution, under the deposit mask, was now defeated in the Senate: but that did not put an end to kindred schemes. They multiplied in different forms; and continued to vex Congress to almost the last day of its existence. Mr. Calhoun brought a plan for the cession of all the public lands to the States in which they lay, to be sold by them on graduated prices, extending to thirty-five years, on condition that the States should take the expenses of the land system on themselves, and pay thirty-three and a third per centum, of the sales, to the federal treasury. Mr. Benton objected, on principle, to any complication of moneyed or property transactions between the States and the federal government, leading, as they inevitably would, to dissension and contention; and ending in controversies between the members and the head of the federal government: and, on detail, because the graduation was extended beyond a period when the new States would be strong enough to obtain better terms, without the complication of a contract, and the condition of a purchase. Within the thirty-five years, there would be three new apportionments of representatives, under the censuses of 1840, 1850, and 1860--doubling or trebling the new States' representation each time; also several new States admitted; so that they would be strong enough to take effectual measures for the extinction of the federal titles within the States, on just and equitable principles. Mr. Buchanan openly assailed Mr. Calhoun's proposition as a bid for the presidency; and said:

"He had heard a great deal said about bribing the people with
their own money; arguments of that kind had been reiterated,
but they had never had much effect on him. But speaking on
the same principles on which this had been said, and without
intending any thing personal toward the honorable senator from
South Carolina, he would say this was the most splendid bribe
that had ever yet been offered. It was to give the entire
public domain to the people of the new States, without fee or
reward, and on the single condition that they should not bring
all the land into market at once. It was the first time such a
proposition had been brought forward for legislation; and he
solemnly protested against the principle that Congress had any
right, in equity or justice, to give what belonged to the entire
people of the Union to the inhabitants of any State or States
whatever. After warmly expressing his dissent to the amendment,
Mr. B. said he hoped it would not receive the sanction of any
considerable portion of the Senate."

Mr. Sevier of Arkansas, said it might be very true that presidential candidates would bid deep for the favor of the West; but that was no reason why the West should refuse a good offer, when made. Deeming this a good one, and beneficial to the new States, he was for taking it. Mr. Linn, of Missouri, objected to the proposition of Mr. Calhoun, as an amendment to the bill in favor of actual settlers (in which form it was offered), because it would be the occasion of losing both measures; and said:

"He might probably vote for it as an independent proposition,
but could not as it now stood. He had set out with the
determination to vote against every amendment which should
be proposed, as the bill had once been nearly lost by the
multiplication of them. If this amendment should be received,
the residue of the session would be taken up in discussing it,
and nothing would be done for his constituents. He wanted them
to know that he had done his utmost, which was but little,
to carry into effect their wishes, and to secure their best
interests in the settlement of the new country. He was anxious
to obtain the passage of an equitable pre-emption law, which
should secure to them their homes, and not throw the country
into the hands of great capitalists, as had been done in the
case of the Holland Land Company, and thus retard the settlement
of the West. As to the evasions of previous pre-emption laws,
of which so much had been said, he believed they either had
no existence in Missouri, or had been grossly exaggerated. In
the course of his professional duty (Mr. Linn is a physician,
in large practice), he had occasion to become extensively
acquainted with the people concerning whom these things had been
asserted (he referred to the emigrants who had settled in that
State, under the pre-emption law of 1814), and he could say,
nothing of the kind had fallen under his observation. They had
come there, in most cases, poor, surrounded by all the evils and
disadvantages of emigration to a new country; he had attended
many of them in sickness; and he could truly aver that they
were, as a whole, the best and most upright body of people he
had ever known.

"Mr. L. said he was a practical man, though his temperament
might be somewhat warm. He looked to things which were
attainable, and in the near prospect of being obtained, rather
than at those contingent and distant. Here was a bill, far
advanced in the Senate, and, as he hoped, on the eve of passing.
He believed it would secure a great good to his constituents;
and he could not consent to risk that bill by accepting the
amendment proposed by the senator from South Carolina. If the
senator from Arkansas would let this go, he might possibly find
that it was a better thing than he could ever get again. He
wanted that Congress should so regulate the public lands, and so
arrange the terms on which it was disposed of, as to furnish in
the West an opportunity for poor men to become rich, and every
worthy and industrious man prosperous and happy."

Mr. Calhoun felt himself called upon to rise in defence of his proposition, and in vindication of his own motives in offering it; and did so, in a brief speech, saying:

"When the Senate had entered upon the present discussion, he had
had little thought of offering a proposition like this. He had,
indeed, always seen that there was a period coming when this
government must cede to the new States the possession of their
own soil; but he had never thought, till now, that period was
so near. What he had seen this session, however, and especially
the nature and character of the bill which was now likely to
pass, had fully satisfied him that the time had arrived. There
were at present eighteen senators from the new States. In four
years, there would be six more, which would make twenty-four.
All, therefore, must see that, in a very short period, those
States would have this question in their own hands. And it had
been openly said that they ought not to accept of the present
proposition, because they would soon be able to get better
terms. He thought, therefore, that, instead of attempting to
resist any longer what must eventually happen, it would be
better for all concerned that Congress should yield at once to
the force of circumstances, and cede the public domain. His
objects in this movement were high and solemn objects. He wished
to break down the vassalage of the new States. He desired that
this government should cease to hold the relation of a landlord.
He wished, further, to draw this great fund out of the vortex
of the presidential contest, with which it had openly been
announced to the Senate there was an avowed design to connect
it. He thought the country had been sufficiently agitated,
corrupted, and debased, by the influence of that contest; and
he wished to take this great engine out of the hands of power.
If he were a candidate for the presidency, he would wish to
leave it there. He wished to go further: he sought to remove the
immense amount of patronage connected with the management of
this domain--a patronage which had corrupted both the old and
the new States to an enormous extent. He sought to counteract
the centralism, which was the great danger of this government,
and thereby to preserve the liberties of the people much longer
than would otherwise be possible. As to what was to be received
for these lands, he cared nothing about it. He would have
consented at once to yield the whole, and withdraw altogether
the landlordship of the general government over them, had he
not believed that it would be most for the benefit of the new
States themselves that it should continue somewhat longer. These
were the views which had induced him to present the amendment.
He offered no gilded pill. He threw in no apple of discord.
He was no bidder for popularity. He prescribed to himself a
more humble aim, which was simply to do his duty. He sought to
counteract the corrupting tendency of the existing course of
things. He sought to weaken this government by divesting it of
at least a part of the immense patronage it wielded. He held
that every great landed estate required a local administration,
conducted by persons more intimately acquainted with local wants
and interests than the members of a central government could
possibly be. If any body asked him for a proof of the truth of
his positions, he might point them to the bill now before the
Senate. Such were the sentiments, shortly stated, which had
governed him on this occasion. He had done his duty, and he must
leave the result with God and with the new States."

Mr. Calhoun's proposition was then put to the vote, and almost unanimously rejected, only six senators besides himself voting for it; namely: Messrs. King of Georgia; Moore of Alabama; Morris of Ohio; Robinson of Illinois; Sevier of Arkansas; and White of Tennessee. And thus a third project of distribution (counting Mr. Mercer's motion as one), at this session, had miscarried. But it was not the end. Mr. Chilton Allen, representative from Kentucky, moved a direct distribution of land to the old States, equal in amount to the grants which had been made to the new States. Mr. Abijah Mann, jr., of New York, strikingly exposed the injustice of this proposition, in a few brief remarks, saying:

"It must be apparent, by this time, that this proposition was
neither more nor less than a new edition of the old and exploded
idea of distributing the proceeds of the sales of the public
lands, attempted to be concealed under rubbish and verbiage,
and gilded over by the patriotic idea of applying it to the
public education. Its paternity is suspicious, and its hope
fallacious and delusive. The preamble to this resolution is
illusory and deceptive, addressed to the cupidity of the old
States represented on this floor. It recites the grants made by
Congress to each of the new States of the public lands in the
aggregate, without specifying the motive or consideration upon
which they were made. Its argument is, that an equal quantity
should be granted to the old States, to make them respectively
equal sharers in the public lands. Now, sir (said Mr. M.),
nothing could be devised more disingenuous and deceptive. Let
us look at it briefly. The idea is, that the old States granted
these lands to the new for an implied consideration, and
resulting benefit to themselves; that it was a sort of Indian
gift, to be refunded with increase. Not so, sir, at all. If
Mr. M. understood the motives inducing those grants, they were
paternal on the part of the old States; proceeding upon that
generous and noble liberality which induces a wealthy father
to advance and provide for his children. This was the moving
consideration, though he (Mr. M.) was aware that the grants in
aid of the improvements of the new States and territories were
upon consideration of advancing the sale and improvement of the
remaining lands in those States held by the United States."

The proposition of Mr. Allen was disposed of by a motion to lie on the table, which prevailed--one hundred and fourteen to eighty-one votes; but the end of these propositions was not yet. Another motion to divide surpluses was to be made, and was made in the expiring days of the session, and by way of amendment to the regular fortification bill. Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, moved, on the 25th of February, that a further deposit of all the public monies in the treasury on the first day of January, 1838, above the sum of five millions of dollars, should be "deposited" with the States, according to the terms of the "deposit" bill of the preceding session; and which would have the effect of making a second "deposit" after the completion of the first one. The argument for it was the same which had been used in the first case; the argument against it was the one previously used, with the addition of the objectionable proceeding of springing such a proposition at the end of the session, and as an amendment to a defence appropriation bill, on its passage; to which it was utterly incongruous, and must defeat; as, if it failed to sink the bill in one of the Houses, it must certainly be rejected by the President, who, it was now known, would not be cheated again with the word deposit. It was also opposed as an act of supererogation, as nobody could tell whether there would be any surplus a year hence; and further, it was opposed as an act of usurpation and an encroachment upon the authority of the ensuing Congress. A new Congress was to be elected, and to assemble before that time; the present Congress would expire in six days: and it was argued that it was neither right nor decent to anticipate their successors, and do what they, fresh from the people, might not do. Mr. Yell, of Arkansas, was the principal speaker against it; and said:

"I voted, Mr. Speaker, against the amendment proposed by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bell), because I am of opinion
that this bill, if passed, and sanctioned by the President--and
I trust that it never will receive the countenance of that
distinguished man and illustrious statesman--will at once
establish a system demoralizing and corrupting in its
influences, and tend to the destruction of the sovereignty
of the States, and render them dependant suppliants on the
general government. This measure of distribution, since it has
been a hobby-horse for gentlemen to ride on, has presented an
anomalous spectacle! The time yet belongs to the history of this
Congress, when honorable gentlemen, from the South and West,
were daily found arraying themselves against every species of
unnecessary taxation, boldly avowing that they were opposed to
any and all tariff systems which would yield a revenue beyond
the actual wants and demands of the government. Such was their
language but a few weeks or months ago; and, in proclaiming it,
they struggled hard to excel each other in zeal and violence.
And now, sir, what is the spectacle we behold? A system of
distribution--another and a specious name for a system of
_bribery_ has been started; the hounds are in full cry; and the
same honorable and patriotic gentlemen now step forward, and,
at the watchword of 'put money in thy purse; aye, put money
in thy purse,' vote for the distribution or bribery measure;
the effect of which is to entail on this country a system of
taxation and oppression, which has had no parallel since the
days of the tea and ten-penny tax--two frightful measures of
discord, which roused enfeebled colonies to rebellion, and led
to the foundation of this mighty republic. But we are told, Mr.
Speaker, that this proposed distribution is only for momentary
duration; that it is necessary to relieve the Treasury of a
redundant income, and that it will speedily be discontinued!
Indeed, sir! What evidence have we of the fact? What evidence do
we require to disprove the assertion? This scheme was commenced
the last session; it has been introduced at this; and let me
tell you, Mr. Speaker, it never will be abandoned so long as the
high tariff party can wheedle the people with a siren lullaby,
and cheat them out of their rights, by dazzling the vision with
gold, and deluding the fancy by the attributes of sophistry.
Depend upon it, sir, if this baleful system of distribution be
not nipped in the bud, it will betray the people into submission
by a species of taxation which no nation on earth should
endure. Sir, continued Mr. Y., I enter my protest against a
system of bargain and corruption, which is to be executed by
parties of different political complexions, for the purpose of
dividing the _spoils_ which they have plundered from the people.
If the sales of the public lands are to be continued for the
benefit of the speculators who go to the West in multitudes for
the purpose of _legally stealing_ the lands and improvements of
the people of the new States, I hope my constituents may know
who it is that thus imposes upon them a system of _legalized
fraud and oppression_. If, sir, my constituents are to be
sacrificed by the maintenance of a system of persecution, got
up and carried on for the purpose of filling the pockets of
others to their ruin, I wish them to know who is the author of
the enormity. I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, and that hope has not
yet been abandoned, that if ever this branch of the government
is bent on the destruction of the rights of the people, and
a violation of the Constitution, there is yet one ordeal for
it to pass where it may be shorn of its baneful aspect. And,
Mr. Speaker, I trust in God that, in its passage through that
ordeal, it will find a _quietus_."

Mr. Bell's motion succeeded. The second "deposit" act, by a vote of 112 to 70, was engrafted on the appropriation bill for completing and constructing fortifications; and, thus loaded, that bill went to the Senate. Being referred to the Committee on Finance, that committee directed their chairman, Mr. Wright of New-York, to move to strike it out. The motion was resisted by Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Clay, Mr. Webster, Mr. White of Tennessee, Mr. Ewing of Ohio, Crittenden, Preston, Southard, and Clayton; and supported by Messrs. Wright, Benton, Bedford Brown, Buchanan, Grundy, Niles of Connecticut, Rives, Strange of North Carolina: and being put to the vote, the motion was carried, and the "deposit" clause struck from the bill by a vote of 26 to 19. The yeas and nays were:

"YEAS--Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Cuthbert, Ewing of
Illinois, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of
Georgia, Linn, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Page, Parker,
Rives, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Walker, Wall,
Wright--26.

"NAYS--Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis,
Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Moore, Prentiss,
Preston, Robbins, Southard, Spence, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster,
White--19."

Being returned to the House, a motion was made to disagree to the Senate's amendment, and argued with great warmth on each side, the opponents to the "deposit" reminding its friends of the loss of a previous appropriation bill for fortifications; and warning them that their perseverance must now have the same effect, and operate a sacrifice of defence to the spirit of distribution: but all in vain. The motion to disagree was carried--110 to 94. The disputed clause then went through all the parliamentary forms known to the occasion. The Senate "insisted" on its amendment: a motion to "recede" was made and lost in the House: a motion to "adhere" was made, and prevailed: then the Senate "adhered": then a committee of "conference" was appointed, and they "disagreed." This being reported to the Houses, the bill fell--the fortification appropriations were lost: and in this direct issue between the plunder of the country, and the defence of the country, defence was beaten. Such was the deplorable progress which the spirit of distribution had made.