The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Page: 52
This legislative document is part of the collection entitled: Congressional Globe and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
m
APPENDIX TO f HE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
Jan;lS4B,
28th Cong 2d Sess.
The Public Land Bill—Mr. Chapman.
H. of ^Reps,
uation wag our true policy. He entreated gentlemen
to make calculations. Gentlemen from New England
were, he knew, good at figures; he would thank them
to estimate what twenty-five cents (the lowest point
of graduation under the bill) would yield in twenty
y.earsj at an interest of six per cent., compounding
it every six months—which was the governmentrate.
They will find that in that length of time the twen-
ty-five cents would, perhaps, exceed in amount the
present price of the land—one dollar and twenty-five
cents. Calculate what advantages would have re-
sulted to the country, in a financial way, if all the
public lands had been sold as successfully as the
Chickasaw country has.
There was no greater error than that under which
gentlemen labored as to the value of these refused
lands. There are gentlemen on this floor from
some of the old States, (he alluded particularly to
North and South Carolina,) who owned large
bodies of land that had cost them, perhaps, only a
few cents per acre, and which they would gladly
dispose of at one half of the lowest price proposed
by this bill. Mr. C. stated that in his own State,
which was generally looked upon as one of the
most fertile, out of more than thirty millions of acres
offered only about one-third had been sold. Much
of that remaining unsold had been twenty years and
upwards in market. All those conversant with the
subject knew it never would sell at the present price.
The expense of the present system in that State each
year is about equal to the amount of the average sales.
The gentleman from Maryland [Mr: Cadsin] had
told us of the great quantity of lands sold some few
years ago, and the speculations in land, as an argu-
ment to show that the price was not tpo high. But
had'he looked into the causes—had he compared the
amount of the circulation then with the amount
now—had he compared the prices of produce, and
everything else, in the years of which he spoke, and
the prices now? Mr. C. would willingly agree with
the gentleman that the lands should be sold now at
the same ratio of reduction at which the staple of the
country in which he lived had been reduced in price
since the time of those heavy sales of lands. Then,
cotton sold at some twenty cents per pound, while
now it will not bring one-fourth of that price. All
know that the value of land, as far as agricultural
purposes are concerned, is always governed by the
price of the products of the land; and if there were
no other reasons for reducing the price of land, the
great fall in the price of such products would be suf-
ficient to justify the reduction.
Mr. C. said he would call the committee back to
first principles. It is profitable to recur to them
sometimes, and never more so than on this occasion.
We hear gentleman talk about the deeds of cession
from the old States of these lands, and the compacts
with the new States when they came into the Union.
Mr. C. would call their attention to the great, deed of
cession from his native State, Virginia. What did
that deed state as the true end and purpose for which
that great landholder gave up her lands to the United
States? The deed stated that the lands were to be
disposed of for settlement. Mr. C. agreed that the
fund was a trust fund; but were there not other par-
ties to this trust besides the general government? By
the terms of the deed, as well as those of the com-
pacts with the new States, those States became par-
ties in interest. To dispose of the lands for settle-
ment, was an obligation on the part of the general
government. Not to tax the lands until five years
after sale, was an obligation on the part of the
new States. For what purpose did the new
States agree not to tax the lands of the United
States? Was it not to encourage settlements—to
get the lands into the hands of citizens for cultiva-
tion? How long, in the name of justice, will you
persist in refusing to perform your part of the bond,
and insist that thenew States shall continue to perform
theirs? Will you refuse to sell the lands for settle-
ment, a'syou have promised, and still insist, that the
new States shall not tax them? Mr. C. would use
no threat—he intended no such thing; but he would
explain to the gentleman from Maryland the reason
of that eager and earnest manner which character-
ized western members when speaking on this sub-
ject. That gentleman had not seen, as they had
seen, the effect of the present system, as it was work-
ing in the new States; and should it be persisted in,
gentlemen might assure themselves that there would
foe a corresponding antagonist system adopted there.
He would not say that people in the West would
take the lands, but he would say this, that when
they found a system which worked oppressively to
Jhem and their interest pertinaciously adhered to,
against every principle of justice and their repeated
remonstrances, they would resort to a counteracting
policy. The question had been seriously agitated
already whether the new States might not justly tax
the public lands within their limits, on account of
the want of good faith in this government in
refusing to sell them. A part of the land had
been sold on credit and afterwards relinquished
to the United States. Many' believe that
lands of this description may lawfully be
taxed. It would not be contended that the United
States could buy lands of individuals, and claim ex-
emption from taxation under the compact. The
case of the relinquished lands is similar. The gov-
ernment having sold the lands, they were subject to
taxation five years after, and no subsequent con-
tract, to which the State was not a party, could
take away the right. Mr. C. insisted that there
had been a palpable violation of the compact on the
part of the general government. You must look to
both sides of the contract. The deeds of cession
required that the lands should be disposed of for
settlement, and these deeds are embraced by the
compacts with the new States; but how can the
lands be disposed of if the government continues
to hold them up at a price beyond their value, and
at which they can never be sold' What would the
result be if these lands were taxed? Take Alabama
as an example. There are remaining unsold in that
State say twenty millions of acres; a tax of one
eent per acre on that quantity (and the citizens of
that State now pay a still higher tax) would yield
to the State a revenue of §200,000 a year. This
sum, then, is the tax Alabama pays every year to
the United States by the restriction of not taxing
the public lands, or the refusal of the government to
dispose of them. This was the annual loss she sus-
tained every year by abstaining from the exercise of
a right belonging to all sovereignties, of raising rev-
enue by taxing land, the only sure and ccrtain prop-
erty from which a revenue can be raised to support
the State government and discharge her obligations.
Did Alabama receive any equivalent io this amount?
It had been said that the school lands weie granted
as an equivalent, but this was an error. These school
lands weie granted to increase the desire to pur-
chase surrounding lands. At all events, they form-
ed but a small consideration for the loss of the tax-
ing power. Mr. C. said his State was one of the
most loyal of all members of the Union, still this
evil was one too mighty to be long overlooked by her.
Her legislature had memorialised and remonstrated
until forbearance had almost ceased to be a virtue,
but no relief was afforded. That State, like many
others, is heavily in debt; and beside the oppressive
taxation upon her citizens by this government
throngh the tariff policy, they were burdened by
a heavy domestic tax to pay the expenses of the
State government, and preserve the faith of the*i^te,
by promptly performing her obligations with her
creditors. Thus far the credit and the faith of the
State had been, as it always would be, preserved.
There has been no instance (said Mr. C.) of a fail-
ure, of a day's delay, in discharging promptly her
obligations by his State. It has been charged, how-
ever, that Alabama had or would repudiate. He
referred to an article that appeared in the National
Intelligencer of the 27th of August last, which he
sent to the Clerk to read. It was in the following
words:
F.i.euiion-—The Texas flag waves over the
State in triumph. Unable to pay their own debt, the people
vote to assume the immense debt of Texas ! The whigs
have struggled nobly tor their principles and lor protection to
our own citizens, but it has been in vain. The tancied ben-
efits of foreign aggression and war have dazzled the eyes
of the locos, all to save Texas, and have caused them to
lose sight of what their o\v n country stands so lamentably
in need of. Steady, whigs 1 steady 1 Strike earnestly from
this to the election in favor of the good cause. Do your
duty and leave the result to Providence. Klsewhere all is
well. Locofocoism is doomed — Southei n (Tuscaloosa) .'W-
rocafp '''
No paper in the Union has denounced repudiation
more than the Intelligencer, and yet it has circulated
a charge calculated to inflict a serious injury upon
the credit of a State that has never, in one instance,
failed to meet her engagements promptly. That
paper has a wide circulation, and a high reputation;
it is sent to all quarters of the globe, and whatever
is found in it against the credit of the States has
great influence with capitalists. Thus, without au-
thority to be relied on, and in the face of facts that
proved the contrary, that paper had published to the
world that Alabama was, or would be, a repudiating
State. Mr. C. said he would leave it with the edi-
tors in some measure to repair the injury done by
this unjust charge, (circulated to what extent Gfed
only knew,) by publishing a part of the last mes-
sage of the governor of Alabama, than whom 'none
were more vigilant in preserving the faith and guard-
ing the interest of his State.
The Clerk read as follows: ~
"In adverting to the perplexing subject of our State in-
debtedness, which has commanded so much of my anxious
attention since 1 have been in office, it will be recollected
that I have rarely failed in any of my former cornmumca-
tions to urge on the general assembly the indisputable
obligation and overruling moral necessity of prescn ing the
faith of the State inviolate, by a prompt discharge of our
pecuniary obligations as soon as they tall due. That this
will be attended with difficulties and sacrifices of the most
embarrassing character, I have never failed to acknowl-
edge; but these invariable concomitants of all attempts to dis-
charge a deep indebtedness, are not only tlie strongest ad-
monitions to economy in future, but give to the debtor the
only just claim to the high morality which so properly
attaches, in either savage or civilized life, to a rigid com-
pliance with pecuniary obligations. A free people hold
not only their honor, but their form of government,
their institutions, and all their dearest rights, by no
other tenure than a willingness to incur any sacrifice to
which human nature can be subjected in maintaining them.
Those who will co*nt the cost of sustaining the public
faith subject themselves to the just suspicion of being
equally as calculating in defending the public liberty The
instinct of true patriotism* is so nearly allied with the sen-
timent of national honor, that to destroy the former "we
have only to lower the tone of the people m maintaining the
latter. In fact, \\ here the people are the aeal source of pow-
er, the lofty spirit of true patriotism can never survive the
loss of individual confidence in the untarnished honor of
the government. I have indulged in these reflections from
no apprehension that a State like ours, containing within
her own limits all the elements calculated to place her in
the front rank with her sisters of the confederacy, will ever
fail to discharge punctually her publie liabilites. I make
these remarks merely for the pui pose of pointing out the
merited censures which are always certain to attach to a
people who invoke the just condemnation ot the whole civ-
ilized world, in failing to maintain untarnished their public
faith.
Mr. C. asked, whether more patriotic and noble
sentiments could have been uttered? Did such lan-
guage look like repudiation? But Mr. C. said these
were not only the sentiments of the governor, but
of the people of Alabarpa also, very recently ex-
pressed by their representatives, who, by a vote
almost unanimous, have, passed resolutions against
repudiation. The people of Alabama (even while
groaning under heavy taxes, and when their staple
has fallen to a price less than one-fourth of its val-
ue when the State debt was contracted) hold the
sentiment so beautifully expressed by their chief
magistrate "that a State who would refuse to pay
the debt she had contracted would refuse to defend
herself against a foreign enemy; and a want of pat-
riotism would be as obvious in the one case as in
the other."
Some gentlemen might be disposed to inquire
what connection this had with the subject before the
committee. It had a natural and a just connection
with it, for he had just been stating what was the
result of the existing system in crippling the ability
of the State to meet her engagements. Here was
the very paper which had been referred to as au-
thority against the bill, holding up Mr. C.'s State to
public contempt as one of the repudiating States of
the Union, and that in the face of such strong evi-
dence to the contrary.
Mr. C. stated that the gentleman from Indiana
before him [Mr. Thomas Smith] had so fully an-
swered the objections of the gentleman from Ver-
mont, [Mr. Collamer,] and the gentleman from
Ohio, [Mr. Vinton,] that he was relieved of the
necessity of saying much in addition. It was cu-
rious to observe, however, the contradictions in the
arguments of these opponents of the bill. One said
the reduction of the land would encourage specula-
tors to buy up ail the lands; while the other insisted
that the graduation principle would check the sales,
inasmuch as purchasers would not buy until the
price came down to the lowest sum proposed by the
bill. Mr. C. would leave to the gentlemen to recon-
cile these inconsistent views if they could. The
gentleman from Vermont had asserted that this bill
would not benefit the poor man. Now Mr. C. said,
that although he might admit that the^ gentle-
man from Vermont was superior to him in informa-
tion on most subjects, he was not disposed to grant
that he was equal to him on this. Mr. C. affirmed
that the provisions of the bill would benefit the
poor. It would enable every man to have a home at
a moderate cost—at a sum within the reach of the
poor. Gentlemen asked, Who could not raise one
hundred dollars to buy eighty acres of land? Mr. C.
said that might, to gentlemen from some quarters,
appear to be a very inconsiderable sum; but it was
difficult for any man to make it by his own labor
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, legislative document, 1845; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2366/m1/476/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.