Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Mr. FOOT. I propose, in order to meet the objection of the Senator from California, to withdraw the amendment which I offered, and in lieu of it, to move to strike out the whole of the proviso as it at present stands, and to insert in lieu of it:

Provided, That said apportionment shall be made after first allotting to each State one hundred thousand acres.

These words are to take the place of the present proviso, which reads:

"Provided, That the area of no State shall he computed at more than fifty thousand square miles, and that the representation of any State shall not be computed at less than six members."

Mr. DAWSON. I have a suggestion to make to which I should like to have an answer. As I understand the bill, it proposes to allot to all the States, except the old thirteen --

Mr. FOOT. To all the States -- to each of the thirty-one States -- one hundred thousand acres is first to be allotted. That will require three millions one hundred thousand acres out of the ten millions of acres proposed to be granted. Then the remaining six millions nine hundred thousand acres will be apportioned upon the compound ratio of representation and territorial area.

Mr. DAWSON. Then it is all right.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, I shall ask for the yeas and nays upon the passage of this bill. I wish to say, however, that I dislike very much to vote against it, considering the purposes to be effected by it. I conceive, however, that this is a much more objectionable mode of disposing of the public lands than the distribution of their proceeds. It is true, that one of the objections which I have had heretofore to the bill -- that it made one State a freeholder in another -- is obviated by the bill in its present form; yet, a State having no lands within its limits is authorized to sell its land scrip to individuals, and the assignee of the State has the liberty of locating the land within the limits of the new States. What will be the effect of this? It will be, that large bodies of land will fall, into the hands of speculators in the different States. This is palpably unjust. There will be a hundred thousand acres of land in first located by each of the old States in a few of the new States, and the lands will be in the hands of speculators, who will, of course, sell them for the very highest possible price which they can get. They hold them upon lease them out.

Now, sir, if Senators from the old States knew the great injury which it is to the new States to have a large body of their best lands in the hands at speculators, they would at once see that it would be a great deal better to provide that the one hundred thousand acres of land, or whatever amount may be assigned to each State, should be sold by the Government, and the proceeds paid over to the different States. This would be much less objectionable, and would do much less injury to the new States than the bill in its present form. This bill involves the same principle as to the disposition of the proceeds of the public lands, against which we have heretofore been fighting; and it is assuming a much more objectionable form in its practical effect upon the country. I shall, therefore, ask for the yeas and nays upon the question of the engrossment of the bill.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Vermont. The Senator from Mississippi does not propose to ask for the yeas and nays on that?

Mr. ADAMS. No, sir.

The amendment was agreed to; and the substitute of the committee, as amended, was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in.

Mr. GWIN. I wish to ask the gentleman who has brought forward this bill, whether it gives authority to any State -- for instance, the State which he represents -- to locate its land scrip in the State of California? I have not been able to read the bill with a view to ascertain this.

Mr. FOOT. The question has been put to me by several members. The bill has been once read through; but some were then absent, and did not hear its provisions in this respect. I can state to the Senator that, so far from giving such authority to any State to locate these lands in any other State or Territory, it does, in express terms, prohibit any such thing. No State is authorized to locate its share of these lands in any other State or Territory.

Mr. GWIN. I wish to ask another question. Does this bill authorize a State which gets lands to locate those lands within its own territory, if there be vacant lands there?

Mr. FOOT. Certainly, it does.

Mr. GWIN. Then I wish to ask, further -- I shall get through with my difficulties in a moment -- can that State, if there be no lands there subject to entry at private sale, select such public lands as are within the State?

Mr. FOOT. The bill limits the location to lands subject to private entry at $1 25 per acre at the time.

Mr. GWIN. Although there are millions and tens of millions of acres of land in California, there is not a foot of public land in that condition. There is not a foot of public land there subject to sale at private entry; nor do I believe there will be any for twenty years to come. If the Senator will agree that where there are no such lands in the land States, those States may locate their lands on any of the unappropriated public domain in their own limits, I shall be perfectly willing to agree to it. This bill, however, as it now stands, gives no lands to California; and under its provisions, my State will not be able to get any in twenty years to come, in my opinion. If the Senator will agree to this amendment, that, if, in any of the land States where there are no lands subject to sale at private entry, that State shall select the quantity given in this bill from any other' unappropriated public lands, I shall have no objection to the bill.