Part 109

Resolved, That it is the sense of the committee that a Land Office be established at the seat of the General Government, under the direction of ---- Commissioners.

Mr. SCOTT wished the House to take a general view of the business before they went into the particulars of the Secretary's report. Upon the whole, he was pleased with the plan drawn up by that officer; one part, however, he objected to--that part of the report which provided for the distribution of the land. He did not approve of setting apart tracts for particular descriptions of purchasers. As an amendment, he offered seven propositions, which he wished, for the present, to lie on the table, and which he proposed to offer as substitutes to different parts of the Secretary's report, as they came before the House. His principal object was to let the tracts which Congress proposed to sell be indiscriminately located.

Mr. BOUDINOT thought the committee could not then enter into the minutiæ of the business. It was enough to fix the general principles, viz: Whether there shall be a General Land Officer and two subordinates? Whether they shall be under the direction of Commissioners? And whether certain tracts of land should be reserved by Congress for certain purposes? And then to appoint a committee to bring in a bill on those principles, and to take into consideration the minutiæ of the business.

Mr. SCOTT moved as a substitute his second proposition, that such districts as shall be set apart for sale, shall include the actual settlements, and be left to be indiscriminately located. He said it was improper to set aside different tracts for different modes of location--some in large tracts, others in small lots. He conceived it would be the interest of Government to let every one purchase where he pleased, and as much or as little as he chose. From experience, he knew that those parts were always settled with the most celerity that were not bound down to any of those restrictions. For his part, he could see no good argument in favor of them.

He wished some of the gentlemen who approved of this mode would give him some reasons for preferring it. There could be no fear of individual settlers scattering and losing themselves in the backwoods; there was a sufficient check to prevent it--the Indians would keep them compact much more effectually than any regulations Congress could make. If, after granting certain scattered tracts to individual settlers, a considerable tract, including these, was wanted, he could see no inconvenience in granting it, reserving to the former settlers their rights.

Mr. WILLIAMSON rose to give the gentleman last up one reason for opposing indiscriminate location. Hitherto, he owned, much mischief had not arisen from this mode of settlement; but now there were persons rich in securities and cash, ready to take up considerable quantities of land, which, if they were permitted to select here and there, would select every choice tract they could; and those who might not have the same means of purchasing immediately at command, could only obtain the indifferent parcels. Many, he knew, had it in contemplation to do this, if the opportunity offered. He instanced North Carolina as an example of the injurious tendency of this liberty; where many tracts are unsaleable owing to this circumstance. If these tracts were to be purchased by actual settlers, the case would be different; they would only be taken up by persons under the name of actual settlers. Such a practice would be an impediment to such companies of Europeans as might wish to settle among us.

Mr. SCOTT said he expected the gentleman would have offered more solid objections to his plan, and more forcible arguments in favor of the other. Though the first settlers had the choice of the land, yet he conceived the remaining part would acquire a considerable additional value from the surrounding settlements. As for the European companies who might be tempted to settle among us, he did not contemplate it as an object so desirable. A body of French people settling in that way would preserve their language and manners two thousand years perhaps. This would not be for the true interest of the country; all its inhabitants should, by mutual intercourse, become assimilated, and no name be known but that of Americans.

Mr. BOUDINOT was against indiscriminate location. He had seen the bad effects of it in the State from which he came. Persons had bought up the low lands, and sold them again to such as absolutely needed a water lot to their farms, at enormous prices. He mentioned another objection to the plan--the tendency it had to create lawsuits. He said more money had been spent at law, in disputes arising from that mode of settlement, in New Jersey, than would have been necessary to purchase all the land of the State. The late Congress, he was informed, had adopted a method to obviate the inconveniences of the former mode--the lands were laid out into a mile square; these were divided into four equal squares, and in that form sold.

Mr. SCOTT said there were tracts of land which it is impossible to sell, even by offering good parcels with them. Between Philadelphia and his home there were spots which were only intended by nature for the birds and beasts--that could be of no value for cultivation. He could not see much probability that the best land would be picked out. The difficulty of exploring a wild and uncultivated desert opposed a considerable barrier to such attempts.

Mr. SCOTT's amendment was lost.

TUESDAY, December 28.

Land Offices.

The House then went again into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair. The report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of a Land Office being under consideration.

Mr. SCOTT said, he was ready to give some information relative to the extent of the seven ranges. He produced a map of them, from which it appeared that they included thirty-five lots, each six miles square. The tract is in the shape of a triangle, of which one leg measured about sixty, and the other forty-two--in all, about twelve hundred square miles. His amendment was agreed to.

The next article was agreed to, with a trifling amendment, without debate.

Then the following was read:

"That the price shall be thirty cents per acre, to be paid either in gold or silver, or public securities, computing those which shall bear an immediate interest of six per cent. as at par with gold and silver, and those which shall bear a future or less interest, if any there be, at a proportional value."

Mr. SCOTT moved that thirty cents should be struck out.

Mr. SHERMAN was in favor of inserting fifty cents per acre. He said there was every reasonable probability the lands would be worth that sum in a few years.

Mr. LAWRENCE said, that as the quality of the land would vary, it appeared proper to fix on two prices at which they should be sold, viz: That the price shall not be more than ----, nor less than ----. He submitted the idea to the consideration of the committee.

Mr. SEDGWICK preferred the insertion of a sum below which the lands should not be sold.

Mr. WILLIAMSON suggested the propriety of making a difference in the price to those who purchase large quantities, from the price to those who purchase small quantities.

The motion for striking out was lost.

Mr. SEDGWICK then moved to amend the clause, by inserting "that the price per acre shall not be less than thirty cents."

Mr. STONE objected to the motion. He said the operation of it would be to leave it discretionary with the Surveyors to fix the price of the various tracts. This would be to constitute a tribunal in a measure independent of the Government. He thought the policy of the Government should be to fix on a price, which shall be so reasonable, that persons may feel every inducement to pay it before they take up the lands; for it has been found by experience, that when once a tract of distant country is taken possession of, you never can get any thing more than the settlers are willing to pay. He insisted that it was impracticable to fix the relative value of unlocated lands--it had been repeatedly tried without effect. He asked if any of the States had ever established various rates for their lands? He knew of none.

Mr. SEDGWICK answered the inquiry respecting the relative value of lands being ascertained in the several States. He said, that so far as his information extended, which respected only the States of New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, this had invariably been the case. Every man knows there is a most essential difference in the value of lands. Those on navigable rivers may be ten times as valuable as those on the top of a mountain. This every individual is so sensible of, that a difference in the price is constantly made; and why the Government should not make a difference, it is impossible to say. Any man, by casting his eye upon the map, can at once determine that some part of the land is unspeakably more valuable than other parts. He was certain that vesting a discretionary power, in the disposal of the lands, would be productive of the greatest advantage to the United States, and on this principle he could not conceive why the Surveyors should not determine the relative quality, that the United States may stand some chance of getting the value of this property.

Mr. LIVERMORE was in favor of Mr. SEDGWICK's motion, and enlarged on the unreasonableness of fixing a particular price.

Mr. JACKSON was opposed to investing a discretionary power to determine the price with any persons whatsoever. It had been productive of mischievous consequences in the State of Georgia. He was for fixing a price, and the highest price--the best the land would bear; when that is sold, if the revenue will not bear the price established, it can then be reduced.