OCR Text |
Show HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT Distribution of Receipts In 1826 distribution of the Federal surplus, whatever its source, or of the net proceeds from the sale of public lands, came up again in Congress. A report of the House Committee on Public Lands recommended the investment of a portion of the net proceeds and the distribution of the earnings therefrom to the states on the ratio of representation in the House. The report by James Strong of New York was diffuse, rhetorical, and not very convincing.12 Almost simultaneously a Senate resolution to consider dividing a portion of the surplus among the states was referred to a select committee from which Mahlon Dickerson, a conservative states' rights Democrat, brought forth on May 11, 1826, a concise and ably presented argument in favor of distribution. It pointed out that using the surplus to retire the debt, largely owned abroad, drained the United States of needed funds. Distribution of a portion of the surplus to the states for education and internal improvements would "give new activity to industry and enterprise" in all the states. It would allay the jealousy aroused by the fact that 3 percent of the net income from public land sales was going to the states in which the sales were held. It would end disputes about the constitutionality of appropriating Federal funds for internal improvements, for such direct Federal appropriations could no longer be demanded. Finally, it would relieve the Federal government of the "serious inconvenience of an overflowing Treasury."13 The report was so well received that three thousand extra copies were ordered printed.14 On February 25, 1829, a select committee of the House brought in a report on distribution that merits consideration, for it set forth the viewpoint of the eastern states in 12 American State Papers, Public Lands, Feb. 24, 1826, IV, 750 ff. 13 American State Papers, Finance, May 11, 1826, V, 501 ff. 14 Register of Debates, 19th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. II, Part 1, p. 708. blunt language. The "time has arrived," the report declared, "when the community should be awakened to a protection of their rights; when measures should be adopted in the National Councils to give the States a direct interest in the income arising from the sales of the public lands." Distribution of the net proceeds from public land sales would check further concessions or grants to the western states and prevent the West from playing one party off against the other in its search for donations and liberalization of land policies. No "surer guard to the purity of legislation with respect to the public lands" could be devised than to direct that the net returns from land sales be distributed to the states. Members of Congress would think twice about appropriating lands for one purpose or another when they were aware that all such appropriations would reduce the sum their states would draw from the Treasury. It would also "interest the States in the adoption of a system of rigid economy, as relates to the expenditures of the land offices, and no private or other claim would be sanctioned but as their justice might be clearly established."15 Though some members of Congress deplored the selfish attitudes being taken on distribution, each side ascribed these to the other and rarely admitted anything but the loftiest motives in their own thinking. This report, however, was not one of the more elevated documents dealing with distribution. Again, in 1829 and 1830, the House of Representatives had to go through the long struggle over distribution, or at least over the "expediency" of bringing in a bill to provide for it. Jonathan Hunt of Vermont introduced the resoluti6n to have the Committee on Public Lands consider the subject. Spencer Pettis of Missouri thought it was not the time to consider distribution.16 It would have the effect of delaying if not making impossible 15 House Reports, 20th Cong., 2d sess., Feb. 25, 1829, No. 95 (Serial No. 190); American State Papers, Public Lands, V, 797. 16 Register of Debates, 21st Cong., 1st sess., p. 477. |