OCR Text |
Show WHOSE PUBLIC LANDS? 13 view, neglecting the broad question of national welfare and progress. Thomas Hart Benton, a leading Jackson lieutenant in the Senate, argued that the older states had eaten their cake and wanted to have it too. He only mentioned Massachusetts and Connecticut which had refused to surrender their land in Maine and in the West but he might also have mentioned the large amount of public land remaining in the possession of New York, Pennsylvania, and Georgia at the time the cessions were being made.26 Debates in the Senate on distribution had strong political overtones, for the measure was part of Clay's efforts to weaken Jackson's following in preparation for the election of 1832. Clay had the votes, and both before and after the election succeeded in carrying the measure in the Senate. On July 3, 1832, it was voted 26 to 18 and on January 25, 1833, 24 to 20. In the House it passed by a vote of 96 to 40. The Northeast was very largely for the bill and only the most ardent Jacksonian had the courage to stay with his leader in opposition to a measure that was so popular in that section. In the South Atlantic states, opposition was very strong from both Jackson's and Calhoun's followers because of the fear of strengthening the Federal government's influence. Clay's supporters in the public land states were favorable to distribution but of course the Jacksonians were opposed.27 Though a Presidential veto was expected and it was clear that Clay lacked sufficient votes to carry the measure over the veto, it was still good politics to force the Jacksonians into an unpopular step. Jackson played a "cool" hand, withholding his signature from the bill at the time and sending in his veto message in December. In this message he disregarded his earlier recommendation that the surplus revenue be apportioned among the states. He stressed that the lands belonged to all the states and that 26 Register of Debates, 22d Cong., 1st sess., June 28, 1832, p. 1147. 27 Register of Debates, 22d Cong., 1st sess., p. 1174 and 22d Cong., 2d sess., pp. 235 and 1920; Wellington, The Political and Sectional Influence. . ., pp. 39 ff. the income from them should not be distributed with a bonus to the public land states. Having taken this position, he proceeded to advocate a reduction in price, in preference to high prices with distribution. At the same time he urged that lands remaining unsold for some time should be ceded to the states in which they were located. In this way he pretty well boxed the compass, though he was careful to say that only the refuse lands should be ceded.28 Deposit of Treasury Surplus with States Clay was not discouraged by Jackson's peculiar logic and kept the issue of distribution before Congress year after year. In 1836, the Senate was persuaded to vote again for Clay's pet measure and again there was strong support in the House despite the virtual certainty that Jackson was no more kindly disposed toward it than he had been earlier. Meantime, another bill for distributing the surplus was moving its circuitous way through or around congressional barriers and for the moment it diverted attention from Clay's bill. This was the deposit bill which, among other things, provided for the deposit with the states, on the basis of their representation in Congress, of the Treasury's surplus on January 1, 1837, less a reserve of $5 million. Inasmuch as the big increase in Federal revenue that had created the surplus was from the sale of public lands, the Deposit Act would accomplish much the same thing as Clay's distribution bill; the income from the public lands would go to the states, but with no bonus. In 1836 the country was greatly excited over internal improvements-turnpikes, canals and railroads-giving little attention to whether or not they would be self-supporting after construction. There was much speculative activity in lands whose values were expected to rise rapidly. Depositing the Treasury's surplus of millions of dollars with the states would make it possible for them to finance projects that could not otherwise be realized. Members of Congress found it easy 28 American Slate Papers, Public Lands, VI, 616 ff. |