OCR Text |
Show 124 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT Not until 1796 did Congress settle down to a serious discussion of how the public lands could best be sold to produce revenue for the retirement of a portion of the debt. Robert Rutherford of Virginia was anxious to make sure that the lands would not fall to "that hydra speculation" which had done so much harm to the country. He feared that the capitalist "monsters" of Europe and the United States would combine in establishing a monopoly of the land.7 Other members were in agreement that it was not wise to permit large acquisitions of land by capitalists, yet to ban such investments would likely defeat the object of raising revenue. Speaker of the House, Jonathon Dayton of New Jersey, a large investor in Ohio lands and an associate of John Cleves Symmes, took an active part in the debate. He argued for a high price that would keep sales at no more than 500,000 to 800,000 acres yearly and for the right of holders of military bounty land warrants of the Revolution to locate their warrants outside the United States Military District, where all the good land was gone. Dayton declared that he was familiar with the bounty land business as he held 47 warrants, one of which came to him for his own service in the Revolution. He was anxious to have a provision included that would permit the location of these warrants on land outside the tract but said that in view of his interest he would not vote on the matter. Albert Gallatin, who was most influential in redrafting the new land law, thought there was "no object of so great importance to the United States as the extinction of the curse of the country, the Public Debt, and no class of citizens would be more benefitted by this extinction than the poor." To extinguish the debt rapidly, the people desiring land must be required to pay a high price for it. Those most likely to buy were speculators; to meet their wishes, lands should be sold in large tracts. For medium-sized investors and farmers, smaller units of land should be available. 1 Annals of Congress, 4th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 15, 17%, p. 328. The large class of settlers without capital could buy from the big and medium speculators on the long credit they would extend. Consequently, Gallatin favored offering half the lands by townships, the sales to be held in the Capital, and the other half by sections of 640 acres with the sales held in a central spot in the West.8 Gallatin seemed to be on all sides of the issues revolving around speculators and settlers. Having taken the position that revenue was the basic need and that capitalists should be encouraged to buy, he then argued that a high price would deter capitalists and would cause the lands to be bought largely, if not solely, by settlers. It is odd indeed that Gallatin, who thought of himself as a friend of the settler, should advocate a price of $2.00 while Hamilton, commonly regarded as friendly to speculators and not concerned about settlers, should advocate a price of 20 or 30 cents.9 Both favored sale of part of the land in small tracts. Gallatin advocated the inclusion of a settlement clause in contracts requiring purchasers to return to the government all land that did not have a family on each quarter-section in 2 years. He conceded, however, that such a provision would reduce the amount of land sold to speculators and added that it would be a beneficial thing if speculators "were driven from the market. Lands which produced nothing were of no real value. The high price expected must be got from real settlers alone." Though earlier he had advocated sales to speculators he now thought it better for the government to absorb all speculative profits by selling direct in small lots to settlers. Madison and other democratically inclined members of Congress supported Gallatin on making small tract sales and requiring settlement in 2 years. William Cooper, the rich New York landlord, argued in opposition. The proposals for sales in the Ohio country, he declared, would repel buyers to such an Ibid., pp. 306, 330, 339, 418. American State Papers, Finance, I, 322. |