| OCR Text |
Show PREEMPTION 225 Acreage of Preemption Entries 1830-1835a Total Year Acreage Ohio Indiana Illinois Missouri Alabama 1830...242,979 _____ 4,308 25,707 878 184,762 1831... 557,840 27,046 36,163 15,560 2,992 427,717 1832___49,971 3,102 11,934 11,526 263 9,641 1833___31,756 _______________ 2,972 40 11,658 1834.. .637,597 38 15,505 30,869 9,314 338,985 196,295 1835 ...574,936 _______34,852 224,275 19,821 12,638 1836. ..112,842 _______ 1,583 13,771 314 13,760 "American State Papers, Public Lands, VIII, 701. Miss. Louisiana Mich. Ark. Florida 860 3,165 3,686 3,189 506 _____ 4,690 _____ 29,240 1,692 35,469 _____ 48,709 28,743 639 1,735 17,359 4,289 15,368 21,885 7,331 11,701 11,294 6,192 2,237 1,374 693 4,362 51,384 159,450 37,044 5,321 Samuel Bell of New Hampshire began the brief discussion, as it appears in the Register of Debates, saying that to grant preemption to intruders would be to forgive and reward men who had violated the anti-intrusion laws, would encourage further violations of the Act of 1807 and would enable squatters to select the best land and leave the poorer land for buyers who attended public sales. David Barton of Missouri met the arguments by pointing out that the Act of 1807 was primarily directed against intrusions on the batture of New Orleans and was not intended to apply elsewhere, though it had been so applied and had created numerous hardships for settlers. Congress, however, had departed from the intent of this act many times in the numerous special preemption acts it had adopted. These special preemption acts had been helpful to the beneficiaries but their application had been limited and therefore discriminatory; the act under consideration, on the other hand, was intended to end all this discrimination by granting preemption rights to all settlers developing public lands before 1830. Without further discussion, and in the midst of heated debate on Benton's graduation bill and the far more exciting debate between Webster and Hayne, the Senate voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 29-12. Not a Senator south of Maryland voted against the measure. The opposition consisted of six Senators from New England, one from New York, two from New Jersey, two from Delaware, and one from Maryland. Webster and Hayne were not recorded on the vote and neither were the Senators from Virginia.19 Jackson's veto message on the Maysville turnpike bill on May 27 had created another storm of oratory in the House. This seemed again to deflect discussion from the preemption bill, which was rapidly adopted by a vote of 100-58. Foote's Resolution had greatly exacerbated western feelings and suspicions, and had brought the West and South into a temporary alliance that was responsible for an important victory for the West.20 The 1830 measure, although enacted for only one year and applying only retroactively, was the first general preemption act in that it allowed every "settler or occupant" on public lands who had been in possession and cultivated a part of his claim in 1829, to enter up to 160 acres including his improvements at $1.25 an acre. All such persons were therefore given preferential rights to enter their claims within one year from the date of enactment without having to bid for them at auction. Entry and payment were required before the auction sale. Assignments prior to the issuance of the patent were declared to be null and void.21 19 Senate Journal, 21st Cong., 1st sess., (Serial No. 191), Jan. 13, 1830, p. 83; Register of Debates, 21st Gong., 1st sess., p. 11. 20 House Journal, 21st Cong., 1st sess., (Serial No. 194), May 29, 1830, p. 779; Register of Debates, 21st Cong., 1st sess., pp. 1138 ff. 21 4 Stat. 420. |
