Those were the words of Illinois Attorney General Jesse B. Thomas JR who wrote to the U.S. Congress in 1837 in support of renewing the preemption land act of 1830. Back in 1830, Illinois was considered part of the "Great West" and industrious pioneers were settling on the land, building homes and farms. Preemption land acts, like squatter's rights, gave these settlers the right to be first to purchase the public land they had developed at a federally set minimum price. The 1830 act allowed the purchase of 160 acres of public land in this manner but had to be renewed each year. Renewal was not a guarantee, business interests in the East opposed preemption because it drained their supply of labor, and the act was plagued with fraud and corruption. In 1836 when the current law had expired, Illinois Attorney General Jesse B. Thomas Jr wrote to the U.S. Congress to petition on behalf of "humble and Enterprising pioneer" in his state in what he described as "a part of the country known as the Great West". Mr. Thomas wrote "that since the present preemption law expired many of our worthy and honest citizens have been driven from their homes not being able to enter their Lands, others in order to save a small tract of Land have parted with all their property and there still remains many who are left entirely to the cold charity of the speculator, a miserable condition for the poor man, and from which your honourabl[e] body alone can releive."
Renewal was not a given that year, Congress had serious concerns about fraud and corruption. Speculators were abusing the law through false claims of settlement to purchase tracts of land to resell at higher prices, but Mr. Thomas was concerned that all were suffering because of the actions of a few. He urged congress to modify the laws to punish the few, but not the "Enterprising pioneer who has settled down with his family in the wilderness, and labouring to secure a home for himself and children. In short the innocent should not suffer with the guilty”. The Attorney General also expressed a concern that miners of lead ore have, at the invitation of the federal government, begun to compete with settlers for the land and he wanted modifications made to the preemption law to protect the settlers from getting crowded out.
President Martin Van Buren made it a priority in his first year as president to urge Congress to not only renew the preemption land act, but to come up with a permanent solution that protected the settlers and cultivators of the western states and territories. In his first state of the Union, Van Buren shared seven reasons why Congress should renew the preemption laws. Much of the reasoning followed along the same line of reasoning that the Illinois Attorney General shared with Congress.
1. It gave the industrious individual an opportunity to make something of himself."Many who have not the ability to buy at present prices settle on those lands with the hope of acquiring from their cultivation the means of purchasing under preemption laws from time to time passed by Congress."2. The settlers are doing no harm, improving the land, and have every intention to purchase the public land from the government."For this encroachment on the rights of the United States they excuse themselves under the plea of their own necessities; the fact that they dispossess nobody and only enter upon the waste domain: that they give additional value to the public lands in their vicinity, and their intention ultimately to pay the Government price."3. The settlers have come to expect the preemption laws to continue."These laws have in all instances been retrospective in their operation, but in a few years after their passage crowds of new settlers have been found on the public lands for similar reasons and under like expectations, who have been indulged with the same privilege.""A large portion of our citizens have seated themselves on the public lands without authority since the passage of the last preemption law, and now ask the enactment of another to enable them to retain the lands occupied upon payment of the minimum Government price. They ask that which has been repeatedly granted before."4. By not renewing the preemption laws, they are turning the settlers into law breakers."Either the laws to prevent intrusion upon the public lands should be executed, or, if that should be impracticable or inexpedient, they should be modified or repealed. If the public lands are to be considered as open to be occupied by any, they should by law be thrown open to all."5. Abolishing the preemption land act without replacing it would lead to chaos."But it is not believed to be the disposition of Congress to open the public lands to occupancy without regular entry and payment of the Government price, as such a course must tend to worse evils than the credit system, which it was found necessary to abolish."6. The total revenue generated by public land sales would suffer little."Upon a critical examination it is found that the lands sold at the public sales since the introduction of cash payments, in 1820, have produced on an average the net revenue of only 6 cents an acre more than the minimum Government price. There is no reason to suppose that future sales will be more productive. The Government, therefore, has no adequate pecuniary interest to induce it to drive these people from the lands they occupy for the purpose of selling them to others."7. It is a good step towards the graduation of the price of the public lands and will prevent future intrusions.
"I recommend the passage of a preemption law for their benefit in connection with the preparatory steps toward the graduation of the price of the public lands."
Van Buren also suggested that improvements should be made to the preemption law to both more effectively prevent intrusions and to stop fraud and abuse. Van Buren wanted Congress to pay careful consideration to avoid any laws that would "authorize floating claims in any shape'. A floating claim is one that uses other people's money. I believe Van Buren is referring to speculators who coerced other individuals to make false claims that they were living and improving a tract of land that would then purchased by others at a higher price. Van Buren explained that these claims were the "most prolific sources of fraud and oppression". Van Buren warned Congress about the "spirit of cupidity" or greed at the expense of even the most deserving settlers.
"They have been heretofore, and doubtless would be hereafter, most prolific sources of fraud and oppression, and instead of operating to confer the favor of the Government on industrious settlers are often used only to minister to a spirit of cupidity at the expense of the most meritorious of that class."
Here is an except of President Martin Van Buren's first state of the Union address on renewing the preemption land act from 1837
A modification of the existing laws in respect to the prices of the public lands might also have a favorable influence on the legislation of Congress in relation to another branch of the subject. Many who have not the ability to buy at present prices settle on those lands with the hope of acquiring from their cultivation the means of purchasing under preemption laws from time to time passed by Congress. For this encroachment on the rights of the United States they excuse themselves under the plea of their own necessities; the fact that they dispossess nobody and only enter upon the waste domain: that they give additional value to the public lands in their vicinity, and their intention ultimately to pay the Government price. So much weight has from time to time been attached to these considerations that Congress have passed laws giving actual settlers on the public lands a right of preemption to the tracts occupied by them at the minimum price. These laws have in all instances been retrospective in their operation, but in a few years after their passage crowds of new settlers have been found on the public lands for similar reasons and under like expectations, who have been indulged with the same privilege. This course of legislation tends to impair public respect for the laws of the country. Either the laws to prevent intrusion upon the public lands should be executed, or, if that should be impracticable or inexpedient, they should be modified or repealed. If the public lands are to be considered as open to be occupied by any, they should by law be thrown open to all. That which is intended in all instances to be legalized should at once be made legal, that those who are disposed to conform to the laws may enjoy at least equal privileges with those who are not. But it is not believed to be the disposition of Congress to open the public lands to occupancy without regular entry and payment of the Government price, as such a course must tend to worse evils than the credit system, which it was found necessary to abolish.
It would seem, therefore, to be the part of wisdom and sound policy to remove as far as practicable the causes which produce intrusions upon the public lands, and then take efficient steps to prevent them in future. Would any single measure be so effective in removing all plausible grounds for these intrusions as the graduation of price already suggested? A short period of industry and economy in any part of our country would enable the poorest citizen to accumulate the means to buy him a home at the lower prices, and leave him without apology for settling on lands not his own. If he did not under such circumstances, he would enlist no sympathy in his favor, and the laws would be readily executed without doing violence to public opinion.
A large portion of our citizens have seated themselves on the public lands without authority since the passage of the last preemption law, and now ask the enactment of another to enable them to retain the lands occupied upon payment of the minimum Government price. They ask that which has been repeatedly granted before. If the future may be judged of by the past, little harm can be done to the interests of the Treasury by yielding to their request. Upon a critical examination it is found that the lands sold at the public sales since the introduction of cash payments, in 1820, have produced on an average the net revenue of only 6 cents an acre more than the minimum Government price. There is no reason to suppose that future sales will be more productive. The Government, therefore, has no adequate pecuniary interest to induce it to drive these people from the lands they occupy for the purpose of selling them to others.
Entertaining these views, I recommend the passage of a preemption law for their benefit in connection with the preparatory steps toward the graduation of the price of the public lands, and further and more effectual provisions to prevent intrusions hereafter. Indulgence to those who have settled on these lands with expectations that past legislation would be made a rule for the future, and at the same time removing the most plausible ground on which intrusions are excused and adopting more efficient means to prevent them hereafter, appears to me the most judicious disposition which can be made of this difficult subject. The limitations and restrictions to guard against abuses in the execution of a preemption law will necessarily attract the careful attention of Congress, but under no circumstances is it considered expedient to authorize floating claims in any shape. They have been heretofore, and doubtless would be hereafter, most prolific sources of fraud and oppression, and instead of operating to confer the favor of the Government on industrious settlers are often used only to minister to a spirit of cupidity at the expense of the most meritorious of that class."
References
“First Annual Message.” First Annual Message | The American Presidency Project, 5 Dec. 1837, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-message-4
Petition of Illinois General Assembly regarding Granting Preemption Rights on Public Lands. [1837-01-06]. /documents/D254208. The Papers of Abraham Lincoln Digital Library.
No comments:
Post a Comment