.
Resolutions Offered on the Homestead
Bill |
[Resolutions
introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, 21 February, 1854]
|
Whereas, all the members of the human family, notwithstanding all
contrary enactments and arrangements, have, at all times, and in all
circumstances, as equal a right to the soil as to the light and air,
because equal a natural need of the one as the other;
And whereas, this invariably equal right to the soil leaves no room to
buy or sell or give it away; Therefore,
1. Resolved, That no bill or proposition should find any favor with
Congress which implies the right of Congress to dispose of the public
lands, or any part of them, either by sale or gift.
2. Resolved, That duty of civil government in regard to public lands,
and indeed, to all lands, is but to regulate the occupation of them; and
that this regulation should ever proceed upon the principle that the
right of all persons to the soil - is as equal, as inherent, and as
sacred, as the right to life itself.
3. Resolved, That government will have done but little toward securing
the equal right to land, until it shall have made essential to the
validity of every claim to land both the fact that it is actually
possessed, and the fact that it does not exceed in quantity the maximum,
which is the duty of the government to prescribe.
4. Resolved, That it is not because land monopoly is the most efficient
cause of inordinate and tyrannical riches on the one hand, and of
independent and abject poverty on the other; and that it is not because
it is, therefore, the most efficient cause of that inequality of
condition, so well-nigh fatal to the spread of Democracy and
Christianity, that government is called upon to abolish it; but it is
because the right which this mighty agent of evil violates and tramples
under foot, is among those clear, certain, essential, natural rights
which it is the province of government to protect at all hazards, and
irrespective of all consequences.
EXTRACTS FROM MR. SMITH'S SPEECH TO THE RESOLUTIONS
I am in favor of the bill because I am in favor of what I interpret the
bill essentially to be let others interpret it as they will. This bill,
as I view it, is an acknowledgment that the public lands belong, not to
the government, but to the landless.
And now to my argument, and to my endeavor to show that land monopoly
[unreadable]ing, and that civil government should neither practice nor
permit [unreadable] that the duty of Congress is to yield up all the
public land to actual settlers.
I admit that there are things in which a man can have absolute
property, and which without, qualification or restriction he can buy, or
sell, or bequeath, at his pleasure. But I deny that the soil is among
these things. What a man produces from the soil he has an absolute right
to. He may abuse the right. It nevertheless, remains. But no such right
can he have in the soil itself. If he could he might monopolize it. If
very rich, he might purchase a township or a county; and in connection
with half a dozen other monopolists, he might come to obtain all the
lands of a state, or a nation. Their occupants might be compelled to
leave them and to starve, and the lands might be converted into parks
and hunting grounds for the enjoyment of the aristocracy. Moreover, if
this could be done in the case of a state or a nation, why could it not
be done in the case of the whole earth?
But it may be said that a man might monopolize the fruits of the soil,
and thus become as injurious to his fellow men as by monopolizing the
soil itself. It is true that he might in this wise produce a scarcity of
food. But the calamity would be for a few months only, and it would
serve to stimulate the sufferers to guard against its recurrence by a
more faithful, tillage, and by more caution in parting with their crops.
Having the soil [unreadable] in their hands, they would have the remedy
still in their hands. But [unreadable] they suffered the soil itself to
be monopolized had they suffered the soil itself, instead of the fruits
of it, to pass out of their hands, then they would be without remedy.
Then they would lie at the mercy of him who has it in his power to
dictate the terms on which they may again have access to the soil, or
who, in his heartless perverseness, might refuse its occupation on any
terms whatever.
What I have here supposed in my argument is abundantly -- alas! but too
abundantly -- justified by facts. Land monopoly has reduced no small
share of the human family to abject and wretched dependence, for it has
shut them out from the great source of subsistence, and frightfully
increased the precariousness of life. Unhappy Ireland illustrates the
great power of land monopoly for evil. The right to so much as a
standing place on the earth is denied to the great mass of her people.
Their great impartial Father has placed them on the earth, and in
placing them on it has irresistibly implied their right to live on it.
Nevertheless, land monopoly tells them that they are trespassers, and
treats them as trespassers. Even when most indulgent, land monopoly
allows them nothing better than to pick up the crumbs of the barest
existence; and when in his most rigorous moods, the monster compels them
to starve and die by millions. Ireland -- poor, land monopoly cursed and
famine-wasted Ireland has still a population of some 6,000,000, and yet
it is only 6,000 persons who have monopolized her soil. Scotland has
some 3,000,000 of people, and 3,000 is the number of the monopolists of
her soil. England and Wales contain some 18,000,000 of people, and the
total number of those who claim exclusive right to the soil of England
and Wales is 30,000. I may not be rightly informed as to the numbers of
the land monopolists in those countries, but whether they are twice as
great, or half as great as I have given them, is quite immaterial to the
essence of my argument against land monopoly. I would say in this
connection that land monopoly, or the accumulation of the land in the
hands of the few, has increased very rapidly in England. A couple of
centuries ago there were several times as many English land holders as
there are now.
I need say no more to prove that land monopoly is a very high crime,
and that it is the imperative duty of Government to put a stop to it.
Were the monopoly of the light and air practicable, and were the
monopolists of these elements (having armed themselves with title deeds
to them) to sally forth and threaten the people of one town with a
vacuum in case they are unwilling or unable to buy their supply of air,
and threaten the people of another town with total darkness in case they
will not or cannot buy their supply of light, there confessedly would be
no higher duty on Government than to put an end to such wicked and
death-dealing monopolies. But these monopolies would not differ in
principle from land monopoly; and they would be no more fatal to the
enjoyments of human existence itself than land monopoly has proved
itself capable of being. Why land monopoly has not swept the earth of
all good is not because it is unadapted and inadequate to that end, but
because it has been only partially carried out.
The right of a man to the soil, the light, and the air, is to so much
of each of them as he needs, and no more; and for so long as he lives,
and no longer. In other words, this dear mother earth with her
never-failing nutritious bosom, and this life-preserving air which
floats around it, and this sweet light which visits it, are all owned by
each present generation, and are equally owned by all the members of
such generation. Hence, whatever the papers or parchments regarding the
soil which we may pass between ourselves, they can have no legitimate
power to impair the equal right to it, either of the persons who compose
this generation, or of the persons who shall compose the next.
E It is a very glaring assumption on the part of one generation, to
control the distribution and enjoyment of natural rights for another
generation. We of the present generation have no more liberty to provide
that one person of the next generation shall have ten thousand acres,
and another but ten acres, than we have to provide that one person of
the next generation shall live a hundred years, and another but a
hundred days; and no more liberty to provide that a person of the next
generation shall be destitute of land than that he shall be destitute of
light or air. They who compose a generation are, so far as natural
rights are concerned, absolutely entitled to a free and equal start in
life; and that equality is not to be disturbed and that freedom is not
to be encumbered by any arrangements of the preceding generation.
I may be asked whether I would have the present acknowledged claims to
land disturbed. I answer that I would where the needs of the people
demand it. In Ireland, for instance, there is the most urgent necessity
for overriding such claims, and subdividing the land anew. But in our
own country there is an abundance of vacant and unappropriated land for
the landless to go to. We ought not, however, to presume upon this
abundance to delay abolishing land monopoly. The greediness of land
monopolists might in a single generation convert this abundance into
scarcity. Moreover, if we do not provide now for the peaceable equal
distribution of the public lands, it may be too late to provide for it
hereafter. Justice, so palpable and so necessary, cannot be withheld but
at the risk of being grasped violently.
It is said that all talk of land monopoly in America is impertinent and
idle. It is boasted that in escaping from primogeniture and entail we
have escaped from the evils of land monopoly. But the boast is
unfounded. These evils already press heavily upon us, and they will
press more and more heavily upon us unless the root of them is
extirpated -unless land monopoly is abolished. In the old portions of
the country the poor are oppressed and defrauded of an essential natural
right by the accumulation of farms in the hands of wealthy families. In
the new, the way of the poor, and indeed of the whole population, to
comfort and prosperity is blocked up by tracts of wild land, which
speculators retain for the unjust purpose of having them increase in
value out of the toil expended upon the contiguous land. And why should
we flatter ourselves that land monopoly, if suffered to live among us,
will not in time get laws enacted for its extension and perpetuity as
effective even as primogeniture and entail? To let alone any great wrong
in the hope that it will never outgrow its present limits, is very
unwise-very unsafe. But land monopoly is not only a great, but a mighty
wrong; and if let alone it may stretch and fortify itself until it has
become invincible.
A much happier world will this be when land monopoly shall cease; when
his needed portion of the soil shall be accorded to every person; when
it shall no more be bought and sold; when, like salvation, it shall be "without
money and without price;" when, in a word, it shall be free, even
as God made it free. Then when the good time prophetically spoken of
shall come, and "every man shall sit under his own vine and fig
tree," the world will be much happier, because, in the first place,
wealth will then be so much more equally distributed, and the rich and
the poor will then be so comparatively rare. Riches and poverty are both
abnormal, false, unhappy states, and they will yet be declared to be
sinful states. They beget each other. Over against the one is ever to be
found a corresponding degree of the other. So long, then, as the masses
are robbed by land monopoly, the world will be cursed with riches and
poverty. But when the poor man is put in possession of his portion of
the goodly green earth, and is secured by the strong arm of Government
in the enjoyment of a home from which not he nor his wife nor his
children can be driven, then is he raised above poverty, not only by the
possession of the soil, but still more by the virtues which he
cultivates in his heart whilst he cultivates the soil. Then, too he no
longer ministers to the undue accumulation of wealth by others, as he
did when advantage was taken of his homeless condition, and he was
compelled to serve for what he could get.
I would add in this place that inasmuch as land monopoly is the chief
cause of beggary, comparatively little beggary will remain after lance
monopoly is abolished.
The world will be much happier when land monopoly shall cease because
manual labor will then be so honorable because so well-nigh universal.
It will be happier, too, because of the general equality there will
then be, not in property only, but in education, and other essential
respects also. How much fewer the instances then thru now of a haughty
spirit on the one hand, and of an abject spirit on the other! The pride
of superior circumstances, so, common now, will then be rare and, rare,
too, will be that abjectness of spirit, so common now (though, happily,
far from universal) in the condition of dependent poverty, and the
difficulty of overcoming which is so well compared to the difficulty of
making an empty bag stand up straight!
Another gain to the world from abolishing land monopoly is that war
would then be well-nigh impossible. It would be so if only because it
would be difficult to enlist men into its ranks. For who would leave the
comforts and endearments of home to enter upon the poorly paid and
unhonored services of a private soldier? It was not "young
Fortinbras" only who in collecting his army, Shark'd up a list of
landless resolutes but in every age and country war has pound its
recruits among the homeless, among vagabonds.
And still another benefit to flow from the abolition of land monopoly
is its happy influence upon the cause of temperance-that precious cause
which both the great and the small are in their folly and madness so
wont to scorn, but which is, nevertheless, none the less essential to
private happiness and prosperity, to national growth and glory. The
ranks of intemperance, like those of war, are to a great extent
recruited from the homeless and the vagrant.
How numerous and precious the blessings that would follow the abolition
of land monopoly! By the number and preciousness of those blessings, I
might entreat civil government the earth over to abolish it. But I will
not. I prefer to demand this justice in the name of justice. In the name
of justice I demand that civil government, wherever guilty of it, shall
cease to sell and give away land -- shall cease to sell and give away
what is not its own. The vacant land belongs to all who need it. It
belongs to the landless of every clime and condition. The extent of the
legitimate concern of Government with it is but to regulate and protect
its occupation. n the name of justice do I demand of Government, not
only that it shall itself cease from the land traffic, but that it shall
compel its subjects to cease from it. Government owes protection to its
subjects. It owes them nothing else. But that people are emphatically
unprotected who are left by their Government to be the prey of land
monopoly.
The Federal Government has sinned greatly against human rights in
usurping the ownership of a large share of the American soil. It can of
course enact no laws and exert no influence against land monopoly whilst
it is itself the mammoth monopolist of land. This Government has
presumed to sell millions of acres and to give away millions of acres. t
has lavished land on States and corporations and individuals, as if it
were itself the Great Maker of the land. Our State Governments also have
been guilty of assuming to own the soil. They too need to repent. And
they will repent if the Federal Government will lead the way.
And
if the Governments of this great nation shall acknowledge the right of
every man to a spot of earth for a home, may we not hope that the
Governments of many other nations will speedily do likewise? Nay, may we
not in that case regard the age as not distant when land monopoly, which
numbers far more victims than any other evil, and which is, moreover the
most prolific parent of evil, shall disappear from the whole earth, and
shall leave the whole earth to illustrate, as it never can whilst under
the curse of land monopoly, the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of
man?
Let this bill become a law and, if our Government shall be consistent
with itself, land monopoly will surely cease within the limits of the
exclusive jurisdiction of that Government. But let this bill be defeated
and let success attend the applications for scores of millions of acres
for soldiers, and for hundreds of millions of acres for railroad and
canal companies, and land monopoly will then be so strongly fastened
upon this nation that violence alone will be able to throw it off. The
best hope for the poor will then perish. The most cherished reliance for
human progress will then be trodden under foot.
My reference to the speculator affords me an occasion for saying that,
not only the lands which you let soldiers have, but also the lands which
you let railroad companies and canal companies have, will get into the
hands of land speculators. That is heir sure and speedy destination; and
t is in those hands that land monopoly works its mightiest mischief, and
develops its guiltiest.
|