his judgment. The tenure of the public lands can never change as long as there is any obligation in our oaths to support the Constitution, and as long as there is any force in the deeds which ceded them to the United States; if the hour shall ever come when these solemn sanctions are not to be observed, it is better that they be blotted out, for then there will be no ghost to rise up and remind us of their violation. It would be better, not that black lines be drawn around them, but that by common consent they be annulled. I would rather witness a solemn convention of the people of the United States absolving each and every man from his oath of allegiance to the Constitution than to see the principle adopted that the tenure of public property held under the Constitution should change with public opinion, for then might would be right.

MR. JOHNSON.-The opponents of this bill seemingly think that they have erected a rampart that is impregnable, and over which none can pass. This rampart, thus erected, seems to be sustained by three main barriers, or columns; on the center one they have written "unconstitutional"; on the righthand column they have inscribed "diminution of the revenue"; on the left-hand one, "rank demagogism and agrarianism."

Well, now, it is more in compliance with my nature than perhaps with my better judgment and discretion always to meet an enemy and fight him upon his own ground; and with their own weapons, therefore, instead of attacking the enemies of this bill in their weak points, I purpose to attack them in their strong ones.

The first column-the constitutional one-stands out in bold relief.

This

We find, when we turn to the Constitution of the United States, that there are certain powers contained in it. For instance, in article first, section eight, we find it is provided "that the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises." Well, we will stop there. is the vitalizing principle of the Constitution, for, without the exercise of the revenue, or taxing power, all other parts of the Constitution become torpid, and, I might say, dead. When this power is exercised, and revenue is collected, it passes into the treasury, and, being there, the Constitution points out the mode and manner of its application. After the revenue is collected, what then does the Constitution say in regard to it? It is, to "pay the debts, provide for the common defence and the general welfare of the United States." I shall not attempt here to enumerate all the objects to which Congress can ap

propriate money, but shall content myself with making this distinction: that there are some objects to which Congress cannot appropriate money, but to which Congress can appropriate land. The power of Congress over territory is one thing, and that over taxes and money another thing.

Well, there is another provision in the Constitution, and although no lawyer, and not in the habit of public speaking, I want to address myself, as humble as I am, to the intellect and thinking powers of this House in relation to it. And what is that power? "The President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, can make treaties. By the exercise of the treaty-making power, territory can be acquired, and that without the payment of a dollar. Suppose that, in the acquisition of the Territory of California, we had acquired it without the payment of a single dollar. What was the object of the acquisition? It was for settlement and cultivation. It is one of the highest objects of government, whether democratic or monarchical, in the acquisition of territory, to have it peopled. This Territory was acquired for the purpose of settlement and cultivation. Now, we have the territory acquired by the treatymaking power. Then there comes another provision of the Constitution which bears immediately upon such an acquisition. What is it? "That Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States." Is not the passage of a law to induce settlement and cultivation carrying out one of the highest objects contemplated by the Constitution in regard to the acquisition of territory? Certainly. Is there any encroachment, any infringement in this? Is it not in strict compliance with the objects of the Constitution-the settlement and cultivation of the territory?

Well, we will now pass on from this constitutional point; and I think I may safely say that this column, placed at the center of the rampart, has been made to give way. It has fallen at the very touch of truth and sound reason.

Then let us go to the right-hand column: "Diminution of the treasury, diminution of the revenue," and see how they stand there. How does this proposition stand when you come to examine it? I say it is a revenue measure. I say it will increase the receipts into the treasury. And how increase the receipts? By the enhancement of the value of the remainder of your public domain. Let us take a case to illustrate: Take the laborer in society that has no profession, no trade, that has no sort of work of his own, and how much tax does he

pay to the support of your Government under the present system? How much? Scarcely anything. Scarcely anything. But take one of these men, transplant him in the West, upon one hundred and sixty acres of its fat, virgin soil, and in a few years, when he clears a few acres around him, gets a horse and a mule or two, and some fat, thrifty hogs, which come grunting up to his log cabin, through the bushes, and a few milch cows, lowing at the barnyard, with their udders distended with rich milk, at once, you have increased his ability-to do what? To purchase a considerable amount of foreign imports or goods of domestic manufacture, when previously he could have bought little or nothing. I could show how much the Government will lose under the present system, and the length of time it will require to bring this public domain into cultivation, considering the time it has already been in market. It would be some seven hundred years at the present rate of disposition. I could show, upon the principle of time operating upon value, what a great advantage it would be to the Government to give the land away, and thereby induce its settlement and cultivation.

Well, then, Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty near time to pull down from this right-hand column those words, that you would have "a diminution of the revenue."

Now, what comes next upon the left, the weakest, and based upon the least principle, but upon broad and presumptuous assertion? You have up there "agrarianism and rank demagogism." Is it demagogism to comply with the requirements of the Constitution? Is it agrarianism to permit a man to take that which is his own? They say, when you come to the principle of agrarianism, you take that which belongs to one man to give it to another. Such is not the principle of this bill. We have 9,000,000 quarter sections, and 3,000,000 qualified voters. Suppose we were going to make a pro rata distribution; there would be three quarter sections for each qualified voter in the United States.

Now, the bill provides for everybody, rich or poor, high or low, to come forward and take a quarter section. By permitting one man to take part of what belongs to him, it does no one else injustice. We see there is no agrarianism in that. What does agrarianism mean? Property which had been accumulated by the labor, industry-by the sweat of the brow of you, me, or anybody else, taken and divided with some one who had not made use of a corresponding industry, I would call agrarianism. Agrarianism is the division of property among those who did not participate in or contribute to its accumula

tion. This proposition does no such thing. By permitting a man to come forward and take one-third of his own, is anything taken away from you? Does it diminish your estate? Does it make you worth one cent less than you were before? Not at all. Then where is the agrarianism? Where is the demagogism-the injustice? It pulls none down, but elevates all. It takes the poor by the hand and lifts them up-taking nothing from the rich. What now becomes of the left-hand column of the rampart? It topples and falls to the ground with the other two. It is time for the enemy to make an unconditional surrender.

While the Homestead Law was not enacted for many years, a bill was passed in the session of 1853-4, and approved by President Pierce on August 4, 1854, by which the price of public lands was fixed in accordance with the number of years which they had already been in the market, and with a sliding scale down to twelve and one-half cents per acre.

Mr. Grow then became the chief advocate of the original measure, introducing it in varied forms at each session. It gradually assumed the aspect of a party measure, the Republicans being its advocates and the Democrats opposing it, ostensibly on the ground that the Graduating Act had settled the land question, but really because the act would augment the preponderance of the free States over the slave States.

Andrew Johnson, advanced to the Senate, introduced the bill in that Chamber in 1857. It was passed by the Senate and the House, but vetoed by President Buchanan upon the ground that, by a strange oversight, persons of foreign birth might enter lands without being the heads of families, though this was a condition of entries by native citizens.

The same bill, with this defect remedied, was introduced in the next Congress and passed the House by 107 votes to 16, and the Senate by 33 votes to 7, and was approved by President Lincoln on May 20, 1862.

CHAPTER II

LAND-VALUE TAXATION

[THE SINGLE TAX]

Herbert Spencer and Patrick Edward Dove (1850) Deny Rightfulness of Property in Land-Edwin Burgess [Wis.], in 1859, Proposes to Restore the Land to the People by Limiting All Taxation to That on the Value of Land Exclusive of Improvements: His Letters to the Racine Advocate on the Subject, Including a Controversy with "S. S."-Henry George [Cal.] Arrives Independently at Burgess's Theory: His "Progress and Poverty" and Other Books upon the Doctrine: His Career-Tom L. Johnson [O.] and Other Representatives "Frank" George's "Protection and Free Trade" Throughout the Union-Speech of Johnson in the House: "Free Trade and the Single Tax", Quoting from "Protection and Free Trade" on "Restoration of the Land to the People"-Charles E. Belknap [Mich.], in Reply, Quotes from "Progress from Poverty" by Giles B. Stebbins [Mich.]-The Single Tax Platform-History of the Movement-Speech of Representative Henry George, Jr., on "The Road to Freedom"; Questions and Objections by George W. Norris [Neb.], Swagar Shirley [Ky.], Edward L. Hamilton [Mich.], Benjamin K. Focht [Pa.], John E. Raker [Cal.], Philip P. Campbell [Kan.], Rufus Hardy [Tex.], James M. Graham [Ill.]

I

N the decade following the introduction of the Homestead Act, and preceding the Civil War, the question of private property in land was seriously pondered in America, although not to the same extent as it was in Great Britain, owing to its obscuration here by the absorbing issue of private property in man (chattel slavery).

Herbert Spencer, the English philosopher, in chapter IX of his "Social Statics" (1850), demonstrated with Euclidean clearness and cogency the common right of all men to the use of the earth. This work made a profound impression on a number of progressive thinkers in America, although it was not until the close of the