The memorial of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois, would respectfully represent that Illinois in common with her sister States, is deeply interested in the subject of the Public Lands, that her citizens have viewed with attention the past and now look forward with increased anxiety to the future action of the National Legislature upon this subject.2

That the final disposition of the public domain involves deeply the interests of our whole Union, is a fact impressed strongly upon the minds of your memorialists, and entertaining as they do the belief, that in making that disposition your honorable body will feel impelled by a high sense of duty to your common Country, without regard to local interests or sectional feeling, to pursue that line of policy which will most advance the interests of that Country, they cannot suppose that you will shut your eyes, or close your ears, to any array of facts or argument which bearing upon this subject, may tend [to point?] out that course which ought to be pursued in relation thereto. If properly disposed of, the public domain may be productive of national and individual prosperity [commensurate?] with our Union, and durable as time, but if on the other hand it be unwisely parted with by the General Government, or still more unwisely retained in [?] and ownership it must produce in the councils of the nation strife and discord, and among the different members of our now happy Union, jealousy [heart?] burning, while to our Government itself, so dear to all of us, it may bring in the end disunion, anarchy and ruin.

Deeply impressed with the solemn truth of these views, your memorialists would respectfully call your attention to the defects which experience has shown to exist in ^the^ all laws heretofore enacted upon this subject, and while they endeavour to prove ^114^ by reasoning that the great objects for which these laws were enacted, have not been, and under their operation cannot be accomplished, urge upon your consideration the pursuit of a course, which in their humble opinion will furnish a remedy for all these defects.

Under existing laws every purchaser of any portion of the Public Lands, must pay the purchase money in advance, and hence thousands of poor but honest individuals are unable to procure a house for themselves and families. If they appropriate the small amount of means in their power to this purpose, they are left unable to improve their lands thus entered or to support their families: the consequence is that they must either remain destitute of land for years, or go upon the Public Lands, and make improvements without the sanction of law. If the poor man, whose interests should be peculiarly guarded by Legislative action pursue the latter course he ^thereby incurs the risk of sustaining an irreparable loss and conscious that in doing so, the hard fate which so many thousands have already experienced [may?] await him of having his improvement small indeed but all he has entered over his head, and himself ^ ^120^ [...?] [thereon?] destitute of means, upon the [...?] [of?] the world [...?]. Small is the inducement offered to him to seek by improving^,^ ^13^ [eventually?] to secure a title to some portion of the Public Lands, and dreadful are the consequences if he fail. It is true that judging of the future by the past, he may reasonably expect after a settlement of a few years to have granted to him by law, a pre-emption right to his improvement, but this cheering prospect is clouded, by the fears that he may not be permitted to enjoy the possession of them until the passage of such law, or that if he be, he may then be found destitute of the means by which to avail himself of the benefit intended to be conferred upon him. These views show most clearly that so far from encouraging improvement of the Public Lands existing laws rather check it. In the State of Illinois ^alone^ are thousands of acres of Public Land which under the existing state of things cannot be sold for years, but could encouragement be held out to ^28^ those who might be unable to pay in advance for these lands, to improve them, with a view of eventually owning them, a speedy market would be found for them. Thousands of individuals who as things are may perhaps never aspire to rank as free holders, would at once become owners of the soil, and property which otherwise remaining unsold for years would furnish ample food for contention among the different sections of the Union, would be in a short time, happily disposed of.

This desirable state of things it is conceived might be accomplished by the enactment of a law authorizing any person who might choose to do so to go upon the Public Land and select 40 acres, apply at the Land Office for the entry of such tract, guarantying his integrity of intention, by making affidavit that he wishes to enter it for his own use, intends to improve and cultivate it [&c[et cetera]...?], and that he thereupon receive a certificate of Entry entitling him at the expiration of five years to a patent, upon paying $50. in yearly instalments of $10. That the passage of such a law would result in an increased sale within the first five consecutive years after its passage of 100,000 of tracts of 40 acres each of the Public Lands, your memorialists do

---

[not?] doubt, and thus there would flow into the public coffers in that short space of time the immense sum of $5,000,000, or a yearly stipend of $1,000,000, which would not otherwise be enjoyed for many years to come, if ever. Then in a pecuniary point of view the interests of the General Government would by the proposed plan be greatly advanced, but not in a pecuniary point of view only.

Already has the benificent object for which the Public Domain was originally granted, been most happily accomplished, and our Government alone among the nations of the earth is untrammelled by the huge incubus, a national debt. This public property is therefore no longer imperatively needed as a source of public revenue. Hence it is contended by some that the revenue arising from the sale thereof should be distributed among the different States, by others that these lands do and of right ought to belong to those States respectively, in which they lie, and again by others that their price should be reduced. But against all of these views strong objections have been raised, and it is not the purpose of your memorialists now to discuss their merits: Leaving the question whether they or any of them be founded in justice or not, to be determined by others, they propose not to do so, but that sound policy requires that the whole Public Domain should as early as possible pass out of the hands of the General Government, is a proposition most amply proved by the history of national legislation upon this subject for a few years past, and by the variety of conflicting opinions entertained in relation thereto: and that the prosperity of the General Government renders her able without injury to herself to dispose of this portion of her property upon very liberal terms is a fact equally undeniable. By the proposed plan then [believed?] that by placing it in the power of every individual in community to enter a portion of Public Land upon terms that none would refuse the sale of those Lands [would be??] so greatly accelerated as to leave the General Government in a very few years the owner of only the refuse part of them, which valueless in themselves could no longer [?] of contention among the different members of our confederacy, and thus in effecting one of the desired results the other would necessarily follow. But why it may be [?] should this pre-emptive right be granted prospectively? Why not pursue the ordinary course and grant the privilege of entering Public Lands to those only who have actually made improvements on them. The answers to these interrogatories are obvious.

In the 1^st place, a great amount of national expenditure would be prevented by curtailing Legislation upon the subject. Session after session of Congress, laws are passed granting pre-emption rights to actual settlers &c. Then if an individual who today settles upon the Public Lands without the authority of law will certainly in a few years have his right to enter that Land the use of which he has in the meantime had free of cost, recognized by Congress. It is not perceived why that right should not be guarantyed to him in the outset: Why he who is unwilling to act ^without the express authority^ [...?] of law, should not have the sanction of law for doing that which done by others ^without such sanctions,^ [...?] is eventually legalized. The result in both cases must be the same, so far as title to any particular tract might be concerned, and as to the policy of the two laws that advocated has the decided advantage:

1^st. As it causes the sale of millions of acres in a few years which otherwise might remain on the hands of the Government, and thus while it hastens that desirable period when a final disposition may be made of this property it at the same time [?] the public coffers to overflowing.

2^nd As it, so far as Illinois is concerned, hastens the time when taxes [would?] [?] Lands purchased of the Government.

3^rd As by holding out to the poor man the entire certainty that when he shall have expended his little means in making his improvements, that his labour and money thus spent shall enure to his own benefit, and not to that of the undeserving, it prompts him to the exertions of honest industry to procure a home.

4^th As by facilitating the means of becoming free holders in those States in which the Public Lands lie, it invites into such States, thousands of poor but honest citizens, who burthened with large families are unable either to purchase Lands in the older States, where they reside, and where it commands a higher price, or under the existing state of things in those States where it is less valuable, but where in case of their immigration, they have arrived after paying the necessary expenses of removing from one State to another &c. with greatly diminished means. By leaving them at liberty to appropriate all these means to the immediate support of their families, the making of improvements, &c. while with the produce of the soil, which they thus improve they can with perfect ease secure the means of paying for it in the time proposed, the annual instalments being less than the usual

---

amount of rent paid for the same quantity of land in any Country, great benefit would result to such persons. To secure all these benefits to a large and deserving portion of her citizens and thus to spread happiness and plenty throughout her whole extent of Territory, is a line of policy worthy of our great and magnanimous Government.

But it may be objected that by the passage of such a law, the fruits of national generosity may be gathered by those who do not need them, the wealthy: while on the other hand inducements might be held out to those for whose benefit the measures might be intended, to abuse their privileges, and ^commit waste^ trespass upon the Lands which they now ask to improve. ^5^

To the 1^st of these objections it is sufficient to reply that it is believed that no one having means to enter a great quantity of Land, would feel disposed to take advantage of the proposed law, for to a man himself, having money to loan, the inducement to speculation by the entry of 40 acres of Land upon credit, would be small indeed. But if fears should be felt on this point, they might be removed by restricting the [?] entry to 40 or at most 80 acres.

As to the second objection, ample provision might be made to meet and obviate it’s . . . any [be?] deemed necessary: but as the value of the improvements made by each person upon the Land entered by him, and the entire loss of any part of the purchase money that he might pay, should he not eventually discharge the whole of it, would effectually secure the ultimate sale of such Land: The Government would suffer no injury from any ^waste^ [...?] committed upon it: and upon other Lands of the Government, no stronger inducement to ^commit waste^ [...?] would be held out than at present: Fears upon this [...?] point, therefore appear to be ideal.3

But without entering into further discussion of the merits of the proposed plan, your memorialists will only remark, that, advancing in many particulars the interests of the nation, and injuring them in none, bringing harmony into our councils, and dispensing prosperity and happiness throughout the Union, it seems, viewed in all it’s aspects, to recommend itself strongly to your favourable attention. Your memorialists, therefore pray your Honorable Body, in view of the beneficial results thereby to be effected, to pass a General Pre-emption Law, in accordance with the views herein expressed, &c: And they as in duty bound, &c.

In 1830, Congress passed a law granting settlers on public lands the opportunity to claim up to 160 acres of such land by paying the United States the minimum price within one year after the passage of the act. In March 1833, Congress passed “An act to appropriate fora limited time the proceeds of the sales of the public lands of the United States and for granting lands to certain States,” but President Andrew Jackson vetoed the bill by pocket veto because it did not distribute the proceeds of the public lands evenly among all of the states. In 1838, Congress revived and extended the 1830 act for two years. Neither law allowed settlers to purchase public land on credit.