From the time of Clay's report on the distribution of the proceeds in 1832, nothing is heard of homestead grants until 1845. Yet there is through this period a constantly increasing tendency to consider the actual settler in administering the public lands. In 1837 a bill to prohibit the sale of lands to any but actual settlers passed the Senate by a vote of 27 to 23[1] but was laid on the table in the House, 107 to 91.[2] In the next Congress the changing sentiment was manifested by the passage of a graduation bill by the Senate by the decisive vote of 27 to 16,[3] while in the House another such bill received a favorable report from the committee on public lands[4] although it never came to a vote. At this time the land policies of Texas and Canada were contrasted with those of the United States.[5] Further efforts to reduce and graduate the price of the lands were made during the next Congresses, but these, like their predecessors, failed in the House. The question had quieted down for a time and the chief importance of these bills is the indication which the votes upon them give of a gradual change in sectional sentiment, by which the North came to favor and the South to oppose the encouragement of Western emigration. The greatest gain to the actual settlers came in 1841 by the passage of a permanent pre-emption law.[6]
During this period there was no fixed and definite land policy. The passage of Clay's distribution bill in 1841 maybe taken as in- dicating a policy hostile to a reduction in the price of lands, as there would then be much less to be distributed.[7] The homestead policy was, however, applied in an isolated case by the " Florida Donation Act" of 1842.[8] This granted quarter-sections to actual settlers, such an inducement being considered necessary because of the danger from the Indians.[9]
The position which the parties took in 1 844 on the land ques- tion shows that the homestead policy was not actively considered by either at this time. The Whigs favored and the Democrats op- posed the distribution of the proceeds, but beyond this the plat- forms did not go. It was asserted at a later time that the result of the election was a verdict for the reduction and graduation of the
- ↑ Senate Journal, 24th Cong., second session, 233.
- ↑ House Journal, 24th Cong., second session, 561.
- ↑ Senate Journal, 25th Cong., second session, 356.
- ↑ Globe, 25th Cong., second session, 60-61.
- ↑ Ibid., 294. Texas offered 640 acres to each head of a family and 120 acres to each single man. Gouge, Fiscal History of Texas, 93.
- ↑ See Sato, Land Question, 417-421.
- ↑ See Globe, 28th Cong., second session, 248, 249.
- ↑ Statutes at Large, V. 502.
- ↑ Globe, 27th Cong., second session, 623-624, 764-766.
