Communication Networks An Optimization Control and Stochastic Networks Perspective Srikant R.

Download the full version and explore a variety of ebooks
or textbooks at https://ebookultra.com
Communication Networks An Optimization Control and
Stochastic Networks Perspective Srikant R.
_____ Follow the link below to get your download now _____
https://ebookultra.com/download/communication-networks-an-
optimization-control-and-stochastic-networks-perspective-
srikant-r/
Access ebookultra.com now to download high-quality
ebooks or textbooks

Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to
download, or explore more at ebookultra.com
Video and Multimedia Transmissions over Cellular Networks
Analysis Modelling and Optimization in Live 3G Mobile
Networks 1st Edition Markus Rupp
https://ebookultra.com/download/video-and-multimedia-transmissions-
over-cellular-networks-analysis-modelling-and-optimization-in-
live-3g-mobile-networks-1st-edition-markus-rupp/
Introduction to stochastic search and optimization
estimation simulation and control 1st Edition James C.
Spall
https://ebookultra.com/download/introduction-to-stochastic-search-and-
optimization-estimation-simulation-and-control-1st-edition-james-c-
spall/
Control techniques for complex networks 1st Edition Sean
Meyn
https://ebookultra.com/download/control-techniques-for-complex-
networks-1st-edition-sean-meyn/
Multi Objective Optimization in Computer Networks Using
Metaheuristics 1st Edition Yezid Donoso
https://ebookultra.com/download/multi-objective-optimization-in-
computer-networks-using-metaheuristics-1st-edition-yezid-donoso/

Multiwavelength optical networks architectures design and
control 2nd Edition Thomas E. Stern
https://ebookultra.com/download/multiwavelength-optical-networks-
architectures-design-and-control-2nd-edition-thomas-e-stern/
Data Communication and Computer Networks A Business User s
Approach Ninth Edition West
https://ebookultra.com/download/data-communication-and-computer-
networks-a-business-user-s-approach-ninth-edition-west/
Stochastic Simulation Optimization An Optimal Computing
Budget Allocation 1st Edition Chun-Hung Chen
https://ebookultra.com/download/stochastic-simulation-optimization-an-
optimal-computing-budget-allocation-1st-edition-chun-hung-chen/
Optimization of the Communication System for Networked
Control Systems 1st Edition Rainer Blind
https://ebookultra.com/download/optimization-of-the-communication-
system-for-networked-control-systems-1st-edition-rainer-blind/
Communication Networks Fundamental Concepts and Key
Architectures 2nd Edition Alberto Leon Garcia And Indra
Widjaja
https://ebookultra.com/download/communication-networks-fundamental-
concepts-and-key-architectures-2nd-edition-alberto-leon-garcia-and-
indra-widjaja/

Communication Networks An Optimization Control and
Stochastic Networks Perspective Srikant R. Digital
Instant Download
Author(s): Srikant R., Ying L.
ISBN(s): 9781107036055, 1107036054
Edition: draft
File Details: PDF, 2.49 MB
Year: 2013
Language: english

Communication Networks
Communication Networks blends control, optimization, and stochastic network theories with
features that support student learning to provide graduate students with an accessible, modern
approach to the design of communication networks.
• Covers a broad range of performance analysis tools, including important advanced topics
that are made accessible to graduate students for the first time.
• Taking a top-down approach to network protocol design, the authors begin with the
deterministic model and progress to more sophisticated models.
• Network algorithms and protocols are tied closely to the theory, engaging students and
helping them understand the practical engineering implications of what they have learnt.
• The background behind the mathematical analyses is given before the formal proofs and
is supported by worked examples, enabling students to understand the big picture before
going into the detailed theory.
• End-of-chapter exercises cover a range of difficulties; complex problems are broken
down into several parts, many with hints to guide students. Full solutions are available
to instructors.
R. Srikant is the Fredric G. and Elizabeth H. Nearing Endowed Professor of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, and a Professor in the Coordinated Science Laboratory, at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and is frequently named in the university’s list of
teachers ranked as excellent. His research interests include communication networks, stochas-
tic processes, queueing theory, control theory, and game theory. He has been a Distinguished
Lecturer of the IEEE Communications Society, is a Fellow of the IEEE, and is currently the
Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.
Lei Ying is an Associate Professor in the School of Electrical, Computer and Energy
Engineering at Arizona State University, and former Northrop Grumman Assistant Professor at
Iowa State University. He is a winner of the NSF CAREER Award and the DTRA Young Inves-
tigator Award. His research interests are broadly in the area of stochastic networks, including
wireless networks, P2P networks, cloud computing, and social networks.

Communication
Networks
AN OPTIMIZATION, CONTROL, AND STOCHASTIC
NETWORKS PERSPECTIVE
R. SRIKANT
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
LEI YING
Arizona State University

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.
It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of
education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107036055
c
Cambridge University Press 2014
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2014
Printed in the United Kingdom by TJ International Ltd, Padstow Cornwall
A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication data
Srikant, R. (Rayadurgam)
Communication networks : an optimization, control, and stochastic networks perspective /
R. Srikant, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Lei Ying, Arizona State University.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-107-03605-5 (Hardback)
1. Telecommunication systems. I. Ying, Lei (Telecommunication engineer) II. Title.
TK5101.S657 2013
384–dc23 2013028843
ISBN 978-1-107-03605-5 Hardback
Additional resources for this publication at www.cambridge.org/srikant
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication,
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.

v
To Amma, Appa, Susie, Katie, and Jenny
RS
To my parents, Lingfang and Ethan
LY

“This book by Srikant and Ying fills a major void – an analytical and authoritative study
of communication networks that covers many of the major advances made in this area
in an easy-to-understand and self-contained manner. It is a must read for any networking
student, researcher, or engineer who wishes to have a fundamental understanding of the
key operations of communication networks, from network dimensioning and design to
congestion control, routing, and scheduling. Throughout the book, the authors have taken
pains to explain highly mathematical material in a manner that is accessible to a beginning
graduate student. This has often required providing new examples, results, and proofs that
are simple and easy to follow, which makes the book attractive to academics and engineers
alike. A must have networking book for one’s personal library!”
Ness B. Shroff
The Ohio State University
“Communication Networks provides a deep, modern and broad yet accessible coverage of
the analysis of networks. The authors, who made many original contributions to this field,
guide the readers through the intuition behind the analysis and results. The text is ideal
for self-study and as a basis for a graduate course on the mathematics of communication
networks. Students in networking will benefit greatly from reading this book.”
Jean Walrand
University of California, Berkeley
“Communication Networks, by Srikant and Ying, provides a mathematically rigorous treat-
ment of modern communication networks. The book provides the essential mathematical
preliminaries in queueing theory, optimization and control, followed by a rigorous treat-
ment of network architectures, protocols and algorithms that are at the heart of modern-day
communication networks and the Internet. It is the best textbook on communication net-
works from a theoretical perspective in over 20 years, filling a much needed void in the
field. It can be an excellent textbook for graduate and advanced undergraduate classes, and
extremely useful to researchers in this rapidly evolving field.”
Eytan Modiano
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“This book presents a view of communication networks, their architecture and protocols,
grounded in the theoretical constructs from optimization and queuing theory that underpin
the modern approach to the design and analysis of networks. It is a superb introduction to
this approach.”
Frank Kelly
University of Cambridge
“This textbook provides a thoughtful treatment of network architecture and network proto-
col design within a solid mathematical framework. Networks are required to provide good
stable behavior in random environments. This textbook provides the tools needed to make
this happen. It provides needed foundations in optimization, control, and probabilistic tech-
niques. It then demonstrates their application to the understanding of current networks and
the design of future network architectures and protocols. This is a ‘must’ addition to the
library of graduate students performing research in networking, and engineers researching
future network architectures and protocols.”
Donald F. Towsley
University of Massachusetts Amherst

CONTENTS
Preface page xi
1 Introduction 1
I Network architecture and algorithms 5
2 Mathematics of Internet architecture 7
2.1 Mathematical background: convex optimization 7
2.1.1 Convex sets and convex functions 7
2.1.2 Convex optimization 11
2.2 Resource allocation as utility maximization 15
2.2.1 Utility functions and fairness 17
2.3 Mathematical background: stability of dynamical systems 19
2.4 Distributed algorithms: primal solution 21
2.4.1 Congestion feedback and distributed implementation 24
2.5 Distributed algorithms: dual solution 26
2.6 Feedback delay and stability 27
2.6.1 Linearization 29
2.7 Game-theoretic view of utility maximization 30
2.7.1 The Vickrey–Clarke–Groves mechanism 31
2.7.2 The price-taking assumption 34
2.7.3 Strategic or price-anticipating users 35
2.8 Summary 41
2.9 Exercises 42
2.10 Notes 47
3 Links: statistical multiplexing and queues 49
3.1 Mathematical background: the Chernoff bound 49
3.2 Statistical multiplexing and packet buffering 51
3.2.1 Queue overflow 52
3.3 Mathematical background: discrete-time Markov chains 55
3.4 Delay and packet loss analysis in queues 64
3.4.1 Little’s law 64
3.4.2 The Geo/Geo/1 queue 67
3.4.3 The Geo/Geo/1/B queue 69
3.4.4 The discrete-time G/G/1 queue 70

viii Contents
3.5 Providing priorities: fair queueing 72
3.5.1 Key properties 76
3.6 Summary 78
3.7 Exercises 79
3.8 Notes 85
4 Scheduling in packet switches 86
4.1 Switch architectures and crossbar switches 87
4.1.1 Head-of-line blocking and virtual output queues 88
4.2 Capacity region and MaxWeight scheduling 90
4.2.1 Intuition behind the MaxWeight algorithm 96
4.3 Low-complexity switch scheduling algorithms 96
4.3.1 Maximal matching scheduling 96
4.3.2 Pick-and-compare scheduling 102
4.3.3 Load-balanced switches 102
4.4 Summary 105
4.5 Exercises 106
4.6 Notes 109
5 Scheduling in wireless networks 110
5.1 Wireless communications 110
5.2 Channel-aware scheduling in cellular networks 114
5.3 The MaxWeight algorithm for the cellular downlink 116
5.4 MaxWeight scheduling for ad hoc P2P wireless networks 122
5.5 General MaxWeight algorithms 125
5.6 Q-CSMA: a distributed algorithm for ad hoc P2P networks 129
5.6.1 The idea behind Q-CSMA 129
5.6.2 Q-CSMA 130
5.7 Summary 134
5.8 Exercises 135
5.9 Notes 140
6 Back to network utility maximization 142
6.1 Joint formulation of the transport, network, and MAC problems 142
6.2 Stability and convergence: a cellular network example 151
6.3 Ad hoc P2P wireless networks 155
6.4 Internet versus wireless formulations: an example 157
6.5 Summary 159
6.6 Exercises 160
6.7 Notes 163
7 Network protocols 165
7.1 Adaptive window flow control and TCP protocols 166
7.1.1 TCP-Reno: a loss-based algorithm 167
7.1.2 TCP-Reno with feedback delay 170

ix Contents
7.1.3 TCP-Vegas: a delay-based algorithm 171
7.2 Routing algorithms: Dijkstra and Bellman–Ford algorithms 175
7.2.1 Dijkstra’s algorithm: link-state routing 176
7.2.2 Bellman–Ford algorithm: distance-vector routing 179
7.3 IP addressing and routing in the Internet 182
7.3.1 IP addressing 183
7.3.2 Hierarchical routing 184
7.4 MAC layer protocols in wireless networks 186
7.4.1 Proportionally fair scheduler in cellular downlink 187
7.4.2 MAC for WiFi and ad hoc networks 188
7.5 Summary 191
7.6 Exercises 192
7.7 Notes 194
8 Peer-to-peer networks 195
8.1 Distributed hash tables 195
8.1.1 Chord 196
8.1.2 Kademlia 202
8.2 P2P file sharing 207
8.2.1 The BitTorrent protocol 208
8.3 Structured P2P streaming 210
8.4 Unstructured P2P streaming 215
8.5 The gossip process 219
8.6 Summary 221
8.7 Exercises 222
8.8 Notes 225
II Performance analysis 227
9 Queueing theory in continuous time 229
9.1 Mathematical background: continuous-time Markov chains 229
9.2 Queueing systems: introduction and definitions 237
9.3 The M/M/1 queue 239
9.4 The M/M/s/s queue 241
9.4.1 The PASTA property and blocking probability 242
9.5 The M/M/s queue 242
9.6 The M/GI/1 Queue 243
9.6.1 Mean queue length and waiting time 246
9.6.2 Different approaches taken to derive the P-K formula 247
9.7 The GI/GI/1 queue 249
9.8 Reversibility 251
9.8.1 The M/M/1 queue 253
9.8.2 The tandem M/M/1 queue 254
9.9 Queueing systems with product-form steady-state distributions 254

x Contents
9.9.1 The Jackson network 255
9.9.2 The multi-class M/M/1 queue 256
9.10 Insensitivity to service-time distributions 258
9.10.1 The M/M/1-PS queue 259
9.10.2 The M/GI/1-PS queue 259
9.11 Connection-level arrivals and departures in the internet 263
9.12 Distributed admission control 267
9.13 Loss networks 269
9.13.1 Large-system limit 271
9.13.2 Computing the blocking probabilities 274
9.13.3 Alternative routing 275
9.14 Download time in BitTorrent 276
9.15 Summary 280
9.16 Exercises 282
9.17 Notes 289
10 Asymptotic analysis of queues 290
10.1 Heavy-traffic analysis of the discrete-time G/G/1 queue 291
10.2 Heavy-traffic optimality of JSQ 294
10.3 Large deviations of i.i.d. random variables: the Cramer–Chernoff
theorem 302
10.4 Large-buffer large deviations 307
10.5 Many-sources large deviations 312
10.6 Summary 317
10.7 Exercises 318
10.8 Notes 321
11 Geometric random graph models of wireless networks 323
11.1 Mathematical background: the Hoeffding bound 323
11.2 Nodes arbitrarily distributed in a unit square 325
11.3 Random node placement 328
11.4 Summary 335
11.5 Exercises 336
11.6 Notes 339
References 340
Index 349

PREFACE
Why we wrote this book
Traditionally, analytical techniques for communication networks discussed in textbooks
fall into two categories: (i) analysis of network protocols, primarily using queueing theo-
retic tools, and (ii) algorithms for network provisioning which use tools from optimization
theory. Since the mid 1990s, a new viewpoint of the architecture of a communication
network has emerged. Network architecture and algorithms are now viewed as slow-time-
scale, distributed solutions to a large-scale optimization problem. This approach illustrates
that the layered architecture of a communication network is a natural by-product of the
desire to design a fair and stable system. On the other hand, queueing theory, stochas-
tic processes, and combinatorics play an important role in designing low-complexity and
distributed algorithms that are viewed as operating at fast time scales.
Our goal in writing this book is to present this modern point of view of network protocol
design and analysis to a wide audience. The book provides readers with a comprehen-
sive view of the design of communication networks using a combination of tools from
optimization theory, control theory, and stochastic networks, and introduces mathematical
tools needed to analyze the performance of communication network protocols.
Organization of the book
The book has been organized into two major parts. In the first part of the book, with a
few exceptions, we present mathematical techniques only as tools to design algorithms
implemented at various layers of a communication network. We start with the transport
layer, and then consider algorithms at the link layer and the medium access layer, and
finally present a unified view of all these layers along with the network layer. After we
cover all the layers, we present a brief introduction to peer-to-peer applications which, by
some estimates, form a significant portion of Internet traffic today.
The second part of the book is devoted to advanced mathematical techniques which are
used frequently by researchers in the area of communication networks. We often sacri-
fice generality by making simplifying assumptions, but, as a result, we hope that we have
made techniques that are typically found in specialized texts in mathematics more broadly
accessible. The collection of mathematical techniques relevant to communication networks
is vast, so we have perhaps made a personal choice in the selection of the topics. We have
chosen to highlight topics in basic queueing theory, asymptotic analysis of queues, and
scaling laws for wireless networks in the second part of the book.
We note that two aspects of the book are perhaps unique compared to other textbooks
in the field: (i) the presentation of the mathematical tools in parallel with a top-down view
of communication networks, and (ii) the presentation of heavy-traffic analysis of queueing
models using Lyapunov techniques.

xii Preface
The background required to read the book
Graduate students who have taken a graduate-level course in probability and who have
some basic knowledge of optimization and control theory should find the book accessible.
An industrious student willing to put in extra effort may find the book accessible even with
just a strong undergraduate course in probability. Researchers working in the area of com-
munication networks should be able to read most chapters in the book individually since
we have tried to make each chapter as self contained as possible. However, occasionally
we refer to results in earlier chapters when discussing the material in a particular chapter,
but this overlap between chapters should be small. We have provided a brief introduction
to the mathematical background required to understand the various topics in the book, as
and when appropriate, to aid the reader.
How to use the book as an instructor
We have taught various graduate-level courses from the material in the book. Based on our
experience, we believe that there are two different ways in which this book can be used: to
teach either a single course or two courses on communication networks. Below we provide
a list of chapters that can be covered for each of these options.
• A two-course sequence on communication networks.
• Course 1 (modeling and algorithms): Chapters 1–6 except Section 3.5, and Sec-
tions 7.1, 7.2, 7.4.1, and Chapter 8. The mathematical background, Sections 2.1 and
2.3, can be taught as and when necessary when dealing with specific topics.
• Course 2 (performance analysis): Chapters 9 (cover Section 8.2 before Section 9.14),
10, and 11. We recommend reviewing Chapter 3 (except Section 3.5), which would
have been covered in Course 1 above, before teaching Chapter 10.
• A single course on communication networks, covering modeling, algorithms, and per-
formance analysis: Chapters 1–6 except Section 3.5, Sections 9.1–9.10 of Chapter 9, and
Chapters 10 and 11.
Acknowledgements
This book grew out of courses offered by us at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Iowa State University, and Arizona State University. The comments of the
students in these courses over the years have been invaluable in shaping the material in
the book. We would like to acknowledge Zhen Chen, Javad Ghaderi, Juan Jose Jaramillo,
Xiaohan Kang, Joohwan Kim, Siva Theja Maguluri, Chandramani Singh, Weina Wang,
Rui Wu, Zhengyu Zhang, and Kai Zhu in particular, who read various parts of the book
carefully and provided valuable comments. We also gratefully acknowledge collaborations
and/or discussions with Tamer Başar, Atilla Eryilmaz, Bruce Hajek, Frank Kelly, P. R.
Kumar, Sean Meyn, Sanjay Shakkottai, Srinivas Shakkottai, Ness Shroff, and Don Towsley
over the years, which helped shape the presentation of the material in this book.

1 Introduction
A communication network is an interconnection of devices designed to carry information
from various sources to their respective destinations. To execute this task of carrying infor-
mation, a number of protocols (algorithms) have to be developed to convert the information
to bits and transport these bits reliably over the network. The first part of this book deals
with the development of mathematical models which will be used to design the protocols
used by communication networks. To understand the scope of the book, it is useful first to
understand the architecture of a communication network.
The sources (also called end hosts) that generate information (also called data) first
convert the data into bits (0s and 1s) which are then collected into groups called packets. We
will not discuss the process of converting data into packets in this book, but simply assume
that the data are generated in the form of packets. Let us consider the problem of sending a
stream of packets from a source S to destination D, and assume for the moment that there
are no other entities (such as other sources or destinations or intermediate nodes) in the
network. The source and destination must be connected by some communication medium,
such as a coaxial cable, telephone wire, or optical fiber, or they have to communicate
in a wireless fashion. In either case, we can imagine that S and D are connected by a
communication link, although the link is virtual in the case of wireless communication.
The protocols that ensure reliable transfer of data over such a single link are called the link
layer protocols or simply the link layer. The link layer includes algorithms for converting
groups of bits within a packet into waveforms that are appropriate for transmission over the
communication medium, adding error correction to the bits to ensure that data are received
reliably at the destination, and dividing the bits into groups called frames (which may be
smaller or larger than packets) before converting them to waveforms for transmission. The
process of converting groups of bits into waveforms is called modulation, and the process
of recovering the original bits from the waveform is called demodulation. The protocols
used for modulation, demodulation, and error correction are often grouped together and
called the physical layer set of protocols. In this book, we assume that the physical layer
and link layer protocols are given, and that they transfer data over a single link reliably.
Once the link layer has been designed, the next task is one of interconnecting links to
form a network. To transfer data over a network, the entities in the network must be given
addresses, and protocols must be designed to route packets from each source to their des-
tination via intermediate nodes using the addresses of the destination and the intermediate
nodes. This task is performed by a set of protocols called the network layer. In the Inter-
net, the network layer is called the Internet Protocol (IP) layer. Note that the network layer
protocols can be designed independently of the link layer, once we make the assumption
that the link layer protocols have been designed to ensure reliable data transfer over each
link. This concept of independence among the design of protocols at each layer is called

2 Introduction
layering and is fundamental to the design of large communication networks. This allows
engineers who develop protocols at one layer to abstract the functionalities of the protocols
at other layers and concentrate on designing efficient protocols at just one layer.
Next, we assume that the network layer has been well designed and that it somehow
generates routes for packets from each possible source to each possible destination in the
network. Recall that the network is just an interconnection of links. Each link in the net-
work has a limited capacity, i.e., the rate at which it can transfer data as measured in bits per
second (bps). Since the communication network is composed of links, the sources produc-
ing data cannot send packets at arbitrarily high rates since the end-to-end data transfer rate
between a source and its destination is limited by the capacities of the links on the route
between the source and the destination. Further, when multiple source-destination (S-D)
pairs transfer data over a network, the network capacity has to be shared by these S-D pairs.
Thus, a set of protocols has to be designed to ensure fair sharing of resources between the
various S-D pairs. The set of protocols that ensures such fair sharing of resources is called
the transport layer. Transport layer protocols ensure that, most of the time, the total rate
at which packets enter a link is less than or equal to the link capacity. However, occasion-
ally the packet arrival rate at a link may exceed the link capacity since perfectly efficient
transport layer protocol design is impossible in a large communication network. During
such instances, packets may be dropped by a link and such packet losses will be detected
by the destinations. The destinations then inform the sources of these packet losses, and
the transport layer protocols may retransmit packets if necessary. Thus, in addition to fair
resource sharing and congestion control functionalities, transport layer protocols may also
have end-to-end (source-destination) error recovery functionalities as well.
The final set of protocols used to communicate information over a network is called the
application layer. Application layer protocols are specific to applications that use the net-
work. Examples of applications include file transfer, real-time video transmission, video
or voice calls, stored-video transmission, fetching and displaying web pages, etc. The
application layer calls upon transport protocols that are appropriate for their respective
applications. For example, for interactive communication, occasional packet losses may be
tolerated, whereas a file transfer requires that all packets reach the destination. Thus, the
former may use a transport protocol that does not use retransmissions to guarantee reliable
delivery of every packet to the destination, while the latter will use a transport protocol that
ensures end-to-end reliable transmission of every packet.
In addition to the protocol layers mentioned above, in the case of wireless communi-
cations, signal propagation over one link may cause interference at another link. Thus, a
special set of protocols called Medium Access Control (MAC) protocols are designed to
arbitrate the contention between the links for access to the wireless medium. The MAC
layer can be viewed as a sublayer of the link layer that further ensures reliable operation of
the wireless “links so that the network layer continues to see the links as reliable carriers
of data. A schematic of the layered architecture of a communication network is provided
in Figure 1.1. To ensure proper operation of a communication network, a packet generated
by an application will not only contain data, but also contain other information called the
header. The header may contain information such as the transport protocol to be used and
the address of the destination for routing purposes.
The above description of the layered architecture of a communication network is an
abstraction. In real communication networks, layering may not be as strict as defined

Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content

whilst the purchasers, in consequence of the clashing and
interference between their rights, were exposed to tedious,
vexatious, and ruinous litigation. Kentucky suffered long and
severely from this cause; and is just emerging from the troubles
brought upon her by improvident land legislation. Western Virginia
has also suffered greatly, though not to the same extent.
The state of Georgia had large bodies of waste lands, which she
disposed of in a manner satisfactory, no doubt, to herself, but
astonishing to every one out of that commonwealth. According to
her system, waste lands are distributed in lotteries, among the
people of the state, in conformity with the enactments of the
legislature. And when one district of country is disposed of, as there
are many who do not draw prizes, the unsuccessful call out for fresh
distributions. These are made from time to time, as lands are
acquired from the Indians; and hence one of the causes of the
avidity with which the Indian lands are sought. It is manifest, that
neither the present generation, nor posterity, can derive much
advantage from this mode of alienating public lands. On the
contrary, I should think, it cannot fail to engender speculation and a
spirit of gambling.
The state of Kentucky, in virtue of a compact with Virginia,
acquired a right to a quantity of public lands south of Green river.
Neglecting to profit by the unfortunate example of the parent state,
she did not order the country to be surveyed previous to its being
offered to purchasers. Seduced by some of those wild land projects,
of which at all times there have been some afloat, and which,
hitherto, the general government alone has firmly resisted, she was
tempted to offer her waste lands to settlers, at different prices,
under the name of head-rights or preëmptions. As the laws, like
most legislation upon such subjects, were somewhat loosely worded,
the keen eye of the speculator soon discerned the defects, and he
took advantage of them. Instances had occurred, of masters
obtaining certificates of head-rights in the name of their slaves, and
thus securing the land, in contravention of the intention of the

legislature. Slaves, generally, have but one name, being called Tom,
Jack, Dick, or Harry. To conceal the fraud, the owner would add
Black, or some other cognomination, so that the certificate would
read Tom Black, Jack Black, and so forth. The gentleman from
Tennessee, (Mr. Grundy,) will remember, some twenty-odd years
ago, when we were both members of the Kentucky legislature, that
I took occasion to animadvert upon these fraudulent practices, and
observed, that when the names came to be alphabeted, the truth
would be told, whatever might be the language of the record; for
the alphabet would read Black Tom, Black Harry, and so forth.
Kentucky realized more in her treasury than the parent state had
done, considering that she had but a remnant of public lands, and
she added somewhat to her population. But they were far less
available than they would have been under a system of previous
survey and regular sale.
These observations, in respect to the course of the respectable
states referred to, in relation to their public lands, are not prompted
by any unkind feelings towards them, but to show the superiority of
the land system of the United States.
Under the system of the general government, the wisdom of
which, in some respects, is admitted, even by the report of the land
committee, the country subject to its operation, beyond the
Alleghany mountains, has rapidly advanced in population,
improvement, and prosperity. The example of the state of Ohio was
emphatically relied on by the report of the committee of
manufactures—its million of people, its canals, and other
improvements, its flourishing towns, its highly-cultivated fields, all
put there within less than forty years. To weaken the force of this
example, the land committee deny that the population of the state is
principally settled upon public lands derived from the general
government. But, Mr. President, with great deference to that
committee, I must say, that it labors under misapprehension. Three
fourths, if not four fifths of the population of that state, are settled
upon public lands purchased from the United States, and they are

the most flourishing parts of the state. For the correctness of this
statement, I appeal to my friend from Ohio, (Mr. Ewing,) near me.
He knows, as well as I do, that the rich valleys of the Miami of Ohio,
and the Maumee of the Lake, the Sciota and the Muskingum, are
principally settled by persons deriving titles to their lands from the
United States.
In a national point of view, one of the greatest advantages which
these public lands in the west, and this system of selling them,
affords, is the resource which they present against pressure and
want, in other parts of the union, from the vocations of society being
too closely filled, and too much crowded. They constantly tend to
sustain the price of labor, by the opportunity which they offer, of the
acquisition of fertile land at a moderate price, and the consequent
temptation to emigrate from those parts of the union where labor
may be badly rewarded.
The progress of settlement, and the improvement in the fortunes
and condition of individuals, under the operation of this beneficent
system, are as simple as they are manifest. Pioneers of a more
adventurous character, advancing before the tide of emigration,
penetrate into the uninhabited regions of the west. They apply the
axe to the forest, which falls before them, or the plough to the
prairie, deeply sinking its share in the unbroken wild grasses in
which it abounds. They build houses, plant orchards, enclose fields,
cultivate the earth, and rear up families around them. Meantime, the
tide of emigration flows upon them, their improved farms rise in
value, a demand for them takes place, they sell to the new comers,
at a great advance, and proceed further west, with ample means to
purchase from government, at reasonable prices, sufficient land for
all the members of their families. Another and another tide
succeeds, the first pushing on westwardly the previous settlers, who,
in their turn, sell out their farms, constantly augmenting in price,
until they arrive at a fixed and stationary value. In this way,
thousands, and tens of thousands, are daily improving their
circumstances, and bettering their condition. I have often witnessed

this gratifying progress. On the same farm you may sometimes
behold, standing together, the first rude cabin of round and unhewn
logs, and wooden chimneys, the hewed log house, chinked and
shingled, with stone or brick chimneys, and, lastly, the comfortable
brick or stone dwelling, each denoting the different occupants of the
farm, or the several stages of the condition of the same occupant.
What other nation can boast of such an outlet for its increasing
population, such bountiful means of promoting their prosperity, and
securing their independence?
To the public lands of the United States, and especially to the
existing system by which they are distributed with so much
regularity and equity, are we indebted for these signal benefits in our
national condition. And every consideration of duty, to ourselves, and
to posterity, enjoins that we should abstain from the adoption of any
wild project that would cast away this vast national property, holden
by the general government in sacred trust for the whole people of
the United States, and forbids that we should rashly touch a system
which has been so successfully tested by experience.
It has been only within a few years, that restless men have
thrown before the public their visionary plans for squandering the
public domain. With the existing laws, the great state of the west is
satisfied and contented. She has felt their benefit, and grown great
and powerful under their sway. She knows and testifies to the
liberality of the general government, in the administration of the
public lands, extended alike to her and to the other new states.
There are no petitions from, no movements in Ohio, proposing vital
and radical changes in the system. During the long period, in the
house of representatives, and in the senate, that her upright and
unambitious citizen, the first representative of that state, and
afterwards successively senator and governor, presided over the
committee of public lands, we heard of none of these chimerical
schemes. All went on smoothly, and quietly, and safely. No man, in
the sphere within which he acted, ever commanded or deserved the
implicit confidence of congress, more than Jeremiah Morrow. There

existed a perfect persuasion of his entire impartiality and justice
between the old states and the new. A few artless but sensible
words, pronounced in his plain Scotch Irish dialect, were always
sufficient to insure the passage of any bill or resolution which he
reported. For about twenty-five years, there was no essential change
in the system; and that which was at last made, varying the price of
the public lands from two dollars, at which it had all that time
remained, to one dollar and a quarter, at which it has been fixed
only about ten or twelve years, was founded mainly on the
consideration of abolishing the previous credits.
Assuming the duplication of our population in terms of twenty-
five years, the demand for waste land, at the end of every term, will
at least be double what it was at the commencement. But the ratio
of the increased demand will be much greater than the increase of
the whole population of the United States, because the western
states nearest to, or including the public lands, populate much more
rapidly than other parts of the union; and it will be from them that
the greatest current of emigration will flow. At this moment, Ohio,
Kentucky, and Tennessee, are the most migrating states in the
union.
To supply this constantly augmenting demand, the policy, which
has hitherto characterized the general government, has been highly
liberal both towards individuals and the new states. Large tracts, far
surpassing the demand of purchasers, in every climate and situation,
adapted to the wants of all parts of the union, are brought into
market at moderate prices, the government having sustained all the
expense of the original purchase, and of surveying, marking, and
dividing the land. For fifty dollars any poor man may purchase forty
acres of first-rate land; and, for less than the wages of one year’s
labor he may buy eighty acres. To the new states, also, has the
government been liberal and generous in the grants for schools and
for internal improvements, as well as in reducing the debt,
contracted for the purchase of lands, by the citizens of those states,

who were tempted, in a spirit of inordinate speculation, to purchase
too much, or at too high prices.
Such is a rapid outline of this invaluable national property, of the
system which regulates its management and distribution, and of the
effects of that system. We might here pause, and wonder that there
should be a disposition with any to waste or throw away this great
resource, or to abolish a system which has been fraught with so
many manifest advantages. Nevertheless, there are such, who,
impatient with the slow and natural operation of wise laws, have put
forth various pretensions and projects concerning the public lands,
within a few years past. One of these pretensions is, an assumption
of the sovereign right of the new states to all the lands within their
respective limits, to the exclusion of the general government, and to
the exclusion of all the people of the United States, those in the new
states only excepted. It is my purpose now to trace the origin,
examine the nature, and expose the injustice, of this pretension.
This pretension may be fairly ascribed to the propositions of the
gentleman from Missouri, (Mr. Benton,) to graduate the public lands,
to reduce the price, and cede the ‘refuse’ lands, (a term which
I believe originated with him,) to the states within which they lie.
Prompted, probably, by these propositions, a late governor of
Illinois, unwilling to be outdone, presented an elaborate message to
the legislature of that state, in which he gravely and formally
asserted the right of that state to all the land of the United States,
comprehended within its limits. It must be allowed that the governor
was a most impartial judge, and the legislature a most disinterested
tribunal, to decide such a question.
The senator from Missouri was chanting most sweetly to the
tune, ‘refuse lands,’ ‘refuse lands,’ ‘refuse lands,’ on the Missouri side
of the Mississippi, and the soft strains of his music, having caught
the ear of his excellency, on the Illinois side, he joined in chorus,
and struck an octave higher. The senator from Missouri wished only
to pick up some crumbs which fell from Uncle Sam’s table; but the

governor resolved to grasp the whole loaf. The senator modestly
claimed only an old, smoked, rejected joint; but the stomach of his
excellency yearned after the whole hog! The governor peeped over
the Mississippi into Missouri, and saw the senator leisurely roaming
in some rich pastures, on bits of refuse lands. He returned to Illinois,
and, springing into the grand prairie, determined to claim and
occupy it, in all its boundless extent.
Then came the resolution of the senator from Virginia,
(Mr. Tazewell,) in May, 1826, in the following words:
‘Resolved, that it is expedient for the United States to cede and surrender to
the several states, within whose limits the same may be situated, all the right,
title, and interest of the United States, to any lands lying and being within the
boundaries of such states, respectively, upon such terms and conditions as may be
consistent with the due observance of the public faith, and with the general
interest of the United States.’
The latter words rendered the resolution somewhat ambiguous;
but still it contemplated a cession and surrender. Subsequently, the
senator from Virginia proposed, after a certain time, a gratuitous
surrender of all unsold lands, to be applied by the legislature, in
support of education and the internal improvement of the state.
[Here Mr. Tazewell controverted the statement. Mr. Clay called to the secretary
to hand him the journal of April, 1828, which he held up to the senate, and read
from it the following:
‘The bill to graduate the price of the public lands, to make donations thereof
to actual settlers, and to cede the refuse to the states in which they lie, being
under consideration—
‘Mr. Tazewell moved to insert the following as a substitute:
‘That the lands which shall have been subject to sale under the provisions of
this act, and shall remain unsold for two years, after having been offered at
twenty-five cents per acre, shall be, and the same is, ceded to the state in which
the same may lie, to be applied by the legislature thereof in support of education,
and the internal improvement of the state.’]

Thus it appears not only that the honorable senator proposed the
cession, but showed himself the friend of education and internal
improvements, by means derived from the general government. For
this liberal disposition on his part, I believe it was, that the state of
Missouri honored a new county with his name. If he had carried his
proposition, that state might well have granted a principality to him.
The memorial of the legislature of Illinois, probably produced by
the message of the governor already noticed, had been presented,
asserting a claim to the public lands. And it seems, (although the
fact had escaped my recollection until I was reminded of it by one of
her senators, (Mr. Hendricks,) the other day,) that the legislature of
Indiana had instructed her senators to bring forward a similar claim.
At the last session, however, of the legislature of that state,
resolutions had passed, instructing her delegation to obtain from the
general government cessions of the unappropriated public lands, on
the most favorable terms. It is clear from this last expression of the
will of that legislature, that, on reconsideration, it believed the right
to the public lands to be in the general government, and not in the
state of Indiana. For, if they did not belong to the general
government, it had nothing to cede; if they belonged already to the
state, no cession was necessary to the perfection of the right of the
state.
I will here submit a passing observation. If the general
government had the power to cede the public lands to the new
states for particular purposes, and on prescribed conditions, its
power must be unquestionable to make some reservations for similar
purposes in behalf of the old states. Its power cannot be without
limit as to the new states, and circumscribed and restricted as to the
old. Its capacity to bestow benefits or dispense justice is not
confined to the new states, but is coextensive with the whole union.
It may grant to all, or it can grant to none. And this comprehensive
equity is not only in conformity with the spirit of the cessions in the
deeds from the ceding states, but is expressly enjoined by the terms
of those deeds.

Such is the probable origin of the pretension which I have been
tracing; and now let us examine its nature and foundation. The
argument in behalf of the new states, is founded on the notion, that
as the old states, upon coming out of the revolutionary war, had or
claimed a right to all the lands within their respective limits; and as
the new states have been admitted into the union on the same
footing and condition in all respects with the old, therefore they are
entitled to all the waste lands embraced within their boundaries. But
the argument forgets that all the revolutionary states had not waste
lands; that some had but very little, and others none. It forgets that
the right of the states to the waste lands within their limits was
controverted; and that it was insisted that, as they had been
conquered in a common war, waged with common means, and
attended with general sacrifices, the public lands should be held for
the common benefit of all the states. It forgets that in consequence
of this right, asserted in behalf of the whole union, the states that
contained any large bodies of waste lands (and Virginia, particularly,
that had the most) ceded them to the union, for the equal benefit of
all the states. It forgets that the very equality, which is the basis of
the argument, would be totally subverted by the admission of the
validity of the pretension. For how would the matter then stand? The
revolutionary states will have divested themselves of the large
districts of vacant lands which they contained, for the common
benefit of all the states; and those same lands will enure to the
benefit of the new states exclusively. There will be, on the
supposition of the validity of the pretension, a reversal of the
condition of the two classes of states. Instead of the old having, as
is alleged, the wild lands which they included at the epoch of the
revolution, they will have none, and the new states all. And this in
the name and for the purpose of equality among all the members of
the confederacy! What, especially, would be the situation of Virginia?
She magnanimously ceded an empire in extent for the common
benefit. And now it is proposed not only to withdraw that empire
from the object of its solemn dedication, to the use of all the states,
but to deny her any participation in it, and appropriate it exclusively
to the benefit of the new states carved out of it.

If the new states had any right to the public lands, in order to
produce the very equality contended for, they ought forthwith to
cede that right to the union, for the common benefit of all the
states. Having no such right, they ought to acquiesce cheerfully in
an equality which does, in fact, now exist between them and the old
states.
The committee of manufactures has clearly shown, that if the
right were recognised in the new states now existing, to the public
lands within their limits, each of the new states, as they might
hereafter be successively admitted into the union, would have the
same right; and, consequently, that the pretension under
examination embraces, in effect, the whole public domain, that is, a
billion and eighty millions of acres of land.
The right of the union to the public lands is incontestable. It
ought not to be considered debatable. It never was questioned but
by a few, whose monstrous heresy, it was probably supposed, would
escape animadversion from the enormity of the absurdity, and the
utter impracticability of the success of the claim. The right of the
whole is sealed by the blood of the revolution, founded upon solemn
deeds of cession from sovereign states, deliberately executed in the
face of the world, or resting upon national treaties concluded with
foreign powers, on ample equivalents contributed from the common
treasury of the people of the United States.
This right of the whole was stamped upon the face of the new
states at the very instant of their parturition. They admitted and
recognised it with their first breath. They hold their stations, as
members of the confederacy, in virtue of that admission. The
senators who sit here and the members in the house of
representatives from the new states, deliberate in congress with
other senators and representatives, under that admission. And since
the new states came into being, they have recognised this right of
the general government by innumerable acts—

By their concurrence in the passage of hundreds of laws
respecting the public domain, founded upon the incontestable right
of the whole of the states;
By repeated applications to extinguish Indian titles, and to survey
the lands which they covered;
And by solicitation and acceptance of extensive grants of the
public lands from the general government.
The existence of the new state is a falsehood, or the right of all
the states to the public domain is an undeniable truth. They have no
more right to the public lands, within their particular jurisdiction,
than other states have to the mint, the forts and arsenals, or public
ships, within theirs, or than the people of the District of Columbia
have to this magnificent capitol, in whose splendid halls we now
deliberate.
The equality contended for between all the states now exists.
The public lands are now held, and ought to be held and
administered for the common benefit of all. I hope our fellow-
citizens of Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri, will reconsider the matter;
that they will cease to take counsel from demagogues who would
deceive them, and instil erroneous principles into their ears; and that
they will feel and acknowledge that their brethren of Kentucky and
of Ohio, and of all the states in the union, have an equal right with
the citizens of those three states, in the public lands. If the
possibility of an event so direful as a severance of this union were
for a moment contemplated, what would be the probable
consequence of such an unspeakable calamity; if three confederacies
were formed out of its fragments, do you imagine that the western
confederacy would consent to have the states including the public
lands hold them exclusively for themselves? Can you imagine that
the states of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, would quietly renounce
their right in all the public lands west of them? No, sir! No, sir! They

would wade to their knees in blood, before they would make such an
unjust and ignominious surrender.
But this pretension, unjust to the old states, unequal as to all,
would be injurious to the new states themselves, in whose behalf it
has been put forth, if it were recognised. The interests of the new
states is not confined to the lands within their limits, but extends to
the whole billion and eighty millions of acres. Sanction the claims,
however, and they are cut down and restricted to that which is
included in their own boundaries. Is it not better for Ohio, instead of
the five millions and a half, or Indiana, instead of the fifteen millions,
or even for Illinois, instead of the thirty-one or thirty-two millions, or
Missouri, instead of the thirty-eight millions, within their respective
limits, to retain their interest in those several quantities, and also to
retain their interest, in common with the other members of the
union, in the countless millions of acres that lie west, or northwest,
beyond them?
I will now proceed, Mr. President, to consider the expediency of a
reduction of the price of the public lands, and the reasons assigned
by the land committee, in their report, in favor of that measure.
They are presented there in formidable detail, and spread out under
seven different heads. Let us examine them; the first is, ‘because
the new states have a clear right to participate in the benefits of a
reduction of the revenue to the wants of the government, by getting
the reduction extended to the article of revenue chiefly used by
them.’ Here is a renewal of the attempt made early in the session, to
confound the public lands with foreign imports, which was so
successfully exposed and refuted by the report of the committee on
manufactures. Will not the new states participate in any reduction of
the revenue, in common with the old states, without touching the
public lands? As far as they are consumers of objects of foreign
imports, will they not equally share the benefit with the old states?
What right, over and above that equal participation, have the new
states, to a reduction of the price of the public lands? As states,
what right, much less what ‘clear right’ have they, to any such

reduction? In their sovereign or corporate capacities, what right?
Have not all the stipulations between them, as states, and the
general government, been fully complied with? Have the people
within the new states, considered distinct from the states
themselves, any right to such a reduction? Whence is it derived?
They went there in pursuit of their own happiness. They bought
lands from the public because it was their interest to make the
purchase, and they enjoy them. Did they, because they purchased
some land, which they possess peacefully, acquire any, and what
right, in the land which they did not buy? But it may be argued, that
by settling and improving these lands, the adjacent public lands are
enhanced. True; and so are their own. The enhancement of the
public lands was not a consequence which they went there to
produce, but was a collateral effect, as to which they were passive.
The public does not seek to avail itself of this augmentation in value,
by augmenting the price. It leaves that where it was; and the
demand for reduction is made in behalf of those who say their labor
has increased the value of the public lands, and the claim to
reduction is founded upon the fact of enhanced value? The public,
like all other landholders, had a right to anticipate that the sale of a
part would communicate, incidentally, greater value upon the
residue. And, like all other land proprietors, it has the right to ask
more for that residue; but it does not, and, for one, I should be as
unwilling to disturb the existing price by augmentation as by
reduction. But the public lands is the article of revenue which the
people of the new states chiefly consume. In another part of this
report, liberal grants of the public lands are recommended, and the
idea of holding the public lands as a source of revenue is scouted;
because, it is said, more revenue could be collected from the settlers
as consumers, than from the lands. Here it seems that the public
lands are the articles of revenue chiefly consumed by the new
states.
With respect to lands yet to be sold, they are open to the
purchase alike of emigrants from the old states, and settlers in the
new. As the latter have most generally supplied themselves with

lands, the probability is, that the emigrants are more interested in
the question of reduction than the settlers. At all events, there can
be no peculiar right to such reduction existing in the new states. It is
a question common to all, and to be decided in reference to the
interest of the whole union.
Second. ‘Because the public debt being now paid, the public lands are entirely
released from the pledge they were under to that object, and are free to receive a
new and liberal destination, for the relief of the states in which they lie.’
The payment of the public debt is conceded to be near at hand;
and it is admitted that the public lands, being liberated, may now
receive a new and liberal destination. Such an appropriation of their
proceeds is proposed by the bill reported by the committee of
manufactures, and to which I shall hereafter more particularly call
the attention of the senate. But it did not seem just to that
committee, that this new and liberal destination of them should be
restricted ‘for the relief of the states in which they lie,’ exclusively,
but should extend to all the states indiscriminately, upon principles
of equitable distribution.
Third. ‘Because nearly one hundred millions of acres of the land now in market
are the refuse of sales and donations, through a long series of years, and are of
very little actual value, and only fit to be given to settlers, or abandoned to the
states in which they lie.’
According to an official statement, the total quantity of public
land which has been surveyed up to the thirty-first of December last,
was a little upwards of one hundred and sixty-two millions of acres.
Of this, a large proportion, perhaps even more than the one hundred
millions of acres stated in the land report, has been a long time in
market. The entire quantity which has ever been sold by the United
States, up to the same day, after deducting lands relinquished and
lands reverted to the United States, according to an official
statement, also, is twenty-five million two hundred forty-two
thousand five hundred and ninety acres. Thus after the lapse of
thirty-six years, during which the present land system has been in

operation, a little more than twenty-five millions of acres have been
sold, not averaging a million per annum, and upwards of one
hundred millions of the surveyed lands remain to be sold. The
argument of the report of the land committee assumes, that ‘nearly
one hundred millions are the refuse of sales, and donations,’ are of
very little actual value, and only fit to be given to settlers, or
abandoned to the states in which they lie.
Mr. President, let us define as we go—let us analyze. What do the
land committee mean by ‘refuse land?’ Do they mean worthless,
inferior, rejected land, which nobody will buy at the present
government price? Let us look at facts, and make them our guide.
The government is constantly pressed by the new states to bring
more and more lands into the market; to extinguish more Indian
titles; to survey more. The new states themselves are probably
urged to operate upon the general government by emigrants and
settlers, who see still before them, in their progress west, other new
lands which they desire. The general government yields to the
solicitations. It throws more land into the market, and it is annually
and daily preparing additional surveys of fresh lands. It has thrown
and is preparing to throw open to purchasers already one hundred
and sixty-two millions of acres. And now, because the capacity to
purchase, in its nature limited by the growth of our population, is
totally incompetent to absorb this immense quantity, the
government is called upon, by some of the very persons who urged
the exhibition of this vast amount to sale, to consider all that
remains unsold as refuse! Twenty-five millions in thirty-six years only
are sold, and all the rest is to be looked upon as refuse. Is this right?
If there had been five hundred millions in market, there probably
would not have been more or much more sold. But I deny the
correctness of the conclusion that it is worthless because not sold. It
is not sold, because there were not people to buy it. You must have
gone to other countries, to other worlds, to the moon, and drawn
from thence people to buy the prodigious quantity which you offered
to sell.

Refuse land! A purchaser goes to a district of country and buys
out of a township a section which strikes his fancy. He exhausts his
money. Others might have preferred other sections. Other sections
may even be better than his. He can with no more propriety be said
to have ‘refused’ or rejected all the other sections, than a man who,
attracted by the beauty, charms, and accomplishments of a
particular lady, marries her, can be said to have rejected or refused
all the rest of the sex.
Is it credible, that out of one hundred and fifty or one hundred
and sixty millions of acres of land in a valley celebrated for its
fertility, there are only about twenty-five millions of acres of good
land, and that all the rest is refuse? Take the state of Illinois as an
example. Of all the states in the union, that state probably contains
the greatest proportion of rich, fertile lands; more than Ohio, more
than Indiana, abounding as they both do in fine lands. Of the thirty-
three millions and a half of public lands in Illinois, a little more only
than two millions have been sold. Is the residue of thirty-one millions
all refuse land? Who that is acquainted in the west can assert or
believe it? No, sir; there is no such thing. The unsold lands are
unsold because of the reasons already assigned. Doubtless there is
much inferior land remaining, but a vast quantity of the best of lands
also. For its timber, soil, water-power, grazing, minerals, almost all
land possesses a certain value. If the lands unsold are refuse and
worthless in the hands of the general government, why are they
sought after with so much avidity? If in our hands they are good for
nothing, what more would they be worth in the hands of the new
states? ‘Only fit to be given to settlers!’ What settlers would thank
you? what settlers would not scorn a gift of refuse, worthless land?
If you mean to be generous, give them what is valuable; be manly in
your generosity.

But let us examine a little closer this idea of refuse land. If there
be any state in which it is to be found in large quantities, that state
would be Ohio. It is the oldest of the new states. There the public
lands have remained longer exposed in the market. But there we
find only five millions and a half to be sold. And I hold in my hand an
account of sales in the Zanesville district, one of the oldest in that
state, made during the present year. It is in a paper, entitled the
‘Ohio Republican,’ published at Zanesville, the twenty-sixth of May,
1832. The article is headed ‘refuse land,’ and it states: ‘it has suited
the interest of some to represent the lands of the United States
which have remained in market for many years, as mere ‘refuse’
which cannot be sold; and to urge a rapid reduction of price, and the
cession of the residue, in a short period, to the states in which they
are situated. It is strongly urged against this plan, that it is a
speculating project, which, by alienating a large quantity of land
from the United States, will cause a great increase of price to actual
settlers, in a few years; instead of their being able for ever, as it may
be said is the case under the present system of land sales, to obtain
a farm at a reasonable price. To show how far the lands unsold are
from being worthless, we copy from the Gazette the following
statement of recent sales in the Zanesville district, one of the oldest
districts in the west. The sales at the Zanesville land-office, since the
commencement of the present year, have been as follows; January,
seven thousand one hundred and twenty dollars and eighty cents;
February, eight thousand five hundred and forty-two dollars and
sixty-seven cents; March, eleven thousand seven hundred and forty-
four dollars and seventy-five cents; April, nine thousand two
hundred and nine dollars and nineteen cents; and since the first of
the present month about nine thousand dollars worth have been
sold, more than half of which was in forty acre lots.’ And there
cannot be a doubt that the act, passed at this session, authorizing
sales of forty acres, will, from the desire to make additions to farms,
and to settle young members of families, increase the sales very
much, at least during this year.

A friend of mine in this city bought in Illinois, last fall, about two
thousand acres of this refuse land, at the minimum price, for which
he has lately refused six dollars per acre. An officer of this body, now
in my eye, purchased a small tract of this same refuse land, of one
hundred and sixty acres, at second or third hand, entered a few
years ago, and which is now estimated at one thousand and nine
hundred dollars. It is a business, a very profitable business, at which
fortunes are made in the new states, to purchase these refuse lands,
and, without improving them, to sell them at large advances.
Far from being discouraged by the fact of so much surveyed
public land remaining unsold, we should rejoice that this bountiful
resource, possessed by our country, remains in almost undiminished
quantity, notwithstanding so many new and flourishing states have
sprung up in the wilderness, and so many thousands of families
have been accommodated. It might be otherwise, if the public land
was dealt out by government with a sparing, grudging, griping hand.
But they are liberally offered, in exhaustless quantities, and at
moderate prices, enriching individuals, and tending to the rapid
improvement of the country. The two important facts brought
forward and emphatically dwelt on by the committee of
manufactures, stand in their full force, unaffected by any thing
stated in the report of the land committee. These facts must carry
conviction to every unbiased mind, that will deliberately consider
them. The first is, the rapid increase of the new states, far
outstripping the old, averaging annually an increase of eight and a
half per centum, and doubling of course in twelve years. One of
these states, Illinois, full of refuse land, increasing at the rate of
eighteen and a half per centum! Would this astonishing growth take
place if the lands were too high, or all the good land sold? The other
fact is, the vast increase in the annual sales—in 1830, rising of three
millions. Since the report of the committee of manufactures, the
returns have come in of the sales of last year, which had been
estimated at three millions. They were, in fact, three million five
hundred and sixty-six thousand one hundred and twenty-seven

dollars and ninety-four cents! Their progressive increase baffles all
calculation. Would this happen, if the price were too high?
It is argued, that the value of different townships and sections is
various; and that it is, therefore, wrong to fix the same price for all.
The variety in the quality, situation, and advantages, of different
tracts, is no doubt great. After the adoption of any system of
classification, there would still remain very great diversity in the
tracts belonging to the same class. This is the law of nature. The
presumption of inferiority, and of refuse land, founded upon the
length of time that the land has been in market, is denied, for
reasons already stated. The offer, at public auction, of all lands to
the highest bidder, previous to their being sold at private sale,
provides in some degree for the variety in the value, since each
purchaser pushes the land up to the price which, according to his
opinion, it ought to command. But if the price demanded by
government is not too high for the good land, (and no one can
believe it,) why not wait until that is sold, before any reduction in the
price of the bad? And that will not be sold for many years to come.
It would be quite as wrong to bring the price of good land down to
the standard of the bad, as it is alleged to be, to carry the latter up
to that of the former. Until the good land is sold there will be no
purchasers of the bad; for, as has been stated in the report of the
committee of manufactures, a discreet farmer would rather give a
dollar and a quarter per acre for first-rate land, than accept refuse
and worthless land as a present.
‘Fourth. Because the speedy extinction of the federal title within their limits is
necessary to the independence of the new states, to their equality with the elder
states; to the development of their resources; to the subjection of their soil to
taxation, cultivation, and settlement, and to the proper enjoyment of their
jurisdiction and sovereignty.’
All this is mere assertion and declamation. The general
government, at a moderate price, is selling the public land as fast as
it can find purchasers. The new states are populating with
unexampled rapidity; their condition is now much more eligible than

that of some of the old states. Ohio, I am sorry to be obliged to
confess, is, in internal improvement and some other respects, fifty
years in advance of her elder sister and neighbor, Kentucky. How
have her growth and prosperity, her independence, her equality with
the elder states, the development of her resources, the taxation,
cultivation, and settlement of her soil, or the proper enjoyment of
her jurisdiction and sovereignty, been affected or impaired by the
federal title within her limits? The federal title! It has been a source
of blessings and of bounties, but not one of real grievance. As to the
exemption from taxation of the public lands, and the exemption for
five years of those sold to individuals, if the public land belonged to
the new states, would they tax it? And as to the latter exemption, it
is paid for by the general government, as may be seen by reference
to the compacts; and it is, moreover, beneficial to the new states
themselves, by holding out a motive to emigrants to purchase and
settle within their limits.
‘Sixth. Because the ramified machinery of the land-office department, and the
ownership of so much soil, extends the patronage and authority of the general
government into the heart and corners of the new states, and subjects their policy
to the danger of a foreign and powerful influence.’
A foreign and powerful influence! The federal government a
foreign government! And the exercise of a legitimate control over
the national property, for the benefit of the whole people of the
United States, a deprecated penetration into the heart and corners
of the new states! As to the calamity of the land offices, which are
held within them, I believe that is not regarded by the people of
these states with quite as much horror as it is by the land
committee. They justly consider that they ought to hold those offices
themselves, and that no persons ought to be sent from the other
foreign states of this union to fill them. And, if the number of the
offices were increased, it would not be looked upon by them as a
grievous addition to the calamity.
But what do the land committee mean by the authority of this
foreign, federal government? Surely, they do not desire to get rid of

the federal government. And yet the final settlement of the land
question will have effected but little in expelling its authority from
the bosoms of the new states. Its action will still remain in a
thousand forms, and the heart and corners of the new states will still
be invaded by post-offices and post-masters, and post-roads, and
the Cumberland road, and various other modifications of its power.
‘Because the sum of four hundred and twenty-five millions of dollars, proposed
to be drawn from the new states and territories, by the sale of their soil, at one
dollar and twenty-five cents per acre, is unconscionable and impracticable—such
as never can be paid—and the bare attempt to raise which, must drain, exhaust,
and impoverish these states, and give birth to the feelings, which a sense of
injustice and oppression never fail to excite, and the excitement of which should
be so carefully avoided in a confederacy of free states.’
In another part of this report the committee say, speaking of the
immense revenue alleged to be derivable from the public lands, ‘this
ideal revenue is estimated at four hundred and twenty-five millions
of dollars, for the lands now within the limits of the states and
territories, and at one billion three hundred and sixty-three million
five hundred and eighty-nine thousand six hundred and ninety-one
dollars for the whole federal domain. Such chimerical calculations
preclude the propriety of argumentative answers.’ Well, if these
calculations are all chimerical, there is no danger, from the
preservation of the existing land system, of draining, exhausting and
impoverishing the new states, and of exciting them to rebellion.
The manufacturing committee did not state what the public lands
would, in fact, produce. They could not state it. It is hardly a subject
of approximate estimate. The committee stated what would be the
proceeds, estimated by the minimum price of the public lands; what,
at one half of that price; and added, that, although there might be
much land that would never sell at one dollar and a quarter per acre,
‘as fresh lands are brought into market and exposed to sale at
auction, many of them sell at prices exceeding one dollar and a
quarter per acre.’ They concluded by remarking, that the least
favorable view of regarding them, was to consider them a capital

yielding an annuity of three millions of dollars at this time; that, in a
few years, that annuity would probably be doubled, and that the
capital might then be assumed as equal to one hundred millions of
dollars.
Whatever may be the sum drawn from the sales of the public
lands, it will be contributed, not by citizens of the states alone in
which they are situated, but by emigrants from all the states. And it
will be raised, not in a single year, but in a long series of years. It
would have been impossible for the state of Ohio to have paid, in
one year, the millions that have been raised in that state, by the sale
of public lands; but in a period of upwards of thirty years, the
payment has been made, not only without impoverishing, but with
the constantly increasing prosperity of the state.
Such, Mr. President, are the reasons of the land committee, for
the reduction of the price of the public lands. Some of them had
been anticipated and refuted in the report of the manufacturing
committee; and I hope that I have now shown the insolidity of the
residue.
I will not dwell upon the consideration urged in that report,
against any large reduction, founded upon its inevitable tendency to
lessen the value of the landed property throughout the union, and
that in the western states especially. That such would be the
necessary consequence, no man can doubt, who will seriously reflect
upon such a measure as that of throwing into market, immediately,
upwards of one hundred and thirty millions of acres, and at no
distant period upwards of two hundred millions more, at greatly
reduced rates.
If the honorable chairman of the land committee, (Mr. King,) had
relied upon his own sound practical sense, he would have presented
a report far less objectionable than that which he has made. He has
availed himself of another’s aid, and the hand of the senator from
Missouri, (Mr. Benton,) is as visible in the composition, as if his name

had been subscribed to the instrument. We hear again, in this paper,
of that which we have so often heard repeated before in debate, by
the senator from Missouri—the sentiments of Edmund Burke. And
what was the state of things in England, to which those sentiments
were applied?
England has too little land, and too many people. America has
too much land, for the present population of the country, and wants
people. The British crown had owned, for many generations, large
bodies of land, preserved for game and forest, from which but small
revenues were derived. It was proposed to sell out the crown lands,
that they might be peopled and cultivated, and that the royal family
should be placed on the civil list. Mr. Burke supported the proposition
by convincing arguments. But what analogy is there between the
crown lands of the British sovereign, and the public lands of the
United States? Are they here locked up from the people, and, for the
sake of their game or timber, excluded from sale? Are not they freely
exposed in market, to all who want them, at moderate prices? The
complaint is, that they are not sold fast enough, in other words, that
people are not multiplied rapidly enough to buy them. Patience,
gentlemen of the land committee, patience! The new states are daily
rising in power and importance. Some of them are already great and
flourishing members of the confederacy. And, if you will only
acquiesce in the certain and quiet operation of the laws of God and
man, the wilderness will quickly teem with people, and be filled with
the monuments of civilization.
The report of the land committee proceeds to notice and to
animadvert upon certain opinions of a late secretary of the treasury,
contained in his annual report, and endeavors to connect them with
some sentiments expressed in the report of the committee of
manufactures. That report has before been the subject of repeated
commentary in the senate, by the senator from Missouri, and of
much misrepresentation and vituperation in the public press.
Mr. Rush showed me the rough draft of that report, and I advised
him to expunge the paragraphs in question, because I foresaw that

they would be misrepresented, and that he would be exposed to
unjust accusation. But knowing the purity of his intentions, believing
in the soundness of the views which he presented, and confiding in
the candor of a just public, he resolved to retain the paragraphs.
I cannot suppose the senator from Missouri ignorant of what passed
between Mr. Rush and me, and of his having, against my
suggestions, retained the paragraphs in question, because these
facts were all stated by Mr. Rush himself, in a letter addressed to a
late member of the house of representatives, representing the
district in which I reside, which letter, more than a year ago, was
published in the western papers.
I shall say nothing in defence of myself, nothing to disprove the
charge of my cherishing unfriendly feelings and sentiments towards
any part of the west. If the public acts in which I have participated,
if the uniform tenor of my whole life, will not refute such an
imputation, nothing that I could here say would refute it.
But I will say something in defence of the opinions of my late
patriotic and enlightened colleague, not here to speak for himself;
and I will vindicate his official opinions from the erroneous glosses
and interpretations which have been put upon them.
Mr. Rush, in an official report which will long remain a monument
of his ability, was surveying, with a statesman’s eye, the condition of
America. He was arguing in favor of the protective policy—the
American system. He spoke of the limited vocations of our society,
and the expediency of multiplying the means of increasing
subsistence, comfort, and wealth. He noticed the great and the
constant tendency of our fellow-citizens to the cultivation of the soil,
the want of a market for their surplus produce, the inexpediency of
all blindly rushing to the same universal employment, and the policy
of dividing ourselves into various pursuits. He says:
‘The manner in which the remote lands of the United States are selling and
settling, whilst it possibly may tend to increase more quickly the aggregate
population of the country, and the mere means of subsistence, does not increase

capital in the same proportion. * * * * Anything that may serve to hold
back this tendency to diffusion from running too far and too long into an extreme,
can scarcely prove otherwise than salutary * * * * If the population of
these, (a majority of the states, including some western states,) not yet redundant
in fact, though appearing to be so, under this legislative incitement to emigrate,
remain fixed in more instances, as it probably would be by extending the motives
to manufacturing labor, it is believed that the nation would gain in two ways: first,
by the more rapid accumulation of capital, and next, by the gradual reduction of
the excess of its agricultural population over that engaged in other vocations. It is
not imagined that it ever would be practicable, even if it were desirable, to turn
this stream of emigration aside; but resources, opened through the influence of
the laws, in new fields of industry, to the inhabitants of the states already
sufficiently peopled to enter upon them, might operate to lessen, in some degree,
and usefully lessen, its absorbing force.’
Now, Mr. President, what is there in this view adverse to the
west, or unfavorable to its interests? Mr. Rush is arguing on the
tendency of the people to engage in agriculture, and the incitement
to emigration produced by our laws. Does he propose to change
those laws in that particular? Does he propose any new measure? So
far from suggesting any alteration of the conditions on which the
public lands are sold, he expressly says, that it is not desirable, if it
were practicable, to turn this stream of emigration aside. Leaving all
the laws in full force, and all the motives to emigration arising from
fertile and cheap lands, untouched, he recommends the
encouragement of a new branch of business, in which all the union,
the west as well as the rest, is interested; thus presenting an option
to population to engage in manufactures or in agriculture, at its own
discretion. And does such an option afford just ground of complaint
to any one? Is it not an advantage to all? Do the land committee
desire (I am sure they do not) to create starvation in one part of the
union, that emigrants may be forced into another? If they do not,
they ought not to condemn a multiplication of human employments,
by which, as its certain consequence, there will be an increase in the
means of subsistence and comfort. The objection to Mr. Rush, then,
is, that he looked at his whole country, and at all parts of it; and
that, whilst he desired the prosperity and growth of the west to

advance undisturbed, he wished to build up, on deep foundations,
the welfare of all the people.
Mr. Rush knew that there were thousands of the poorer classes
who never would emigrate; and that emigration, under the best
auspices, was far from being unattended with evil. There are moral,
physical, pecuniary obstacles to all emigration; and these will
increase, as the good vacant lands of the west are removed, by
intervening settlements further and further from society, as it is now
located. It is, I believe, Dr. Johnson who pronounces, that of all
vegetable and animal creation, man is the most difficult to be
uprooted and transferred to a distant country; and he was right.
Space itself, mountains, and seas, and rivers, are impediments. The
want of pecuniary means, the expenses of the outfit, subsistence
and transportation of a family, is no slight circumstance. When all
these difficulties are overcome, (and how few, comparatively, can
surmount them!) the greatest of all remains—that of being torn from
one’s natal spot—separated, for ever, from the roof under which the
companions of his childhood were sheltered, from the trees which
have shaded him from summer’s heats, the spring from whose
gushing fountain he has drunk in his youth, the tombs that hold the
precious relic of his venerated ancestors!
But I have said, that the land committee had attempted to
confound the sentiments of Mr. Rush with some of the reasoning
employed by the committee of manufactures against the proposed
reduction of the price of the public lands. What is that reasoning?
Here it is; it will speak for itself; and without a single comment will
demonstrate how different it is from that of the late secretary of the
treasury, unexceptionable as that has been shown to be.
‘The greatest emigration, (says the manufacturing committee,) that is believed
now to take place from any of the states, is from Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
The effects of a material reduction in the price of the public lands, would be, first,
to lessen the value of real estate in those three states; secondly, to diminish their
interest in the public domain, as a common fund for the benefit of all the states;
and, thirdly, to offer what would operate as a bounty to further emigration from

Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!
ebookultra.com

Communication Networks An Optimization Control and Stochastic Networks Perspective Srikant R.

More Related Content

Similar to Communication Networks An Optimization Control and Stochastic Networks Perspective Srikant R. (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Communication Networks An Optimization Control and Stochastic Networks Perspective Srikant R.