Cornell University Library 
 S 451.P41G 
 
 Land for the landless ispeech of Hon. G. 
 
 3 1924 001 135 221 
 
Cornell IHniversit^ 
 
 library 
 
 OF THE 
 
 IRew IPorh State Collcae of agriculture 
 
 < f 
 
 .Ui.Oj. ta.M'O. ^lL./.j ,<?.£... 
 
 J. __ ^ / 
 
 1633 
 
The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924001135221 
 
TRIBUNE TRACTS.-No. 5. 
 
 Land for the Landless. 
 
 SPEECH OF 
 
 HON. G. A. GROW, 
 
 OF PENNSYLVANIA, "^ 
 IN THE HOUSE OP KEPRBSENfATIVES, FEBRUARY 29 1860. 
 
 The House being in tlie Committee of the Whole 
 on the state of the Union, Mr. Gbow said : 
 
 Mr. Chaieman : At the close of the Revolu- 
 tion, the colonies claimed dominion, based 
 upon their respective colonial grants from the 
 Grown of Great Britain, over an unlimited 
 wilderness of 220,000,000 acres of land, extend- 
 ing to the Mississippi on the west, and the 
 Oanadas on the north. The disposition of 
 these lands became a subject of controversy 
 between the colonies even before the Con- 
 federation, and was an early obstacle to the 
 organization of any government for the pro- 
 tection of their common interests. 
 
 The colonies whose charter from the Crown 
 extended over none of the unoccupied lands 
 claimed, in the language of the instructions of 
 Maryland in 1779, to her delegates in Con- 
 gress : 
 
 " That a country unsettled at the commencement 
 of this war, claimed by the British Crown, and ceded 
 to it by the treaty of Paris, if wrested from the com- 
 mon enemy by the blood and treasury of the thirteen 
 States, should be considered as a common property, 
 subject to be parcelled out by Congress into free, 
 convenient, and independent governments, in sucli 
 manner, and at such times as the wisdom of that 
 Assembly shall hereafter direct." 
 
 The propriety and the justice of ceding 
 these lands to the Confederation, to be thus 
 parcelled out into free and independent States, 
 having become the topic of discussion every- 
 where in the colonies. Congress, in order to 
 allay the controversy and remove the only re- 
 maining obstacle to a final ratification of the 
 Articles of Confederation, declared by resolu- 
 tion, on the 10th October, 1780 : 
 
 "That the unappropriated lands which may be 
 ceded or relinquished to the United States by any 
 particular State" . . . . " shall be disposed of 
 for the common benefit of the United States ; and 
 be settled and formed into distinct republican States, 
 which shall become members of the Federal Union, 
 
 and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, 
 and independence as the other States, etc. Thai tin 
 said lands shall be granted or settled at such times and 
 under such regulations as shall hereafter be agreed on 
 by the United States in Congress assembled, or nine 
 or more of them." 
 
 In pursuance of the provisions of this resolu- 
 tion. New- York, Virginia, Massachusetts, Con- 
 necticut, South Carolina, North Carolina, and 
 Georgia, ceded their claims, including title 
 and jurisdiction, to the waste lands, as they 
 were called, outside of their respective State 
 limits ; aU of them, except Georgia and North 
 Carolina, without any conditions annexed to 
 their respective' grants, save those contained 
 in the resolution of Congress just referred to. 
 The reservation in the grants of Georgia and 
 Nor'\. Carolina were not, however, as to the 
 futui-e disposition of the lands, but a condition 
 that Slavery should not be prohibited therein 
 by Congress. The territory thus conditionally 
 granted is contained within the States of Ten- 
 nessee, Mississippi and Alabama. "With the 
 exception of the grants of North Carolina and 
 Georgia (and the reservations even in those 
 relating only to the form of their future 
 government), the public lands claimed by the 
 colonies at the close of the Revolution, were 
 ceded to the General Government to be settled 
 and disposed of " under such regulations as 
 " shall hereafter ie agreed on hy the IJnited 
 " States in Congress assembled." 
 
 Since that time, the Government has acquir- 
 ed, by treaty, of Trance, the Louisiana pur- 
 chase ; of Spain, the Floridas ; of Mexico, 
 Utah, New Mexico, and California ; contain- 
 ing, altogether, over twelve hundred million 
 acres of land. So the General Government, 
 by cessions from the original States and pur- 
 chases from other nations, has acquired, ex- 
 clusive of water, as computed by the Com- 
 missioner of the Land Office, fourteen hundred 
 
 1^" Fob Sai-e at the Office of the New York Tribune. Peioe, pee Shjole Copt, 4o. 
 Dozen Copies, 25o. ^ per Hundred, $1 25: pee Thousaxd, $10. 
 
and fifty millio?! acres of public lands ; of which 
 there have been sol J,' to/g^ptember 30, 1859, 
 one hundred /apd. fprty-seven million eighty- 
 eight thousand tW-6 Hiind^ejjj and seventy-four 
 acres ; and othei'wiae (lisposed of in grants and 
 donations to individuals, corporations, com- 
 paaies, and States, as per annexed table, in- 
 cluding grants since 30th June, 185T, two 
 hundred and forty-one million seven hundred 
 and seventy thousand and fifty-two acres — 
 leaving of public lands belonging to the Gov- 
 ernment undisposed of on the 30th September, 
 1859, one thousand and sixty-one million one 
 hundred and forty-one thousand six hundred 
 and seventy-five acres. 
 
 What disposition shall be made of this vasU 
 inheritance is a question of no small mag- 
 nitude. Three times, within seven years, a 
 Homestead Bill has passed this House, and 
 been defeated each time by the Democratic 
 majority in the Senate. On the vote on the 
 Homestead BiU in the House last Congress, 
 out of 130 Democrats, but 31 voted for it ; 
 and in the Senate, on the test vote between 
 taking up the Homestead Bill, after it had 
 passed the House, and only required the vote 
 of the Senate to make it a law, so far as Con- 
 gress was concerned, or to make up the bill 
 for the purchase of Cuba, but one Democrat 
 voted for the Homestead, and only six at any 
 time, while every Republican in the Senate, 
 and every one in the House, with a single 
 exception, was for the Homestead. Of all the 
 representatives of the Slave States, but three 
 in the House voted for it, and but two at any 
 time in the Senate. So the Democratic party, 
 as a party, arrayed itself in opposition to this 
 beneficent policy. The Republican party, on 
 the other hand, is committed to this measure 
 by the votes in Congress, by its resolves in 
 State Conventions, and by its devotion to the 
 great central idea of its existence — the rights 
 and interests of Free Labor. 
 
 Early in this session, I introduced a bill, 
 which now awaits the action of the House, 
 providing that any person who is 21 years or 
 more old, or who is the head of a family, may 
 enter 160 acres of any land subject to preemp- 
 tion, or upon which he may have a preemp- 
 tion claim, and, by cultivating the same for 
 five years, shall be entitled to a patent from 
 the Government, on the payment of the usual 
 fees of the land office, and ten dollars to cover 
 the cost of surveying and managing. 
 
 The land policy, as now conducted, permits 
 the President, in his discretion, to expose to 
 public sale, by proclamation, any or aU of the 
 public lands, after the same are surveyed. 
 Every person settled on the lands so adver- 
 tised for sale, must, before the day fixed in 
 the proclamation of the President, pay for his 
 lands, or they are liable to be sold to any 
 bidder who offers $1 25, or more, per acre. 
 During the days of sale fixed by the Presi- 
 
 dent, any one can purchase, at $1 25 per 
 acre, as many acres of land, not before pre- 
 empted, as he desires, selecting his own loca- 
 tion, irhe lands that remain unsold at the 
 expiration of the days of sale 'fixed by the 
 President, are subject to private entry ; that 
 is, any person can enter at the land office any 
 or all of the lands, that are at that time un- 
 sold, at $1 25 per acre, if the same have not 
 been offered for sale for more than ten years; 
 if for a longer period, then at a less price, 
 according to the length of time they may have 
 been in the market. Thus, under the existing 
 policy, there is no restraint on land monopoly. 
 The Rothschilds, Barings, or any of the 
 world's millionaires, may become the owners 
 of untold acres of our public domain, to be 
 resold to the settler, or to be held as an invest- 
 ment for future speculation. 
 
 Congress, as the trustee of the whole peo- 
 ple, is vested, by the condition of the grants 
 from the States and by the Constitution 
 itself, with the sole discretionary power of 
 disposing of these lands. But, in the exercise 
 of a sound discretion, it becomes its duty to 
 dispose of them in the way that will best 
 promote the greatness and glory of the Re- 
 public. And how can that be aceomplished 
 so well as by a policy that willssecure them 
 in limited quantities to the actual cultivator, 
 at the least possible cost, and thus prevent the 
 evils of a system of land monopoly — one of the 
 direst, deadliest curses that ever paralyzed 
 the energies of a nation or palsied the arm of 
 industry ? It needs no lengthy dissertation 
 to portray its evils. Its history in the Old 
 World is written in sighs and tears. Under 
 its influence, you behold there the proudest 
 and most splendid aristocracies side by side 
 with the most abject and debased people; 
 vast manors hemmed in by hedges of a sport- 
 ing-ground for the nobility, while men are 
 dying beside the inclosure for the want of 
 land to till. Under its blighting infiuence, 
 you behold industry in rags, and patience in 
 despair. Such are some of the fruits of ■ land 
 ihonopoly in the Old World ; and shall we 
 permit its seeds to vegetate in the virgin soil 
 of the New ? Our present systeip is subject 
 to like evils, not so great in magnitude per- 
 haps, but similar in kind. 
 
 Of the 888,858,325 acres of land disposed 
 of by the Government to September 30, 1859, 
 147,088,273 acres were sold for cash, and 
 241,777,052 acres were donated in grants to 
 individuals, corporations, and States. 
 
 The Gov?rnment had received from the 
 sales of the public lands, as appears from the 
 report of the Coumiseioner of the Land 
 Office, to June 30, 1853, $142,283,478, to 
 which add $38,336,160 90, received since 
 that time, would make the gross amount from 
 the lands to September 30, 1859, $180,619,088 
 90 ; while the entire cost, including purchase 
 
3 
 
 ■money, extingQiahiag of Indian title, survey- 
 ing, and managing, has been, for the same 
 period, $91,994,013; leading a net revenue to 
 the Government, over and above all coat, of 
 $88,625,625 90; with 136,970,941 acres sur- 
 veyed but unsold, of which 80,000,000 acres 
 are subject to private entry. 
 
 Of the 147,088,273 acres sold by the Gov- 
 ernment, not more than one-half of it, proba 
 bly, was bought at Government rates by the 
 actual cultivator. The other half, I assume, 
 • cost the cultivator, on an average, at least $4 
 per acre over the Government price. So he 
 would pay, on 73,644,136 acres, being one- 
 half the quantity sold by the Government, 
 $294,176,044. On the 241,770,062 acres do- 
 nated to individuals, companies, and States, 
 including over' 70,000,000 acres for school pur- 
 poses, and over 50,000,000 acres for railroads 
 and internal improvements, I assuilie that the 
 cultivator must pay on an average for these 
 lands at least $5 per acre, making the sum of 
 :$1,208,850,260. The actual cultivator, then, 
 will have to pay to the Government and 
 to the speculator for these lands, if the fore- 
 going estimate of prices be correct, at least 
 $1,683,646,442 90, of which $88,625,625 90 
 ias been paid, in net revenue, into the Trea- 
 *inry of the United States — the balance to be 
 dibsorbed by the speculator. 
 
 The Government, by its existing land poliey, 
 ihas thus caused to be abstracted from the 
 •.earnings of its hardy pioneers almost $1,700,- 
 000,000, for the mere privilege of enjoying 
 ■one of God's bounties to man. This large 
 .amount has Jjeen abstracted from the sons of 
 toil without rendering any equivalent save a 
 permit from the State to occupy a wilderness, 
 to which not a day or hour of man's labor had 
 been applied to change it from the condition 
 in which the God of Nature made it. Why 
 should Governments seize upon any of the 
 bounties of God to man, and make them a 
 source of revenue?. While the earth was 
 created for the whole human family, and was 
 made its abiding-place through the pilgrimage 
 of this life, and since the hour of the primal 
 curse, " In the sweat of thy face shalt thou 
 eat bread," man has been forced to the culti- 
 vation of the soil to obtain subsistence for 
 timself, and the means of promoting the wel- 
 fare of the race, why should governments 
 wrest from him the right to apply his labor 
 to such unocpupied portion of the earth's sur- 
 face as may be necessary for his support until 
 he has contributed to the revenues of the 
 State, any more than to permit him to breathe 
 file air, enjoy the sunlight, or quaff from the 
 rills and rivers of the earth? It would be 
 just as rightful, were it possible to be done, to 
 survey the atmosphere off into quarter sections, 
 and transfer it by parchment titles ; divide 
 the sun into'quantum of rays, aad dole it out 
 to groping mortals at a price ; or arch over 
 
 the waters of the earth into vast reservoirs, 
 and sell it to dying men. In the language of 
 remarks heretofore made on this subject, why 
 has this claim of man to monopolize any of 
 the gifts of God to man been confined, by legal 
 codes, to the soil alone? \s there any other 
 reason than that which, having its origin in 
 feudal times — under a system that regarded 
 man as an appendage of the soil that he tilled, 
 and whose life, liberty, and happiness were 
 but means of increasing the pleasures, pam- 
 pering the passions and appetites of his liege 
 lord — and, having once found a place in the 
 books, it has been retained by the reverence 
 which man is wont to pay to the past and to 
 time-honored precedents ? The human mind 
 is so constituted that it is prone to regard as 
 right what has come down to ns approved by 
 long usage, and hallowed by grey age. It is a 
 claim that had its origin with the kindred idea 
 that royal blood flows only in the veins of an 
 exclusive few, whose souls are more ethereal, 
 because born amid the glitter of courts, and 
 cradled amid the pomp of lords aad courtiers ; 
 and therefore, they are to be installed as rulers 
 and lawgivers of the race. Most of the evils 
 that afflict society Aave had their origin in 
 violence and wrong enacted into law by the 
 ignorance of the past, and retained by the pre- 
 judices of the present. 
 
 Is it not time yon swept from the statute- 
 book its stUl-lingering relics of feudalism ? 
 blotted out the principles .ingrafted upon it 
 by the narrow-minded policy of other times, 
 and adapted the legislation of the country to 
 the spirit of the age, and to the true ideas of 
 man's rights and relations to his Government ? 
 
 For if a man has a right on earth, he has a 
 right to land enough to rear a habitation on. 
 If he has a right to live, he has a right to the 
 free use of whatever nature has provided for 
 his sustenance-j-air to breathe, water to drink, 
 and land enough to cultivate for his subsist- 
 ence; for these are the necessary and indis- 
 pensable means for the enjoyment of his 
 inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the 
 pursuit of happiness." And is it for a Govern- 
 ment that claims to dispense equal and exact jus- 
 tice to all classes of men, and tiiat has laid down 
 correct principles in its great chart of human 
 rights, to violate those principles, and its solemn 
 declarations in its legislative enactments ? 
 
 The struggle between capital , and labor is 
 an unequal one at best. It is a struggle be- 
 tween the bones and sinews of men and dollars 
 and cents. And in that struggle, is it for the 
 Government to stretch f^rth its arm to aid 
 the strong against the weak? Shall it con- 
 tinue, by its legislation, to elevate and enrich 
 idleness on the wp,il and the woe of industry ? 
 
 For if the rule be correct as applied to 
 Governments as well as individuals, that what- 
 ever a person permits another to do, having 
 the right and means to prevent it, he does 
 
himself then indeed is the Government re- 
 sponsihle for all the evils that may result from 
 speculation and land monopoly in your public 
 domain. For it is not denied that Congress 
 has the power to make any regulations for the 
 disposal of thes^ lands not injurious to the 
 general welfare. Now, when a new tract is 
 surveyed, and you open your land-office and 
 expose it to sale, the man with the most 
 money is the largest purchaser. The most 
 desirable and available locations are seized 
 upon by the capitalists of the country, who 
 seek that kind of investment. Tour settler 
 who chances not to have a preemption right, 
 nor to be there at the time of sale, when he 
 comes to seek a home for himself and his 
 family, must pay the speculator three or four 
 hundred per cent, on his investment, or en- 
 counter the trials and hardships of a still more 
 remote border life. And thus, under the 
 operation of laws that you call equal and just, 
 you take from the settler three or four dollars 
 per acre, and put it in the pockeu of the spe- 
 culator — thus, by the operation of your law, 
 abstracting so much of his hard earnings for 
 the benefit of capital ; for not an hour's labor 
 has been applied to the land since it was sold 
 by the Government, nor is it more valuable 
 to the settler. Has not the laborer a right to 
 complain of legislation that compels him to 
 endure greater toils and hardships, or con- 
 tribute a portion of his earnings for the bene- 
 fit of the capitalist? But not upon the 
 capitalist or the speculator is it proper that 
 the blame should fall. Man must seek a live- 
 lihood, and do business under the laws of the 
 country ; and whatever rights he may acquire 
 under the laws, though they may be wrong, 
 yet the well-being of society requires that 
 they be respected and faithfully observed. If 
 a person engage in a business legalized and 
 regulated by the laws, and uses no fraud or 
 deception in its pursuit, and evils result to the 
 community, let them apply the remedy to the 
 proper source; that is, to the law-making 
 power. The laws and the law-ihakers are 
 responsible for whatever evils necessarily grow 
 out of their enactments. 
 
 In order to secure to labor its earnings, so 
 far as is possible, by legislative action, and to 
 strengthen the elements of national greatness 
 and power, why should not the legislation of 
 the country be so changed as to prevent for 
 the future the evils of land monopoly, by set- 
 ting apart the vast and unoccupied territories 
 of the Union, and consecrating them forever 
 as free homes for free men ? 
 
 Mr. Maynaed — May I be allowed to ask my 
 friend from Pennsylvania a question? 
 
 Mr. Gkow — Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Matnaed — It is this ; whether he is in 
 favor, or otherwise, of allowing the old sol- 
 dier or his assignee to locate his land warrant 
 on the public domain 
 
 Mr. Geow — I always answer questions chat; 
 are pertinent to the point under discussion,, 
 not otherwise. I arf not' arguing any ques- 
 tion about land- warrants, but about the pro- 
 per disposition to be made of the public lands.. 
 I do not see the applicability of the gentle- 
 man's question, and must therefore pass it by, 
 as I do not wish to be diverted from my 
 argument. 
 
 Mr. Matnaed — The gentleman is mistaken 
 about the object of my question. 
 
 Mr. Gkow — I would provide in our land 
 policy for securing homesteads for actual set- 
 tlers ; and whatever bounties the Government 
 should grant to the old soldiers, I would have 
 made in money and not in land warrants, 
 which are bought in most cases by the speon- 
 latorj as an easier and cheaper mode of ac- 
 quiring the public lands. So they only facili- 
 tate land monopoly. The men who go forth 
 at the call of their country to uphold its 
 standard and vindicate its honor, are deserv- 
 ing, it is true, of a more substantial reward 
 than tears to the dead and thanks to the 
 living ; but there are soldiers of peace as well 
 as of war, and though no waving plume 
 beckons them on to glory or to death, their 
 dying scene is oft a crimson one. They fall 
 leading the van of civilization along untfoddet 
 paths, and are buried in the dust of its ad- 
 vaHoing columns. No monument marks the 
 scene of deadly strife ; no stone their resting- 
 place ; the winds sighing through the branches 
 of the forest alone sigh their requiem. Yet 
 they are the meritorious men of the Republic. 
 The achievements of your pioneer, army, from 
 the day they first drove back the Indian tribes^ 
 from the Atlantic seaboard to the present 
 hour, have been the achievements of science 
 and civilization over the elemtntK, the wilder- 
 ness, and the savage. 
 
 If rewards or bounties are to be granted for 
 true heroism in the progress of the race, none 
 is more deserving than the pioneer who expels 
 the savage and the wild beast, and opens in 
 the wilderness a home for science and path- 
 way for civilization. 
 
 " Peace hath her viotorieB 
 No less renowned than war." 
 
 The paths of glory no longer lead over 
 smoking towns and crimsoned fields, but 
 along the lanes and by-ways of human misery 
 and woe, where the bones and sinews of men 
 are struggling with the elements, with the un- 
 relenting obstacles of nature, and the no less 
 unmerciful obstacles of a false civilization. 
 The noblest achievement in this' world's pil- 
 grimage is to raise the fallen from their de- 
 gradation; soothe the broken-hearted, dry 
 the tears of woe, and alleviate the sufferings 
 of the unfortunate in their pathway to tha 
 tomb. 
 
 " Go say nnto the raging sea, be still ; 
 Bid the wild, lawless winds obey thy will ; 
 
freach to the storm and reason with despair ; 
 Bat tell not misery's son that life is fair." 
 
 If you would lead the erring back from the 
 paths of vice and crime to virtue and honor, 
 give him a home — give him a hearthstone, 
 and he will surround it with household gods. 
 If you would make men wiser and better, re- 
 lieve your almshouses, close the doors of your 
 , penitentiaries, and break in pieces your gal- 
 lows, purify the inflijences of the domestic 
 fireside, for that is the school in which human 
 character is formed, and there its destiny is 
 shaped ; there the soul receives its first im- 
 press, and man his first lesson, and they go 
 with him for weal or for woe through life. 
 For purifying the sentiments, elevating the 
 thoughts, and developing the noblest impulses 
 of man's nature, the influences of a rural fire- 
 side and an agricultural life are the noblest 
 and the best. In the obscurity of the cottage, 
 far removed from the seductive influences of 
 rank and affluence, are nourished the virtues 
 that counteract the decay of human institu- 
 tions, the courage that defends the national 
 independence, and the industry that supports 
 all classes of the State. 
 
 It was said by Lord Chatham, in his appeal 
 to the House of Commons, in 1775, to with- 
 draw the British troops from Boston, that 
 " trade, indeed. Increases the glory and wealth 
 of a country ; but its true strength and sta- 
 mina are to be looked for in the otdtivators of 
 the land. In the simplicity of their lives is 
 found the simpleness of virtue, the integrity 
 and courage of freedom. These true, genuine 
 sons of the soil are invincible." 
 
 The history of American prowess has re- 
 corded these words as propTietic. Man, in de- 
 fence of his hearthstone and fireside, is invin- 
 cible against a world of mercenaries. 
 
 Let us adopt the policy cherished by 
 Jackson, and indicated in his annual message 
 to Congress in 1832, in which he says: 
 
 " It cannot be doubted that the speedy settlement 
 of these lands constitutes the true interest of the Be- 
 pablic; The wealth and the strength of a country 
 are its papulation, and the best part of the population 
 are the cultivators of the soil. Independent farmers 
 are everywhere the basis of society, and true friends 
 of liberty." . . . " To put an end forever to all 
 partial and interested legislation on this subject, and 
 to afford to every American citizen of enterprise the 
 opportunity of securing an independent freehold, it 
 seems to me, therefore, best to abandon the idea of 
 raising future revenue out of the public lands." 
 :, This advice, by- one of the country's noblest 
 patriots, though unheeded at the time, is 
 among the richest legacies he has bequeathed 
 to his country. 
 
 Why should the Grovernment hold the pub- 
 lic domain longer as a source of revenue, 
 when it has already more than paid all costs 
 and expenses incurred in its acquisition and 
 management? Even if the Government had 
 a right, based in the nature of things, thus to 
 bold these lauds, It would be ' adverse to a 
 
 sound national policy to do so ; for the real 
 wealth of a country consists not' in the sums 
 of money paid into the treasury, but in its 
 flocks, herds, and cultivated fields. Nor does 
 its real strength consist in fleets and armies, 
 but in the bones and sinews of an independent 
 yeomanry and the comfort of its laboring 
 classes. Its real glory consists not in the 
 splendid palace, lofty spire, or towering dome ; 
 but in the intelligence, comfort, and happi- 
 ness of the fireside of its citizens. 
 
 " What constitutes a State ? 
 Not high-raised battlement or labored mound, 
 
 Thick wall or moated gate ; 
 Not cities proud, with spires and turrets crowned ; 
 
 Not bays and broad-armed ports. 
 Where, laughing at the storm, rich navies ride ; 
 
 Not starred and spangled courts, 
 Where low-browed baseness wafts perfumes to pride. 
 
 No : men, high-minded men. 
 
 ****** 
 
 Men, who their duties know, 
 But know their rights, and knowing, dare maintain ; 
 
 Prevent the long-aimed blow. 
 And crush the tyrant while they rend the chain : 
 
 These constitute a State." 
 
 The prosperity of States depends not on the 
 mass of wealth, but its distribution. That 
 country is greatest and most glorious in which 
 there is the greatest number of happy fire- 
 sides. And if you would make the fireside 
 happy, raise the fallen from their degradation, 
 elevate the servile from their grovelling pur- 
 suits to the rights and dignity of men, you 
 must first place within their reach the means 
 for supplying their pressing physical wants, so 
 that religion can exert its infiuence on tho 
 soul, and soothe the weary pilgrim in hij 
 pathway to the tomb. 
 
 What justice can there be in the legislation 
 of a country by which the earnings of its 
 labor are abstracted for any purpose without 
 returning an equivalent? But as a question 
 of revenue merely, it would be to the advan- 
 tage of the Government to grant these lands 
 in homesteads to actual cultivators, if thereby 
 it was to induce the settlement of the wilder- 
 ness, instead of selling them to the speculator 
 without settlement. The revenue to the Go- 
 vernment from the lands, if considered an- 
 nual, is the interest on the purchase money ; 
 which would be on a quarter section, at one 
 dollar and twenty-five cents per acre, the in- 
 terest on twe hundred dollars, equal at six 
 per cent., to twelve dollars per year. 
 
 But as the revenue of the General Govern- 
 ment (with the exception of the sales of the 
 lands) is derived almost wholly from duties on 
 imported articles consumed in the country, 
 the amount collected depends upon the quan- 
 tity consumed. On an average each indi- 
 vidual consumes of imported articles about 
 $11 worth per year (see statement of the Re- 
 gister of the Treasury appended) ; and, calling 
 seven the average number of a family, then 
 each family consumed annually $75 worth of 
 
6 
 
 imported articles, upon whicli a duty of net 
 less than $2o was paid. 
 
 So the Government would be the gainer of 
 $8 per year on each quarter section, by giving 
 it away to a settler in preference to selling jt 
 without settlement. In addition, as you chea- 
 pen the necessaries and comforts of life, or in- 
 crease men's means to pay for them, you in- 
 crease their consumption; and in the same 
 proportion as you increase the means to pay 
 for imports, you increase the consumption of 
 home products and manufactures; so that the 
 settlement of the wilderness by a thriving po- 
 pulation is as much the interest of the old States 
 as of the new. The amount now received by 
 the Government of the settler for the land, 
 would enable him to fm-nish himself with the 
 necessary stock and implements to commence 
 its cultivation. 
 
 For the purpose of education, building rail- 
 roads, opening all the avenues of trade; and of 
 subduing the wilderness, the best disposition 
 to be made of these lands is to grant them in 
 limited quantities to the settler, and thus 
 secure him in his earnings, by which he would 
 have the means to surround himself with com- 
 fort and make his fireside happy; to erect the 
 school-house, the chnrcli, and all the other 
 ornaments of a higher civilization, and rear 
 his children educated and respected members 
 of society. This policy will not only add to 
 the revenues of the Genei-al Government and 
 the taxable property of the new States, but 
 will increase the productive industry and com- 
 merce of the whole country, while strength- 
 ening all the elements of national greatness. 
 
 The first step in the decline of empires is 
 the neglect of their agricultural interest, and 
 with its decay crumbles national power. It is 
 the great fact stamped oh all the ruins that 
 strew the pathway of civilization. When the 
 world's unwritten history shall be correctly 
 deciphered, the record of the rise, progress, 
 and fall of empires, will be but the history of 
 the rise, development and decline of agricul- 
 ture. Eooke, in describing the condition of 
 agriculture among the Romans more than two 
 thousand years ago, the process of absorption 
 of the lands by the rich, and their consequent 
 cultivation by slaves, furnishes the student of 
 history with the secret causes that undermined 
 the empire and destroyed its liberties. I read 
 from hook six, chapter seven, of his history of 
 Rome, volume two, page 522 : 
 
 " From the earliest times of Borne, it tad been the 
 custom of the Romans, when they Bubdued any of the 
 nations in Italy, to deprive them of a part of their 
 territory. A portion of these lands was sold, and 
 .he rest given to the poorer citizens, on condition, 
 says Appian, of their paying annually a tenth of the 
 x;om and a fifth of the fruits of trees, beside a certain 
 number of great and small cattle. In process of 
 time, the rich, by various means, got possession of 
 lie lands destined for the subsistence of the poor." 
 . . . . " The rich and the mighty contrived to 
 possess themselves of the lands of their poor neigh- 
 
 bors. At first they held these acq uisitions under bor- ' 
 rowed names ; afterward openly in their own. To* 
 cultivate the farms, they employed foreign slaves ; 
 so that Italy was in danger of losing its inhabitants- 
 of free condition (who had no encouragement to 
 marry, and no means to educate children), and of be-, 
 ing overrun with slaves and barbarians that had 
 neither affection for the republic nor interest in her 
 preservation. 
 
 " Tiberius Gracchus, now a fcibune of the people, 
 undertook to remedy these disorders.'* 
 
 " Never, says Plutarch, was proposed ajaw more 
 mild and gentle against iniquity and oppression ; yet 
 the rich made a mighty clamor about the hardship of 
 being stripped of their houses, their lands, their in- 
 heritances, the burial-places of their ancestors." 
 . . . . " The poor, on their hand, complained of 
 the extreme indigence to which they were reduced, 
 and of their inability to bring up children. They 
 enumerated the many battles where they had fought 
 in defence of the Republic, notwithstanding which 
 'they were allowed no share of the public lands; 
 nay, the usurpers, to cultivate them, chose rather 
 to employ foreigners and slaves than citizens of 
 Rome.' Gracchns's view was not to make poor men 
 rich, but to strengthen the Republic by an increase 
 of useful members, upon which he thought the safety 
 and welfare of Italy depended. The insurrection and 
 war of the slaves in Sicily, who were not yet quelled,. 
 furnished him with sufBcient argument for expatiating 
 on the danger of filling Italy with slaves." 
 
 " He asked the rich whether they preferred a slave 
 to a citizen ; a man unqualified to serve in war to a 
 soldier ; an alien to a member of the Republic ; and- 
 which th^ thought would be more zealous for its in- 
 terest? Then, as to the misery of the pooy 'The 
 wild beasts of Italy have caves and dens to shelter 
 them ; but the people, who exposed their lives for 
 the defence of Italy, are allowed nothing but the 
 light and the air ; they wander up and down with 
 their wives and children, without house and without 
 habitation. Our generals mock the soldiers when 
 in battle, they exhoft them to fight for their sepul- 
 chres and their household gods ; for, among all that 
 great number of Romans, there is not one who has 
 either a domestic aljar or a sepulchre of his ances- 
 tors. They fight and die, solely to maintain the- 
 riches ar. J luxury of others ; and are styled the lords 
 of the universe, while they have not a single foot of 
 ground in their possession.' " 
 
 Smith, in the second volume, page 291, of 
 his Greek and Roman Biographical Dictionary, 
 speaking of Tiberius Gracchus, and the rea- 
 sons for his proposed legislation, says : 
 
 " His brother Caius related, in some of his works,, 
 that Tiberius, on his march to Spain, in (B. C.) 137, 
 as he was passing through Ktruria, observed with 
 grief and indignation the deserted state of that fertile 
 country ; thousands of foreign slaves in chains were 
 employed in cultivating the land and tending the 
 flocks upon the immense estates 6f the wealthy, 
 while the poorer classes of Roman citizens, who 
 were thus thrown out of employment, had scarcely 
 their daily bread, or a clod of earth to call their own. 
 He is said to have been roused through that circum- 
 stance to exert himself in endeavoring to remedy 
 this evil." 
 
 Had the policy advocated by Gracchus, of 
 distributing the public lands among the land- 
 less citizens of the nation been adopted, the 
 Roman fields would have been cultivated by 
 free men instead of slaves, ,and there would 
 have been a race of men to stay the ravages 
 of the barbarian. The eternal city would not 
 then have fallen an easy prey to the Goth and 
 
Vandal; but the star of her empire might 
 have waved in triumph long after the ivy 
 twined her broken columns. 
 
 With homes and firesides to defend, the 
 arms and hearts of an independent yeomanry 
 are a surer and more impregnable defence 
 than battlement, wall, or tower. While the 
 population of a country are the proprietors of 
 the land which they till they have an interest 
 to surround their firesides with comfort and 
 make their homes happy— the great incentive 
 to industry, frugality and sobriety. It is such 
 habits alone that give security to a govern- 
 ment, and form the real elements of national 
 greatness and power. 
 
 National disasters are not the growth of a 
 day, but the fruit ef long years of injustice 
 and wrong. The seeds planted by false, perni- 
 cious legislation, often require ages to germ- 
 inate and ripen into their harvest of ruin and 
 death. The most pernicious of all the baleful 
 seeds of national existence is a policy that 
 degrades its labor. Whenever agricultural 
 labor becomes dishonorable, it will, of course, 
 be confined to those who have no interest in 
 the soil they till ; and when the laborer ceases 
 to have any interest in the land he cultivates, 
 he ceases to have a stake in the advancement 
 and good order of society, for he has nothing 
 to lose, nothing to defend, nothing to hope 
 for. The associations of an independent free- 
 hold are eminently calculated to ennoble and 
 elevate the possessor. It is the life-spring of 
 a manly national character, and of a generous 
 patriotism — a patriotism that rushes to the 
 defence of the country and the vindication of 
 its honor, with the same zeal and alacrity that 
 it guards the hearthstone and the fireside. 
 Wherever Freedom has unfurled her banner, 
 the men who have rallied around to sustain 
 and uphold it have come from the workshop 
 and the field, where, inured to heat and to 
 cold, and to all the inclemencies of the sea- 
 sons, they have acquired the hardihood ne- 
 cessary to endure the trials and privations of 
 the camp. An independent yeomanry, scat- 
 tered over our vast domain, is the best and 
 surest guaranty for the perpetuity of our lib- 
 erties ; for their arms are the citadel of a 
 nation's power, their hearts the bulwarks of 
 liberty. Let the public domain, then, be set 
 apart as the patrimony of labor, by preventing 
 its absorption into large estates by capital, 
 and its eonsequent cultivation by "tenants 
 and slaves, "instead of independent freeholders. 
 
 The proposition to change our land policy, 
 so as to -accomplish so desirable a result, by 
 securing to the pioneer a home on the public 
 domain at the bare cost of survey and trans- 
 fer, is often rejected, by those who have given 
 but little thought to the subject, as levelling 
 and agrarian. When was there ever an effort 
 made since the world began, to wrest from 
 
 power its ill-gotten gains, or to restore to man 
 his inalienable rights, but it has been met 
 with the shout of levelling and agrarian ? That 
 is the alarm cry of the devotee of the past, 
 with which he ever strives to prevent all re- 
 forms or innovations upon established usages. 
 Behind such a bulwark old abuses intrench 
 themselves and attempt to maintain their posi- 
 tion by hurling against every assailant terms 
 of odium and reproach, made so by the color- 
 ing of the adherents of prerogative and power^ 
 Until within a very recent period, the chron- 
 iclers of the race have been, for the most part,- 
 sycophants of power ; and, being the allies of 
 the State, have glossed over its contempora- 
 neous despotism and wrongs, while they have ■ 
 written down the true defenders of the rights 
 of the people and the champions of honor- 
 able labor as the outlaws of history. 
 
 Because the Eoman Gracchi proposed to 
 elevate the Eoman citizen by dignifying his 
 labor and restoring him to the rights of which 
 he had been unjustly deprived by the oligarchy 
 who controlled the State, their name was made 
 synonymous with infamy — as arch disturbers 
 of all that was good in society, till Niebuhr 
 tore off the veil of two thousands years of 
 obloquy, and vindicated to future times their 
 memories as true defenders of the rights of 
 the people, and advocates of the besi, interests 
 and glory of their country. Such has been 
 the fate of the world's reformers. Is it not 
 time that we learned wisdom from the chro- 
 nicles of the past, and ceased a blind reve/enee 
 for customs or institutions because of then- 
 grey age? Why should not the American 
 statesman adapt the legislation of their coun- 
 try to the development of its material re- 
 sources, the promotion of its industrial in- 
 terests, and thereby dignify its l.sbor, and 
 make strong the prime elements of national 
 power? 
 
 Let this vast domain, then, be set apart and 
 consecrated forever as a patrimony to the sons 
 of toil ; close your Land Office forever against 
 the speculator, and thereby prevent the capital 
 of the country from seeking that kind of invest- 
 ment, of absorbing the hard earnings of labor, 
 without rendering an equivalent. While the 
 laborer is thus crushed by this system estab- 
 lished by the G-overnment, which abstracts so 
 large an amount from his earnings for the 
 benefit of the speculator, in addition to all the 
 other disadvantages that ever beset the un- 
 equal struggle between the bones and sinews 
 of men and dollars and cents, what wonder is 
 it that misery and want so often sit at his 
 fireside, and penury and sorrow surround his 
 deathbed ? 
 
 While the pioneer spirit goes forth into the 
 wilderness, snatching new areas from the wild 
 beasts, and bequeathing them a legacy to civil- 
 ized man, let not the Government dampen 
 
8 
 
 his ardor and palsy his arm by legislation that I battle-fleld these are the only foes that his 
 places him in the po^Ysr of soulless capital I own stern heart and right arm cannot van- 
 and grasping speculation; for upon his wild|quish. 
 
 Statement showing the Areas of the several Lamd States and Territories, the amount of Lanj, 
 disposed ofby sale and otherwise, amd the amount unsold and undisposed of to the ZOth of 
 June, 1857. 
 
 SfATEB 
 and 
 
 Areas of the 
 l.nnd States 
 
 Surveyed up 
 
 UuBiurvey^d 
 
 Offered for 
 
 Acres Bold up 
 
 Donations 
 and Grants 
 
 Grunts for 
 
 Grants Sm 
 
 Teehitories. 
 
 riea, exchieive 
 of wnter. 
 Acres. 
 
 to J uue 30, 
 1857. 
 
 ou June 3U, 
 1857. 
 
 June 30, 
 1857. 
 
 to June 30, 
 1857. 
 
 for Schools. 
 Universi- 
 ties, etc. 
 
 Internal 
 Improvements. 
 
 BDd 
 
 Companjes. 
 
 Ohio, 
 
 •25,576,960 
 
 16,770,984 
 
 
 16,770,984 
 
 12,822,793.06 
 
 727,628 
 
 1,248,001.77 
 
 32,M1,24 
 
 Indiana, 
 
 *21,68T,T60 
 
 21,487,760 
 
 
 21,467,780 
 
 16,111,221.82 
 
 678,857 
 
 1,609,861.61 
 
 843.44 
 
 lUinois, 
 
 85,462,400 
 
 35,462,400 
 
 
 86,464,262 
 
 19,726,108.92 
 
 1,001,796 
 
 600,000.00 
 
 954.64 
 
 BUsaouri, 
 
 41,623,680 
 
 41,598,898 
 
 24,782 
 
 41,186,654 
 
 18,206,454.18 
 
 1,272,179 
 
 600,000.00 
 
 
 
 t82,02T,520 
 
 81,998,813 
 
 38,707 
 
 81,908,288 
 
 16,123,168.57 
 
 926,814 
 
 500,000.00 
 
 1,931.58 
 
 Mississippi,. . . 
 
 +28,895,680 
 
 28,895,680 
 
 
 28,892,677 
 
 tll,492,671.55 
 
 860,624 
 
 600,000.00 
 
 15,966.81 
 
 liouisiana,.,.. 
 
 26,461,440 
 
 24,089,319 
 
 2,4^,121 
 
 19,281,161 
 
 4,404,397.08 
 
 882,124 
 
 600,000.00 
 
 8,412.98 
 
 Michigan,,.. . . 
 
 86,128,640 
 
 86,128,640 
 
 
 84,115,710 
 
 11,201,653.22 
 
 1,113,477 
 
 1,250,000.00 
 
 4,080.00 
 
 Arkansas,. . . . 
 
 88,406,720 
 
 23,279,008 
 
 127,712 
 
 82,618,409 
 
 6,807,166.76 
 
 982,540 
 
 500,000.00 
 
 189,366.25 
 
 Florida,, 
 
 87,931,520 
 
 25,362,287 
 
 12,569,288 
 
 ^8,876,615 
 
 1,616,433.05 
 
 954,588 
 
 600,000.00 
 
 62,114.00 
 
 Iowa, 
 
 85,155,200 
 
 34,074,598 
 
 1,080,602 
 
 24,888,670 
 
 11,430,315.20 
 
 961,224 
 
 tl,886,078.22 
 
 18,226.86 
 
 Wisconsin, . . . 
 
 84,511,860 
 
 28,419,828 
 
 6,091,537 
 
 24,131,412 
 
 9,262,363.96 
 
 1,004,728 
 
 1,069,871.99 
 
 5,706.82 
 
 California, . . . 
 
 120,947,840 
 
 21,611,447 
 
 99,886,893 
 
 
 
 6,765,404 
 
 600,000.00 
 
 
 Minnesota, ^ 
 
 90,776,960 
 
 12,188,281 
 
 78,588,679 
 
 2,508,710 
 
 1,734,098.69 
 
 8,089,244 
 
 §840,000.80 
 
 
 Oregon,... >^ 
 
 125,626,800 
 
 4,448,831 
 
 121,184,969 
 
 
 41,029.20 
 
 6,892,124 
 
 
 
 Waeh'gton, * 
 
 80,990,000 
 
 789,992 
 
 80,250,088 
 
 
 1,164.79 
 
 4,645,629 
 
 
 
 N. Mexico, I 5. 
 
 164,087,760 
 
 107,828 
 
 168,929,682 
 
 
 
 8,826,956 
 
 
 
 Utah, /9 
 
 140,925,440 
 
 1.999,908 
 
 188,925,582 
 
 
 
 7,781,707 
 
 
 
 Nebraska, . 3. 
 
 219,160,820 
 
 1,902,541 
 
 217,257,779 
 
 
 28,590.58 
 
 12,175,678 
 
 
 
 Kansas, ... ^ 
 
 80,821,120 
 
 8,826.826 
 
 76,994,794 
 
 
 17,850.86 
 
 4,460,062 
 
 
 
 Indian,i.. J 
 
 42,892,800 
 
 42,892,800 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total, 
 
 1,450,000,000 899,888,4M 
 
 1,041,710,660 
 
 327,068,207 
 
 139,082,865.84 
 
 67,736,572 
 
 10,897,813.59 
 
 279,792.07 
 
 States 
 
 Grants for 
 Seats of Go. 
 
 Grants for 
 
 Salines 
 
 Reserved for 
 
 Confirmed 
 
 Swamp Lands 
 
 Ballioad 
 Grants. ^ 
 
 Total of Acres 
 unsold and nn- 
 
 Tbrhitories. 
 
 vernment 
 and Fuljlic 
 Buildings. 
 
 Military 
 Services. 
 
 granted to 
 tiie States. 
 
 beneit of 
 Indians. 
 
 Private 
 Claims. 
 
 Granted to 
 States. 
 
 oHered and un< 
 offered lands on 
 June 38, 1857. 
 
 Ohio, 
 
 
 1,804,423.96 
 
 24,216 
 
 16,830.78 
 
 26,459.80 
 
 82,488.18 
 
 
 41,681.26 
 
 Indiana, 
 
 2,660 
 
 1,804,496.61 
 
 23,040 
 
 126,220.71 
 
 825,880.53 
 
 1,260,937.60 
 
 
 66,289.23 
 
 Illinois, 
 
 2,560 
 
 9,648,860.68 
 
 121,629 
 
 48,989.69 
 
 188,901.61 
 
 1,883,412.94 
 
 2,596,058 
 
 294,149.82 
 
 Misaouii, 
 
 2,660 
 
 6,274 878.20 
 
 46,08" 
 
 22,587.61 
 
 1,862,455.10 
 
 4,064,788.94 
 
 1,815,485 
 
 9,106,267 ..02 
 
 Alabama, 
 
 1,620 
 
 1,040,924.95 
 
 23,04. 
 
 2,547,878.82 
 
 218,886.66 
 
 2,596.61 
 
 2,832,918 
 
 8,292,742.61 
 
 MisslBslpp!,. . . 
 
 1,280 
 
 269,578.21 
 
 
 277,612.04 
 
 668,033.25 
 
 2,884,090.76 
 
 1,667,880 
 
 6,288,249.88 
 
 Louisiana, . . . 
 
 
 687,750.80 
 
 
 
 
 2,092,903.91 
 
 10,9f0,792.82 
 
 1,102,560 
 
 6,972,499.41 
 
 Michigan, 
 
 18,200 
 
 2,100,663.59 
 
 46,060 
 
 109,800.83 
 
 126,711.26 
 
 7,273,724.72 
 
 8,096,000 
 
 9,798,859.89 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 10,600 
 
 1,889,988,05 
 
 46,080 
 
 
 118,451.12 
 
 8,026,868.71 
 
 1,468,297 
 
 14,968,829..68 
 
 Florida, 
 
 6,240 
 
 413,719.81 
 
 
 227.49 
 
 8,789,789.00 
 
 11,680,271.61 
 
 1,814,400 
 
 17,182,512.17 
 
 Iowa, 
 
 8,840 
 
 11,988,703.30 
 
 46,030 
 
 119,188.84 
 
 
 1,789,605.15 
 
 3,456,000 
 
 4,041,648.93 
 
 "Wisconsin,.. . 
 
 6,400 
 
 4,780,137.17 
 
 46,080 
 
 187,894.27 
 
 86,880.99 
 
 2,850,000.00 
 
 1,622,800 
 
 14,288,497.80 
 
 California,.. . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 118,682,486.00 
 
 Minnesota,\ 
 
 
 2,867,280.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 4,416,000 
 
 76,880,387.41 
 
 Oregon,... i^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 118,696,646.80 
 
 Waah'gton, § 
 N. Mexico, \2. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 76,448,896.21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 186,210,804.00 
 
 Utali, /g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 138,148,761.00 
 
 Nebraaka,. 3. 
 
 
 87,720.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 206,918,486.42 
 
 Kansas, ... P 
 
 
 125,840.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 76,217,867.14 
 
 Indian,..../! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 42,892,800.60 
 
 Total 
 
 50,860 
 
 44,109,879.88 
 
 423,325 
 
 8,400,725.53 
 
 8,928,908.21 
 
 21,948,916.24 
 
 25,408,993 
 
 1,068,792,496.88 
 
 * Includes reserves under deeds of cession, 
 t Exclusive of the Chickasaw cession. 
 
 X Includes the estimated quantity of 560,000 acres of the Des Moines River Grant, situated in this State abovtj the 
 Racoon Pork of the Dea Moines River. 
 
 § Is the estimate of the Dea Moines River Grant in this Territory, as above. 
 
 Grants for Deaf and Dumb Asylums : Alabama, 21,949.46 ; Arkansas, 2,097.48 ; Florida, 20,924.22. Total, 44,9Tl.ll 
 acres. , 
 
 Reserved for co&paniefl, individuals and corporations: Ohio, 8,805,9T6 ; Indiana, 149,102 ; Florida, 305.T5. Total, 
 9,95S,838.75 acres. 
 
 General Land Office^ Feb. 16, 1868. 
 
LAND FOR THE LANDLESS. 
 
 ACTION OF COK"GEESS ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 
 
 Tnis Public Domain of the United States is still 
 immense, notwithstanding, the millions upon mil- 
 lions of acres which have been squandered or 
 passed over to the hands of speculators or monopo- 
 lists, by the action of the National Government, 
 during the past few years. It is estimated by in- 
 telligent persons, who hare given their attention 
 to the subject, that lying within the States and 
 Territories of this government there are now 
 about one thousand millions of acres of public 
 lands, still unentered. " What shall be done with 
 this immense domain?" Is a question which has 
 for years occupied the minds of thoughtful men, 
 who have the best interests of society at heart. 
 At length, the great question of the proper dispo- 
 sition of these lands has become one of party, 
 and may be stated as follows : " Shall the Public 
 Domain be open to monopoly by speculators, lead- 
 ing inevitably to a landedaristocracy ? or shall it 
 be reserved for actual occupants in small quanti- 
 ties, at a nominal price, or without price ?" There 
 would be no difficulty whatever in adjusting this 
 question at any time and in the right way, if the 
 Negro question, which, in the National Adminis- 
 tration, absorbs or overrides all others, were not 
 behind it. Although this is an old question, it 
 had never commanded in Congress the attention 
 to which it is entitled, previous to the organization 
 of the Republican party ; because until that time 
 both the great parties into which the country was 
 divided were either controlled, or their action was 
 modified by the slaveholding interest of the 
 country. That interest, which is ever vigilauu, 
 understands that it cannot well exist where small 
 freeholds prevail, and hence it opposes, with all 
 its great power, all Preemption and Homestead 
 laws, knowing well that if our new States and 
 Territories are to be occupied in quarter-sections, 
 they will be occupied by working farmers, and not 
 by speculators and great planters. 
 
 Since this question has assumed a national im- 
 portance, a concise record of the proceedings 
 and votes in Congress during the session of 
 1868-9, upon the disposition of the Public Do- 
 main, will be of interest to the purchasers of The 
 TwBnNE Almanac, as a matter of record. 
 
 On the 20th January, 1859, (See Congressional 
 Globe, p. 492), a bill relating to preemptions, re- 
 ported from the Committee on Public Lands, was 
 pending before the House. The bill proposed to 
 make some changes in the details of existing pre- 
 emption laws, but without affecting the substance 
 of the present system of disposing of the public 
 lands. It was, however, in parliamentary order to 
 propose to amend the bill so as to change the 
 present system, and to bring the House to a di- 
 rect vote upon such propositions. The friends of 
 such change were prompt to avail themselves of 
 this advantage. 
 
 Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend 
 tho bill by adding the following as an additional 
 section : 
 
 " £6 it further eTiacted, That ftom and after the passage 
 of this act, no pubiic land shall be exposed to sale by pro- 
 clamation of the President, unless the same shall have b.een 
 surveyed, and the return of such survey duly filed in the 
 Land Office, for ten years or more before such sale." 
 
 The force and effect of this amendment would 
 be to give the preemptors ten years the start of 
 the speculators and land monopolists. That is to 
 say : with the addition of Mr. Grow's amendment 
 to the existing laws and regulations touching the 
 Public Lands, they would be open to preemption 
 ten years before they could come within the grasp 
 of the speculator, thus giving the poor, industri- 
 ous settler ample time to " clear up " his farm and 
 pay for it from the proceeds of the soil. This 
 was just what the South and the Democracy did 
 not want, as the sequel will show. 
 
 The slaveholding aristocracy, who are bold 
 enough when it is necessary to be bold, but who 
 are crafty as well as bold, forthwith resorted to 
 parliamentary tactics to avoid a direct issue upon 
 Mr. Grow's proposition. 
 
 The first movement was was a motion to refer 
 the bill and amendment to the Committee of the 
 Whole, familiarly and aptly styled " the tomb of 
 the Gapidets." If that reference had been carried, 
 the bill never would have been reached, and would 
 never have been heard of afterward. 
 
 The vote upon the motion to refer the bill to 
 the Committee of the Whole was as follows — the 
 Democrats in Romai^ the Republicans in Italics, 
 and the Southern Americans in small capitals ; 
 
 Mainb — Wood — 1. 
 
 Connecticut— Arnold, Bishop— 2. 
 
 Nbw York — Bwrrougks, Maciay, Russell, Taylor — 4 
 
 Nbw Jehsbt — Wortendylie — 1. 
 
 Pbnnstlvania— Ahi, Chapman, Dewart, Montgomery, 
 Morris, Bitohie, White— 7. 
 
 Maryland — Harris, Ricaud— 3. 
 
 Virginia — Bococlc, Caskie, Edmundson, Faulkner, Gtar-^ 
 nett, Millson, Powell— 7. 
 
 North Carolina— Craige, Ruffin, Scales, Winelow— 4. 
 
 South Cabolina — Boyce, Branch, Keitt, McQueen, Miles 
 — 5. 
 
 Gboroia — Crawford, Gartrell, Jackson, Seward, Stepheog, 
 Trippb, Wright— 7. 
 
 Florida — Hawkins — 1. 
 
 Alabama — Curry, Houston, Moore, Shorter — 4. 
 
 Mississippi — Barksdale, Davis, McRae — 3. 
 
 Louisiana— Eustis, Sandidge, Taylor— 8. 
 
 Texas— Bryan, Reagan— 3. " 
 
 Tbnnkssbb — Atkins, Jones, Matnard, Ready, Savage, 
 Watkins, ZoLLidOFFBR — 7. 
 
 Kentucky- Burnett, Jewett, Marshall, Peyton, Steven- 
 son, Talbott, Undbrwood— 7. 
 
 Missouri — Andbrson, Caruthers, John B. Clark, James 
 Craig, Phelps, Woodson— 6. 
 
 Ohio — Burns, CockeriU, Groesbeck, Barlan, Lawrence, 
 Nichols, Pendleton, Vallandlgham— 8. 
 
 Indiana- Davis, English, Gregg, Hughes, Nibiack— S. 
 
 Illinois— Marshall, Morris, Shaw, Smith— 4.— Total, 90. 
 
10 
 
 Nats. 
 
 Naisk— Foster, WlmoM, Moree, J. WaM>um — 4. 
 
 Nbw Hampshiek— Craj^Mt, Tappwn—t. 
 
 yBRuosv—MorriU, Jioyce, Walton — 8. 
 
 Masbachdbbtts — Bu^nton, B-wrlingame, Chaffee, Co- 
 mins, Dawea, Halt, Knapp, Thayer— i, 
 
 Rhode Island — SrayUm, Durfee — 2. 
 
 CoNNHCTicDT — Clarh, Dean—i, 
 
 Nbw Yot.^— Andrews, Clark, John Cochrane, JJodd, 
 Fenton, Granger, Hatch, Board, Kdsey, Matteaon, Mor- 
 gan, Morae, Murray, Olin, Palmer, Parker, Spimner, 
 Thompson — 18. 
 
 Nbw Jbrsbt — Clawson, Huyler — 2. 
 
 Pbnnstlvania— Co^iod«, M:die, Florence, Grow, Jones, 
 Keim, Leidy, Pwrtjiance, Stemart — 9, 
 
 Martlakd— Bowie, Stewart — 2. 
 
 ViR&iMiA — Goode, Hopkins — 2. 
 
 North Carolina— Gilmer, Vanoe — 2. 
 
 Alabama— Cobb, Sowdell, Stallworth— 8. 
 
 Mississippi — Singleton — 1. 
 
 Ohio— ^tngAam, Bliss, Cox, Giddings, Hall, Loiter, 
 Matt, Shsrman, Stanton, Tompkins, Wade— 11. 
 
 ilNDiANA— (7oi/u«, Foley, KOgore, Pettit, WUson^S. 
 
 lUJSOis—Farnsworth, KeUogg, Lovejoy, Washhiirne 
 —i. 
 
 tiiasova— Blair— 1. 
 
 Michigan— toward, Leaoh, Walhridge, Waldron^4. 
 
 y/taeosais— Potter, Washburn— 2. 
 
 Iowa — Curtis, Davis — 2. 
 
 California— Scott — 1 . 
 
 Minnesota — Cavanaugh, Phelps — 2 ; Total — 92. 
 \ 
 
 The motiou to refer the bill to the Committee 
 of the Whole having thus failed, the House was 
 brought to a direct vote upon Mr. Geow's amend- 
 ment, which was adopted by the following vote : 
 
 Mainb- J^Vis^sr, Oilman, Morse, Washbvm, Wood— ^5. 
 
 New Hampshire — Cragin, Pike, Tappan — 8. 
 
 Veemsht- i/brri^^, Boyae, Walton — 8. 
 
 Masbaohosbits- .Bw^ntoj, 'Biirlingam^,C!iaffee, Gam- 
 ins, Davis, Dawes, Oooeh, Hall, Knapp, Thayet — 10. 
 
 Ebode Island— &'oirfo», Durfee — 2. 
 
 Connecticut — Dearn, — 1. 
 
 Nbw York— ^mdj-ews, Bemn,eU,Burr<Mghs, Clark, John 
 Cochrane, Dodd, Fenton, Granger, Board, Kelse]/, Mat- 
 teson, Morgan, Morse, Murray, OUn, Palmer, Parker, 
 Sherman, Spiwner, Tiompson—2Q. 
 
 New Jersey — Bohbvns—1. 
 
 Pennsylvania — Chapman, Couode, Edit, Florence, 
 GrotD, Keim, Morris, Phillips, Purvianae, BitoMe, Stew- 
 art-11. 
 
 Maryland— Stewart — 1. 
 
 Tennessee- Atkins, Avery, Jones, Savage— 4. 
 
 Kbntdckt— Jewett, Stevenson, Talbott^S. 
 
 Omo—Binghfim, Bliss, Oockerill, Giddinga, Barlan, 
 Barton, Lawrence, Letter, Miller, Mott, Sherman, Stanton, 
 Tompkins, Wade—li. 
 
 Indiana— (7oi/i2iij, Kdgore, Pettit, Wilson — 1. 
 
 luASOis—Famswortli, Kellogq, Lovejoy, WasKbvrne 
 —4. 
 
 Michigan- fliniinrrf. Leach, Walbrid^e, Wald/ron—i. 
 
 ■Wisconsin— JSi'ffins'ftKrst, Potter, Washburn— 8. 
 
 Minnesota— Cavanaugh, Phelps — 2. 
 
 Iowa — Onrtis, Davis — 2. 
 
 MibSODRi-iiuir-l.— Total 98. 
 
 Connecticut — Arnold — 1. 
 
 Nkw York- Russell, Searing, Taylor— 8. 
 
 New Jersey- Huyler. Worlendyke— 2. 
 
 Vbnnsylyania— Ahl, Dewart, Leldy, Montgomery— 4. 
 
 Delaware— Whiteley — 1. 
 
 Maryland — Bowie — ^1. 
 
 Virginia- Bocock, Oaskie, Bdmundaon, Garnett, Goode, 
 Hopkins, Millson, Powell— 8. 
 
 North Carolina— Branch, Oralge, Gilmbp., Ruffln, Scales, 
 Shaw, Vance, Wlnalow— 8. 
 
 South Carolina- Bonham, Boyce, McQueen, Miles— 4. 
 
 Georgia— Crawford, Qartrell, Jackson, Seward, Stephens, 
 Trippe, Wright — 7. 
 
 Florida — Hawkins— 1. 
 
 Alabama — Cobb, Curry, Dowdell, Houston, Moore, 
 Shorter, Stallworth— T. 
 
 Mississippi — Davis, McRae, Singleton — 8. 
 
 Louisiana — Kostis, Sandldge— 2. 
 
 Teias— Reagan— 1. 
 
 Tensessee— Maynaed, Ebady, Smith, Watkins, ZOLU- 
 
 COFFBR— 5. 
 
 Keni-ucet — Burnett, Elliott, Underwood— 3. 
 Ohio— Burns, Cox, Hall, Pendleton Vallandigham— S. 
 Indiana — Davis, Foley, Gregg, Hughes— 4. 
 Illinois— Hodges, Marshall, Shaw, Smith — 4. 
 Missouri— Anderson, Caruthers, Clark, Craig, Fheips, 
 Woodson — 6. 
 California- Scott— ) .—Total, 81. 
 
 Upon the adoption of Mr. Grow's amendment, 
 the Kepublican vote, as wUl be seen, was uaani- 
 mously in the affirmative. Of the votes from the 
 slave States, all but nine were in th enegative, and 
 as we shall presently see, there was only one of 
 that number who wag really in favor of it, this 
 one being Mr. Blair, Republican, of Missouri. 
 
 Mr. Geow's amendment being incorporated into 
 the bill, the next question was upon the passage' 
 of the bill, which was defeated by the following 
 vote : 
 
 yeas. 
 
 Mai^k— Foster, Morse, WashMtrn, Wood— 4, 
 
 New Hampshire — Cragin, Pike, Tappan— S, >■ 
 
 Vermont — Morrill, Boyce , Walton — 3. 
 
 Massachusetts -.ffii^^fort, Ev/rUngame, Chaffee, Com 
 ins, Davis, Dawes, 4ooch, Hall, Knapp, Thayer— m. 
 
 Rhode Island — Brayton, Durfee— 2, 
 
 Connecticut — Clark, Dean — 2. 
 
 New York — Andrews, Bennett, Burroughs, Cl&rk, C. B. 
 Cochrane, John Cochrane, Dodd, F&nton, Granger, 
 Hatch, Hoard, Kelsey, Matteson, Morgan, Morse, Mur- 
 ray, OMn, Palmer, Parkier, Spinner, Thompson — 21. 
 
 New JEBSBY-Claweon, Bobbins— 2. 
 
 Pennsylvania — Covode, Dick, Edie, Grow, Keim, Mor 
 ris, Pu/rvianoe, JRitchie, Stewart — 9. 
 
 Maryland— Davis — 1. ^ 
 
 Ohio — Bingham, Bliss, Cox , Giddings, Hall, Barlan 
 Borton, Leiter, Miller, Mott, Sherman, Stanton, Tomp- 
 kins. Wade — 14. 
 
 'Hhamat.s-Howard, Ledah, Walbridge, Wdldron—i. 
 
 Indiana— Coi/a», Kilgore, Pettit, Wilson,—^ 
 
 Illinois — Fam,sworth, Kellogg, tovjoy, Morris, Wash- 
 burne—S. 
 
 Wisconsin — Potter, Washburn — 2. 
 
 Iowa — Curtis, Davis^-2. 
 
 Minnesota— Cavanaugh, Phelps — 2. 
 
 Missouri— 5i«»r—l.— Total, 91. 
 
 Connecticut — Arnold — 1. 
 
 New York- Corning, Russell, Searing, Taylor— 4. 
 
 New Jersey- Huyler— 1. 
 
 Pennsylvania— AM, Chapman, Dewart, Florence, Jones, 
 Leidy, Montgomery, Phillips, White— 9. 
 
 D blaware — Whiteley — 1. 
 
 Maryland- Bowie, Rigaud, Stewart — 3. 
 
 Virginia — Bocock, Caskie, KdmunJson, Garnett, Goode, 
 Hopkins, Millson, Powell — 8. 
 
 North Carolina— Craige, Gilmer, Ruffln, Scales, Shaw, 
 Vanob, Winalow — 7. 
 
 South Carolina — Bonham, Boyce, McQueen— 8. 
 
 Georgia- Crawford, Gartrell, Jackson, Slephens, Trippe, 
 Wrlght^e. 
 
 Florida — Hawkins— 1. 
 
 Alabama- Cobb, Dowdell, Houston, Moore, Shorter, Stall- 
 worth— 6. 
 
 Mississippi— Bark!d ale, Davis, McRae, Singleton— 4. 
 
 Louisiana — Sandidge, Taylor — 2. 
 
 Tbxas— Bryan, Reagan— 2. 
 
 Arkansas — Greenwood— 1. 
 
 Tennessee — Atkins, Avery, Jones, Maynard, Ready, 
 Savage, Smith, Watkins, Zollicofper— 9. 
 
 Kentucky- Burnett, Clay, BlJiott, Jewett, Marshall, 
 Mason, Peyton, Stevenson, Talbott, Csdkrwood- 10. 
 
 Ohio— Burns, Oockerill, Groesbeck, Pendleton, Vallandlg- 
 ham— 6. 
 
 Indiana— Davis, Foley, Gregg, Hughes— 4. 
 
 Illinois- Marshall, Shaw— 2. 
 
 Missouri— Anjerson, Caruthers, Clark, Craig, Phelps, 
 Woodson— 6.— Total, 95. 
 
 The defeat of the bill, in consequence of the 
 
 incorporation into it of Mr. Crow's amendment, 
 
 shows that a majority of the House was really 
 
 ' opposed to that amendment, although it had been 
 
11 
 
 adopted by a vote of 98 to 81. Certain members, 
 who did not dare to vote' directly against the 
 amendment, joined in killing it afterward, by kill- 
 ing the bill, of which it had been made a part by 
 their own votes. 
 
 Thus Messrs. Stewart of Maryland, Atkins, 
 Avery, Jones, and Savage, of Tennessee, and 
 Jewett, Stevenson, and Talbott, of Kentucky, who 
 had voted for the amendment, voted afterward 
 against the bill. Only one, Mr. Blair, of the nine 
 southern supporters of the amendment, proved 
 true to it in the end, and no other southern mem- 
 ber came to its support in the final vote, saving 
 only Mr. Davis of Maryland, who represents the 
 free-labor intere'sts of the city of Baltimore, rather 
 than the interests or passions of the slave-holding 
 and landed aristocracy of the planting States. 
 
 Afterward, on the same day, when these votes 
 upon Mr. Grow's amendment were given, the re- 
 presentatives from Minnesota, both of them mem- 
 bers of the Democratic party, delivered speeches 
 in which they made no secret of their chagrin 
 that a measure so vital to their constituency en- 
 countered the nearly unanimous opposition of 
 their political friends. Mr. Cavanaugh, one of 
 the members from Minnesota (Globe, p. 505,) 
 eaid : 
 
 " In reference to the vote on this bill to-day, with an over- 
 whelming majority of tliis side of the House voting against 
 my colleague and myself, voting Against this bill, I say it 
 frankly, 1 say it in sorrow, that it was to the Republican 
 Bide of the House to whom we were compelled to look for 
 support of this just and honorable measure. Gentlemen 
 from the South, gentlemen who have broad acres and wide 
 plantations, aided here to-day by their votes more to make 
 Republican States In the North thjin by any vote which has 
 been, cast within the last two years. These gentlemen come 
 here and ask us to support the South ; yet they, to a man 
 almost, vole against the free, independent labor of the North 
 and West. 
 
 "I, sir, have inherited my Democracy; have been at- 
 tached to the Democratic party from my boyhood; have 
 believed in the great truths as enunciated by the * fathers of 
 the faith,' and have cherished them religiously, knowing 
 th^t, by their faithful application to every department of 
 tViis G-overnment, this nation has grown up from struggling 
 colonies to prosperous, powerful, and sovereign States. 
 But, sir, when I see southern gentlemen come up, as I did 
 to day, and refuse, by their votes, to aid ray constituents, 
 refuse to place the actual tiller of the soil, the honest, in- 
 dustrious laborer, beyond the grasp and avarice of the 
 speculator, I tell you, sir, I falter and I hesitate." 
 
 The amendment of Mr. Grow, forbidding the 
 public sales of lands for at Ifeast ten years after 
 their survey, would- secure the great bulk of the 
 lands to preemptors, and would give them a long 
 pay-day, and thus save them from the enormous 
 usury they are now compelled to pay to money 
 lenders. ' It would not reduce the revenue derived 
 by the Treasury from the public lands, but would 
 only postpone it, and this postponement would be 
 far less prejudicial to th^ Government than it 
 would be beneficial to the settler. The Govern- 
 ment can borrow money at four and a half per 
 cent, per annum, while the settler frequently pays 
 £ve per cent, per month for the money to enter 
 his lands, to prevent their sale at public auction. 
 
 On the first of February, the question of the 
 Public Lands was again before the House, the 
 pending bill (House till No. 72), being a bill to 
 aeoure Homesteads to actual settlers, and being 
 in the words following : 
 
 A BILL TO SBCDRE HOMESTEADS TO ACTUTAL SETTLERS OIF 
 THB PUBLIC DOMAIN, 
 
 Sectioh.— Je it enacted by the Senate and Bouse of 
 Sepresentaiives of the United States of America in Con^ 
 greaa assembled. That any Person who is the head of a 
 family, or who has arrived at tlie age of twenty-one years, 
 and is a citizen of the United States, or who shall have 
 filed his intention to become such, as required by the natu- 
 raliEation laws of the United Slates, shall, from and after 
 the passage of this act, be entitled to enter, free of cost, one 
 quarter-section of vacant and unappropriated public lands 
 which may, at the time the application is made, be subject 
 to private entry, at $1 25 per acre, or a quantity equal 
 thereto, to be located in a body, in conformity with the legal 
 subdivlsious of public lands, and after the same shall have 
 been surveyed. 
 
 Skc. 2. And be itfwrther enacted. That the person ap- 
 plying for the benefit of this act shall, upon application to 
 the register of the land office in which he or she is about to 
 make such entry, make affidavit before said register that he 
 or she is the head Af a family, or is twenty-one years or 
 more of age, and that such application is made for his or 
 her exclusive use and benefit, and those specially mention- 
 ed in this act, and not either directly or Indirectly for the 
 use or benefit of any other person or persons whomsoever; 
 and upon making the affidavit as above required, and filing 
 the affidavit with the register, he or she shall thereupon be 
 permitted to enter the quantity of land already specified : 
 Provided^ howevr^^ That no certificate shall be given or 
 patent issued therefor until the expiration of five yeara 
 from the date of such entry; and if, at the expiration of 
 such time, or at any time thereafter, the person makingsucH 
 entry, or, if he be dead, his widow, or, in case of her deaths 
 his heirs or devisee, or in case of a widow making such entry, 
 her heirs or devisee, in case of her death shall prove by two 
 credible witnesses that he, she,or they, have continued to re- 
 side upon and cultivate such land, and still reside upon the 
 same, and have not alienated the same, or any part thereof, 
 then, in such case, he, she, or they, if at that time a pitlzeu 
 of the United States, shall, on payment of ten dollars, be en- 
 titled to a patent, as in other cases provided for by law : 
 And provided^ fu,rih&r^ In case of the death of both fa- 
 ther and mother, leaving an infant child or children under 
 t wenty-one years of age, the right and the fee shall inure to 
 the benefit of said infant child or children, and the execu- 
 tor, administrator, or guardian, may, at any time within 
 two years after the death of the surviving parent, and in 
 accordance with the laws of the State in which such chil- 
 dren for the time being have their domicil, sell said land 
 for the benefit of said infants, but for no other purpose ; 
 and the purchaser shall acquire the absolute title by the 
 purchase, and be entitled to a patent from the Unitei) 
 States, 
 
 Seo. 8. And be it further enacted. That the register of 
 the land office ''jail note all such applications on the tract- 
 books and pla^s of his office, and keep a register of all sucli 
 entries, and make a return tliereof to the General Land Of- 
 fice, together with the proof upon which they have been 
 founded. 
 
 Sec. 4 And be U further enacted, That all lands ac- 
 quired under the provisions of this act shall in no event 
 become liable to the satisfaction of any debt or debts con- 
 tracted prior to the issuing the patent therefor. 
 
 Seo. 5. And be iiftirther enacted. That if at any time 
 after the filing the affidavit, as required in the second sec- 
 tion of this act, and before the expiration of the five yeare 
 aforesaid. It shall be proven, after due notice to the settler, 
 to the satisfaction of the register of the land office, that the 
 person having filed such affidavit shall have actually chang- 
 ed his or her residence, or abandoned the said entry for 
 more than six months at any time, then, and in that event, 
 the land so entered shall revert back to the Government, 
 and be disposed of as other public lands are now by law, 
 subject to an appeal to the General Land Office. 
 
 Sec. 6. And be it further enacted. That no individual shall 
 be permitted to make more than one entry under the provi- 
 sions of this act ; and that the Commissioner of the General 
 Land Office is hereby required to prepare and issue such 
 rules and regulations, consistent with this act, as shall be 
 necessary and proper to carry its provisions into effect ; 
 aud that the registers and receivers of the several land offi- 
 ces shall be entitled to receive the same compensation for 
 any lands entered under the provisions of this act that they 
 are now entitled to receive when the same quantity of Knd 
 is entered with money, one half to be paid by the person 
 making the application, at the time of so doing, and the 
 other half on the issue of the certificate by the person to 
 whom it may be issued : Provided, Tliat nothing in this jwl 
 
12 
 
 fliibll De BO construed as to impair or interfere in any 
 uanner wliatever witti existing preemption rights. 
 
 The previous question having been ordered, 
 the House was put to a direct vote upon this bill, 
 without debate. 
 
 A motion to lay the bill on the table was lost — 
 yeas 11, nays 118 ; and the bill was then passed 
 — yeas 120, nays 76. 
 
 As these two votes were substantially the same, 
 we only give the last one, which was upon the 
 passage of the bill, and which was as follows : 
 
 TIUS. 
 
 MAiSK—Ablott, Foster, dUmati, JIforae, Waahbiim 
 —6. 
 
 New Hampshire — Cragin, Pike, Ta^an—8. 
 
 Vermont — Af&rriU, Boyei, Walton — 8. 
 
 Massachusetts— J?M^«to«, Bv/rlmgame, Chaffee, Co- 
 mins, Davk, Dawes, Oooch, EaU,Knapp, T/tayer— ID. 
 
 Rhode Island — Brayton, Burfee — 2. 
 
 CoHNBCTicuT — Bishop, Clark, jDean — 8. 
 
 New Y«rk — Andrews, Barr, Bwmmgha, O. B. Cochf 
 ram.6, John Cochrane, Corning, Dodd, F&ttton, Goodwin, 
 Grower, Uaslcin, Hatch, Hoa/rd, KeUey, Maclay, Matte- 
 son, MorgoAi, Morse, Murray, Olvn, Palmer, Pa/rker, 
 Pottle, Russeil, Spitl/rt'er, Taylor, Ward — 2T. 
 
 New Jersey — Adrain, Claweon, Bobbins, Wortendyke 
 —4. 
 
 Pennsylvania— CbBOfle, Dick, Florence, Grow, Hicli- 
 man, Seim, Morris, Phillips, Purvianoe, Reiliy, Boberts, 
 Stuart, KtMikel — IS. 
 
 Tknnbsskb — Jones — 1. 
 
 Kentucky— Jewett — 1. 
 
 Ohio — Bingham, BUss, Burns, Cocl£erill, Coi, Gidd/iaigs, 
 Groesbeck, Hall, Sarlam-, jBbrion, Lawrence, LeAter, Mil- 
 ler, Pendleton. Sherrtian, Canton, TompMna, Vallanding- 
 ham, Vade-\9. 
 
 Indiana- Oaso, Col/ax, Davis, Foley, Gregg, Eilgore, 
 Pettit, Wilson,. 
 
 lu.moia—I'antsworih, Hodges, Kellogg, Lov^oy, Mor- 
 rie. Smith, WosKbume — 7. 
 
 Michisan — Howard, Leach, Walbridge, Waldron—i. 
 
 Wiacossm—BilHnghwst, Potter, WaMmrn-^. 
 
 Minnesota — Oavanaugh, Phelps — 2. 
 
 Iowa — Curtis, Davi»—2. 
 
 Missouri — Ocaig — 1 . 
 
 Oaui-cknia— McKlbben, Scott— 2.— Total, 120. 
 
 Pennsylvania — Leidy— 1 
 
 DELAWARE — Whiteley-^1. 
 
 Maryland — Bowie, Davis, Harris, Kunkel, Rioaud, Stew- 
 art— 6. 
 
 Virginia— Booock, Caskie, Edmundson, Faulkner, Gar- 
 uett, Goode, Hopkins, Jenkins, Letcher, Millson, Smith— 
 11. 
 
 North Carolina- Branch, Oraige, Gilmer, Ruffln, Scales, 
 Shaw, Vance, Winslow— 8. 
 
 South Carolina— Bonham, Boyce, Keltt, McQueen, Miles 
 —6. 
 
 Geohoia— Crawford, Gartrell, Hill, Jackson, Seward, 
 Stephens, Trippe, Wright — 8. 
 
 Alabama— Cebb,Curry, Dowdell, Houston, Moore, Shorter 
 Staliworth- T. \ 
 
 Mississippi— Barksdale, Lamar, McRae, Singleton — i. 
 
 Louisiana — Eubtis — 1. 
 
 Texas— Reagan— 1. 
 
 Arkansas— Greenwood— 1. 
 
 Tennebseb- Atkins, Avery, Maynakd, Ready, Smith, 
 Watking, Wright, Zollicoffer — 8. 
 
 KsNTOCKT— Burnett, Marshall, Mason, Peyton, Ukder- 
 roOD— 5. 
 
 Ohio — yic?u>ls—l. 
 
 Indiana — English, Hughes, Niblack — 8. 
 
 Illinois — Marshall, Shaw — 2. 
 
 Missouri— Anderson, Clark, Woodson— 8. — Total, 76. 
 
 Only three southern members, Jones of Ten- 
 nessee, Jewett of Kentucky, and Craig of Mis- 
 souri, voted for the bill, thereby marking unmis- 
 takably the sectional character of the opposition 
 to it. 
 
 The Republican vote, with a solitary exception. 
 
 was giv(,. .vlid for the bill. Of the niirthern 
 members, connecter with the Democratic party, 
 twenty-nine voted for the bill and six voted 
 against it. Thus, of the entire Democratic vote 
 in the House, a large majority was against the 
 bill, but even this ia less important than the other 
 fact, that the southern wing of the party was al- 
 most unanimously against, it being this southern 
 wing which controls in the party councils, and 
 which, when out-voted in the House, has other 
 departments of the Government, the Senate imd 
 the President, with which it is more powerful, and 
 by means of which it has so far rarely f#ed to 
 defeat measures, hewever popular and beneficial, 
 which it dislikes. 
 
 The Homestead bill had now passed the House 
 by a decisive majority, but it had yet to encoun- 
 ter the more dangerous ordeal of the Senate in 
 which the Democratic majority was larger, and in 
 which the 'representation of the slaveholding 
 States is proportionately greater. 
 
 No direct vote upon the measure was, in fact, 
 reached in the Senate, because the soutliern ma- 
 nagers would not permit it. 
 
 There are two ways of killing off obnoxious 
 measures. One is, to act upon them and vote 
 them down. Another is, to overslaugh them 
 whenever they are proposed, by proceeding to 
 consider some other business. This latter method 
 is invariably resorted to where a measure, obnox- 
 ious to a majority of the Senate, is EU{Jt>osed to 
 be acceptable to the people. And it was precisely 
 by this method, and for that reason, that the 
 Homestead bill was run over, shoved aside, evaded 
 and left unacted upon, by the Senate during its 
 late session. The regular appropriation bills and 
 the bill for the purchase of Cuba were being 
 pressed upon the time of the Senate during the 
 last days of the session, both of them commanding 
 the support of the majority of that body. 
 
 On the 17 th day of February, Mr. Wade, of 
 Ohio, (Con. Globe, page 1074,) moved to post- 
 pone all prior orders and take up the Homestead 
 bill, which had passed the House. The following 
 extracts from the debate upon this motion will 
 exhibit the points made : 
 
 " Mr. Wadx. The Homestead bill, to which I am a good 
 deal attached, has, I believe, twice passed the House and 
 come to this body, but somehow it has had the go-by, and 
 we have never had a direct vote upon it here that I know 
 of. I do not propose to discuss it for a single moment, and 
 I hope none of its friends will debate it, because it has been 
 pending before Congress for several years, and I presume 
 every senator is perfectly well acquainted with all its provi- 
 sions, and has made up his mind as to the course he wilt 
 pursue in regard to it. I have' no hope that anything I 
 could say would win an opponent of the bill to its support ; 
 and I hoi^e every iriend «f the measure will take no time in 
 debate, but will try to get a vote upon it, for I think It is 
 the great measure of the session. All 1 want, all I ask, is 
 to have a vote upon it." 
 
 " Mr. Reid, of North Carolina. I think It is too late in 
 the session now to take up this bill to be acted upon here,>i 
 at least until we act upon other great measures upon whidl^' 
 there is more unanimity of sentiment in the country, and 
 a higher sense of duty upon us to pass tiiem during the few 
 days of the session tliat remain. 
 
 "Mr. IIoNTKH, of Virginia. I believe that a fortnight 
 from to-day will take us to the 8d of March. Now, it is 
 known that we have nearly all the important apiBrof)natloi? 
 bills, and one that is unfinished, In take up. I hope there 
 wUl be no effort to press this Homestead bill, so as to dis- 
 place the appropriation bills. I must appeal to the Senate , 
 to consider how little of the session is now left to us, and 
 
13 
 
 whether we oughb not to take up the appropriaUon bill and 
 dispose of it. 
 
 **Mr. Shields, of Minnesota, The friends of this bUI 
 desire nothing but a Tote upon it, not to waste time in de- 
 bate. Let us tal£« it up, and have a fair vote upon it. 
 
 " IWr. HoNTKB. I do not conceal the fact that I am very- 
 much opposed to it ; but I suppose, whenever this bill comes 
 up, it must be the subject of debate, 
 
 " Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts. I appreciate the anxiety 
 ot the senator from Yir^nla to talseupthe appropriation 
 bills ; but I would suggest to that senator that he allow us 
 to take up this bill, and have a vote upon it. I do not sup- 
 pose that anybody, who is in favor of the measure, desires 
 te consume the time of the Senate, at this stage of the ses- 
 lion, by discussing it. It has been discussed before the 
 nation. It ia well understood. I believe it is sustained by 
 an overwhelming majority of the people of the country. 
 
 " Mr. Wadb. I have no doubt, from the business before 
 UB, that this is the last opportunity we shall hEive to act 
 up.on this gi-eat measure. I hope, as I said-before, every 
 friend of it will stand by it until it is either triumphant or 
 defeated, and that, too, in preference to any other business 
 that may be urged upon us. As to the appropriation bills, 
 I have not the least fear but that they will go through. 
 Their gravitation carries them through." 
 
 The question was then taken, and Mr. Wade's 
 motion was carried by the following vote, the Re- 
 publicans being indicated by italics : 
 
 Teas — Messrs. Bright, Broderick, CJt-andler^ O'tUamer, 
 Dianni^ DooHiUe^ Fess&nden, Footy FoBter^ Gwin, Sale^ 
 HamUn, Earlan^ Johnson of Tennessee, King, Pugh, Rice, 
 jSewardy Shields, tSimmons, Smith, Stuart, Trumbull, 
 Wade, abd Wilson— i6. 
 '' Nats— Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benjamin, Blgler, Brown, 
 Chestnut, Clay, Clingman, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, 
 Hammond, Hunter, Iverson, Lane, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, 
 ■ Eeid, Slidell, Toombs, and Ward-23, 
 
 Upon an examination of this vote, it will be 
 seen that the Republicans voted unanimously in 
 the affirmative, and that the southern senators 
 were all in the negative, with the solitary excep- 
 tion of Mr. Johnson of Tennessee. Of the north- 
 ern Democrats, G\Yin, Bright, Pugh, Rice, Shields, 
 Smith, and Stuart, all being from the ne r States, 
 voted for Mr. Wade's motion. 
 
 The Homestead bill was now up, and, so far as 
 its friends were concerned, nothing was asked but 
 a vote, which would not have consumed ten min- 
 utes. But a vote was precisely what the southern 
 managers were determined to avoid. 
 
 Instantly, therefore, upon the announcement 
 of the success of Mr. Wade's motion, which 
 brought the bill before the Senate, Mr. Hunter 
 took the floor, and moved that it be set aside, so 
 as to take up another bill, viz. ; the diplomatic 
 and consular appropriation bill. 
 
 No question of order was raised upon this mo- 
 tion of Mr. Hunter, but it was well characterized 
 as ^^ child's play," to move to set aside a bill, 
 instantly after a vote to take it up. 
 
 Fending some conversational debate upon Mr. 
 Hunter's motion, the hour of twelve o'clock 
 arrived, and the Vice-President decided that the 
 Cuba bill, haying been assigned for that hour, was 
 the subject pending before the Senate. 
 
 Hereupon, Mr. Wade moved to postpone the 
 twelve o'clock order, and continue the considera- 
 tion of the Homestead bill, and this motion pre- 
 vailed by the following vote : 
 
 Tbas — Messrs. Bell, Bright, Broderick, Chandler, Clark, 
 OBllamer, IHmm DoolUUe, Douglas, Dwrkee, Pesnenden, 
 Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlm, Harlan, Johnson of Tennes- 
 see, King, Pugh, Eice, Seward, Simmoni, Smith, Stuart, 
 Trumbull, Wade, and Wilfio?l—^. 
 
 Nats — Messrs. Allen, Bates, Benjamin, Bigler, Brown, 
 Clay, Clingman, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, 
 Hammond, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Lane, 
 
 Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Reid, Sebastian, Slibell, Toombs, 
 Ward, and Tulee— 26. 
 
 On this vote, an additional southern senator, 
 Mr. Bell of Tennessee, ranged himself on the side 
 of homesteads. But this was oifset by the ratting 
 back to the negative side of Mr. Gwin. 
 
 The Homestead bill was now again before the 
 Senate, but the question, as stated by the Vice- 
 President was still upon Mr. Hunter's motion to 
 set it aside, and take up the cbnsular and diplo- 
 matic appropriation bill. 
 
 Mr. Mason, of Virginia, threatened an "extended 
 debate " upon the homestead bill, if its considera- 
 tion were insisted upon. He declared, at any 
 rate, for himself that he intended to "go into it 
 pretty largely, because he had not yet known a 
 bill so fraught with mischief, and mischief of the 
 most demoralizing kind." 
 
 Mr. Wade and Mr. Seward, in brief and ener- 
 getic terms, exhorted the friends of the bill to 
 stand firm. 
 
 The vote was then taken upon Mr. Hunter's 
 motion, and resulted as follows : 
 
 Ybas — Messrs. Allen, Bates, Bayard, Benjamin, Bigler, 
 Brown, Clay, Clingman, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, 
 Gwin, Hammond, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, 
 Kennedy, Lane, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Reid, Sebasti'an, 
 Slidell, Toombs, Ward, and Yulee — 28. 
 
 Nats— Messrs. Bell, Bright, Broderick, OhamdUr, Clark, 
 ColkMner, Dixon, Dooliitle, Douglas, Jjurkee, Feesenden, 
 Foot, Foster, Male, HarniUn, Harlem, Houston, Johnson 
 of Tennessee, Kimg, Pugh, Rice, Seward, Simmons, Smith, 
 Stuart, Trumbull, Wade, and Wllson^-2S. 
 
 The vote being a tie, the Vice-President, Mr. 
 Breckinridge, voted in the affirmative, and thus, 
 after a long struggle, the Homestead bill was, for 
 that day, overslaughed. 
 
 Of the twenty-eight votes for overslaughing it, 
 all but five are from the South, and one of theoe 
 five, Mr. Gwin, is only a temporary resident of a 
 Free State. 
 
 Of the twenty-eight votes in favor of sustain- 
 ing the bill, only three are from the South. 
 
 Two days afterward, on the 19th of February, 
 Mr. Wade again moved to set aside all prior 
 orders and take up the Homestead bill ; but this 
 motion was negatived by the following vote : 
 
 Yea&— Messrs. Broderick, Cltandler, GlarkjOollamer, 
 IHmm, DooUttle, Dwkee, Fessmdm,, Foot, Bale, Bam- 
 Un, Harlan, Johnson of Tennessee, Jones, King, Pugh, 
 Rice, Seward, Shleldis, Simmons, Stuart, TrumlbuU, Wade, 
 and Wilson — 24. 
 
 Nats — Messrs. Allen, Bates, Bayard, Benjamin, Bigler, 
 Bright, Brown, Chestnut, Clay, Clingman, Crittenden, 
 Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, Hammond, Houston, Hun- 
 ter, Iverson, Kennedy, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Polk, Reid, 
 Sebastian, Slidell, Smith, Toombs, Ward, and Yulee— 31. 
 
 Upon these two days, the 17th and 19th of 
 February, the question was made between the 
 consideration of the Homestead bill and the con- 
 sideration of the appropriation bills, the necessity 
 of passing which last bills did not fail to be 
 insisted upon by the Democratic managers. At a 
 subsequent stage of the session, as will be 
 presently seen, the question was made between 
 considering the Homestead bill and considering 
 the Cuba bill. 
 
 Upon the 25th day of February, upon the occa- 
 sion of a motion by Mr. Slidell, to postpone all 
 prior orders and take up the bill for the purchase 
 of Cuba, Mr. Doolittle resisted it, and called upon 
 
14 
 
 «he friends of homesteads to vote it down, so that 
 tie himself might submit a motion to take up the 
 Homestead bill. Mr. Doolittle said : 
 
 .^''^'tt"''"'' " '"'"'* be better to take up this question of 
 the Homestead bUl and vote upon it, and then the Cuba 
 tall will come up. I ask the friends of the Homestead bUl 
 now to stand by it and give it the preference." 
 
 The vote was then taken, and the motion to 
 take np the Cuba bill prevailed, as follows : 
 
 Yeas— Messr.1. Allen, Bayard, Bell, Benjamin, Bigier, 
 Brown, Chestnut, Clay, Clingman. Davis, Rtoh, Fitzpatricic, 
 ireen, Gwin, Hammond, Houston, Hunter, Iverson, Jones, 
 Lane,Mallory, Mason, Polk, Pugh, Eeid, Eice, Sebastian, 
 Shields, Shdell, Smith, Stuart, Toombs, Ward, Wrieht. and 
 Yulee—SS. i i o > 
 
 Nats— Messrs. Broderick, Cameron, Chandlfr, Clark, 
 toUamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Douglas, Durkee, Fessenden, 
 Foot, Foster, Hale, Bnmlin, Barkm, Johnson of Tennes- 
 see, Kennedy, King, Pearce, Seward, Simmona. Trwm- 
 iuU, Wade, and Wileon^ii. 
 
 The Cuba bill was now up, and the discussion 
 upon it protracted the session late into the night, 
 and almost into the next morning. It was dis- 
 tinctly seen during the progress of this discussion 
 that it would be withoHt practical result, and that 
 no vote could be reached before the final adjourn- 
 ment of Congress. 
 
 Accordingly, at ten o'clock in the evening, Mr. 
 Doolittle felt it to be his duty to renew the at- 
 tempt to set aside the Cuba bill, the subject-mat- 
 ter of a manifestly idle debate, so as to take up 
 the Homestead bill. His motion to that effect, 
 and the commencement of the debate upon it, 
 will be found on page 1351 of the Congressional 
 Globe. Such extracts are made as will exhibit its 
 general character ; 
 
 " Mr. Tkumbull. If there was any assurance that the 
 Homestead bill could be taken up, after the Cuba question 
 was disposed of, I should be willing to see it have the go- 
 by on the present occasion ; but we hare sought repeatedly 
 to bring up the Homestead bill, and every movement that 
 baa been made to bring it up has been met with a oounter 
 movement, crowding it out of the way with something else. 
 .... If the senator from Virginia will give us an as- 
 surance that we shall have a chance to bi-ing up the Home- 
 stead bill, and keep it before the Senate until we can get 
 a vote upon it, after the Cuba bill is through, and that he 
 will not intei-pose an appropriation bill, I would join with 
 gentlemen in asking my friend from Wisconsin to withdraw 
 the motion he has made. 
 
 " Mr. Hdntkb.— I certainly will press the appropriation 
 bills. 1 will give no promise to vote to take up the Home- 
 stead bill. 
 
 " Mr. TnuMBULL.— That is as I expected. We now have 
 notice that we are to met with an appropriation bill the 
 moment that the Cuba question is disposed of, and here we 
 are wasting our time at this stage of the session in making 
 long speeches, and debating about the acquisition of a 
 country that does not belong to us, inptend of providing 
 for the settlement of the country which we own. There 
 can be no hope of getting up the Homestead bill as against 
 an appropriation bill. 
 
 " Mr. SawARD.—After nine hours yielding to the diseus- 
 sion of the Cuba question, it is time to come back to the 
 great question of the day and the age. The Senate may 
 as well meet face to face the issue which is before them. 
 It is an iSsue presented by the competition between these 
 two questions. One, the Homestead bill, is a question of 
 homes, of lands for the landless freemen of the United 
 States. The Cuba Bill is a question of slaves for the slave- 
 holders of the Unated States. 
 
 " Mr. Wadb.— I am very glad that this question has at 
 length come up. 1 am glad, too, that it has antagonized 
 with this nigger question [Laughter.] I have been trying 
 here for nearly a month to get a straight-forward vote 
 upon this great measure of land for the landless. I glory 
 in that measure. It is the greatest that has ever ceme be- 
 fore the American Senate, and it has now come so that 
 
 there is no dodging it. The question will be, shall we give 
 niggers to the niggerless, or lands to the landless ? 
 
 " I moved some days ago to take up this subject. It was 
 said then that there was an appropiiation bill that stood 
 in the way. The senator from Viiginia had his appropria 
 tion bills. It was important, then, that they should be 
 settled at once ; there was danger that they would be lost, 
 and the government would stop in consequence ; and tha 
 appeal was made to gentlemen to give this bill the go-by 
 for the time- being, at all events, and the appeal was 
 successful. The appropriation bills lie very easy now be- 
 hind this nigger operation. [Laughter.] When you come 
 to niggers for the niggerless, all other questions sink into i 
 insignificance. 
 
 Mr. Doolittle's motion to set aside the Cuba Bill 
 for the purpose of taking up the Homestead Bill, 
 was lost, by the following vote : 
 
 Yba3 — Messrs. Broderick, Cameron, Ola/rk, Cha/tuUer, 
 CoUamer, Doolittle, FeeseTiden, Foot, Foster, Hale, JETam- 
 Im, Ha/rla/n, Johnson of Tennessee, Kin^, a&ieard, Sim- 
 mons, Trur-'-dl, Wade, and Wilson— li. 
 
 Nats — Messrs. Allen, Benjamin, Bayard, Bigier, Brown, 
 Chestnut, Clay, Clingman, Douglas, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, 
 Green, Gwin, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Lane, 
 Mallory, Mason, Polk, Pugh, Keid, lUce, Sebastian, Shields, 
 Slidell, Toombs, Ward, and Wright— 29. 
 
 This was the last attempt made to get up the 
 Homestead bill in the Senate. It had first been 
 overslaughed by the appropriation bills, and now 
 by the Cuba bill, and no expectation remained of 
 reaching it during the few remaining days of the 
 session. The Republicans, who had endeavored 
 to get it up in all forms and on all occasions with- 
 out success, felt it to their be duty to aluindon a 
 manifestly hopeless struggle. 
 
 From this review of the votes in the Senate and 
 House, it will be seen that the two great national 
 parties, the one representing the rights and in- 
 terests of free labor, and the other representing 
 the pretensions and interests of negro slavery, 
 have come to a well-defined issue upon this great 
 matter of the disposition of the public domain. 
 
 In the House, we see the Republicans voting with 
 unanimity for a proposition to secure to preemp- 
 tors all the public lands for the term of ten years 
 after their survey, forbidding, during that time, 
 their disposition either at public sale or by private 
 entry, and giving to the preemptor a pay-day 
 which would save him from usury, by giving him 
 time to provide means out of his crops wherewith 
 to buy his freehold. Afterward, we find this same 
 Republicans in the House voting with the same 
 unanimity for a Homestead bill. It is probable, 
 and indeed is known, that some Republicans pre- 
 ferred one measure to the other, but they voted 
 for both, being agreed in the main object, which 
 was to preserve the public domain for the actual 
 settler and small cultivator, and being willing to 
 waive differences of opinion as to detail, so long 
 as the main object should be at all events secured. 
 
 In the Senate, we witness the same unanimity 
 on the Republican side in favor of the Homestead 
 bill, and should have witnessed it upon the pro- 
 position to prohibit public sales of lands lor tjjn 
 years after their su" vey. if a vote upon thai; pro- 
 position could havt leen reached. 
 
 On the side of the Democratic party we witness 
 an opposition to both these measures, not indeed 
 absolutely unanimous, but of such a character as 
 to render it conclusively certain that that party 
 will continue to oppose those measures to the end.