Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-01-23
Thursday, ian. z, ISL.

adjourned
Tharsday, ian. z, ISL.
The same subject being again under consideration
Mr. HUBBARD, of New Hampshire, declared him
self in favor of the bill, and opposed to the amendment
proposed BY the Senator from Vermont, and said that
he would state his reasons for both He regarded the
granting of .emption rights as being, now, the set
tied policy of the Government Since 1884, the Co.
vcrnment had invariably granted protection to the actu
al settlers the public doman and he believed that
this course of legislation in conformity with public
opinion The Senator from Missouri had stated such to
be the popular sentiment this biect IN the West,
that it utterly in vain TO prevent the settlements
from going on by any enactments OF Congress part
of the public domain had been settled by some OF the
best Of the New England population. Mr.. II. said lie
was personally acquainted with many now in Michigan
and Wisconsin who had formerly been citizens OF ms
own State. They had gone on the land without Tile,
but the Government had protected them III the pos.
session Of their farms Laws OF this description hau
been passed repeatedly. The objections urged by
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Huntingdon might
Just as we'll have been urged against the presumption
law of 1880 against the bill now before the Senate
they applied with much force to the one as 10 Inc
other After the eloquent and convincing speech OF
the Senator from Missouri yesterday, Mr. ii. said It
was unnecessary for him 10 90 any remarks on the
general policy of presumption laws. What was the
measure now proposed: The settlers to he benefited
by the present bill had been called in the Of
their debate, "squatters" and land pirates; and
had also SAID That many oil theHl LOOK iHe
into their hands, and took more than the lOo acres
which il covered How this might be he could not say
but he did think those people at all deserved the Sc
we're denuncations which freely hurled at their
heads There other difference between the pre-
sent bill and former compton laws than lnis of
merly n man might 90 from New England INTO The
wilderness aud take up quarter section OF land ana,
after he had given it value by ms labor ana the I'M
he had made upon the SOIL Congress passed
law projecting him in the possession OF IL ana allowing
him 10 pay for it at the minimum price. lie cacu-
lated ON this but STILL when he first went upon the
publc domain he knew that he did so unauthorized
bv law and that in some he might be consider
ed rs wrong -doer. But now by The present n'ii,
was proposed TO relieve such man from the opprooous
charne of intrusion-to him from such cpthets
rs had sometimes been applied to this class OF hardy
poncers and by giving him legal right to do what ne
had formerly done against the letter Of the law, to e
oalize what was daily DONE and would continue !" ne
done whether the bill became law or not There was
no difference in principle between the bill and Tue
amendment Suppose a company of fifty adventurous
youno men went out from New Hampshire, and should
enter on some portion Of the public domain, ana oegh
10 make settlement; and, after they had hewn down
the timber opened the soil to cultivation, enclosed ,e'r
oround and built for themselves their log cabns Con-
9ress passed law quoting them in their possesson us
WINS done by the preempton laws Of 1881 ana looo-
Then anain suppose the same company oil hy persons
should 90 on the same LARD under the present p
,ud he the difference between the two cases? The OBJ
pct in both was TO become Hohesti
industrious settlers the lands OF the D 70 become
zens of the States where the lands lay TO all intens
and purposes Instead Of subjectng themselves 10 ne
called souaers ntruders, land pirates &c they wouio
now do precisely the act, and with the same pur-
nose only under general law, winch permitted lhe
land to be thus occupied lfthey could satisfy the he
ulster and Receiver that they had come there bona fde
with the purpose of settling the land and paying ior IL,
tbey might hold it against all the world Where was
any difference in principle
But Mr. H. said he was in favor of the bill, not mere
" although was prospective in its operatlon but Tor
the very reason that it was prospective ne nea 'na'
this was the very best way to settle the puoc an's,
and those who engaged in that enterprise, instead OF
being abused as land piraes ought TO be encourage
and cherished by the policy of the Government ana
invited 10 settle by the certainty of good title ana al
,ha minimum nrice Whether this bill was sufficiently
Guarded or not was the question:; the question "as
vl,ether the Senate would consent to strike oue '
whole of the BILL as reported from the committee ""n
substitute for it bill having the re,rosptcI ior ,
only, Mr. II. opposed TO TINS. liz In ,narsIr
h;,I was more inst and cxpedient than oi' MERRY
-, &c, tiles after the settlement had been maze
bu'e.s ,v,. mart of our settled policy, and IL
,, NV he Interrupted Mr.. n. would not in
,arrrnt i The thing right IN ITSELF ihese ooio
dventurous pioneers who opened 10 Us Tue
n.o,o worthy OF all encouragement .,
Wa" NJ n said that, in 1899, he had been himself al
,,1t;e in Wisconsin, he had seen the operation
~ ,hs system: and it was fact known to him that
ofthe land thus taken up by squatters was
n.;d for when the land came into market, and none
dared to interfere with the occupants The matter was
conducted quietly with perfect understanding on the
mart of all concerned. The sherih-the ofhcer VINO
conducted the land sae-was the general agent OF most