Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1852-05-08

or oseshere Had they the right TO give away the pub
lie eatury for the purpose Of establishing charitable in
stutons in the States any where else? II they hao
no right to give away the public money for such pur
pose by what species of reasoning did they the
conclusion that they possessed the right give away the
public lands or any other public property to create
great national amshouse 1t struck him there was nc
distinction between the public lands and public property
This bill was the widest scheme Of socialism that the
widest socialist ever dreamed Of
The question then taken the amendment of the
Committee on Agriculture, and il was rejected.
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Hlineis, moved to strike out the
word citizens and insert residents which he thought
would have the effect Of relieving the bill Of an odious
unjust restriction.
MIR HALL was opposed to the amendment being Of the
opinion that the benefits Of the bill should be confined
citizens of the United States He then replied to the
marks of Mr. HOWARD to the constituticAaty of the
BILL
The amendment was not agreed to-.
Mr. ALLISON moved to strike out the words who is
the head Of family" declaring that the bill
Stood it would prohibit every bachelor from taking one
hundred and sixty Of the public domain under the
provisions Of the BILL He wished them to have the same
privilege as others.
Mr.. JOHNSON, Of Tennessee, replied to the remarks
Of Mr. HOWARD The gentleman had denounced the bill
as a scheme of Fourrierism When they looked at the
gentlemans own State what did they see One Of the
distinguished of that State wke had distinguished
himself in military well civil life, and who had al
spoken Texas into existence and shed his blood and
perled his life for that State had forward in the
Senate with proposition in substance like this And yet
the gentleman said that this Foarerism The gem
teman had spoken Of gratuities How long had it been
since Texas received ten millions at the hands of the
Government?
The amendment of Mr.. ALLISON was then rejected.
Mr.. CLINGMAN moved to insert after the words Uni
ted States except members of Congress- shall be
titled have issued to him by the Commissioner of Pub
lie Lands warrant Of 100 OF land, to be located
in the that under which bounty land
rants heretofore issued have been located any public
lands in the United States subject to entry the applicant
being required to make proof in support of his claim in
such and under such regulations as may be pre-
scribed by the Secretary of the Interior"
Mr. C. said that it would be that his amendment
important He did not exactly like the policy
Of this bill but if it to pass, he hoped it would pass
in the he proposed to amend If they were to
make disposition Of the public lands he desired it to be
equitable
Mr. CARTIER opposed the amendment on the ground
that it would vitality affect the Of the BILL
The amendment of Mr. CLMGMAS was then rejected:
Ayes %, noes 49,
Mr. SACKETT moved to strike out all the limitations
in the bi and insert that every citizen of the United
said that the effect of the amendment would be to extend
the benefits Of the bill all citizens of the United States
of the age of twenty -one years.
Mr.. HOWARD was opposed to the amendment as it
tended to squander the lands greater extent than the
original proposition He then replied to the charge of
Mr. JOHNSON of inconsistency because the State of Texas
at time adopted similar policy to this He stated
the evil effect of that policy upon the country which he
said wonld be found Of the best arguments against
the bill before the committee
The amendment of Mr.. SAcKETT was then negatived
Mr.. CLARKE moved to strike out free of cost" and
insert fifty cents per acre. He remarked that he
had constitutional difficulties to this 1t
proposition that the public lands
fund for the benefit of all the people Of all the States
If this true, then whatever legislation class le
gsaton amounted to exclusive legislation, and not
accordance with constitutional requirements He doubt
ed also the expediency of the measure and stated
the effect it would have in his State.
Mr.. CHANDLER replied to the remarks of Mr. CLARKE
as did also
Mr.. MOLONY, who expressed his surprise that any
gentleman understanding Western interests should take
such view of the bill as the gentleman from Iowa. Mr
CLARKE.) He considered such views, however honestly
he believed they certainly WERE suicidal
Western interests He considered the gentleman from
Iowa wrong in all his positions in relation to what were
the interests of the West and he also considered the
gentleman wrong in discriminating this legislation as class
legislation. This bill not only calculated eminently
advance the interests Of the West but it had been m
shown by the debates to be eminenty cacu
lated to promote national interests
Mr. DISNEY argued that the bill was constitutional;
when
Mr. PARKER, of Indiana moved to amend the amend
ment of Mr. CLARKE by reducing the to be charged
for the public lands to twenty five cents per He
suggested that all the public lands should be open every
body who wished TO make actual settlement at this
price, and opposed con6nng the settlement Of these
lands to heads of families.
On motion, the committee and the House adjourned