The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-05-16
SPEECH OF MIR. A. JoHssoNs

On the Homestead Ba delivered in the House of Repre-
SentatiUss, Apra 40, 1852


ssaatiUss, Apra 30, 1859.
The bill to encourage agriculture commerce. man ufac-
lures and all other branches OF industry by granting TO
every who is the head OF family and citizen OF
the United States homestead OF huHdred and sixty
oil land out OF the public DOMAIN upon condition OF
occupancy and cultivation OF the for the period
therein specified being under consideration in Committee
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee, said ; Mr. Chairman,
from The fact of having been connected with this
ure at early day, feel il incumbent upon me 10 make
some few remarks in favor OF the passage OF the bill,
and al the time to answer OF the objections
which have been urged against it by lis opponents.
IL will not be in my power TO take up the argu-
ments which have beel offered by the various gen
temen who have spoken in opposition to the bill and
answer them in detail. II will not be possible Tor
me TO them individually, and shall therefore be
compelled 10 answer them IN the aggregate Ii had the
time, think | might without arrogating anything TO
myselfif there is truth in mathematics skill in sur.
gery-lake up The arguments, one by one, which have
been offered against this bill, and by the touch OF truth
and reason demonstrate that they thin air But
have not the time to do and must therefore, in the
language OF the reaper, embrace them in the same grip
and cut them of at the root with single stroke OF the
sickle. But before commence this work OF demolition,
will remark that gentlemen from Virginia, and
one gentleman from Maine, have taken ground against
this bill upon the question OF It's consttutionaly But
before enter upon the discussion OF the constituonay
oil the measure want to set those gentlemen right lar
as their consistency is concerned
The gentleman from Maine MIR FULLER who made
the opening speech against this bill takes the bold ground
that the bill Is unconstitutional IN its operatlonhat
there are obligations resting upon the proceeds OF the
sales OF the public lands which have been discharged,
and consequently that Congress has authority to appro
pirate them indicated in this bill Now, when we
come TO examine these speeches, made by the gentleman
from Maine and others in opposition to this bill, we ind
them to be thing, but their votes upon former occa-
sons, when the same principle precisely was involved
another thing There bill before the last Congress
which appropriated 4S000 900 OF the public land
as naked graluy, That bill bears upon its face the
name of bounty. II was for a bounty to all those
who had served in the wars OF the country since 1870
ha yunYI hnY tnrnr FutaI no q
OF the bill. Now, what do mean by the word
mbounty" What do we understand by that term
These men served their country faithfully but soon
as the war was ended. and they were discharged and
paid all which the government had contracted to pay
them, the government under further legal obga-
tons 10 them All legal obligations had been discharged
years afterwards, we take up this subject and IN the
shape OF bouniy-so expressed in the caption oil the
bwe give away to them As, OOO 600 acres OF this pub
lie land. II understand the word "bounty," il means
lberaty in besowing gifts, munifcence, gratuIty /;
yet upon this principle we have given away these 4s,ooo
900 acres 10 The soldiers who served in the various wars
in which this country has been involved since 1880
And how do the gentlemen from Virginia bessrs MILL
SON and AvERETT] and from Maine Mr. FULLER stand
upon this question They stand with their votes re-
corded in favor OF the gratuity
But there another bill before the last Congress
which gave portion of these lands TO the new States
gift partial in its operation giving i Tor the benefit Of
was passed granted to those States 900 acres OF the
public lands worth $4,000 900, estimated by the
proper department But those gentlemen from Virginia
and Maine, who to have such constitutional scru-
Piles upon this subjectwho say that Congress has no
right 10 grant individual hundred and sixty acres
OF land TO reduce il 10 state OF cuuvaton-when the
question up OF making this enormous grant, this
bounty OF 20,00000 OF acres recorded their votes IN its
favor. And what, furthermore, do we fnd9 We also
find that there another slice OF 100000 OF acres
appropriated Tor the benefit OF the soldiers engaged IN
the Mexican war. Congress gave this little piece
a bounty, notwithstanding it involved precisely
The same principle SO far as the constitution is con-
FnnAa thA All tinHar ottnn hIrh
is clearly within the limits of the constitution. Thus
we find that these appropriations OF lands approach nearly
iooooo.ooo aeres-given. too as gra'uiy under The
that this measure Is unconstitutional This is the predc
ament in which find the gentlemen IRON Virginia
and the gentleman from Maine who have spoken against
this bill Here they stand, Coossus-like, with 10000
600 acres of the public domain upon their shoulders,
marching up TO the constitution, and finding there an
opening sufficiently wide through which TO pass The
opening wide as that OF the Red sea through
which the children OF Israel passed dry shodthe waters
standing as wall upon either side The territory borne
by these gentlemen upon their colossal shoulders was
equal in extent TO that which was designed be iRhab
tied by the oppressed children OF Israel.
In reference 10 the deeds OF cession which have been
alluded 10 by the gentleman from Maine MIR. FULLER,
he admits, in his Speech that the obligations created
by them have all been discharged but attempts by ref
eence TO the act passed on the 2Sh oil January 1917 TO
renew the obligation upon these lands because they
pledged by that act for the payment OF the and
principal thus created. How do the gentlemen from
Maine and Virginia stand upon this point When you
apprOaCn tnls anu examine III
that on the 18th OF February-he very next month al.
ter this pledge was given-we passed bill 10 which
have already REFERRED granting 100000 acres OF this
land to the Mexican soldiers yet gentlemen did not think
the plighted faith OF the government was then VIOLA
ted-not at all. And the 2sth OF September, 1850
we passed another bill, to which have also refer
red and the same gentlemen were willing thus TO
cut of another slice OF $4,000 900 acres, which this
pledge intended to cover. They did not seem
TO think, in the large grants made by these two bills
that they impairing the pighted faith OF the
government in regard 10 the 23e00,000 OF debt in
Cured by the act Of 18th January, 1s47. Sir, there
is nothing in it. The government did not look al
the pledge. as II was called, precludng the gov.
eminent from making any proper disposition OF the public
lands, which it might deem necessary and expeden In
making the pledge for the payment OF the interest upon
these stocks fell due, how does the matter stand
Were the proceeds OF the sales Of this land only pledged
pledged in common. The only object Of this pledge
say TO the creditors OF the government that in the
OF the government being involved in long and expensive
war; likely 10 absorb all the receipts in the treasury, Here
specific fund set apart out OF which the interest upo
this money can be paid with prompness and regularity
until the debt shall be finally liqudaed" But the whole
OF the receipts OF the treasury pledged in common
interest upon il as became due. That is the position Of
the matter, as understand it. Will any OF these gentle
tell me that this fund set apart in the treasury
exclusively to be appropriated 10 the payment OF hi:
debit Not word of ii. The treasury in common has
been pledged and is LIABLE and hence does not inter
fere in the least with our action upon the subject
With regard TO the revenue, the Secretary OF the Treas
ury tells that in consequence OF the passage OF the
bounty land law there will be no receipts into the
in consequence of the various laws passed by these
flemen,s votes That is what he these