Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-22
House of Representatives.

| The SPEAKER stated that the first business in
order was the motion 10 lay upon the table the
! bill on which the Committee Public Lands
| yesterday made an adverse report namely, ex-
tending the provisions of the several bounty land
laws TO certain officers, soldiers, and sailors en-
! gagged in the war Of 1872 and the Indian wars
| subsequent to 1890.
| Mr.. WARREN, by unanimous consent made
personal explanation. The Committee on Pub
| nc Lands did not oppose any modification of the
| bounty land laws; on the contrary, they will
shortly report bill for the modification OF those
laws. But the bill which had been referred to
the committee proposed to give one hundred and
sixty acres TO each soldier without regard TO the
time OF service, whether ten days ten months
The committee thought that this was unequal and
after thorough investigation, concluded TO report
adversely. They ascertained that fthis bill should
become law it would dispose of almost onehalf
OF the surveyed public lands, and that il would re-
quire at least ten years for the department to
ry its provisions into effect.
LOUISVILLE AND PORTLAND CANAL. .t@
Mr.. PRESTON introduced bill 10 enlarge the
Louisville and Portland canal, providing for its
control and management. and making the canal
free TO navigation and commerce. Referred to
| the Committee on Roads and Canals.
HOMESTEAD BILL--NEBRAsKA AND KANSAS.
Mr.. J. c. ALLEN addressed the committee in
favor ofthe bill for the organization of the terrific
rial governments of Nebraska and Kansas He
stated the grounds upon which this support was
| based. He believed that the Missouri conpro
mise of 1920 was inconsistent with the principles
announced in the compromise measures Of 1880
The frst-named was not the condition on which
Missouri was admitted into the Union. Although
it was intended TO allay excitement it did not and
| never could accomplish the object of its authors
which was TO prohibit slavery north of the line Of
800 3O', but which could be effected after the
territory had assumed the rank and character of
an independent State. The doctrine that Con-
gress has any such power has long since been ex
ploded, and no statesmen will now contend that
such a prohibition can continue longer than the
territory retains its distinctive character
He noticed the o-repeated remark that Mr.
Clay was the author of the Missouri compromise,
and said that that distinguished statesman was not
even favorable to the principle on which il was
based. Mr.. Clay, in 1885, raised his warning voice
TO guard against the dangers of the Wtmot pro-
viso, and sought 10 heal and close tAe wounds
which that measure inflicted. To avoid all agita-
ton on the slavery question hereafter he said the
true principle 10 regulate the action of Congress
was, TO refrain from all interference in the legisa-
ton for the territories in his particular Yet gen
tlemen declare that Mr.. Clay was the advocate Of
an opposite principle.
The north had again and again opposed the Mis-
souri, compromise whenever it was presented. but
now seem to regard it as thing sacred not to be
violated. II is the doctrine of non-intervention
which abolitionsts oppose. Take away this SUBJ
Ject from congress, ana give Inc Setelent oil the
question to The people 10 whom IT rightly belongs,
and you will close the theatre ofagitation TO these
men, and thus this hall will cease 10 become a
theatre from which radate their political hereses
He then proceeded TO examine wherein the
Missouri compromise is inconsistent with the
compromise of 1850 and commented thereon
Both parties have pledged themselves 10 stand by
the compromises of 1850 The friends OF the
Nebraska bill merely ask that you apply the same
principles 10 the territories of Nebraska and Kan
.as that Congress has applied 10 Utah and New
Mexico. Do this. and you crush out aborionsm
IN Congress; fail 10 carry out the doctrine Of in
erventon, and you re-open the slavery agitation.
tanatclsm and socialism may do their worst on
this as on other occasions; but when the reflect
ing portion OF the free States see that in this bill
is only involved the question whether the people
shall be permitted 10 settle the slavery question
for themselves, or whether Congress Shall do it
for them, they will be astonished that this simple
question has given rise 10 so much agitation.
Mr. DENT said he not in favor of the
Homestead bill and he thought the people of the
state which he represents in part Georgia. are
opposed 10 il. He entered his protest against
such disposition OF the public lands. The bill
IS unjust and unequal. II proposes 10 take the
public domain from the sovereign States and the |
people, and give 1t to a set OF individuals who are
little worthy 10 receive il. The bill really invites
the pauper population Of Europe TO come hther
and take possession of the domain,
Mr.. DAWSON corrected the gentleman, saying |
the bill only applied TO citzens of the United
States
Mr.. DENT replied, this bill has no limitation. |
III pass, il is TO be perpetual. When the pauper
population Of Europe learn that such bill as this
has been passed by an American Congress- our
shores will be lined with millions Of them TO reap |
the benefit OF the act
Mr.. ID. said the gentleman seemed 10 overlook !
the words now resident the States and Terri |
tories" He wanted the House TO resist the dis
trbuton and drsposton now Attended TO he |
made ofthe public lands only with regard 10 the
homestead bill, the Pacific railroad enterprise and |
railroad grants generally but every measure now |
before the House having similar object in view.
He was for rewarding the soldiers who fought
and bed for the country. He understood there
was feeling in this houseto refuse justice to that
class Of men, who are entitled 10 the land but 10
give portion Of il 10 the pauper population of
Europe. He had learned that there are one hun
dred land bills now pending. But he was for ad.