Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-09-13

| vantage lhlS is, VIII De best appreciated DJ
those who have watched the phases of these
| Questions most clearly. We shall PRESENT.,
see other important particulars in which the
Hunter substitute curtails the sphere of con
gressional legislation, and, by diminishing
federal power and patronage, restores to STATE
sovereignty some of its most valuable attri
butes.
Again, the House bill makes all absolute do
nation, free of cost, of quarter section to the
actual settler The Hunter substitute require,
price of 70 cents per acre; more than enough
to cover the cost to government. There cal
be no doubt that the substitute is preferable t
the House bill in both these particulars. And
| even If Its homestead sections stood alone
| apart from its other provisions, we do not be
leye that its effect would be so injurious o.
some may suppose. For we must notice, first
| that the settler cannot enter on any land, bu
that which the government has found itself un
| able to sell at public auction over the minimum
price; and, next, that he acquires no title
| until after five years of actual occupancy
Meantime he cannot ALLEVIATE and single
break in his occupancy forfeits all his rights
How many will accept homestead, thus re
strcted and tied up, at twenty-five cents pei
acre, when, for small additional cost, a per
| feet title can be acquired? Very few, we think.
| The military settlement law in Florida gave
away the lands, free of cost, on similar condi.
tons; and so does the existing homestead law
| in Oregon. Yet, such are the disadvantages OF
the want of title, and the ncapacity to ALLEVIATE,
| that many of the settlers have petitioned, and
| obtained leave, before the end ofthe five years,
| to enter and purchase their lands at the full
government price. But be this as it may, we
cannot estimate these sections fairly, unless
| we consider them in connection with the rest
of the bill, apart from which, Mr.. Hunter, we
may be sure, would never have yielded his con-
sent to them.
To understand their effect, we must remem.
Der that another section of the Hunter substi-
tute permits any State to take all the lands
within its limits, at the regular government
price, and sell them, for its own profit, for as
much more as it can get. And it provides,
that no settler shall be allowed to claim any
homestead principles, under this law, within
any State, which takes the lands on these
terms, unless that State continues these priv
leges by an act of her legislature We cannot
doubt that all the land States will avail them
selves of this bill, and thus purchase the lands
within their limits. 1t will then be their in
terest to sell them to the best advantage, and
the homestead clauses will have no existence,
unless they choose to make pecuniary sacri-
flee, and re-enact them. SO that the very par
ties, now most urgent for homestead bill, ac-
quire by this substitute direct interest the
other way, and are converted into its natural
opponents.
Who, then, can hesitate to prefer the Hunter
substitute to the House homestead2 We have
the authority of Mr.. Hunters own speeches
and actions to show that he yielded thus much
only to defeat far greater evil, and to estab.
lIsb fha nf o,ploe &c
embodied in his bills of March, and in his sub
stitute, and which he has advocated for some
years. But, we will 20 farther, and say that,
while we are entirely opposed to giving away
the public lands, we think it both wise and
just to make some moderate discrimination in
favor of the actual settler over the mere specu-
lator. 1t is what any private individual would
do who owned large body of wild lands; for
the settlement OF part greatly enhances the
value of the remainder. The hardy pioneer.
who extends our empire into the wilderness,
and by his labor gives value to territory be-
fore worthless, is fairly entitled to preference
ever the capitalist, who buys as a mere specu.
lation.
This policy has been adopted by every gov
eminent in the world. From the day that
Virginia first ceded the northwestern territory
as nursery for future sovereign republics, it
has been deemed the duty of the federal gov.
eminent to have regard TO the settlement and
weltcre OF the new communities springing up
on the public domain, as well as to the reve-
nue. to be derived from its sale. Our statute.
book is replete, from the earliest date, with
evidences of this fact, and determinations in
favor of settlement IL the principle be con-
ceded, the amount of discrimination becomes
question Of detail and degree, and while we
Toe r.
self) a much smaller discrimination than the
one made by the homestead clause of his sub.
stitute, yet we doubt not he made it as small as
he could, in the presence Of the large party
who insisted on an absolute donation Of the
lands.
Let US now examine the other provisions of
the substitute. We have seen that, so far as
its discrimination in favor Of actual settlement
are concerned, they are, in themselves, far pre-.
ferable TO the House Homestead bill, which
they defeated, and that, when coupled with the
privileges given to the land States, they will
probably be almost nulity. 1t may be
thought that they will have larger operation
in the Territories, but il must be remembered
that homestead laws are already in operation
in most of these Territories and, Also that
they only apply to such lands as are subject to
private entry; whereas, most Of the territorial
lands have yet TO be offered at public auction,
to the highest bidder, before they can be pri.
vately entered. The original homestead men,
both in and out of Congress, are warmly op-
posed 10 this substitute because they regard il
as no real concession to their views; they con-
cur in the opposition, which is here supported
for different reasons. Thus do extremes meet.
But 10 return to the main provisions, which
Mr.. Hunter proposes for final settlement Of
the much vexed land question. OF the great
practical issues, once dividing parties, il is the
only one left open. The currency and tariff
questions have been settled by the adoption OF
the democratic policy. But while the demo
Gratis have defeated the wing land policy of
distribution, they have not been sufficiently
united TO carry any measure Of their own. Yet
the subject eminently demands comprehensive
and statesmanlike treatment, and that at once
The longer it remains unsettled, the more dan
gerous it becomes; and the smaller is the
chance Of any wise, right and lasting adjust
ment.
The difficulties are not slight. The old
States justly claim a revenue interest in the
in tbax hay - 81