Washington sentinel., 1854-05-07

So - PA4'ieAPAS, eAAS luSS'ou uiioSo Soh any
conditions be annexed to donations Of land
that Congress may choose to annex? If Con-
gress can say that man shall not receive
land because he has two wives, may not Con-
gress say that a man shall not receive land be-
cause he is guilty of any other domestic inn
morality or abhors the Maine liquor law
Maynot Congress discriminate between classes?
and is not class legislation unconstitutional?
Homestead bills are approaches to agrarianism,
and the best thing that can be done with them
is to strangle them.
We subjoin some remarks of Mr.. Phillips,
Of Alabama, with which we were struck.
Mr. PHILLIPs. / do not rise to reply to
anything which has fallen from the gentleman
from Ohio Mr.. GIDDISGsl who has Just taken
his seat, for could not nor could any man
who knew what was due to himself or what
was due to the responsibility of the House of
which he is member, trust himself to reply to
such language as has fallen from that gentle
man. leave him to his own conscience, and
to the reprobation of his constituents and if
neither OF them can serve as monitor, shall
not undertake to correct or counsel him. i
have no further reply to make to him.
rose, sir, when the gentleman from Ohio
obtained the floor, for the purpose of express
ing my entire concurrence in the motion to
strike out this provision. / say that it is
provision which has no parallel in the legisla.
ton of this country. 1t is another step on
ward in the progress of Capitalization on the
part OF this governments of which this Con-
gress has already given some strong evidences.
We are not only now undertaking to regulate
the industry OF the country, to regulate the
education OF the country, to become the
general almoner for oil its charities; but we
are now undertaking to regulate its morality.
Sir, where, in the legislation of Congress, will
any gentleman point me to a precedent where
such provision as this has ever been annex
ed to any legislation of Congress? Why, sir,
in the homestead bill which this House has
passed, was there any provision that no man
shall become settler who had been an adul-
terer; that no man should be entitled to the
benefit of homestead who had taken the life
of his brother, or who had committed lar
ceny, or any crime whatever? Is there to be
found such provision in any of our laws max
ing donations of land to settlers? Why is it
that in this bill, in reference to the only Terri
tory where this is regarded as q legal institu-
ton, this provision is inserted Why, sir, if in
Utah, which is an organized Territory govern
ing itself, the marriage of more than one wife
is illegal, it is punishable there as crime;
and it legal, it is most extraordinary thing,
that, having permitted the organization Of
Territory where this is a known legal institu-
ton, when we pass bills for that Territory,
we exclude from it's benefits all the persons
who are living in said Territory.
Why, sir, / say that there is no principle
whatever on which this is founded and the
remark of the gentleman from Virginia Mr..
LETcHER to the inquiry was perfectly legiti-
mate !; for if we exclude these men from the
benefit ofsettlements on the land on the ground
that they are in the commission of q crime, why,
he asked, do you not annex the same condition
to the salaries Of the important officers in the
same country? You have given salaries to the
governor and judicial officers of that Territory.
Why, then, has not this condition been annexed
to those salaries?
II say that Congress has nothing to do
whatever with this transaction. We are dis
posing of the public land. 1t is not necessary
or proper for this government to make this
condition. How is it to be worked ont? Who
is to Investigate the fact? If you are making
a provision, it ought to be provision with
some sanction there should be some mode Of
enforcing it. What provision is there here for
ascertaining the fact whether the party is en-
titled to make the entry?
"To what tribunal have you delegated the
inquiry to know whether the person applying
for this benefit is subject to the condition?
Sir, there is nothing of all this and it looks to
me to be most out of place, and most inoppor-
tune. 1t is certainly without the slightest pre-
cedenti in the past history of the country; and
trust, therefore, that this motion to strike out
will prevail
Since writing the above we learn that the
same subject was again considered on Friday
in the House of Representatives, and that the
bill was disposed of by vote of the Committee
of the Whole to report it to the House with a
recommendation that it not pass.
BARNUM AND THE CRYSTAL PALACE.