The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-08-24
THE WORD WHITE" IN THE HOMESTEAD
BILL

IL is known that the Homestead Bill, as it
went TO the Senate contained q provision re-
stricting its benefits to white persons The
Liberal Senators determined to make an effort
TO have this restriction stricken out; and it
was understood among them that Mr.. Gillette
should make the motion, and support it by
speech at length, and that the others should
sustain him. Circumstances prevented Mr..
Gillette from making the speech he designed
and therefore MIR. Chase, unwilling that the
final vote should be taken without any express
sion against this wrong on the last night of
the debate, when it had become evident that
Mr.. Hunters Graduation Bill would be sub
stituted for the Homestead Bill, moved to strike
the word "white" from the former and in
support of his motion remarked, in substance,
as follows
move, Mr.. President, to strike out the word
"whjte" from the first line Of the eighth Sec
ton. That section describes the persons emit
tied to the benefits of the provisions in favor of
actual settlers upon public lands lying within
the limits of States. 1t restricts these benefits
to such free white persons" as are permitted
by the State laws to acquire real estate. 1t
excludes Indians, Chinese, and oil persons of
color although under no disability to purchase
or hold lands under State law. The effect of
my motion, if it prevails, will be to impose no
disability By Federal legislation which State
law does not impose. No one can question
the reasonableness and justice of this
Let me remind the Senate that the Home
stead Bill, introduced into the House of Rep
resentatives of the last Congress, and carried
through that body by tho exerticns Of Andrew
Johnson, of Tennessee, contained no invidious
and unjust exclusion of persons of color. Nor
did the bill Of the present session contain any
such exclusion, when reported by the commit
tee. The word white" was inserted on the
motion of a member from Pennsylvania, and it
was supposed that its practical effect would be
TO defeat tho bill.
Notwithstanding the restriction, however,
the bill passed the House. 1t has been aban-
Goned here by 30 many whose support is es
sential TO its success, that it may be consider
ed practically dead though some Of US origi-
nal friends Of the Homestead policy, will vote
against all substitutes as amendments, which
do not contain the principle of free grants TO
actual settlers.
1t is evident, however, that the substitute
of the Senator from Virginia is to prevail as
an amendment to the Homestead bill. This
substitute replaces free grants by sales at re-
duced rates. 1t excludes from privilege of
purchase ell persons of color, even though the
State law may recognise no such principle of
exclusion. This, in my judgment, is mere gra-
tuitous injustice. IL is unreasonable and alb
surd to establish, by act of Congress, princi-
pie Of exclusion which neither the policy nor
positive legislation of the State, in which the
lands lie requires.
Mr.. President, | should like to say much
more. | should like to speak of tho services of
colored Americans under Washington and
Jackson; of their improved and improving con-
dition, in spite of mighty obstacles of the eel
ored men who have INDICATED the claims of
their race by their talents, their attainments,
and their conduct and to found, on these cir
cumstances, an appeal, not to the humanity
merely, but to the justice cf Senators. But
know that this is not the time. The long pro-
tracted session of to-day, now extending into
the night, the sitting heat and unwholesome
air of this chamber, and the impat;elce of SEN
ators, forbid. must ask, however, a vote by
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.