Washington sentinel., 1854-05-07

Dcls lIou lsoIti thfuuna. we nave no lOVc
for homestead bills. But admitting them to be
right in principle, the question arises can 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 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. l do not rise to reply to
anything which has fallen from the gentleman
from Ohio Mr.. GIDDINGs 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 il
neither OF them can serve as monitor, shall
not undertake to correct or counsel him. ]
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 q
provision which has no parallel in the legisa
ton OF this country. 1t is another step on
ward in the progress of Capitalization on the
part OF this government, 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 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 il
that in this bill, in reference to the only Terri
tory where this is regarded as 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 a most extraordinary thing
that, having permitted the organization of a
Territory where this is known legal institu
/ ,pba +1.o4
we exclude from its 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.
LETcHERl to the inquiry was perfectly legiti-
mate; for if we exclude these men from the
benefit Of settlements on the land on the ground
that they are i'll the commission of 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 10 the
governor and judicial officers ofthat Territory.
Why, then, has not this condition been annexed
to those salaries?
81 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 out? 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 fol
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 Z
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-
cedent 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 Q
recommendation that it not pass.
BARNUM AND THE CRYSTAL PALACE
The Crystal Palace, as everybody knows
! was dead II had hecome hut q orraat and oror