Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1854-08-02

The Hunter substitute lur the Homestead bill
which has passed the United States Senate, i;
nearly as Objectionable as the original measure
1t was designed as i compromise between the
views Of those Democrats who favored and those
who opposed the homestead principle, and so TAI
answered the purpose as to receive the vote ofeV-
cry member of the party in the Senate. The
Democratic press, also, have generally approved
Of the bill, and hailed it as platform upon which
the whole party can stand We have heretofore
given the leading provisions of the measure,
which are, reduction or graduation of the prices
of the public lands; tho first right Of purchase
giyen to the States respectively in which the
lands may lie at the reduced prices; aad the right
of persons twenty-oRe years Of age, or heaGs OF
families, to enter one hundred and sixty acres, at
the loves, reduced price Of twenty cents per
acre, or twelve and half cents for such lands as
may have been in the market over twenty years
the money to be paid after possession and cul-
ovation of five years,
The sum and substance of the difference be.
tween the two bills, as regards the homestead tea-
sure, is, that instead of giving the lands away the
Government pretends to sell them. At the low
est reduced price one hundred and sixty acres are
to be sold for eighteen dollars, payable five years
after date! This strikes us as rather paltry
expe&ient for getting over grave constitutional
scruples. and one unworthy to have originated
with the distinguished Senator from Virginia.
But the Democratic majority found themselves in
a difficulty, and Hunters bill seemed to be the
only way OF escape. If the Homestead bill had
passed the Senate the President would have been
placed in very awkward position, and possibly
many Senators were influenced by benevolent
desire to relieve him from embarrassment. The
West affirmed that the bill was just and proper,
while the South denied it, and a Presidential veto
or approval was equally dreaded by all the we'll
wishers Of the Administration Now, however,
the difficulty is happily adjusted. The new
States and homeless" individuals get the public
lands at nominal price, and the old States get
no benefit from common property. Mr.. Hunter
is called an abstractionist and this last exploit
entities him more than ever to the appelatOn.
MISUNDERSTANDING tuS SVH0l@A uCA0t0uOO pau W
MIR. Hunter by the Virginia Democracy, the
Richmond ErmaiRer sustains its reputation for
eandor and consistency by taking decided ground
against the new bill. 1t says, 'the whole Home
stead feature of this affair looks very much like a
dodge: aud the fact of all the Democratic Sena-
tors having voted for it, only gives the transaction
moro ugly and hideOus appearance" The fol-
lowing is an extract from the Examiners article
>'We do not like this new form of the Home
stead bill any better than the original form; nor
80 well. We see no difference in principle De-
tween an absolute donation ofthe public lands and
pretended sale for a nominal price, not worth,
or capable of defraying the expenses of collection,
and on credit which amounts to payment at the
Day of Judgment, and three days grace. The
principle of sale at prot! to the Treasury, and
for rerenue to the States is surrendered; aud
long before the five years is gone, the pitance OF
price will be Surrendered too. What great party
could sickle for the sum Of % cents? Plain
thinking people would laugh it oil the Hastings.
The present Homestead bill only does by indirec-
ton what the original bill proposed to do by direc-
ton; and because the one was straight forward
and downright, we should have preferred it to the
Homestead provisions Of the other"
The House has not yet acted upon the substi-
iute, and there is still some hope of its defeat.