Washington sentinel., 1854-05-07
THE HoMEsTEAD BrLL.


brought before Congress, we think that which
is embodied in the homestead bill is the most
Objectionable. AT the first glance there is
some appearance Of plausibility in the PROPOSE
ton to divide the public domain among the
States. To the casual observer bill distribu-
ting the proceeds of the sales of the public
lands has an appearance of Justice. But we
must confess our inability to understand how
any one who is guided by the Constitution, the
deeds Of cession, or mere policy, ever can
urge the propriety of giving away the public
domain without a consideration, and without
any resulting benefits to the thirty-one States,
which are the joint owners of it, and which
have right to demand that it be held and dis
posed OF for the benefit of each and all of them
The object Of the original grants Of land
to the federal government was to furnish it a
source of revenue by which it might sustain
itself. The income to the public treasury, de-
rived from the sales of the public lands, less
. ened the burden of taxation, and thereby
benefited all the States and the people of all
the States. The proposition to distribute the
lands would cut off that source of revenue,
and make an increased taxation ON imports
necessary, which would impose very unequal
burdens on different employments and on
the different members of the confederacy.
The scheme to distribute the proceeds Of the
sales is liable to the same objection, and to
the additional objection that the gross amount
Of the share falling to each State would be
charged with the expenses Of sales and the
cost of administration, conducted by officers
not appoined by and in no manner responsible
to its authority.
But. by both of the distribution schemes the
States would receive something; but that
something they would have to pay for by in.
creased taxation. If they received lands, they
would be burdened with costly land system
The land officers Of most Of the States would
be compelled to act long distance beyond
their jurisdiction, and the result would be that
the States would receive no real substantial
benefit. If they received the proceeds of the
sales of the public lands, they would have tc
pay for the bounty by increased duties on i'm
ports, which would operate unequally, and the
money distributed, not coming directly from
the people, would be squandered in wild, Wis
ionary, and reckless schemes.
Under the provisions Of the homestead bill
not only would the public lands be used for
improper purposes and the States subject them
selves to additional and unequal taxation by
cutting off source of revenue, but they would
receive absolutely nothing by way of compen-
sation. Besides the proposition to give away
would act most injuriously and unjustly against
the old States, by offering bounty to their citi-
2ens to leave their borders and settle on the un-
occupied lands of the federal government. ],
would operate most unfairly, also, on those who
have recently purchased and paid for public
lands; and already they have begun to com
plain, and to memorable Congress to refund
the moneys they have paid into the treasury in
the event that the homestead bill should be-
come law.
The cogeut and pointed argument, contained
IN the veto message Of General Pierce, against
the idea that the federal government can pro-
perly constitute itself general almoner, and
undertake to direct and dispense American
charity, is as pertinent to the homestead bill as
to the bill granting lands for the benefit of the
insane. Every man with heart in him would
desire TO see the homeless furnished with a
home; but that is charitable desire, and not
of such high order as the desire to see the
INDECENT insane properly cared for. The home
less may have been rendered homeless and
the landless may have been rendered landless
by sloth, and extravaganza, and vice, and they
may acquire homes and acquire lands by in
dustry, fugality, and virtue but insanity is q
sore infiction from on high that makes indi-
gence irretrievable. We cannot, therefore
perceive that the charitable motives which
would plead in favor Of homestead bill are
entitled to the same weight and consideration
as those which plead in favor Of the insane bill,
which the President most properly vetoed a
few days ago.
In his veto message, the President stated
distinctly that grant Of land for the pur
poses contemplated by the insane bill stood
upon the same principle as a grant of money
for the same purposes. And it is evident that
an act Of Congress, having for its object 10
furnish homes to the homeless and land to
the landless must, in constitutional point Of
view, stand upon the same platform with an
act to appropriate money to purchase home
,rJ a r;ven onantitv of land nrou;dad tho
land be purchased of the government and the
home be erected on it. Suppose proposition
were introduced in Congress providing that
every person specified in the homestead bill
might 20 into tho public domain, take posses