Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-07-18
DAILY NATIONAL ERA.
HOMESTEAD BILL
SPEECH OF Mr.. CHASE. In THE SENATE
WsdnsdaH, yul4 u, 1854.

Wednesday, July II, 1854.
On motion by Mr.. WALKER, the Senate, as
in Committee Of the Whole, resumed the con-
sideration Of the House bill " to grant homo
stead Of one hundred and sixty acres OF the
public lands to actual settlers 1.-THE pending
question being on the amendment Of Mr.. CLAY
TON to strike out the sixth section, which is in
the following words:
ASEc 8. And be 1t further enacted, That
any individual now resident Of any one Of
| the States or Territories, and not citizen Of
the United States, but at the time of making
such acquisition for the benefit Of this act shall
have fled declaration of intention, as required
/ by the naturalization laws ofthe United States,
and shall become citizen Of the same before
the issuance Of the patent, as made and provi-
ded for in this act, shall be placed upon an
equal footing with the natiye-born citzcn of
the United States"
Mr. CHASE. desire to submit remark
or two, and then to offer On amendment, with
the view of perfecting the sixth section, before
the motion to strike out shall be taken. / do
it at this time, because If the motion to strike
out shall not prevail, and the section is retain
cd no motion will afterwards be in order to
amend it until the bill is reported to the Sem
ate.
| cannot agree with the Senator from Iowa,
Mr. DoDGE that all amendments are inexpe-
dent. am, on the contrary, in favor of rca-
s0nable and proper amendments. Such amend
ments will not cndanger the final passage of
the bill. have no doubt that the House will
cheerfuIly agree to such amendments as COM
mend themselves, by their obvious propriety to
it's appreciation. But, sir if it should be other
wise and beneficial amendments made here
shall be rejected in the House, it would be
quite in the power Of this body to recede and
thus save the BILL
Ii may not DO the pleasure of the Senate to
amend the bill at all la that case shall still
vote for it, not as perfect measure, but as one
commended by considerations Of humanity
and policy, Of sound expediency and liberal
| justice. shall propose no amendment, there
fore, with any unfriendly purpose towards the
BILL do not regard it as perfect--far from it
do not know that any Senator entirely ap-
proves it, But if | can get no better bill
shall vote for this; because it carries out, to a
certain extent that great principle Of public
policy first announced in this Chamber, per-
| haps, by the late Senator from Massachusetts,
| [Mr. Webster to whom the Senator from
Michigan Mr.. CAss] referred yesterday, but
which found it first practical, jealous, and per-
severing advocate upon this floor, in the Sena-
tor from Wisconsin. OF that policy heartily
approve When first announced, | declared
my adhesion to it. persevere in il to-day
regard the public lands as the ESTATE OF THE
PEOPLE, and Congress merely as a trustee.
The people are the cestuas que trust-the hene-
fciaries of this estate, and the whole duty of
Congress is performed by such disposal of
the lands for the benefit Of the people as an
upright discharge of the trust requires. To
devote portion Of these lands for the benefit
4 L. 81, ,v,f he Get I
| regarded as reasonable exercise of the trust
power vested in Congress by the Constitution.
therefore voted for the bill making provision
| for that unfortunate class, regard the grant
of limited portions of these lands to actual set
tiers as a wise and beneGcent exercise Of the
Same trust power. shall Therefore vote for
this bill.
| And now, sir, | wish to say few words in
reply to the observation which fell from the
Senator from Mississippi MIR. ADAMS He
says that immigrants from other lands ought
not to share the benefits Of this measure They
have rendered no services, he alleges to the
country, and therefore have no claim upon the
bounty of the Government. There would be
force in this argument if these grants could be
regarded as rewards for services performed !;
but then the argument would exclude from the
benefits CT the bill all, whether natives or for
| eigncrs, who have not rendered actual services
to the public. The bill proposes no grants
upon considerations of this nature the argu-
ment, therefore, if good at all, is good against
the whole bill. But il is not valid at all These
grants are not rewards for services rendered !;
they form part of a system of disposng of the
public land. They are for the benefit OF the
whole people represented by the Government,
as we'll as for the individual grantees The
public lands may be regarded under one point
Of view, as vast quantity Of unemployed ma
chinery in the possession Of great capitalist.
Il is capable Of producing enormous wealth,
but is idle and unproductive for want of hands
to work it. IL Is tho business OF q wise CAPT.
talist to bring his machinery into use IL is
the part of a wise Government to bring the
public domain into cultivation to develop its
hidden wealth, and add its treasures to the
general resources Of the country. Every set
tier upon the public lands, under the proyis-
ions Of this act in the course Of the FIVE years
which must elapse before he can obtain pat
ent, will moro than pay for the land he occu-
pics in the shape Of duties upon goods consum-
cd, or by the contributions which his labors
furnish TO the wealth and strength OF the coun-
try.
And now sir, If these public benefits consti-
tute valid reason for these grants to actual
settlers, that reason applies as strongly TO immi-
grants coming into the country after the pas
sage Of the act as it does to those already here
There is no substantial reason which commonds
itself to the Judgment Of statesman for any
such discrimination. There is sound and suf-
fcient ground Of distinction between citizens
in fact or in intention, and aliens who do not
design TO become citizens, but no reason at all
for any such distinction among immigrants
who do intend to become citizens. The section,
as it stands, draws line between immigrants
already arrived and immigrants to arrive here
after Those who arrive today are to have
the benefit Of the act those who arrive TO-
morrow, If the bill in the mean time should be-
come law, will DO excluded from its benefit.
Can anybody assign sensible reason for such
discrimination between Gf may be allowed
to coin a phrase) the ante-venients and the