The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-10-06

sales chiefly distributed aes that had originally
arising from the sales Of their own ha.
new States will remain longer connted with tho policy tor
may b. apprchendod from this % stop ovo all partial and
Interested legislation on this subject and 70 afford every american
hold seems 70 best 10 abandon the idea Of raising
future revenue out Of the public lands"
Then have standing before u.s. In advocacy of this
great principle the first writer of laws Moses next We
have Vatte and in the third place have Gen Jack
SON. Now let us whether there has been any home
stead policy in the United States by turning to
statutes find that the first homestead bill ever intro
duced into the Congress of the United States in
1I9l know that it is said by some and it is some
times cantngly and sluringy reiterated in the newsp
pers, that this is dcmagogical movement and that
person has introduced and advocates this policy
purely for the purpose Of pleasing the people want to
who of these demagogues and before read
the section of this statute viii refer in connection with
jackson and these other distinguished individuals TO the
fact that Mr. Jefferson the philosopher and statesman
recognised and appreciated this great doctrine In 1871
the first bill passed by the Congress of the United States
recognising the Homestead principle is in the following
words
That four hundred acres Of land bo gyen'
that is the language of the statute We do not
in this bill to give land We assume that consdera
ton passes but here law that based on the
idea that four hundred Of land to be given
those who, tho year 1888
families ynccnnos the Illinois country Mississippi
who since time, the places
tho other governor tho Territory
hereby directed tho be laid them
own expense nc
Another section Of the act provides:
That vnccnnes or in the Illinois country
the lss who afterwards removed without the limits sail
Territory are entitled the donation Of four hundred
acras OF land made by the resolve CT Congress, !" &c.
That act recognised the principle embraced in the
homestead bill. If this is the idea OF demagogue if
it is the idea Of ono catering pandeng 10 the public
sentiment to catch votes it asntoduced into Congress
in l79l and received the approval Of Washington the
father of his that III he lived
day, and were to approve the measure he did in l79l
he would be branded and put in the category Of those
persons who are denominated demagogues, Under his
administration there was another bill passed of similar
import recognising and carrying out the great homestead
principle So find that this policy, legislation
is sconcencd commenced with Washington and received
his approval as early as lT9l From General Washing
ton administration there are forty four precedents
ming through every administration Of this government
down to the present time in which this principle has
been recognised and endorsed.
We discover from this historical review that this is no
new idea that it is no recent invention that it
movement for the purpose of making votes but it
is principle welnigh old tho government ITSELF
which was endorsed and approved by Washington him
self.
This would SEEM Mr. President to settle the question
of power. know it has been argued by that Con-
gress had not the power to make donations of land but
even the statute, to which have referred makes Of
the word give without consideration 1t was corsid
cred constitutional by the early fathers give away land
We proceed in this bill upon the principle that there is
consideration If were disposed to look for precedents
even for the donations of the public lands could in
stance the bountyl land act could take you through
other acts donating land showing that the principle has
been recognised again and again. and that there is not
now a question as to its consttutonality.
believe there is clear difference in tho power of the
federal government in reference to its appropriations
of money and its appropriations of the public land
The Congress Of the United States has power to lay and
collect taxes duties, imposts, and excses to pay the
debts and provide for the common defence and general
I hac thn -
duties for these legitimate purposes but when taxes have
been laid, collected and paid into the treasury do not
think it ns that general scope that latitude in the APP
propriaons OF money that has the public lands
Once converted into revenue Congress only appro
pirate the revenue to the specific objects of the const
tion IL may derive from the public lands and
being revenue 1t can only be appropriated to the pr
poses for which revenue is raised under tho consttu
ton.
But when we turn to another provision Of the consttu
tion we find that Congress has power $50 dispose Of and
make all needu rules and regulations respecting the ter
rtoy or other property belonging to the United States
Congress has in tho organization of all the Territories
and in the admission of States recognised the prin
cpe most clearly of appropriatng the public lands for
the benefit OF schools, colleges, and academies 1t has
granted the sixteenth and thrtysxth sections in every
township for school purposes it has granted lands for
their public buildings and various other improvements
an very clear on this point that in the disposition of
the public lands they should be applied to national pur
poses grant the public lands TO actual settlers SO
to induce them to settle upon and cultivate the public
lands there be anything national in its charac
ter What is the great object of acquiring territory
Is it not for settlement and cultivation We may acquire
territory by the exercise Of the treaty making power We
may be engaged in war; and terms or conditions of
peace we may make large acquisitions of territory the
United States But what is the great idea and principle
on which you acquire territory Is it not to settle and
cultivate itG
am aware that the argument is used if you can dis
pose of the public lands for this purpose or that purpose
cannot you sell the public lands and apply the proceeds
to the same purposeg think there is clear distinction
between the two 1t is equally clear to that if
the federal government set apart the public lands for
school purposes in the States, it appropriate
lands TO enable the parent to sustain his child whilst
oyng the benefits conferred upon him by the government
in the shape Of education The argument is as sound in
the one case 1t is in the other If grant lands in
the one case we can in the other. IT, without making
contract In ADVANCE You can grant your public lands
grautcs as donations to who go ont and fight tho
battles Of their country after the services have been
dered B it not strange passing strange that you cannot
grant land to those who till the soil and make provision
to sustain your army while it is fighting the battles OF the
country It seems to that the argument is clear
do not intend to argue the constitutional question: for
think there can be really no doubt on that point.
do not believe any at this day will seriously make
any point on that ground against this BILL Is its purpose
national one The great bec is to induce persons to
cultivate the land and thereby make the soil productive.
y dong this you induce hundreds OF persons throughout
the United States who producing but little, to
come in contact with the soil and add to the productive
capacity of the country and thereby promote the ma
tional veal
come now to the amendment offered by the senator
from North Carolina have not looked over the Globe
this morning to read his remarks of Yesterday but IL
understood him correctly, he advocated tho pronoston