The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1859-06-29
About the Homestead BilI.

Ne nepuoIlSaH tohd'o SoHfSH'LOH 'ud0 tiiS
audacity to place on record, as one of its resolu-
tons, this bare and shameless alsehood:
~. That we are in iavor Of granting to actu-
al settlers one hundred and sixty acres OF the
public lands, free Of charge; and we do most
unoualifiedly condem the course Of the Pro-
slavery Democracy in Congress in opposing and
in the United States Senate, the
Homestead Bill which was designed to secure
free homes for poor men, whether of native or
foreign BIRTH"
The Homestead Bill was first proposed by
Andrew Johnson, Senator from Tennessee, one
of"the Pro slavery Democracy IN Congress"
here traduced. The first test vote upon it in
the Senate was on the 9th ofMay, 1858, a mo-
ton having been made to postpone the consid-
Grafton ofthe bill seven months, The motion
prevailed by thirty against twenty two; but one
Of the thirty was the author Of the bill, (Mr.
Johnson,) who voted thus in order that'he
might afterward demand reconsideration. -
Four Republican SenStors-Dixon, Fessenden,
Foster Hamlin--also voted in the negative, the
motion woutd have been defeated and the bill
put upon its passage, Ten Democratic Sena-
tors voted in the negative-Bright, Broderick
Douglas, Fitch, Jones, Pugh, Rice, Shields,
Stuart and Toombs.
The Committee on Public Lands in the Sen
ate, by which the bill was reported, consisted
of five Democrats and two Republicans; one of
the Democrats was absent--the other four vot-
ed for the bill. Every attempt to perfect the
bill by amendment was made by Democrat;
no assistance of that kind was vouchsaled by a
Republican
At the second session Of the same Congress-,
February /, 1859, another Homestead Bill was
brought to the Senate by message from the
House Of Representatives; was read twice and
referred to the Committee on Public Lands.
1t was a very lame bill; vague and contradictory
in its terms, and altogether unfit to become a
law. Nevertheless, the ommittee-consisting
of five Democrats and two Republicans report-
ed the bill through Mr.. johnson, Of Tennessee,
with favorable recommendation. On the 18th
of February, at the instance of Mr.. Wade, it
was considered and debated at some length, and
then laid aside necessarily in order to proceed
with one of the regular appropriation bills. On
the 28th of February Mr.. Pugh moved to post
pone all prior questions and take up the Home
stead Bill, which motion failed by three votes
and only because number Of Senators feared
there would not be time, as there was not, tC
consider the ordinary appropriation bills and
pass them.
This is the whole history, as it appears IL
the Congressional Globe, reported from day tc
day. The bill was never defeated in the Senate
it was postponed at one time (when it coulC
have been passed) by Republican votes; and j
was passed BY the House OF representatives du.
ring the second or short session, at SO late
period that the Senate had no time left to con
sder, amend and pass it. The assertionof thu
Republican State Convention, therefore, is ut
terly false.
To give more effect to this Elsehood howev
er, the Convention adopted another resolution
of compliment to Mr. Wade and the ''Republi
can members of Congress" from Ohio for "thei
able advocacy" Of the Homestead Bill Thi
means of course, that the Democratic Senate
and Representatives from Ohio neither advoca
ted nor supported it. We have seen that Mr.
Pugh was quite as forward as Mr.. Wade in at
tempting to have the bill considered; he wa
one Of the committee which twice reported it
and he made speech for it, on the 18th of Nay
1853, whereas Mr. Wade never gave it any at
tention until the last hours OF the last session
With regard to the members Of Congress from
Ohio, the accusation Of the Republican Stat
Convention is equally false, and even less excu
sable. There was no debate in the House, bu
our nine Democratic bers--Burns, Cock
Grill, Cox, Groesbeck Hall, Lawrence, Pendle
ton, and vallandigham- were all In their seat
and every one Of them voted for the bin. Mr.
Mott, Republican, was absent--or "dodged" tn,
question. There was but one vote from Obi
against the bill, and that was Rgubhea, yote
namely, the vote Of NJ, II. Nichols. I [Congrss
sional Globe, second session Of Thirty-ffth Con
gress, page 727,l And yet Mr.. Nichols was
member OF the committee, in the Republical
State Convention, which reported this impu
ldent libel on his Democratic colleagues. iia ,