Saint Paul weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1858-1859, 1859-10-01
The Authorship or the Homestead Bill
A.-The Pioner Convicted Of Falsehood
md AAnder, q . --rI-.- ----NA .

The Authorship or the Homestead Bill
A.-The Pioner Convicted Of Falseh0od
sn'oA sn'o AAr4nnoef' ~ atG Il 4igL--1..~aE}l 8
The Pioneer, of the 18th instant, contained
leading article headed " The Authorship of
the Homestead Bll-The Game of Lying to
cover up Theft" 1t was conceived in terms
of yituperation of Mr.. Grow and of the editor
of this paper, even coarser than is usual with
that coarse and mendacious sheet. After xp-
plying the terms of Thief" to Mr.. Grow,
and Liar" to ourself; and ringing the
charges upon the phrase, Every Thief has
his LIAR" Every Grow has his Foster
this decent organ Of the Democracy Of Min.
nesota proceeded to remark as follows:
"We demonstrated, the other day, from
the official records of Congress, that Hon.
John Kelly, Democratic Congressman from
| New York, was the author Of the Homestead
Bill which passed the House of Representa-
tives during the last session of the last Con-
gress and that the claim of authorship made
by the Hon. Galusha A. Grow, and on his be.
half, was false and piratical. i rt..-s.j } ..-
eve convicted him, from those records, of
theft, in as clear case as was ever pepetra-
| ted in that line of larceny.
"We convicted him by all the classes of
proof known to the law-by positive evidence
and by evidence circumstantial. There was
| no doubt of the fact Grow himself wouldn't
have dared to doubt it, Grow had the auda-
city to steal the reputation which was attach
ed to bene6cent measure, but he had not
the nerve to perpetrate the shameless lying
necessary to conceal or deny the theft But
just what Grow lacked, Foster supplied
We clearly proved that the Homestead Bill
which Kelly introduced, and which, on his
| motion, was referred to the Committee on
Agriculture, was the identical bill, in all its
essential features, with that which was repor-
ted back by that Committee to the House,
and which passed that body without amend
ment; while Crows BILL which was referred
to the Committee on Public Lands, lay dead
in the hand of that Committee until the ad-
journment of Congress. These facts fur
nished clear solution of the question of
authorrhip. With Grow they must have de-
cisive with Foster they merely furnished oc-
casion for the display of his talents in men,
dacity-talents which will excite Crows as
tOnishment no less than his admiration. Fos-
ter resolves the point in this way:
"The facts are, that Mr.. Grow was the au-
thor of both bills-both of the bill which was
referred to the Committee on Public Lands,
IS of the bill offered by Mr.. Kelley and re-
ferred to the Committee on Agriculture -
To persons acquainted with the two men,
the absurdlty of Fosters statement will strike
them stronger than its falsehood."
The article in the Pioneer then continued
at considerable length, and wound up as fol-
lows:
"We don't think this subject requires any
further comment. 1t is clearly case of de.
hberate stealing on the part of Grow, and of
deliberate lying on the part of Foster. We
are not disposed to give the palm to either
over the other. Each has acquitted himself
with the highest distinction in his special line.
We cannot, however, help wondering what
pair of monstrosities they would make, if
Grow could lie as well as he can steal, and
Foster could steal as well as he can lH."
We have thus made these liberal extracts
from the Pioneer to exhibit the tone of that
press in political augmentation, as well as to
state fairly the whole length and breadth of
the charge against Mr.. Grow and oursef in
all its original coarseness and indecency.
Mr. CROWS AND DIR. FOSTERS ANSWER.
AS an answer, we find in the Pioneer
and Democrat of Feb. %, wednesday, the
following letter from Mr.. Grow;
Letter from Hon. Galusha A. Grow.
HENDERSON, Sept. 10, 1859.
To the Editors Of the Pioneer and Democrat.
SlRs:-I have just read your paper of the
10th inst. As an act of personal justice, will
you insert in your paper the following state
ment: By referring to the Congressional
Globe, which you profess to quote, for the 1st
session 34th Congress, you will find that dur
ing the first days of that session, after the
election of Speaker Il. e. in January or first
of February, 1860 introduced Home
stead Bill, word for word like the one which
passed the House last session, and it was re-
ferred to the Committee on Agriculture, of
which was member. AS soon as the Com
mittee was called in the regular course of
business, reported it back to the House and
it took its place on the Calendar. 1t was al
most the same bill identically that had in
troduced in the 33d Congress, ii. e. Decem-
Der 1859 The first days of the last Con-
gress (i e. December 1859 introduced the
same Homestead Bill that had introduced in
the preceding Congress, and it was referred
to the Committee on Public Lands. Some
time after that, as you will see by reference
! to the Globe for that session, Mr.. Kelly in
troduced Homestead Bill, which was re-
ferred, as you say, to the Committee on Agri-
| culture. BY examining the bill introduced by
Mr.. Kelley, you will lind it the same, word
for word, Of the bill that reported from the
| Co umlttee on Agriculture the preceding Con-
gress. All these facts you can find Ia the
Globe.
But permit me, in closing this note, single
statement equally true, though it would not
appear by the Globe. Before Mr.. Kelly in
| troduceda bill, he came to my desk in the
House and requested me to furnish him
copy of the bill that introduced in the pre-
ceding Congress, saying that he had large
number of petitions from New York for such
a measure, and that he wanted to introduce
a bill himself. gave him copy as he re-
quested, and said to him that the bill had
introduced was referred to the Committee on
Public Lands, and if he was going to intro
duce one, it would be better to refer it to the
Committee on Agriculture, as that would give
US two chances instead of one to get action
on it. He assented to that, and so referred
the bill he introduced to that committee. This
is brief history of the two bills you refer to
in your article.
When Mr.. Kelley was elected to Congress,
l had been a member for four years, and
had introduced Homestead bill three times
before he introduced the bill you refer to.
/ Had you compared the date of the trans
actions to which your refer little more care
fully you would not, l presume, have used
the epithets with which your article abounds
or have made the assertion in closing that sit
is clearly case of deliberate lying on the
part of Foster.' --..
So believing have asked the insertion of
this note in your paper in explanation of your
statements.
| Respectfully yours,
| GALUsHA A. GRow.
| T. ,,,ox, x1,:s lokx,. Al. n.