The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-09-23
The Authorship Of the Homestead
BiIl--The Game Of Lying to Cover
up Theft.

The Authorship Of the Homestead
BiIl..The Game Of Lying to Cover
up Theft.
1t is fortunate arrangement in the dis
pensations of Providence, that neither all
the virtues, nor all the vices, are ever com.
bined in the persons of single men. Were
the rule otherwise, we should have some
characters quite too angelic for human
appreciation, and others quite too devilsh
for human endurance. The thing is better,
distributed as it Isl with sprinkling of
good and ill together in every character.
This is especially so with regard to men
essentially vicious-as we will illustrate.
The Thief is, per Sc, a most dangerous and
detestable character. But the Thief is less
dangerous and detestable, in himself, than
he would be, if, excelling in that, he should
also be accomplished as Liar. But Prov
idence, in His benefcence, rarely permits
any one man to excel supremely in these
two characteristics of vice. The greatest
Thief is rarely the greatest Liar. Some
lying, of course, the Thief must perpetrate,
as an incident to his pursuits; but as a
general rule, the Thief who steals most
felicitously, plumes himself the most upon
his veracious virtues. This is very
curious; but that it is equally true,
and universal, is verified by the old
saying that "Every Thief has his Liar"
But, while we thus assent to the truth
and universally of this saying, we must, at
the same time, be permitted to doubt its le-
gitimate corollary, that Every Grow has
his FOSTER" For, we don't believe that
every Grow could find such FOSTER. We
don't believe that even majority Of the
Grows could. We doubt, even, that this
Grow ever came across such FOSTER be-
fore, or that he will ever be likely to come
across such an one again. Such Fosters
are scarce. There may be large numbers of
them born, but they rarely live to reach the
full maturity of years, or of supreme excel
lence as Liars.
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 Home
stead bill which passed the House of Rep
resentatives during the last session of the
last Congress and that the claim of author
ship made by the Hon. GALUsHA A. GROW,
and on his behalf, was false and piratical.
We convicted him. from those records, of
theft, in as clear case as was ever perpe-
trated in that line of larceny. We convict
ed him by all the classes of proof known to
the law-by positive evidence and by evil
dence circumstantial. There was no doubt
of the fact. GROW himself wouldn't have
dared to doubt it. Grow had the audacity
to steal the reputation which was attached
to a benefcent measure, but he had not the
nerve to perpetrate the shameless lying ne
cessary 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 Com
mittee on Agriculture, was the iden-
tical bill, in all its essential features,
with that which was reported back by that
Committee to the House, and which passed
that body without amendment; while Crows
bill, which was referred to the Committee on
Public Lands, lay dead in the hands of that
Committee until the adjournment of Con-
gress. These facts furnished clear solu-
tion of the question Of authorship: With
Grow they must have been decisive; with
FOSTER they merely furnished occasion for
the display of his talents in mendacity-and
in manner to excite Crows establishment
no less than his admiration. FOSTER re-
solves the point this way:
The facts are, that Mr.. Grow was the author
of both bills-both of the bill which was re-
ferred to the Committee on Public Lands, as of
the bill offered by Mr.. Kelley and referred to
the Committee on Agriculture!
To persons acquainted with the two men,
the absurdity of Fosters statement will
strike them stronger than its falsehood
Probably no two men in the Thirty-F
Congress, had less in common with each
other. They were not only political op.
ponents, but all their tastes, habits, associa'
tions. were such as to render them not mere
" Indifferent, but repulsive to each other
And that this responsiveness was acted on
as well as felt, we have actual knowledge