The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-09-09
The Public Lands-A HOmestead Law.


The Democracy, in the Cincinnati plat
form, stated but the naked truth in declaring
that the opposition party conceive no i'm
posture too monstrous for the popular credu.
lily" This truth is being forcibly illustra-
ted in the attempt of the Sham Republicans
to monopolize all credit for the advocacy of
Free Homestead act.
Every man who is familiar with the &C.
ton of political parties in this country for
the past twenty-five years, even, knows that
one of the most prominent causes of differ
ence between the Democrats and their oppo-
nents has been the disposition of the public
lands. The Democrats were in favor of the
actual occupation and settlement of the
lands, and Of appropriating the proceeds of
their sale strictly for national purposes The
opposition party was in favor of speedy sales,
and of the distribution of the proceeds Of
such sales among the different States. This
policy of distributing the proceeds created
feverish desire, among the old States, for
a rapid sale of the lands at auction, that
they might enjoy their share of the money.
1t was a policy, however, injurious to the
true interests of the new Territories and
States, and indeed of the whole country, and
the Democrats firmly opposed it. 1t was
on this subject that General JACKSON took
such bold and patriotic position, though
he thereby incurred the most bitter and in
discriminate censure of his opponents. In
1888, while he was President, Congress
passed an act granting the proceeds of the
sale Of public lands to the several States. He
declined to give the bill his assent, and it
did not become law. He had lived on the
frontier and knew the wants of settlers, and
that the lands ought to be reserved for
actual settlement. He knew that if the
policy of distributing the proceeds of the sales
was not stopped, Congress would continue
to yield to the greedy desire of the old
States, and sell off all the lands
to SPECTATORS; and he therefore took
the responsibility of resisting that pol
icy, though it was then popular. What
was the consequence? He was denounced
by his political opponents among whom
was ALEXANDER RAMSEY and others now
among the sham Republican leaders-he
was denounced. we say, by them as having
acted in an arbitrary manner. There was
scarcely any abuse which they did not heap
upon him. But his fame has molly survived
their calumny and the principle which he,
with the support of the Democratic party,
then maintained, was the stepping stone to
a general presumption law and other benef-
cent measures for the benefit of the frontier
settlers. When the opponents of the
Democracy found that their favorite theory
of distributing the proceeds of the public
lands had become exploded, they manifested
less hostility to the policy of projecting
actual settlers. Nevertheless they adhered
to that theory, and still do, in many of the
States, as part of their party creed.
In 1888, under Democratic administra-
ton, bill was passed granting the rightfof
presumption to persons who had made
settlement on the public lands. Even such
law as that was then considered quite
liberal measure and it was strongly con.
tested by the opponents of the Democratic
party. DANIEL WEBSTER, however, had
lately visited the Northwest, and thought
the welfare of the settlers demanded such a
bill. (See his speeches, vol 4, p. 399.)
He supported the bill; but his course raised
a great deal of censure and excitement
among his political friends. Mr.. CLAY,
who was greatly in advance of his party in
liberality to the frontierman, expressed
=" great surprise" at Mr.. WEBsrERs course.
Mr.. WEBsrER's colleague also manifested
great CONSERVATION at such departure
from the old party creed. What the oppo-
nents of the Democrats then demanded was
that all the lands should be sold to the
highest bidder, without regard to those
which had been settled on and were occu-
pied. They accused the Democracy of
legislating for a fen squatters, and endeav-
ored to excite prejudice against the measure
because it encouraged foreigners to come
to this country and settle on the new
lands The party which thus so bitterly
opposed the presumption principle was
the very party which sent ALEXANDER
RAMSEY to Congress, and afterwards
made him Governor of Minnesota and
Superintendent of Indian Affairs He
was a bright and shining light in the
party that opposed the presumption prin.
ciple because it it encouraged foreigners
to emigrats to this country and occupy our
public lands!
1t will be apparent to any candid mind
that it was the steady policy Of the Democ-
racy which paved the way for permanent
presumption law in ls4l, applying to future
settlers.
A Democratic Congress still further ex.
tended the benefits Of the presumption law,
by providing in the Kansas and Nebraska
act, in 1854, that settlers in those Territories