The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-09-16

up his motion, which he had made on the
26th Of January previous, to reconsider
the vote by which House bill mo. 72) to
secure homesteads to actual settlers on the
public domain, was referred to the Commit
tee Of the Whole on the state of the Union"
After this motion to RECONSIDER was agreed
to, and pending the demand for the previous
question on the passage of the bill, the
Speaker, in reply to a question of Mr..
SMITH, of Virginia, gave the legislative his
tory of the bill then before the House, in
the following terms:
The SPEAKER. When the bill was intro.
duced. it was read twice, and committed to the
Committee on Agriculture. 1t was reported
back by the Committee, and on motion Of the
gentleman from New York, (Mr. Kelsey,) re.
ferred to the Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union.
After the failure of attempts to amend
the bill, and to lay it on the table, it was the
same day put on its final passage, and did
so pass by vote of-yeas, l2O, nays, 76.
(See Congressional Globe, pages 1926, 727).
If any further evidence were needed to show
the identity of the Homestead Bill, which
thus passed the House of Representatives at
the last Session, with the bill which was in
troduced by Mr.. KELLY the Session previous,
it would be found in the fact following
Mr.. KELLY introduced his Homestead bill
on the 18th January, 1858, and had it re-
ferred to the Committee on Agriculture. On
the 25th of May following, in his speech on
the Homestead, he claimed this bill, then
lying in the hands of that committee, as his
measure, and quoted the first section, which
embodied the gist of the bill, at length. A
comparison of this first section, which was
thus quoted by Mr.. KELLY on the 25th Of
May. 1858, with the same section of the
bill, as it was reported to the House from
the Committee on Agriculture, on the Goth
of January, 1859, and as it passed the
House, without amendment, on the LIST of
February, 1859, shows that such first Sec
ton was not altered either in Committee or
in the House, and that it passed identically,
word for word, as Mr.. KELLY had origi
nally drafted and introduced it. And yet,
the Honorable GALUsHA A. GROW has the
audacity to openly claim before Congress its
paternity, and permits himself to go before
the intelligent people of Minnesota, labelled
and placarded as The Author of the Home.
stead Bill. There never was grosser case
of political piracy and the Republicans of
Minnesota owe it to their honor to denounce
the demagogue who thus dares to impose
upon them and upon the people.
We have confined this article to the sin
gle question Of the authorship Of the Home.
stead bill. We have not criticised the
merits Of the bill itself. The general idea
of Homestead law is not only popular and
just, but it is thoroughly Democratic. Many
persons have doubts whether the bill of
the last Congress would have realized in its
operation the expectations of its friends.
In their view, it would not. Instead Of being
Homestead bill in fact they hold it to be the
most thorough anti-Homestead measure
which could have been devised. But, that
does not affect the merits of Mr.. KELLY as
its author, nor the dement's of Mr.. Grow
as its thief. They doubtless both believed
that the bill, if it became law, would &C.
complish the great public good which was
its object. We are quite willing, therefore,
to judge them both by their intent; and to
award to Mr.. KELLY all the credit which
belongs to an attempt to frame just and
generous law, and to Mr.. Grow degree of
infamy for its piracy in exact accordance
with its anticipated merit and popularity.