Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-02-09
The Homestead Bill and the Repub-
IIcan Party.


Our remarks yesterday on this subject were
written with no other account of the proceed
ings in the House of Representatives than
the very brief report of the National h.teA'-
qsacer. The view we took on the subj ct, in
it's party aspect, is abundantly confirmed by
the subj ined extract of letter to the New
York Tribune, dated Washington, February
LIST. 1859 The Tribune correspondent says ::
A bill like that which has just passed, was
introduced by Mr.. Grow, in the last C0ngr IS,
but was not definitely acted upon. The pres
eat bill was introduced by him early last
session, and referred to the Committee on
Agriculture. Owing TO the time absorbed by
Lecompton, nothing was doae in regard to II.
Mr. Kelsey, from the Committee on Agricnl-
ture now report d the bill back to the House,
and it was referred to the Committee Of the
Whole. To-day the vote by which it was
20 referred was re-cOnsdered. This brought
it directly before the House. Grow and its
active friends decided that they would put it
upon its passage On his demanding the
previous question on its third reading, tu-
multi arose and variety of efforts were
made TO coax, and whecdle and drive Grow
10 Weld the floor so as to get in amendments
and dflatory motions. But he kept steady
land u the I; ! %, determined that the
measure should rid out the storm in safety,
if possible. Before the demand for the pre-
yious question was seconded, Hughes (who Is
always on the wing in foul weatlfer0 moved
to lay the bill on the table. The yeas and
nays silenced his croaking, by the significant
vote of II to lI3. 1t now being evident that
a large majority of the House was favorable
to the measure, the attempt to swamp II by
impraeticable amendments and side motions
was renewed Keitt and Maynard, Of Tennes-
see, trying their skill at this line OF attack
But Grow held on firmly; the demand for the
previous question was seconded; the main
question ordered, and the bill read third
time Grow now demanded the previous
question on its final passage. Ere il was
seconded, Humphrey Marshall endeavored to
overwhelm il with questions Of order. But
The Speaker ruled against nina sufficient
.'number up, and there is a second the
" yeas have IT, and the main question Is or
"dered:" ard now, "Shall the bill pass -
Bark.dale demanded the yeas and NAYS; and
this benign measure, laden with blessings to
the industrious poor, safely. triumphantly
passed the ordeal; yeas l2O nays &c. The
victory was made sure by the stereoiyp"d
formula of moving to reconsider, and lay on
the table Nothing em.iu-d but the adop-
ton of the title OF the bill. on which Grow
called the previous question. Wright, of
Georgia, (the shareholders died hard y pro-
posed to tlibuster about the title. Ii was too
late. The title, under the operation Of the
previous question, was adopted, aud the good
DAVIS work was donel
This vitality Democratic measure received
the votes If SO Republicans. & nti-Lecomp-
ton Democrats and 80 Lecomptou Democrats
Ii encountered the Nays of l Republican
Cthank heaven. only one y 2 Anti-Lccompton
Democrats 60 Lccompton Democrats, and Is
South Americans.
The single Republican who voted against
il was Matthias ii. Nichols. OF Ohio. The two
hostile Anti-Lecompton Democrats Were :. ).
Marshall and Aaron Shaw, both Of Illinois.
Neither OF these three gentlemen il returned
to the next House. The sixty Lecompton
Democrats are composed OF fifty-siN slave
holders and tour doughfaccs, to-wit: English.
Hughes and Nihlack, of Indiana aud Lridy,
of Pennsylvania. The Shareholders voted
against it because they despisc free labor, aud
the doughiaccs, because they love to serve
shareholders. The South Americans voted
against the bill because il allowed aliens
who had only declared their intention TO be-
come citizens, to participate in its benefits.
The State OF New York voted thus:
For the BiH-Andrews, Barr, Burroughs,
C. B. CocArane, J. Coch ane, Corning. Hatch
Dodd. Fenton, Goodwin. Granger. Haskin,
Hoard. Kelsey. Maclay, Mattrsou, Morgan,
Morse Marray, Olir. Palmer. Parker. Polite
Russell, Spinner, G. Taylor and Ward-ls
Republicans. l anti-L"compton Democrat aud
8 accompanies making q.
A5sea.--Henry Bennett. Horace r. Clark.
J. A. Soaring, j, w. sherman, ID 4. Sickles
and Jno. Thompson-6.
The sectional phase Of the vote is as
follows:
klr Lhe BiH-Membcrs from Slave States, s.;
Members from Free State. III.
Agaiast the BiH-Mrml,-rs from Slave
States, 60; NJ -mbers on Free States. 7.
The sectional aud political features Of this
vote, speak volumes. Let Us look back a
little ways. la 1852, a Homestead bill pass
ed the House. The affirmative votes came.
in about rqual proportions, from the Free aud
S I'VE State. This bill was not act a upon In
e Senate In 1854, the House again passed
a HON, stead bill. The votes ia it, favor came
rom both sides of Mason aud Dixonis line;
It the Northern preponderance was consider
Oily greater than two years before. This bill
gas rejected by the Senate. Since then five
wears have passed. And five such years
The Miss,u COMPROMISE repeal, the Raj sas
eofspiracies. the sublime vote Of the Free
S .ates ia 1856. and The Lecompton struggle,
have cl arly defined the conflict between Free
Labor and Slave Labor.
LIRE. then. is a nleasure eminenily ''dsmo-
craticr-a measure specially and almost sx-