The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-09-23

But the peculiar absudity of the matter lies
in the implication that JOHN KELLY-who
had made this question a speciality in his
canvass, who intended to make its passage
the feature of his Congressional life, and
who was the superior of Mr.. Grow in
ability, and renowned for his selfreliance-
should consent to play second fiddle in re-
gard to his own pet measure, and to an
inferior man. Why, GROW himself would
protest against such an absurd transposi-
ton. The above, however, is mere baga.
telle, compared with what follows:
This duplication of the same bill was done
we have understood, simply to obtain two
ported back to the House, and not killed in the
Committees-packed on purpose by the South
ern speaker, Orr, to kill the Homestead meas
ure-especially in the Committee on Public
Lands. The Committee on Public Lands did
accordingly smother the bill offered by Mr.. Grow
and referred to them. and the Agricultural
Committee came near dong the same thing. 1t
was finally manoeuvred, however, through Mr..
Kelsey, Republican member from the State
of New York. acting in conjunction with MIR.
Grow, so as to get it reported back to the
House without, however, any recommendation
in its favor.
The absurdity of the "mannuvring' feat,
which FOSTER alleges to have been accom-
plished, will be realized by reference to the
composition of the Committee on Agricul-
culture. Of the nine members of the Com
mittee, but three were Republicans, and the
official record Of the report of the bill from
the Committee to the House, shows that it
was made without opposition, and that it
must therefore be taken as the unanimous re-
port of such Committee. If Mr.. GROW really
maneuvred" five Democrats and one
American-comprising two. thirds of the
committee a report of the Homestead
bill to the House, against either their
knowledge or consent, we will acknowledge
that he deserves higher reputation for
skill than he has heretofore enjoyed. But,
with nice sense of propriety, FOSTER re-
serves the climax Of his lying until he
reaches the climax of his sentence, where
in he says the bill was "reported back
to the House, WithoM, however, any re-
commentator in ats favor." This is lying
for the love of lying. 1t is lying without
the poor excuse of ignorance for in our
article, which was the subject of the criti-
cism we are now reviewing, we copied at
length, with reference to the volume and
page of the Congressional Globe, from which
it was taken, the following notice of the
introduction of the Homestead bill;
and which we now reproduce by way
of exposing Fosters mendacity when he says
it was "reported back to the House, a0ithout,
however, any recommendation in its favor."
We extract from the proceedings of the
House on the 26th of January, 1859, as
printed on page 6l2, of Part I. OF the Con-
gressional Globe, for the last session of the
last Congress:
Mr.. KELSEY, from the Committee on Agri
culture. reported back. acith a recommendation
that it do pass, bill Oh. R. No. 72,) to secure
homesteads to actual settlers on the public do
main; which was referred to the Committee
of the Whole on the state of the Union, and
ordered to be printed.
We don't think this subject requires any
further comment. 1t is clearly a case of de-
lberate 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 we'll as he can steal, and
FOSTER could steal as we'll as he can lie.