Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1860-08-11
The Homs.lsaa Bm-Roll In a had Box.

"The Richmond Enquirer and Whig are engaged in
discussion Of John Bells views upon the Homestead
bill and the Eaquirer has developed some important
facts which place the opposition candidate for the Pres
deney in 4 most difficult position. The Whig having
denounced the bill "the dstssta5ls aud damRabis
Homestead Bill the most comprehensive aud Infamous
abolition that has ever been proposed since the
foundation OF the government the Enquirer shows from
the record that Bell has been advocate Of that
ure, and absolutely voted for it while in Congress-"
take the above from the last issue Ofthe Lynehburg
Rspab,oH an Illustration Of The in which the
gross msrs presentations Of the Enquirer misleading
aud oyesying and imposing upon its Democratic
temporarss, and the Democratic voters Of Virginia.
The Enquirsr having made the distinct and positive
assertion that Mr. Bell "rotsd for for the Homestead
Bill" we have repeatedly called upon that paper give
Us the proof that Mr. Bel had voted We have asked
the Eaqsrer over and over again to publish the yeas
and says on the passage of the Homestead Bill that
its readers and the public might see for themselves
whether Mr. Bell had voted for that bill or not But
though having made the direct charge that Mr. Bell did
vote for the Homestead Bill and though having been
peaedy appealed to BY US to subsiantate its charge Jy
roofro s record the Enquirer has thus far utterly fail
edo sddues single particle Of proof in support Of its
charge Therefore 1t IS not alleged by the Rep
A,,g that the Eagrsr shows from the record that NJ
Bell has been an advocate Of that measure, and absc
hely voted for it while in Congress TIE kHqujrsr,
w. repeat, has shown neither the one thing tie
other.
~ undertake to say, and We do say, in the ros; posi-
ave manner in face Of the distinct and emphatic asser
tou Of the Euquirsr that JouN BELL NEvEE DID VOTE
Pos ruE HOMESTEAD Blu There is one conclusive and
uaanswerable Why be did vote for it, It
j. tbi-ao vote vas eper taken ne Homestead Bi1
,alas mr. Bell ras iH Congress! No vote ever
taken on the Homestead Bal in the Senate Of the United
States, until the lrs, session Of Congress- and Mr. Bel
was not a member Of the Senate that time The al
legation Of the Enquirer therefore, that Ar. Bell voted
for the Homestead Bill falls miserably to the ground.
Tina, Mr. Bell pending the consideration Of the Home
stead Bill in the Senate, proposed various Amendments
10 the bill is true. But in every instance ezami-
station Of the record will show these amendments Of Mr.
Bel looked TO the protection Of the rights and interests
O. all parts Of the country in the Of the passage
o! the bill and not the interests Of the Northern
S asss alons His chief amendment allowing citizens,
IoafreehOlders Of az the States quarter section Of
Lind whether they chose to emgrate and settle on it or
not was a manifest Improvement to the BILL and tended
10 equazs its benefits in the Of its becoming
Law Il was therefore just and proper and righteous
amendment and one for which, as Southern men espe-
Cialy We should not nave hesiaLeu 10 VOTE IL Was an
amendment dictated by regard for the equal rights of
.l the States, and was essentially Southern in spirit
Mr. Bells whole object therefore in Offering any amen.
ment at all TO improve and perfect the bill as far
a. ne could so that in the event Of it, becoming v
it should not operate too partially, too unequal ~ and
TOO unjusty.
We have ouly to say, in conclusion ut "a Ne. B,h
has always been friend Of Distrbu icn-Eir and inst
Distribution among all the States ; simply impos,;
bic that be should favor Tee partial and iniquons
principle Of the Homestead klG We remark, further.
that the pretended record the subject 10 the Enquirer
of the 7th IS missaoy garbled and perverted Altar
from beginning q cad In proof Of what asseri Ne
rfer our reaGer and especially electors and sssa
e. to Appendix to Congressional Globe, vol 2s pages
lOs7 to 1928, the date OF the debate being ay 2osB
1874
There are several matters in connection vh this sub
ieci which We refer in other articles in soays paper
eOniOuudiDg the Enquirer and conyicing il Of Agraut
Misrepresentation In scarcely sorsry INSTANCE when
our usighbOr has PurPOrted to Ess fact in cOane1iOn
with Mr. Bells record has il sasedit correctly. Il has
Numbered and buudered, rnl viii bunder, no doubt
the bitter end