St. Cloud Democrat. [volume] (Saint Cloud, Stearns County, Minn.) 1858-1866, 1860-07-05
, q s& From the N. r. Tribune, June 22d.
The Homestead. Conference Bill,


in consequence Of the length ot the daily
sessions, are week or more in arrears.-
But, knowing the deep interest felt by
our Western readers, especially in the de-
tails Of the Homestead bill recently pas
sed, we have procured a, copy Of the
report from the Conference Committee,
the vote by Yeas and Nays on concurrence,
and the bill itself as it finally passed both
Houses, in advance of the official publica-
ton: .,:~..-..<.
Mr.. CoLFAx.-I rise to a, question of
privilege. I am instructed by the Com
mittee of Conference on the disagreeing
votes Of the two houses on the Homestead
bill, to report that, after twelve meetings
Of the three different Conferences that
have been appointed, they this morning
finally agreed. II hold ID my hand the
report Of the Committee, which can be read
if any gentleman desires it, But perhaps
it would render the report clearer and
more Ineligible if I should briefly state
its leading features. The Senate bill all
the members of the House arc familiar
with. The Conferees upon the part of
the House finding, after the most, earnest
efforts, that it would be utterly impossible
for them to induce the Senate to agree to
the House bill, have been discussing what
changes could be made in the Senate bill,
80 as to render it & acceptable enough for.
the House to accept, rather than, the whole
should fail. They have finally agreed up
ON a report as follows 3 In the first place,
I will say that the bill; as it passed the
Senate, provided that the pre-emptors
now upon the; public lands might remain
there two years before they should be re-
tquired to purchase their,lands, but should
then pay for them at the rate of SIPS per
acre, thus removing: them entirely from
within the purviews Of the benefits which
apply to- the settlera hereafter upon the
public lands: This point the House Con:
ferees refused: to aooade to, and .if. persist
ed iny we should have again reported. a
disag reement: Finally; shoyeyer, sa.oom,
promise was arranged on this point, and
70 protect thes pre- ssennptols nowaon the
Government land, vhiohsWas to be aadye1-
tised this Fall for sale, we changed the
Senate bill 80 as to protect them for at
least two years; from land sales, and to
allow them then to secure their: homes at
o'se-tz!f the iGovernment price, namely,
! '623 cents per acre. 4 need scarcely add,
that, If the; Senate could have been indu.-
ced to give them the benefit of5theit TWEEN:
lty- five .oent-per.S .Sere oproyision, s!Weashould
have insisted on it inAe1ihly ;fbutd what I
have stated is! the. very lowest paint that
fEoould be- alobtained.t 10 The isecoAa s0hange
we havemadet in the Senate bill is in re
lation to the scopeeIo land coming under
the operation of the law. d The House bill
1embraeed al the Government, land, offered
or unofered, except such as itHas specially
reserEedax The tseasteI bill soanined It's
provisions to land subject to private entry,
excausnelyy as sAss IsaHave explained on i
former soccasio6, the expression g aubject
to private entry 4 Il means such as are left
Latter the lsnds have been once regularly
brought into market, exposed to public
1as they zee ddtt to purchase: The difference
lfbetxeeh these bills seemed 20 1adicalias ta
4 bsainoapeble of adjustment !; and the scope
lof fa1miqg land covered BY the Senate
bill 60 limited, there being but. little, Il
lany, ID Minnesota, Kansas, Neba1aiska
Cal6otnia,} Oregon, and Washington, that
1.-THE House conferees declined to aocept it
i But on thia, stoo,sne finally efeeted ! eom,
lject e private entry is included, and. ii
.faddisiGt, al Tie odd-numbersd se6tionl
1of the surveyed public lands, whichs have
not beena opened 70 public ssels-s mos