The Council Bluffs nonpareil. [volume] (Council Bluffs [Iowa]) 1857-1867, 1860-07-07
THE HOMESTEAD BILL.


Rsnarks Il Mr.. H.rsa. - -. rs" Veto
/ The Presidents Veto Of the Homestead
Bill being under consideration in the Sem
ate, Saturday, june 2Sd, Hon. JAS. HAIR
Ian, Of this State, addressed the Senate .,
some length in opposition thereto. Thefol-
lowing report of bis remarks We clip from
the Nationa! In.eltgencu:
/ Mr.. President, as q member Of the Com
mitsee on Public Lands, may be supposed
/ TO represent the views of Senators on this
side Of the chamber. Before the vote is
taken, therefore ask leave to sny few
words.
/ Representing State, in part, deeply in
terested in the passage of q homestead oil,
and believing that the old Senate bill was
the best that could be obtained from this
Administration, sustained il with my vote
and voice. In this was not sustained by
Senators with whom am associated politi-
Icaily. The House sustained their views
and ultimately compromise was effected
on an agreement to the bill now before US.
/ This bill il, in nv opinion, an Improvement
| on the Senate, but not all that and my po.
/
has been returned by the President with his
objections. II is now the duty Of the Sem
ate to consider his objections, and, if posi-
BILE, carry it by a two-,hirds vo,e..
I propose to review them with rapidity.
| In NY opinion, not one Of them will bear a
candid analysis.
| i. His frss objection is that Congress has
no power to give away the public lands to
| either individuals or to States. But this bill
proposes to sell them to spectators, as
heretofore, at 81 ,25 per acre, and to home
stead settlers at twenty-five cents per acre.
Herce no gift is proposed; it is a reduction
| of price to the actual settler. Itis true, it
grants to the States all lands that have been
exposed to sale for thirty years, and for FIVE
Yeas Of that period offered at twenty FIVE
cenis per acre. This, too, is not in the na-
ture of a gift, but an abandonment Of prop
| erty to the States that has ceased to be of
value to the Government. This feature of
the bill was defended by the Senator from
Alabama MIR. Clay) with ability, on the
ground that, after lands had been exposed
to sale for thirty years at graduated prices.
running down to twenty five cents per acre,
the ertire proceeds of sales would not de-
fray the expenses of the land Offices. Hence
it would cease to be Of value to the Govern.
ment Certainly NO one can pretend that
this Government has no power to abandon
worthless property.
2. His second objection is that this bill
would prove unjust and unequal in its op-
Grafton among the actual settlers themselves
that those who have heretofore settled on
and purchased public lands have paid $l.25
per acre; il you now reduce the price to
sixty. two and half cents or twenty-five
cents per acre, you treat the first purchaser
unjustly, and you will be required to refund
to them the difference. Well, sir, such an
argument hardly merits moments thought.
1t implies the declaration that Congress has
no power to reduce the price Of public pro-
perty without refunding to all others who
may nave bought at higher rate! And
that, 100, in the face Of his own declaration
contained in this same veto message, that
the price was heretofore reduced from 50 to
$l.25per acre; and yet no one has heard a
ciamor, or even request to have you re-
fund from the Treasury to the first purcha-
ser the difference in price OF seventy-Gve
cents per acre.
3. His third objection is that this bill will
do great in justice to the old soldiers who
have received bounty land warrants, BY re.
duSng their value in the market. Now, sir
whn these bounty land warrants were au.
thonzed to be issued they were not assigua
bic it is merely grant to the old soldier
of the right to enter piece of land without
pay; it was donation Of land to the SOL
dier. The warrants were afterwards made
assignable, for the benefit of the soldier who
could not or would not select and enter the
land. Whoever dreamed that by this act
making land warrants assignable Congress
entered into an implied obligation to main
tain their value in the market, by withhold
ing lands from market at less than 81 .25
per acre? Neither the Congress nor the Ex-
ecu.ive seemed to think so when the gradu-
alton bill become law.
4. His fourth objection is that this bill
would be unjust TO mechanics and other
classes of citizens than agricultursts, requi-
ring them to change their modes of life
How SO? Is it not broad enough in its pro-
visions to embrace al? Every head Of
family, q citizen Of the United States, or
who has declared his intention to become
such, may settle on and occupy his home
stead, whether farmer or mechanic, LAWYER
or doctor; none are inhibited. If they de-
cline TO do so it is not the fault Of the law
nor does the bill require any one to change
his calling as a prerequisite to settlement.
5. His fifth objection is that the bill would
be unjust to the old States, in diminishing
the marketable value Of their lands, ami
holding out premium to their citizens to
emigrate to new States. This may be very
good argument when addressed to the State
pride OF the Representatives Of the old
States, but not very credtable to their hu-
manity. Who are the citizens of new States?
Your sons and daughters-the children and
grandchildren of your people at home And
the President of the Republic invites you to
adopt policy that will retain them around
the old homestead, and worn out lands, to
stuggle with penurv, want--to become the
hewers OF wood and the drawers of water,
Of hard hearted laudlords-rath than to
send them to the fertile lands Of the new
States, to build up for themselves fortunes
and happy homes. ...-......
6. His sixth objectio, is that "this bill
will open one vast field for speculation.
Large numbers of actual settlers will be
carried out by capitalists upon agreement
to give them half of the land for the improve
mens of the other ha!f.'' This objection
will excite the ridicule Of every settler in a
new State who sees it. How much would it
cost the cap .talists to remove families from
the old States 10 the unoecupied public
lands in the new States and Territories. and
maintain them until they can cultivate crop
and live on the proceeds of their own indus
try? No one will pretend that it can be
done for less than Sl00 per family. In
what, then, will consist the SPECTATORS
profit? lie will advance Sl0O CT so, 10
transport AMI feed family. and keep
them on l60 acres of the public land
during period Of FIVE years for the rrisil-
ege Of entering 50 acres of the land at 25
cents per acre. in pursuance of secret bar
gain majs with the settler in violation Of
Law. and consequently voidl when he cap
20 direct to the land Office and enter his so
acres without delay and hazard for Sl0o.
!. His seventh objection is the allegation
that this bill diserimina:es against the native
born citizen in favor T the foreign born.