The weekly Mississippian., 1860-09-26
John Bells Record...Honestoad Bill.


The Opposition press and speakers Of this
State are making the charge against General
10. Lane that he voted in favor of the Home
stead bill, which Mr.. Buchanan very properly
vetoed. 1t is not our purpose at present to
defend Gen. Lane from that charge, but we
turn the battery they have opened upon him,
upon their own candidate for the Presidency.
with crushing force. We will prove, from the
record. that John Bell was the most outrage
ous land-grabber in all the land, and that he
grabbed all the time for his Northern friends
During the month Of July, 1854, the Home
stead bill excited the attention of Congress
The Senate, in Committee of the Whole, had
under consideration the House bill "to grant
a homestead of one hundred and sixty acres
of public lands to actual settlers" Various
amendments were offered and defeated, when
Mr.. Bell then moved to amend the bill by
adding an additional section, the effect of which
was to grant to any free white citizen of the
limited States who is not freeholder and
who may not desire to settle upon the same, a
warrant for one hundred and sixty acres of
land; which warrant shall be assignable-the
assignee receiving it under the requirements
to cultivate.
The amendment of Mr.. Bell, and the debate
thereon, will be found in the Congressional
Globe, [App, vol. 29, page HOG to HOS, and
is as follows:
Sec -. And be it further enacted, That
every free white citizen Of the United States
who IS the head of family, and who is not
freeholder, nor the owner of leasehold estate
Of the value of 500, and who may not desire
to emigrate, or have not the means of remoy-
ing his or her family to any of the States or
Territories, shall be entitled to certificate, to
be issued by the Commissioner of the General
Land Office, under such regulations as may
be established by the Secretary Of the Interior,
Of his OF. her right to occupy one quarter Sec
tion OF, the public lands, according to the terms
and conditions of this act, which said certifi-
cate shall be assignable, or transferable, in the
manner provided for the transfer of land scrip,
issued under the act of Congress, authorizing
the issue of the same to the soldiers of the late
war with Mexico.
After some remarks by Mr.. Bright, in favor
of Mr.. Hunters substitute, Mr.. Bell said:
Idesire to modify the amendment by strik-
ing out the limitation upon the value of the
leasehold estate.
The Presiding Offieer-Mr. Weller in the
chair-The Senator cannot do that without
unanimous consent
Mr.. Bell said:
do not offer it for the purpose of defeating
a, L. b,kI flxy hiuly he 6aa hat
there are many families in the country who
cannot leave where they now are to 60 off to
the new lands, the amendment ought to be
adopted. I do not desire to do any thing hos
tile to the measure.
This vile agrarian measure was too much
for Mr.. Dawson, Whig Senator, who imme-
diately assailed it.
Mr.. Dawson then moved to strike out the
words "who may not be land holder" and
my reason for doing this, as stated before, is
that the whole of these public lands belong as
much to one citizen of the United States as
to another, and it is but equal and fair justice
| because A has been an industrious and thriv-
ing man, and has drawn around him the COM
| forts of life, that he should be entitled to the
same rights at least as the man who has been
prodigal and lazy.
/ Apa;n Mr.. Dawson said.
Now, sir, it is seen by every gentlemen, that
| the mechanics of the country cannot go and
ooeuPy SUN A'eseau
MI. DaWson continued:
Iagree with nv friend from Tennessee il
the object of this is to give the lands to the
iano.ess, ana II we nad the power to 90 It 1t
reonreJ II tben tbe ,roS;s;o, Sne, oe ss .sa
| bill would be fair one; but still, if the Gov
ernment is going to bestow the lands by sta
tute, what KIND OF statute should it be? A
$50 80. e.a s.la' sI eIuals5 statute
wbomq The cest,.;oue ty,,,st of tbe graat fnndS
Who are they? Not the kandzess or tie home
less, but the people of the States themselves;
ana 70 ais'liou.s tiaeni IN any otner way is
~ a,,d =. ,,t,.1.s 80, ~ 1
| tion. It comes in violation Of Democratic
principles-one of which is to avoid SPECIAL
iegisla.lon a ior the 6enent OF classes.
a, 10y b - a an, . ro.s -" &c a.ss Jdm ~ .nis
to benefit particular class. I maintain that
this Goyernment has no right to iegislats on
aa oenan o. one elass oi Il our people against the
Vision without str;L;ne onf tbe ,.ords - rb;oh P
I have proposed to strike out, would be to
iegslate for one class, the landless; including
All Ta Sn4 nass n1 % iana pa,
ing for II @TSee naee 110s Ann vol 90
NJ. n.mso, mn, g. .,o,,,. u
pa,l,. .n,a,d,'ant - o,,tro : - -. -.
rights an OUTRAGE upon ;pst;ce and an ont-
rage upon equal legislation. but we think If
can he shown to he n most comnrehensive abo-
lition measure. as well as outrageous land
grabbing scheme. Our contemporary Of the
Richmond ENQUIRER. in commenting unon this
amendment of Mr.. Bell. demonstrates bv facts
and figures how it would operate. at will
be seem" says the Enquirer, from Mr.. Belps
amendment, that every white citizen who is
the head of a family, but not freeholder or
leaseholder, would have been entitled to a
quarter section. From the most reliable data.
we find that in 1850 the number of heads Of
families were 100000 in the North, and
100000 in the South The landholders in
the North were 1,500 900, and in the South
100000; hence the heads of families not
landholders in the North were ], 100 GOO, and
in the South $4,000. Multiplying each of
these sums 160, sone-quarter section the
North would have received 176.ooo,ooo of
acres, and the South 100000. Difference
in favor Of the North, 123,000oo0 Of acres.
Mr.. Bell would have given 229,Ooo 600 acres
Of public lands not to actual settlers, but to
stay-at-home squatters. He would have de-
priyed LOG, ,ao7 farmers of Virginia, of all par
ticipation in the public lands, but would have
gwen l41, geo abolitionists in Massachusetts,,
claim to 160 acres each, "assignable and