The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-07-27

drawing that source of revenue, and for this
reason any one who will trace the reports of
the sales of the public lands tor the last thirty
years, will find that whenever the country was
prosperous; whenever the imports were great;
whenever money was plenty; and you had
surplus revenue in the Treasury that you did
not know what to do with, your land sales ran
up to ten, twelve, fifteen, twenty or twenty.
four million dollars year; but the moment
revulsiOn came, and money became scarce and
your imports began to fall OF, the land sales
stopped; you could scarcely get dollar into
the Treasury during the very years you needed
it most. This source of revenue failed you when
you wanted it, and poured in upon you when
you did not want it and did not know what to
do with it. It creates surplus when the sur
plus becomes q curse to you, and fails you when
you need it to supply the deficiency in the Trea.
sury. This very system OF public land sales is
one of the causes of pecuniary revulsOns in
this country; and it will benefit the country.
benefit the Treasury, benefit the commercial
community, and the moneyed affairs of the en-
tire Union, to have this system cut of. 1t will
remain partially under the bill where lands
are entered for speculation, but it will be cut
off in regard to the actual settler. He pays
only twenty-five cents an acre, which is about
the cost of the administration of the land sys-
tenn.
Mr.. Mason-I wish to ask the Senator from
Illinois whether the effect of this amendment
will not be to enable the pre.emptioners who
now are such, to take their pre.emption lands
at q quarter of dollar an acre.
Mr.. Douglas-Unquestiona
The amendment proposed by Mr.. Douglas
was lost by a vote of 26 to 81.
A vote was then taken on substituting the
more liberal House Homestead bill, for that
of the Senate, but the amendment was re-.
jected by the following vote:
AYEs-..Messrs. Anthony, Bingham, Cameron,
Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle,
DOUGLAS, Durkee, Foster, Grimes, Hale,
Hamlin, Harlan, King, Rice, Seward, Simmons,
Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson
and Wilson--.25.
o. NAYs1Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bragg. Bright,
Brown, Chestnut, Clay, Clingman, Davis, Fitz.
patrick, Green, Gwin, Hammond, Hemphill,
Hunter, johnson of Arkansas, johnson of Ten.
nessee, LANE, Latham, Mason, Nicholson,
Pearce, Polk, Powell, Pugh, Sebastian, Slidell,
Toombs, Wigfall and Yulee.-30.
1t will be seen from the above that Mr..
DOUGLAS originated and voted for an impor.
tant amendment, in an endeavor to improve
the Senate Homestead bill, and failing in
that, he voted for the substitution of the
very liberal House bill, in its place. Both
bills having failed to pass, the House and
Senate Conference Committees agreed upon
a compromise measure, the substantial fea-
lures of which are as follows:
First. All lands now subject to private entry
are to be open for homesteads, at twenty. five
cents per acre.
Second. One-half of the surveyed public
lands which have not been offered for public
sale. and are now only open to presumption,
are. by the bill, open for homesteads at TWEEN.
ty.five cents per acre.
Third. Pre-emptors now on public lands, are
to have two years from and after the passage
of the act, to pay for their claim, and at the
rate of sixty-two and half cents per acre.
This was an important measure to the
settlers of Minnesota, in the feature which
gave them two years, from and after the
passage of the bill. to pay for the lands
which they occupied. Mr.. DOUGLAS urged
the passage of this bill, as the best which
could be obtained. He had tried to better
the Senate bill-he voted for the House
bill, and now, on the principle that half a
loaf is better than no bread, he supported
the compromise bill. He said:
desire to say word at this stage of the
proceedings. If the object of the friends of the
Homestead bill be truly and sincerely to pro
mote the interests of the settlers on the public
lands, do not think that there can be mo.
ment's hesitation in voting for the bill as now
before the Senate. No man can deny but what
<kn~4 = L Il
vast Importance to the settlers. 1t may not
accomplish all the objects that we have in
view. 1t does not accomplish near all the OBJ
jects had in view. 1t is not what desire.
had entertained the fond hope that we could
have done better. But, sir, we have done so
much now that we cannot stand justified if we
refuse to take now what is so generously ex.
tended to US merely because we cannot get al!
we want. Sir, there is one feature in this bill
of itself of vast importance. 1t gives settlers
two years at least to save their homes. If they
do not get any better provision at the end OF
that time, they have at least that two years
respite, and then it gives them the lands at
twenty-five cents an acre, instead of $l,25. Is
it of no service to the settler that he gets his
farm at twenty-five cents, instead of SIPS an
acre?
Mr.. Trumbull-He has to pay 81 25, just the
same under this bill.
Mr.. Douglas-Then it is not as satisfactory
as had hoped; it is still more Objectionable.
But still it gives the two years and how can
we refuse the grant OftwO years, accomplishing
all we ask for that length of time, and giving
them chance to save themselves afterwards
instead of taking it away from them now and
afterwa rds? Even that two years provision
is of sufficient importance to control my vote.
The bill then passed by a vote of A to
Mr.. DOUGLAS voting for and Mr.. HAM
LIN, the Republican candidate for Vice
President, against it. The following is the
negative vote:
NAYs-Messrs. Bragg, Clingman, HAMLIN,
Hunter, Mason, Pearce, Powell and Toombs.
The President-the leader and orig inator
of the Breckenridge party-vetoed this bill,
and sent it back to the Senate. When the
question came up, on passing the bill over
the veto of the President, Mr.. DOUGLAS was
not in his seat in the Senate, but when his
name was called, Senator PUGH arose and
stated that Senator DOUGLAS was detained
from the Senate chamber by illness, but
that he had paired of with Senator CLAY,
of Alabama, on this vote.
AS we stated at the commencement of
this article, at future day we will give a
history of the various efforts to pass a
Homestead bill through Congress, and Sen>
ator DOUGLAS action thereon.