The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-08-31

our midst, and put upon an equality vth our
osOn citizens; wish to see him received vith
open arms, acith generosity, soith hospitality.
This is what l propose IN my bill; this is
what the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Webster) proposed in his resolution; this is
what was proposed in the resolution offered
by the gentleman from Texas; and / was in
hopes that this principle of placing the emf
grant and the native born American upon
an equal platform, and thus encouraging the
settlement of the new States, by giving the
public lands to the actual settlers free of
charge, while those who we're non residents
should pay the usual price for lands fixed
by the Government of the United States,
would become the settled policy of the coun-
try.
While he was willing the foreign born
citizen should be received upon an equality
with the native born, Mr.. DOUGLAS resisted
SEwARD's demagogueical "bid," which pro-
posed to elevate the unnaturalized foreigner,
and secure to him advantages denied to all
Others, whether native or foreign born citi-
zens.
Again, in reply to criticisms made by
Mr.. Dawson, of Georgia, that all such bills
were solely for the benefit of foreigners, Mr..
DOUGLAS said:
"Mr. DoUGLAs-I wish this policy to be
distinctly understood. We propose no bid
to foreigners-no exclusive privilege to for
eigners. We propose a system of policy for
the American Government to adopt, and
that system shall be the granting of lands to
the actual settler who resides upon and cul-
tivates the land, no matter where the man
is born. And this brings me to the argu-
ment of the Senator from Georgia, so far as
be assumed that those benefited by this poll
cy would pay no taxes. Why, sir, the
American born citizen who goes in under
this bill will certainly pay taxes; and the
foreigner who comes to our shores and set
ties on the public lands becomes taxpayer
by that very act, and thus every man of
them becomes a taxpayer. This policy,
therefore, multiplies the number of tax-pay
ers, and by this multiplication relieves the
burden of taxation on the mass of the citi-
zens. 1t is the very mode by which to in
crease the revenue, develop the resources of
the country, and fill it with hardy and in
dustrious population. Every man drawn
from foreign country to this, under the
provisions of this bill becomes a new tax
payer, and thereby contributes to the re-
duction of the burden of taxation on the
people.
II am equally opposed to the doctrine
advanced by the Senator from New York
and to that advanced by the Senator from
Georgia. The Senator from Georgia wishes
to discriminate against the foreigner, while
the Senator from New York in special cases
wishes to discriminate in favor of the for
eigner. 1t has been an evil in this country
that too much discrimination has been
brought up against native and foreign born
citizens; aud those who denounce foreigners
are as much liable to the criticism of seek
ing votes themselves by fattering native
American prejudices, as are those who make
an invdious discrimination in favor of for
eigners to the charge of seeking the votes of
foreigners. There are two modes of seeking
votes on this question. In Philadelphia it
is popular to raise the cry against foreign
ers, and so it is in other cities; and if we are
going to talk about demagogisn, it is just
as easy to raise the cry in certain sections,
and secure popularity thereby, by denouncing
foreigners, as in other sections it is by prais-
ing and fattering foreigners. The true
policy is to do neither. Receive the emf
grant settler on an equality with the Amer
lean citizen, and make no discrimination for
or against either.
land to the Senator from New York 1
say, do not think his peculiar case makes
an exception to the rule. We have unfor
tunate men who fought our battles in Next
co, native American born, and entitled to
as much favor as the man who was unfOrtu-
nate in the cause of liberty in foreign land;
and the man who is unfortunate at home is
just as much entitled to our sympathy as he
who is unfortunate abroad. The policy of
the government, then, should be this: to es.
tablish a system which shall be wise and
right, and which shall provide for proper
distribution of the public domain, making
no discrimination between foreign born and
native settlers, but placing them all on an
equality. Then we should have no foreign
and native parties-no demagogueism on the
question. Then we should have the true
policy which binds all together in the bonds
of fraternal affection. This is the true poll
cy on this question, and deprecate dema-
gogueism on the one side or the other. And
say to the Senator from Georgia, that if
he had examined the principle involved in
these resolutions as reduced to form in the
bill now on his table, he would not have
made the speech which he has made, for he
would not have had the material out of
which to manufacture it, and therefore l
think, if be will allow me to say so, he
should have examined the bill before the
principle itself is denounced, because thereby
be would have avoided the errors into which
be has fallen"
We have shown in the above the posi-.
ton Judge DOUGLAS assumed on the Home.
stead bill, in l849-5O. We defy any per-
son to produce an earlier record of the intro
duction of Homestead bill into the Senate,
than the bill introduced by Judge DOUGLAS,
December %, 1849. During the session of
Congress of 1858, Senator JOHNSON, of
Tennessee, the originator of the measure in
the American Congress, in speech tracing
the early history of the Homestead bill,
gave Senator DOUGLAS all the credit we
here give him.
| We refer all classes. native and FOREIGN