Pomeroy weekly telegraph. [volume] (Pomeroy, Meigs County, Ohio) 1860-1866, 1860-06-05
~
PROGRE SIS.

Many influential persons and papers,
in different sections of the country are
beginning to see the necessary bearing
which the positions of the parties upon
the great questions of the day must neces-
sarily have upon the welfare of the
people.
Among these questions is that of the
Public Lands. On this subject a late
number of the Tablet, an able and infu-
ential Catholic journal, in New York,
has long and able article.
We extract the following part of it,
narrating the efforts of Mr.. Grow during
the present and past sessions of Congress.
The writer is correct in saying that "the
people will no longer allow the public
domain to be frittered away for the ben
eft of speculators:
"Honest and philanthropic men moved
by the true Democratic principle, have
for some years past, strenuously endeav-
ored to substitute for this system one
which would protect actual settlers, those
hardy pioneers Of civilization, from be-
ing sacrificed to the benefit of land
sharks. Among these none merits higher
praise or more grateful remembrance from
every son Of toll than the Hon. Mr.
Grow Of Pennsylvania. He has been the
unfinching and untiring advocate of the
poor man against the monopolist. He
has ever been ready with an amendment
or a bill to effect his object. During the
second session of the XXXVth Congress
he procured the addition to bill reg
ulating the sale of the public lands of
an amendment giving bona tide settlers
ten years start OF the SPECTATORS, but the
bill as amended was defeated by the rep
resentatiyes of the great landed interest
Of the South, assisted by some twenty
seven Northern and Western Democrats,
among whom were Colonel Florence, Da-
Wis of Indiana, Vallandie ham of Ohio.
The Southern Know NothinSs, with a
single exception Davis of Maryland
voted against the bill Only eight Dem
ocrats supported it; they were John
Cochrane, Hatch and Horace Clark, of
New York, Cox and Miller of Ohio,
Morris of Illinois, Phelps and Cavanaugh
of Minnesota. The Republicans voted
in its favor. Later in the session bill
to secure homesteads to actual settlers
was brought forward by Mr.. Grow. 1t
was passed by one hundred and twenty
to seventy-six and the vote showed that
popular opinion expressed though the
press had changed for the better the
opinion of the Northern Democrats,
twenty nine voting for and six against
the bill The Southern Democrats, with
the exception of three, voted against it,
and the Southern Know Nothings with
out exception. One Republican, Mich
OILS of Ohio, voted against the bill. Ar
rived in the Senate, where the great
landed interest predominates, every trick
was resorted to, to avoid coming to'a di-
rect vote upon it, and motion to set aside
the humbug purchase of Cuba bill, and
take up the Homestead bill was voted
down by every Democratic Senator (inclu-
ding Douglas, Shields and Pugh,) ex-
cept Andrew johnson, of Tennessee, and
David Broderick, of California, who
from the first stood by the measure un-
falteringly.
'Not discouraged by these failures,
Mr.. Grow has this session again brought
forward a Homestead bill, which has
passed the House, and now awaits the
action of the Senate. The vote on the
bill in the House is instructive, and
shows the continued beneficial effect of an
enlightened public opinion on our legisla-
tors. Every Northern and Western Dem
ocrat, (including Colonel Tom Florance,
Davis of Ind, Vallandigham of Ohio,
and others, who voted against it last ses-
sion,l with the exception of Montgomery
of Pennsylvania, voted for the bill. The
Republican vote was cast in its favor
All the Southern Democrats and Know
Nothings with the exception of Craig of
Missouri, voted against it. So that the
question rests fairly on its merits, hav-
ing resolved itself into struggle between
Labor and Monopoly"