The advocate., 1891-05-06
emption settlement we find another
instance Of government loans TO the
people. Writing Of the events Of
that time Mr.. G. Campbell, one Of
settlers upon those lands, says:

settlers upon those lands, says:
Many Of us were very poor at this time, having
spent what little we brought with US In the fight
for these lands and the price Of all property was
greatly depressed In consequence Of the panic Of
'7S, brought on by the contraction Of the cur
rency; and az sample Of the prices prevailing
for property at thac time, remember Of huSking
my corn and hauling 1t sixteen miles TO Parsons
with my team OF oxen, and could not sell 1t for
10 cents per bushel In cash, and had to get 1t
stored until such time as It would sell, or haul 1t
back, and / preferred the former. In this
dilemma we began to talk that the government
ought to give US this land, or make some arrange
ments by which it would loan us money to pre-
empt with. Finally the government came to
our aid, and allowed us to pay $50 on the quar-
ter section, and gave US one, two and three years
on the deferred payments by paying go q year
and per cent. interest. It was the first 5 per
cent. money the people of Kansas ever borrowed,
and this Is the nrst instance that now call TO
mind where the government has ever loaned its
money to the people, But it demonstrated the
practicabilIty Of such system. and In 1876 Is
sued circular and set forth the system that
New York had adopted In loaning It's school
fund to the farmers upon real estate security,
and demonstrated the practicabIlity Of such o
system for the United States.
In the National Economist Of
April 18th we find the facts relating
to the loans that have been made to
finance committees of the centennial
exposition at Philadelphia in 1876
and the worlds industrial and cotton
exposition at New Orleans at q more
recent date. The loan granted to the
centennial exposition the committee
afterwards refused to pay. Suit was
brought to recover and decision
was rendered by Chief Justice Waite
sustaining the claim Of the govern
ment.
The debate upon the bill to aid the
New Orleans exposition clearly shows
that il was understood to be a loan
and nothing but q loan. The follow
ing Is part Of that debate. The
caption OF the bill was, "An act to
make q loan to aid in the celebration
Of the worlds industrial and cotton
exposition:"
Section 1. That the sum Of $l,OOO,OOO be, and
the same 10 hereby, appropriated out Of any
money In the public treasury not otherwise sp-
proprlated aS loan to the worlds industrial
and cotton centennial exposition to be used and
employed by the board Of management thereof
TO augment and enhance the success Of the
worlds Industrial and cotton centennial exposl
tlon N such manner as the board Of management
may determine.
Suppose we vary the terms oi
this bill slightly and see how itwould
read:
That such sum az may be necessary be, ant
the same 10 hereby appropriated rs loan to th'
farmers Of these United States ITO augment ant
enhance their success" and thus, by increasing
their prosperity, add TO the prosperity Of al
other classes and pursuits.
If the one is constitutional why NO
the otheri
In the course Of this debate the
matter was at all times treated as 6
loan, and in nearly every Instance
spoken Of as such. In question tt
Hon. w. D. Kelley, Of Pennsylvania
Mr.. Bland said:
Iwtll ask the gentleman whether the provision
iS In the same language as the appropriation II
| kha naaa Of PhllndAlnhla0 In that instance fhl