The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-01-14
sNNAToR NELsoN.s DILEMMA.

There is pending in the senate What
is called the free homestead bill" 1t
has its origin in the provisions of the
acts which threw open to settlement
the Indian reservations about the Red
lake and the Cherokee outlet in Okla
homa, making the acquired lands sub
ject to homestead entry but providing
that the settler, in addition to the five
year residence, should. before making
final proof, pay for the land at the
rate of S1.25 an acre. The purpose of
this provision was to recoup the treas
ury for the money paid the Indians for
the REIMBURSEMENT Of what, with what
would be humorous if it were not so
grim, the United States has termed
their title
Senator Nelson has made a speech
in advocacy of the bill, in which he
reminded the Eastern senators who
We're opposing it that tneGr section had
received in the past enormous benefits
from tariff legislation, and that this
proposed bill merely relieved some
Western people from burden, exemp
ton from which would be a compensa-
toy benefit, even if a slight one The
senator evidently still has lurking in
nm the spirit Of his speech of 1888 or
he would not have laid himself open
to the criticism Of his position that
Senator Aldrich will be sure to make
if he reply to him. The Rhode Island
senator can point out to the senator
from Minnesota that his remarks reIa-
tive to the benefits, of which he al
legeS the Eastern section has had the
peculiar enjoyment, do not harmonic
with that fundamental proposition of
the policy paternal that, by some oc-
cult process Of diffusion and filtration
the benefits primarily given to one sec
ton enure finally to the benefit of all;
and that the hOmesteader on the Chero-
kee outlet, or the senator's own Red
lake lands, shares with the Rhode ISL
ander's sugar trust whatever gains the
tariff enables it to appropriate from the
consumers
But the Minnesota senator will find it
more embarrassing to account for his
own change of base The bill thar
threw open the Red lake reservation tn
settlement under the homestead act
was his own bill, prepared and passed
while he was representing the old Fifth
district, and it contains the provision
Tor payment for the lands to which he
now OBJECTS. The query will be put
why if it is now right to give the set
tier his land free of this charge. was
1t eXacted in the act Of 1893. or tho
Cherokee outlet act. If il was riobt
theh TO recoup the treasury for what
IL paid the Indians, when the treasury
was burdened with a surplus. whv is if
not right now when there is a present
deficiency and revenue bill in preDar-
alton whose certain effect will he IA
further reduce revenue? Will Senator
Nelson meet this by insisting that the
subsequent Mckinley act greatly in
creased the benefits to the East. while
adding to the burdens laid upon the
settler, that it is the evident purpose
OF the incoming administration to re-
peat that experiment, and that. there
fore, the settlers should also receive
something? Or will he assert that the
$l25 an acre provision was made be
cause the benefited East opposed the
purchase of the reservat ton with it's
customary unwillingness to give and
disposition to take, and that it was in
tended subsequently to revoke the re-
quirement? 1t seems to us as if the
senator has involved himself in a di
lemma, but we are confident he will
extricate himself from this as he has
from others.