time after the filing of the affidavit, as required in the second section of this act, and before the expiration of the five years aforesaid, it shall be proven, after due notice to the settler, to the satisfaction of the register of the land office, that the person having filed such affidavit shall have actually changed his or her residence, or abandoned the said entry for more than six months at any time, then, and in that event, the land so entered shall revert to the government. SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That no individ. ual shall be permitted to make more than one entry under the provisions of this act; and that the Commissioner of the General Land Office is hereby required to prepare and issue such rules and regulations, con. sistent with this act, as shall be necessary and proper to carry its provisions into effect; and that the registers and receivers of the several land offices shall be entitled to receive the same compensation for any lands entered under the provisions of this act that they are now entitled to receive when the same quantity of land is entered with money, one-half to be paid by the person making the application at the time of so doing, and the other half on the issue of the certificate by the person to whom it may be issued: Provided, That nothing contained in this act shall be so construed as to impair or interfere in any manner whatsoever with existing pre-emtion rights: And provided, further, That all persons who may have filed their applications for a pre-emtion right prior to the passage of this act shall be entitled to all privileges of this act. The bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole. On March 12, on motion of Mr. Lovejoy, the bill was taken out of the Committee of the Whole by a vote of yeas 106, to nays 67 (the nays being all Democrats and South Americans). And when Mr. Branch, of North Carolina, ineffectually moved to lay the bill on the table, there were yeas 62 (all from the South, except Mr. Montgomery, of Pennsylvania), and nays 112. The bill was then passed yeas 115; nays 66, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Adrian, Aldrich, Ashley, Babbitt, Barr, Bingham, Blake, BRIGGS, Buffinton, Burch, Burnham, Campbell, Carey, Carter, Case, John Cochrane, Colfax, Conkling, Cooper, Corwin, Covode, Cox, Craig, Curtis, J. G. Davis, Daws, Dolano, Duell, Dunn, Edgerton, Eliot, English, Ferry, Fenton, Foster, Florence, Fouke, Frank, French, Gooch, Graham, Grow, Gurley, Hale, Hall, Haskin, Helmick, Hickman, Hoard, Holman, Howard, Humphrey, Hutchins, Junkin, F. W. Kellogg, W. Kellogg, Kil gore, Killinger, Larrabee, Leach, Lea, Logan, Loomis, Lovejoy, Maclay, Marston, Martin, McClernand, McKean, McKnight, McPherson, Millward, Morrill, Morris, Morse, Niblack, Olin, Pendleton, Perry, Porter, Potter, Pottle, Rice, Riggs, C. Robinson, J. C. Robinson, Royce, Schwartz, Scott, Scranton, Sherman, Sickles, Somes, Spinner, Stanton, Stout, Stratton, Tappan, Thayer, Tompkins, Train, Trimble, Vallandigham, Vandever, Van Wyck, Verre, Wal dron, Wallow, C. C. Washburne, E. B. Washburne, I. Washburn, jun., Wells, Wilson, Windom, Woodruff -115. NAYS-ADAMS, T. L. Anderson, W. C. Anderson, Avery, Barksdale, Bocock, Bowham, Brabson, Branch, BRISTOw, Burnett, Clapton, Cobb, Curry, W. H. DAVIS, R. Davis, De Jarnette, Edmundson, ETHERIDGE, Garnette, Gatrell, GILMER, Hamilton, HARDEMAN, HARRIS, HATTON, HILL, Hindman, Houston, Hughes, Jackson, Jenkins, Jones, Keitt, Lamar, Landrum, Leake, Love, Mallory, Martin, MAYNARD, McQueen, McRae, Miles, Milson, Montgomery, Moore, NELSON, Noell, Peyton, Pryor, Pugh, Reagan, Ruffin, Simms, Singleton, W. Smith, W. N. H. SMITH, Stevenson, STOKES, Underwood, VANCE, WEBSTER, Whiteley, Woodson, Wright—66. Again, the Republicans voted unanimously for homesteads, while all voting against them were Democrats, and all from the Slave States, except Mr. Montgomery, of Pennsylvania. Of those then in the House, and still prominent in public life, who voted against giving free homesteads to a free people, will be Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, reported On the 17th of April, 1860, in the Senate, from the Committee on Public Lands, as a substitute for the Grow homestead bill which had passed the House, a bill granting homesteads to actual settlers at twenty-five cents per acre, but not including pre-emptors then occupying public lands. When this bill came before the Senate for action Mr. Wade moved to substitute the Grow bill for it, which motion was lost-yeas 26, nays 31. Yeas all Republicans but three-Douglas, Rice, and Toombs. Nays all Democrats. Following is the vote: YEAS-Anthony, Bingham, Cameron, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Douglas, Durkee, Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Toombs, TrumFoot, Forster, Grimes, Hale, Hamlin, King, Rice, bull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson-26. NAYS- Bayard, Bigler, Bragg, Brown, Chestnut, Clay, Clingman, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, Hammond, Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Lane, Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Polk, Powell, Pugh, Saulsbury, Slidell, Wigfall, Yulee-31. On the 10th of May the Johnson bill passed -yeas 44, nays 8. The nays are Bragg, Clingman, Hamlin, Hunter, Mason, Pearce, Powell, and Toombs. The House refused to concur, the Senate to recede, and the result was a protracted conference on the part of the committees of the two houses. The Senate bill provided that the head of any family, who was a citizen, should be entitled "to enter one quarter section of vacant and unappropriated public lands," actual settlement being a pre-requisite, continous residence anecessity, and the payment of twenty-five cents an acre at the end of should issue. These entries were to be confive years, the condition upon which a patent fined to the odd-numbered sections, and the widow or children to succeed to any rights acquired by the settler. Sec. five of the bill extended its benefits to foreigners who had disclosed the intention to become citizens, and who perfected citizenship before the expiration of the five years residence. Sec. seven extended the privilege, to unsurveyed lands, and reduced the price to be paid by pre-emptor to one-half what it had been; and Sec. ten gave all lands within the limits of any State, which had been offered and remained unsold for thirty years, to the State "in which the same may be situated." third section of the fourth article of the Constitution, On June 19, the committees came to an The advocates of this bill attempt to sustain their agreement by the House accepting the Senate position upon the language of the second clause of the bill with some amendments. Said Mr. Colfax, which declares that "the Congress shall have power in reporting the compromise to the House: to dispose of and make all needful rules and regula"We struggled of course to adopt the tions respecting the territory or other property belongfree homestead principle of the House bill, fair interpretation of the words "dispose of" in this ing to the United States." They contend, that, by a but on these points the Senate was inflexible, clause, Congress possesses the power to make this gift and we took what he did because it was the of public lands to the States for purposes of education. best we could get." But this we have It would require clear and strong evidence to induce the belief that the framers of the Constitution, after agreed to merely as an avant-courier. We having limited the powers of Congress to certain, preshall demand the free homestead principle at cise, and specific objects, intended, by employing the the next session of Congress, and until it is words" dispose of," to give that body unlimited power granted- -until all the public lands shall be over the vast public domain. It would be a strange anomaly, indeed, to have created two funds, - the one opened to the people of the United States." by taxation, confined to the execution of the enumerThis report of the Conference Committee ated powers delegated to Congress, and the other from the House agreed to-yeas 116, nays 51. All the public lands, applicable to all subjects, foreign and the nays were from the South. The Senate fund should be "disposed of," not to pay the debts of domestic, which Congress might designate. That this also agreed to the report-yeas 36, nays 2. the United States, nor "to raise and support armies," Bragg of North Carolina and Pearce of Mich-nor "to provide and maintain a navy," nor to accom. igan. plish any one of the other great objects enumerated in But even so scanty a measure of justice to the debts of the States, to educate their people, and to the Constitution; but be diverted from them to pay our landless people "half a loaf"-was, carry into effect any other measure of their domestic June 22, vetoed by President Buchanan. policy. This would be to confer upon Congress a vast He in effect denounced it as unconstitutional, and irresponsible authority, utterly at war with the well-known jealousy of Federal power which prevailed unjust to the old States, unequal in its oper- at the formation of the Constitution. The natural ations and pretended benefits — as a measure intendment would be, that, as the Constitution confined which "will go far to demoralize the peo- Congress to well-defined specific powers, the funds ple;" or, in the language of Mason of Vir-placed at their command, whether in land or money, should be appropriated to the performance of the ginia, "fraught with mischief of the most demoralizing kind." PART VII. duties corresponding with these powers. If not, a government has been created with all its other powers carefully limited, but without any limitation in respect to the public lands. But I cannot so read the words "dispose of" as to make them embrace the idea of "giving away." The true meaning of words is always to be ascertained by the subject to which they are applied, and the known President Buchanan's Veto-It is sus- general intent of the law-giver. Congress is a trustee tained by the Democrats of the Senate. under the Constitution for the people of the United States to "dispose of " their public lands; and I think President Buchanan, in his message, June I may venture to assert with confidence, that no case 22, 1860, containing his reasons for disap-gress has been authorized to "dispose of " property can be found in which a trustee in the position of Conproving the Homestead bill therewith re- by its owner, where it has been held that these words turned to the Senate, after stating the intent authorized such trustee to give away the fund intrusted of the bill, continued: to his care. No trustee, when called upon to account for the disposition of the property placed under his management before any judicial tribunal, would venture to present such a plea in his defence. To the actual settler, this bill does not make an absolute donation; but the price is so small that it can scarcely be called a sale. It is nominally twenty-five cents per acre; but, considering this is not to be paid until the end of five years, it is, in fact, reduced to about eighteen cents per acre, or one-seventh of the present minimum price of the public lands. In re gard to the States, it is an absolute and unqualified gift. 1. This state of the facts raises the question whether Congress, under the Constitution, has the power to give away the public lands either to States or individuals. On this question, I expressed a decided opinion in my message to the House of Representatives of the 24th of February, 1859, returning the agricultural college bill. This opinion remains unchanged. The argument then used applies, as a constitutional objection, with greater force to the present bill. There it had the plea of consideration, growing out of a specific beneficial purpose; here it is an absolute gratuity to the States without the pretext of consideration. I am compelled, for want of time, in these the last hours of the session, to quote largely from this I presume the general proposition will be admitted that Congress does not possess the power to make donations of money already in the Treasury, raised by taxes on the people, either to States or individuals. But it is contended that the public lands are placed upon a different footing from money raised by taxation; and that the proceeds arising from their sale are not subject to the limitations of the Constitution, but may be appropriated or given away by Congress, at its own discretion, to States, corporations, or individuals, for any purpose they may deem expedient. message. It will be observed that this Democratic President makes the Federal Government simply the creation of the States when he speaks of Congress, the law making power as a trustee" with powers limited to the literal performance of certain specified acts. 66 Besides the Constitutional objection, President Buchanan found several other reasons satisfactory to him, why the people of the country should not be given homes on the lands of the Government; one of them being that the law discriminated against mechanics and artisans in favor of the farmer; another, that "the offer of free farms would probably have a powerful effect in encouraging emigration, especially from States like Illinois, Tennessee and Kentucky, to the west of the Mississippi, and could not fail to reduce the price of property within their limits. individual in States thus situated would not pay its fair value for land, when, by crossing the Mississippi, he could go upon the public lands and obtain a farm almost without money and without price." In the light of experience, this language seems so ridicu An lous, that it is almost incredible it should | landed aristocratic slave-holding Democracy, have been seriously used by any man occupying the position of President of the United States. Other reasons given by him were, that the public revenues would be reduced, the land system unsettled, and land made so cheap as to demoralize the people; this idea being expressed in the following words: Any man can now acquire a title in fee-simple to a homestead of eighty acres, at the minimum price of $1.25 per acre, for $1.00. The honest poor man, by frugality and industry, can, in any part of our country, acquire a competence for himself and his family; and in doing this he feels that he eats the bread of independence. He desires no charity, either from the Government or from his neighbors. This bill, which proposes to give him land at an almost nominal price, out of the property of the Government, will go far to demoralize the people, and repress this noble spirit of independence. It may introduce among us those pernicious social theories which have proved so disastrous in other countries. We have seen that upon the passage of the Homestead bill in the Senate, only eight senators, all Democrats, voted nay, and that upon this Compromise bill, only two senators, both Democrats, voted against the adoption of the conference report; yet, when the bill came back with President Buchanan's objections, there were sixteen Southern Democratic votes to sustain the President's veto, independent of the vote of Mr. Crittenden, Southern American, and that which was cast by Johnson of Tennessee for the purpose of moving a reconsideration, which motion, when made, also failed. Upon the question in the Senate: "Shall this bill pass notwithstanding the objections of the President?" the vote in detail was: YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Fitch, Foot, Foster, Gwinn, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, King, Lane, Latham, Nicholson, Polk, Pugh, Rice, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, and Wilson 29. NAYS-Messrs. Bragg, Chestnut, CRITTENDEN, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Green, Hemphill, Hunter, Iver son, Johnson of Tennessee, Johnson of Arkansas, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Powell, Sebastian, Wigfall, and Yulee-18. seceded, and through four years of unparal leled slaughter and crime warred to build up a Southern confederacy with "slavery as its corner-stone," in which free labor-free white labor-would have been forever excluded from its lands whether public or private. In their platform at Chicago, in 1860, the Republicans had adopted the following plank : Resolved, That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the public lands held by actual settlers, and against any view of the free homestead policy, which regards the settlers as paupers or sup plicants for public bounty; and we demand the passage by Congress of the complete and satisfactory homestead measure, which has already passed the House. Accordingly the Republicans, now in control of both Houses of Congress and of the Executive, hastened to redeem this pledge early in 1862 by the enactment of the Homestead Act, which has been such a blessing to our people and our country. It grants a hundred and sixty acres to every actual, settler twenty-one years or more of age, or head of a family who is, or has declared his intention to become, a citizen. That is its main feature, independent of the grant of a hundred and sixty acres to every person, whether naturalized or not, and whether of age or not, who enlisted in the military service to crush the Rebellion. On July 8, 1861, Mr. Cyrus Aldrich of Minnesota introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to secure homesteads to actual settlers upon the public lands, which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, of which Mr. Owen Lovejoy was chairman. Feb. 28, 1862, Mr. Lovejoy reported back the Homestead Bill with amendments, favorably. Mr. Potter demanded the previous question on the passage of the bill, whereupon Mr. Washburne demanded the yeas and nays, and the resulting vote was 114 yeas to 18 nays. Of the yeas there were 92 Republicans and 22 Democrats, a proportion of over 4 bill; of the nays there were 3 Republicans Republicans to 1 Democrat in favor of the and 15 Democrats, a proportion of 5 Democrats to 1 Republican against the bill. And so the bill was passed. The vote by which it passed the Senate, May 6, 1862, was even more significant. It stood yeas 33 to nays 7. Of the yeas 30 were Republican to 3 Democratic; of thei nays 6 were Democratic to 1 Republican. Thus the vote showed a proportion of 10 Republicans to 1 Democrat in favor of the Homestead Bill, and 6 Democrats to 1 Republican opposed to it. Had they the power of numbers, it is hardly necessary to say the Democrats would have killed the Homestead Act of 1862, as they had treated similar measures in previous years. miss in this connection to state that on the 24th of February, 1859, President Buchanan ainly by Republican votes, giving the States twenty thousand acres of land for each ative, to aid in the establishment of colleges "for the benefit of agriculture and the sasure somewhat similar was afterwards passed, and approved by President Lincoln. 10 T. G. Bergen, B. M. Boyer, James Brooks, John W. Chanter, John L. Dawson, Charles A. Eldridge, William E. Finck, A. J. Glossbrenner, Charles Goodyear, Henry Grider, Aaron Harding, B. G. Harris, John Hogan, James M. Humphrey, Michael C. Kerr, F. C. Le Blond, Samuel S. Marshall, John A. Nicholson, Samuel J. Randall, A. J. Rogers, George S. Shanklin, Charles Sitgreaves, Myer Strouse, Stephen Saber, Nelson Taylor, Anthony Thornton, and Daniel W. Voorhees. to defeat the bill, as it would have been impossible at that late date in the session to have secured consideration in the Senate. Gen. Hawley begged Mr. Holman to withdraw his amendment, but the latter refused, and the Republicans voted it down, and passed the bill, which was at once signed by President Grant, and became a law on the 8th of June, 1872. Democrats obstruct the law in every way. That the Democracy since the Rebellion ciple as they were before "the war" is have been as hostile to the homestead prindemonstrated by their persistent and systematic efforts to cripple if not to wholly destroy the efficiency of the General Land Office. Appeals made again and again by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, supported by the Secretary of the Interior, to Congress for larger appropriations with which to secure more room and an increased clerical force absolutely demanded by the prompt and efficient execution of its increasing business, have been denied by Democratic majorities in Congress; while, during reconstruction, as per reports of the generals commanding the several military districts, this hostility was developed in the violent expulsion of settlers, who, under the Homestead Act, attempted to locate the lands of the South. The homestead principle a characteristically 66 The donation of the public lands to actual settlers, the homestead principle, the great beneficent measure of the day and the age," is a characteristically Republican measure, and no impudent or fraudulent attempt or claim of the Democracy can rob the Republicans of its authorship or of the credit of the beneficent results which through it have accrued to the nation and the people. PART X. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Homestead Act More Attempted Democratic Obstruction. A number of amendments have been made to the original act, all favoring the settler; but the principal one was the act of June 8, 1872. This law is known as "The Soldiers' and Sailors' Homestead Act." It gives honorably discharged soldiers and sailors from the army and navy of the United States lands under the Homestead Act in any locality, and deducts from the five years' residence which is required to make title, their term of service during the war of the Rebellion. One year's residence and cultivation, however, are necessary; and the beneficiaries have six months from the filing of application to make entry, and commence settlement and improvement. This act contains another provision for the benefit of the soldier and sailor. It gives to each beneficiary Instead of being "fraught with mischief who has already homesteaded for a smaller amount than 160 acres, the privilege of in- of the most demoralizing kind," as predicted creasing his holding to that amount; and in the event that vacant land cannot be found adjoining, it gives him scrip for the full amount of the difference between his homestead and 160 acres, which scrip can be laid on any of the surveyed lands of the United States. After passing the Senate, this bill was called up in the House, June 6, 1872, by Gen. Hawley. The agreement to adjourn on the 10th had already been made, but Mr. Holman of Indiana insisted upon an amendment, claiming that it was in the interest of the beneficiaries; but it evidently intended The Beneficent Effects of the Homestead Act demonstrated in the Increased Population, Wealth, and Power of the Nation. by the Democracy, the wisdom and justice of Number of homestead entries made under to date 823,600 3,582,660 .105,967,782 An area more than thrice the area of the great State of New York, and greater than one-half of the entire area of the thirteen States that adopted the Constitution. The 3,582,660 souls provided with homes under this beneficent law exceeds the number of inhabitants of the thirteen Colonies when they achieved their independence, and is greater in number also than the population, as per census of 1880, of the following fourteen States and Territories: 276,531 780,773 creating profitable markets for those industries, and thus increasing the wealth and power of the States and Nation to a degree immeasurably greater than the value of the lands to the Government when thus donated. And this has been and is being done by this great and beneficent Republican measure POPULATION. despite every sort of Democratic opposition 346,991 in and out of Congress; and of late, since 332,286 the Southern Democrats have again attained 146,608 full power in the administration of President 864,694 Cleveland as well as in the popular branch of 194,326 Congress, the General Land Office has been 174,768 turned into an engine of oppression. Every 62,266 effort is being made there to hinder, vex, and 269,493 harass the settler in securing title to his 40,440 lands. Little technicalities, such as delight 39,159 the souls of shyster attorneys in police courts, 20,786 are being used by a great government to prevent one of its citizens from obtaining a home for himself and his family; and the head of the Land Office issues a campaign document glorying in his shame, actually boasting of the number of homestead entries which he has cancelled from March 4, 1885 to May 12, 1888. 32,610 3,581,731 Thus adding a hardy, intelligent, industrious, and patriotic population to the States in which these homesteads were located, enhancing greatly the value of the lands of those States, enlarging their productive industries, "It [the Democratic party] has reversed the improvident and unwise policy of the Republican Party touching the public domain, and has reclaimed from corporations and syndicates, alien and domestic, and restored to the people nearly 100,000,000 acres of land to be sacredly held as homesteads for our citizens.' Democratic National Platform, 1888. "The restoration of unearned railroad land grants to the public domain for the use of settlers, which was begun under the Administration of President Arthur, should be continued. We deny that the Democratic Party has ever restored one acre to the people, but declare that by the joint action of Republicans and Democrats in Congress, about 50,000,000 of acres of unearned lands originally granted for the construction of railroads have been restored to the public domain, in pursuance of the conditions inserted by the Republican Party in the original grants. We charge the Democratic Administration with failure to execute the laws securing to settlers titles to their homesteads, and with using appropriations made for that purpose to harass innocent settlers with spies and prosecutions, under the false pretence of exposing frauds and vindicating the law.” — Republican National Platform, 1888. |