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 resi dence, 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 individual 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, consistent with this act, as shall be necessary and proper to carry its provisions into effect; and that the regis ters 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,

The Democratic Senate's Substitute for the Grow Bill - House refuses to Concur A Compromise President Buchanan Vetoes the Bill.

On the 17th of April, 1860, in the Senate, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, reported 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, Sauls. bury, 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.

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

These entries were to be confined 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

On June 19, the committees came to an agreement by the House accepting the Senate bill with some amendments. Said Mr. Colfax, in reporting the compromise to the House: "We struggled of course to adopt the free homestead principle of the House bill, but on these points the Senate was inflexible, and we took what he did because it was the best we could get." But this we have agreed to merely as an avant-courier. We shall demand the free homestead principle at the next session of Congress, and until it is granted -until all the public lands shall be opened to the people of the United States." This report of the Conference Committee the House agreed to - yeas 116, nays 51. All the nays were from the South. The Senate also agreed to the report-yeas 36, nays 2Bragg of North Carolina and Pearce of Michigan.

But even so scanty a measure of justice to our landless people -"half a loaf". was, June 22, vetoed by President Buchanan. He in effect denounced it as unconstitutional, unjust to the old States, unequal in its operations and pretended benefits as a measure which "will go far to demoralize the people;" or, in the language of Mason of Virginia, "fraught with mischief of the demoralizing kind."

PART VII.

most

President Buchanan's Veto-It is sustained by the Democrats of the Senate. President Buchanan, in his message, June 22, 1860, containing his reasons for disapproving the Homestead bill therewith returned to the Senate, after stating the intent of the bill, continued:

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 regard 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

message.

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,

66

The advocates of this bill attempt to sustain their position upon the language of the second clause of the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which declares that "the Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regula. tions respecting the territory or other property belongfair interpretation of the words dispose of" in this ing to the United States." They contend, that, by a clause, Congress possesses the power to make this gift of public lands to the States for purposes of education. It would require clear and strong evidence to induce the belief that the framers of the Constitution, after having limited the powers of Congress to certain, precise, and specific objects, intended, by employing the words" dispose of," to give that body unlimited power over the vast public domain. It would be a strange anomaly, indeed, to have created two funds, -the one by taxation, confined to the execution of the enumer ated powers delegated to Congress, and the other from the public lands, applicable to all subjects, foreign and domestic, which Congress might designate. That this fund should be "disposed of," not to pay the debts of the United States, nor "to raise and support armies," nor "to provide and maintain a navy," nor to accomplish any one of the other great objects enumerated in the debts of the States, to educate their people, and to the Constitution; but be diverted from them to pay carry into effect any other measure of their domestic policy. This would be to confer upon Congress a vast and irresponsible authority, utterly at war with the well-known jealousy of Federal power which prevailed at the formation of the Constitution.... The natural intendment would be, that, as the Constitution confined Congress to well-defined specific powers, the funds placed at their command, whether in land or money, should be appropriated to the performance of the 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.

The

But I cannot so read the words "dispose of" as to make them embrace the idea of "giving away." true meaning of words is always to be ascertained by the subject to which they are applied, and the known general intent of the law-giver. Congress is a trustee under the Constitution for the people of the United States to "dispose of" their public lands; and I think I may venture to assert with confidence, that no case. can be found in which a trustee in the position of Congress has been authorized to " dispose of" property by its owner, where it has been held that these words authorized such trustee to give away the fund intrusted 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.

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.

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

An

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 individual 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, Mont gomery, 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

On the 17th of April, 1860, in the Senate, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, reported 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, TłumFoot, 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