CHAPTER V.

HOMESTEAD BILL-CONTINUED.

1860.

THIRTY-SIXTH Congress - Johnson's Speech-Denies that the Homestead Measure has any Connection with Slavery or Anti-Slavery - A Virginian Senator receives Light from a "Black Republican" - Johnson won't follow the New Lights of the Old Dominion - Precedents for the Homestead Policy Law under Washington - Later Laws- Senator Mason's Action Now and Then A "Sleepless Sentinel" and his Duties - Senator Pugh's Unanswerable Speech - Revival of Mason's Record - Shall Virginia Rebuke any other State Tennessee can Take Care of Herself - Compli ment from Douglas - Voters on the Bill Committees of Conference Report Passed by Two-thirds of both Houses - President Buchanan Vetoes the Bill The Veto Sustained - Unjust Reason for the Veto and its Sustainment Davis Sustains the Veto - Pugh and Harlan Denounce it as a Quibble-The Wisdom and Grandeur of the Homestead Measure - Historical Lessons from Land Laws - Powers of Congress to Give Land Away— Brougham on Feudal Aristocracy - Bacon on the Growth of "Nobility and Gentlemen."

IN the First Session of the Thirty-sixth Congress, April 11, 1860, after introducing from the Committee on Public Lands another form of Homestead bill, Senator Johnson delivered an exceedingly able and telling speech, mainly in reply to Senator Mason of Virginia, touching that Senator's action, and the declarations of others with him, connecting the measure under discussion with the Slavery issue and the Republican party. The speech is historical and demonstrative in an eminent degree, and also affords a good specimen of Senator Johnson's clearness and force as a debater. For these reasons-and as much for its manner as

its matter-I make some extracts, although the opening restates some points already indicated:

"But yesterday the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Doolittle] must involve in this discussion the Negro question; and then, in reply, the Senator from Virginia must give us a dissertation on the same subject, administer a rebuke to the State of Tennessee, and assume to know where she stood and what her opinions and doctrines were. Sir, she has never disguised her opinions or her doctrines, and she does not disguise them now. It really seems to me that if some member of this body were to introduce the Ten Commandments for consideration and discussion, somebody would find a negro in them somewhere; the Slavery agitation would come up. The chances are, that if they were introduced by a Northern man, he would argue that they had a tendency to diminish the area of slavery, to prevent the increase of the slave population, and in the end perhaps to abolish slavery; while on the other hand, if some Senator from the South were to introduce the Lord's Prayer, somebody would see a negro in it somewhere. It would be argued just as the question might be presented, either upon the Ten Commandments or the Lord's Prayer, that the result would be a tendency to promote and advance slavery on the one hand, or on the other to diminish or abolish it. It is now time that the legislation of this country was directed to something else, and that some other thing were considered. I do believe that the country, North and South, is becoming sick and tired of this constant agitation of the Slavery question, to the exclusion of all other; and I do trust and hope, in God's holy name, that there is a public judgment and public spirit in the country that will rise above this agitation, and the purposes for which it has been kept up.

"But the Senator from Virginia informed us that he had had a flood of light shed on him; I repeat that I was highly gratified to hear him say so, and I recur to it now more from the fact of being gratified at it than any thing else. He seemed to rise and come forward into the discussion with that kind of renewed energy, information and light that Paul had when he was travelling from Jerusalem to Damascus, and was struck blind with the refulgence of light thrown on his mind; but Paul inquired of the Lord what he would have him do. Whether the conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin has had the same influence on the Senator from Virginia I will not undertake to say, but if it were improper and dangerous to associate the Homestead measure with Black Republicanism, as it is commonly called, or the Republican party, I will say for I do not use the term in derision—would it not really be dangerous and ob

jectionable to receive a flood of light from a Republican? One of that party has shed light on this occasion, as the Senator from Virginia admits. Will the Senator receive light from such a source?

"But when we come to examine the Homestead proposition, where do we start with it? I want the Senator's attention. We start with it in 1791, under the Administration of General Washington, and I think he was from the Old Dominion. In 1791 the first Homestead proposition was introduced, and in the language of the law, it was enacted

"That four hundred acres of land be given to each of those persons who, in the year 1783, were heads of families at Vincennes, or the Illinois country, or the Mississippi, and who since that time have removed from one of the said places to the other; but the Governor of the Territory northwest of the Ohio is hereby directed to cause the same to be laid out for them at their own expense, etc.'

"That law makes use of the word 'give,' and it received the approval of General Washington. I think that is tolerably good company. Tennessee is willing to associate with Washington, and especially upon Homestead propositions. The law was approved by the immortal Washington. I think he was about as great a man as any of the modern lights; and so far as I am concerned, I prefer following in the lead the larger instead of what I consider the lesser lights. What next do we find on this subject? Mr. Jefferson recommended in one of his messages to the Congress of the United States the Homestead policy. In the Administrations of Washington and Jefferson this policy was inaugurated by this Government. I prefer to follow the lead and be associated with Washington and Jefferson, than the lights that now shine from the Old Dominion. There are forty-four precedents of laws approved and sanctioned by various Presidents, running through every Administration from Thomas Jefferson down to the present time, carrying out the same principle. Where did this policy have its origin? Where did it start? Its very germ commenced with Virginia, and it has been followed up and brought down to the present time. But, without dwelling on all the cases, I will refer to what was done in 1850. The fourth section of An Act to create the office of Surveyor-General of Public Lands in Oregon, and to provide for the survey and to make donations to settlers on the same public lands,' approved in 1850, is in these words:

"SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That there shall be and hereby is granted to every white settler or occupant of the public lands, American half-breed Indians included, above the age of eighteen years, being a citizen of the United States, or having made a decla

ration, according to law, of his intention to become a citizen, or who shall become a resident thereof on or before the first day of December, 1850, and who shall have resided upon and cultivated the same for four consecutive years, and who shall otherwise conform to the provisions of this Act, the quantity of one half-section, or three hundred and twenty acres of land, if a single man, and if a married man, or if he shall become married within one year from the 1st day of December, 1850, the quantity of one section, or six hundred and forty acres, one-half to himself, and the other half to his wife, to be held by her in her own right.'-Statutes at Large, Vol. IX. p. 497.

"There is a Homestead bill! There is a grant of six hundred and forty acres to a married man, and three hundred and twenty acres to a single one, not being the head of a family, but twenty-one years of age. That was passed in 1850. I should like to know where the vigilant and watchful Senator from Virginia was when that law passed. I presume that this flood of light had not been shed. He did not see its bearings and tendencies as he seems to understand and see them now. How did the Senator vote upon that question? I suppose the Senator knows; for surely a measure so important, and embracing principles so sacred and vital, could not have passed through this body without the Senator's knowing how he recorded his vote. Where was this faithful sentinel that should have been standing on the watchtower, and should have sounded the alarm and aroused the people of the United States to the dangerous inroad that was being made on their rights and institutions? Where was he? Did he speak? Did he say 'yea' or 'nay,' either by speech or vote? No; but he sat with his arms folded, and allowed this "infamous measure, this agrarian measure," that was to work such dangerous influence upon certain institutions of the country, to pass without saying either 'yea' or 'nay.'

"There was one Homestead proposition passed in 1850. Yesterday I quoted a law passed in 1854, and it seemed to be a little difficult for Senators to understand it. One Senator understood it one way, another understood it another. Sometimes it is a good plan to examine and see how a thing is. One said that the law of 1854 was to give homesteads to New Mexico, and if they were given in New Mexico and not in Kansas, that would change the principle! Now I should like to know the difference in principle. But let us see how the thing stands. I read one section from the Act of 1850; and before I could get to read another section, the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Green] took the floor, and made an issue with me; and then the Senator from Virginia resumed the floor, and did not permit me to read another section and make it

understood. The Act of 1854 is entitled 'An Act to establish the office of Surveyor-General of New Mexico, Kansas and Nebraska, to grant donations to actual settlers therein, and for other purposes.' Well, what do we find in the second section of the act?

"SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That, to every white male citizen of the United States, or every white male above the age of twenty-one years, who has declared his intention to become a citizen, and who was residing in said Territory prior to the 1st of January, 1853, and who may still be residing there, there shall be and hereby is donated one quarter-section, or one hundred and sixty acres of land. And to every white male citizen of the United States, or any white male above the age of twenty-one years, who has declared his intention to become a citizen, and who shall have removed, or shall remove to and settle in said Territory between the 1st day of January, 1853, and the 1st day of January, 1858, there shall, in like manner, be donated one quarter-section, or one hundred and sixty acres, on condition of actual settlement and cultivation for not less than four years.'-Statutes at Large, Vol. x. p. 308.

"There is a clear and distinct grant; but the answer was, that it was not a homestead, because the grant was made in New Mexico. Would there be any difference of principle between holding out inducements to go to New Mexico to free homes, and holding out inducements to go any where else? What is the difference? Even in regard to New Mexico, where there was a prospect of slavery, here was a bill inviting settlers to go into the Territory and take the land free, and to carry out this very disastrous idea in reference to slavery that the Senator from Virginia speaks of. And where is he? Yesterday when we referred to it, the Journal was produced to show that there was no vote taken on it; and the answer to the principle and the inconsistency I was exhibiting was, that 'donated' was bad English; as if thereby to escape from the inconsistency in which the Senator was involved."

"Mr. MASON.-I think, if the Senator heard me, he will recollect that I said: I did not remember how I had voted upon that law, but the probability was I had voted for it; but so far from attempting to escape from any responsibility as to my vote, I distinctly declared that it was a matter of not the slightest consequence to me, so far as that policy was concerned, how I voted, and that I presumed I voted for it."

"Mr. JOHNSON of Tennessee.-Well, it is a Homestead proposition, embracing the precise idea of this measure and going to a greater extent, being more enlarged than the bill under consideration. The Senator sat by and permitted a bill to pass, so obnoxious,