NAYS-Messrs. ANDERSON, Atkins, Avery, Barksdale, Bocock, Bonham, Bowie, Boyce, Branch, Burnett, Caskie, J. B. Clark, Cobb, Burton Craige, Crawford, Curry, DAVIS, Dowdell, Edmunson, William H. English, EUSTIS, Faulkner, Garnett, Gartrell, GILMER, Goode, Greenwood, HARRIS, HILL, Hopkins, Houston, Hughes, Jackson, Jenkins, Keitt, Kunkel, Lamar, Leidy, Letcher, McQueen, McRae, H. MARSHALL, S. S. Marshall, Mason, MAYNARD, Miles, Millson, Moore, Niblack, Nichols, Peyton, READY, Reagan, RICAUD, Ruffin, Scales, Seward, A. Shaw, H. M. Shaw, Shorter, Singleton, S. A. Smith, W. Smith, Stallworth, Stephens, Jas. A. Stewart, TRIPPE, UNDERWOOD, VANCE, Watkins, Whiteley, Winslow, WOODSON, A. R. Wright, J. V. Wright, ZOLLICOFFER-76. The Republicans, every man of them but one, voted solidly for the bill-voted to guarantee the public lands to actual settlers to donate land to the landless. The great body of the Democracy-60 out of 98-all the South Americans-the whole Southern landed aristocracy -voted solidly against the bill. Only three Southern members-Jones of Tenn., Jewett of Ky., and Craig of Mo.,-voted with the Republicans to secure the public lands to actual settlers, while WILLIAM H. ENGLISH, of Ind., voted nay with the Slave-holding Democracy. NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benjamin, Bigler, Brown, Chestnut, Clay, Clingman, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, Hammond. Hunter, Iverson, Lane, Mallary, Mason, Pearce, Reid, Slidell, Toombs, and Ward -23. another bill. The Republicans voted unanimously to take up the homestead bill, but every Southern Democrat-a "solid South," with the exception of Mr. Johnson of Tenn., voted against the motion. Instantly upon the announcement of this vote, which brought the homestead bill before the Senate, Mr. Hunter again moved to lay it aside and take up puerile An opposition so was fittingly called "child's play." During the debate which followed the morning hour expired, and Vice President Breckenridge decided that the bill for the purchase of Cuba in the interest of the slave-holding oligarchy was the subject pending before the Senate. Whereupon Mr. Wade moved to postpone the Cuba and continue the consideration of the homestead bill. That motion was also carried -yeas 27, nays 26; all the Republicans voting for it; all the Southern Democrats, except Senators Bell and Johnson, of Tennessee, voting against it. Again the homestead was before the Senate; again Mr. Hunter moved to lay it aside. Senators Wade and Seward, in energetic terms, exhorted the friends of the bill to stand firm, but Hunter's motion prevailed-yeas 28, nays 28, as follows: Homesteads in the Democratic Senate The Democracy determined to oppose even the consideration of the bill granting|ler, Brown, Clay, Clingman, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, them. YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Bates, Bayard, Benjamin, BigGreen, Gwinn, Hammond, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, of Ark., Kennedy, Lane, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Toombs, Ward, and Yulee-28. NAYS-Messrs. Bell, Bright, Broderick, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Douglas, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, Houston, Johnson, of Tenn., King, Pugh, Rice, Seward, Simmons, Smith, Stuart, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-28. On the 17th of February, in the Senate, Ben. Wade, of Ohio, moved to postpone all prior orders, and take up the homestead bill, which had thus passed the House. A characteristic debate ensued. The slave-holding aristocracy, the Southern landed Democracy, antagThe Senate being equally divided, Vice onized the homestead with the appropriation President Breckinridge gave the casting vote bills. Said R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia: "I against the homestead. Every vote for Hunter's hope there will be no effort to press this home-motion to postpone is Democratic, and all but stead bill so as to displace the appropriation five are from the South. Only three of the bills." Only a few weeks of the session re- twenty-eighth votes against Hunter's motion, mained, and an "extended debate" and the and in avor of considering the homestead, loss of the appropriation bills were threatened are from the South, -Bell and Johnson, of if the homestead bill was passed. Ben. Wade Tenn., and Houston, of Texas. rejoined that the friends of the bill-the Republicans wanted no debate. The measure for years had been before the country, had been discussed in all its bearings, and there was no measure in which the people were more deeply interested. But a vote was what the Southern landed Democracy manoeuvred to avoid or defeat. Said Mr. Hunter: "I do not conceal the fact that I am much opposed to it," that is, to giving "land to the landless;" and his colleague, Mr Mason declared that he intended "to go into it pretty largely, because he had not yet known a bill so fraught with mischief, and mischief of the most demoralizing kind." Mr. Wade's motion was carried by a vote of yeas 25, nays 23, as follows. YEAS-Messrs. Bright, Broderick, Chandler, Clark, Collamar, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Gwin, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, Johnson, of Tenn., King, Pugh, Rice, Seward, Shields, Simmons, Smith, Stuart, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-25. PART IV. "The Great Question of the Day and the Age” – Shall we give "Lands and Homes to the Landless Freemen, or Slaves to the Slave-holders ?”—“Niggers to the Niggerless, or Land to the Landless?" ward, Senator Wade again moved to set aside On the 19th of February, two days afterall prior orders and take up the homestead bill. The motion was defeated. Yeas (all Republicans but seven) 24, nays (all Democrats) 31. On the 25th of February the motion to take up the homestead bill was again antagonized by the Cuba bill. The Cuba bill prevailed. Yeas (all Democrats) 35, nays (all Republicans but five) 24. After a debate "After nine hours yielding to the discussion of the Cuba question, it is time to come back to the great question of the day and the age. The Senate may as well ineet face to face the issue which is before them. It is an issue presented by the competition between these two questions. One, the homestead bill, is a question of homes, of lands for the landless freemen of the United States. The Cuba bill is a question of slaves to the slaveholders of the United States." Said Mr. Wade: Vandever, Van Wyck, Verre, Waldron, Wallow, C. C. Again, the Republicans voted unanimously for homesteads, while all voting against them were Democrats, and all from the Slave States, "I am very glad that this question has at length except Mr. Montgomery, of Pennsylvania. come up. I am glad, too, that it has antagonized with this nigger question. I have been trying here for nearly a month to get a straightforward vote upon this great question of land for the landless.' I glory in that measure. It is the greatest that has ever come before the American Senate, and it has now come so that there is no dodging it. The question will be, 'Shall we give niggers to the niggerless, or land to the landless ?""" The motion to take up the homestead bill was again lost. Yeas (all Republicans but two -Broderick, of Cal., and Johnston, of Tenn.) 19; nays (all Democrats) 29. No further attempt at that session was made to get it before the Senate. PART V. The Homestead Principle, through the Persistency of the Republicans, again triumphs in the House-The Grow Homestead Bill Adopted. At the next session, on the 6th of March, 1860, in the House, Mr. Lovejoy, from the Committee on Public Lands, reported the Grow bill "to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain." The bill was referred to the Committee of the Wole. 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 among the former WILLIAM H. ENGLISH, of Ind.). And when Mr. Branch, of North Carolina, ineffectually moved to lay the bill on the table-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: PART VI. The Democratic Senate's Substitute for the Grow Bill-House Refuses to Concur-A Compromise-The House Accepts the Senate Bill, with Amendments, but Merely as an Avant-Courier -The Free Homestead Principle to be Demanded–President Buchanan Vetoes the Bill. On the 17th of April, 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. 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 part of the committees of the two Houses. 66 * * * 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: the free homestead principle of the House We struggled of course to adopt bill, but on these points the Senate was inflexible, YEAS-Messrs. Adrian, Aldrich, Ashley, Babbitt, Barr, Bingham, Blake, BRIGGS, Buffinton, Burch, and we took what we did because it was the Burnham, Campbell, Carey, Carter, Case, John Cochrane, best we could get." But "this we have Colfax, Conkling, Cooper, Corwin, Covode, Cox, Craig, agreed to merely as an avant-courier. We shall Curtis, J. G. Davis, Daws, Dolano, Duell, Dunn, Edger-demand the free homestead principle at the next session ton, Eliot, English, Fenton, Ferry, Foster, Florence, Fouke, Frank, French, Gooch, Graham, Grow, Gurley of Congress, and until it is granted-until all the Hale, Hall, Haskin, Helmick, Hickman, Hoard, Holman. public lands shall be opened to the people of the United Howard, Humphrey, Hutchins, Junkin, F. W. Kellogg, States." W. Kellogg, Kilgore, Killinger, Larrabee, Leach, Lee, 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. Robles, Somes, Spinner, Stanton, Stout, Stratton, Tappan, Thayer, Tompkins, Train, Trimble, Vallandigham, inson, Royce, Schwartz, Scott, Scranton, Sherman, Sick All This report of the Conference Committee the House agreed to-yeas 116, nays 51. 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 denounces 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 most demoralizing kind." PART VII. The President's veto sustained by the Democracy in the Senate. In the Senate, in which the bill originated, this veto was sustained by a vote of 19 to 9, the question was: Shall this bill pass notwithstanding the objections of the President? 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-19. NAYS-Messrs. Bragg, Chestnut, CRITTENDEN, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Green, Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Tennessee, Johnson of Arkansas, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Powell, Sebastian, Wigfall, and Yulce-9. 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 160 acres to every actual settler 21 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 160 acres to every person, whether naturalized or not, and whether of age or not, who enlisted in the military service to crush the rebellion. This noble Republican provision for actual settlers met with considerable Democratic opposition in 1862 before it could be put upon the statute book. The vote by which it passed the House, February 28, 1862, was 114 yeas to 18 nays. Of the yeas there were 92 Republicans and 22 Democrats, a proportion of over 4 Republicans to 1 Democrat in favor of the bill; of the nays there were 3 Republicans and 15 Democrats, a proportion of 5 Democrats to 1 Republican against the bill. 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 the nays All the nays from the South, and all Dem- 6 were Democratic to 1 Republican. Thus the ocrats except Mr. Crittenden of Kentucky. So vote showed a proportion of 10 Republicans the bill failed, not having received the re- to 1 Democrat in favor of the Homestead Bill, quisite two thirds vote to pass it over the and 6 Democrats to 1 Republican opposed to President's veto. All the Republicans present it. not paired with Democrats on the question Had they the power of numbers, it is hardvoted solidly for the bill, but were not strongly necessary to say the Democrats would have enough to effect its passage. It was defeated killed the Homestead Act of 1862, as they had by the Democratic slave-holding vote. done in previous years to similar measures. PART VIII. The Sceptre falls from the hands of the Landed Democracy-The Slave - holding Aristocracy of the South - Homesteads Triumph in Republican success. On the 4th of March, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated President of the United States. A little latter the Democracy, the landed aristocratic slave-holding Democracy, seceded, and through four years of unparalleled slaughter and crime warred to build up a Southern confederacy with "slavery as its corner stone," in which free labor, the free white laborer, 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 supplicants for public bounty; and we demand the passage by Congress of the complete and satisfactory homestead measure, which has already passed the House. PART IX. Extending the Homestead Act- In the House, February 8, 1866, a bill was passed extending the provisions of the Homestead Act to the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida. The vote by which it passed was 112 yeas to 29 nays-all the nays being Democrats except two. The names of these Democrats are: T. G. Bergen, B. M. Boyer, James Brooks, John W. Chanler, John L. Dawson, Chas. A. Eldridge, Wm. E. Finck, A. J. Glossbrenner, Charles Goodyear, Henry Grider, Aaron Harding, B. G. Harris, John Hogan, Jas. M. Humphrey, Michael C. Kerr, F. C. Le Blond, Samuel S. Marshall, John A. Nicholson, Samuel J. Randall, A. J. Rogers, George S. Shanklin, Chas. Sitgreaves, Myer Strouse, Stephen Saber, Nelson Taylor, Anthony Thornton, and Daniel W. Voorhees. The Democracy as hostile to-day as before the rebellion to the homestead principleto "public lands to actual settlers." That is demonstrated by its 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, | beneficent results, alike to the States and nasupported 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 the Democratic majorities of the two Houses, while but recently, during reconstruction, in the 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-" Publie lands to actual settlers "-A distinguishing Republican measure. The donation of the public lands to actual settlers-the homestead principle-the "great beneficent measure of the day and the age" —is a distinguishing 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. tion may be seen by the following table: under the act up to date 464,197 2,019,256 54,433,158, 170,885 2,019,256 PART X. Florida... Plus over two-sixths of the population of The beneficent effects of the Homestead Act demonstrated in the increased population, Thus adding a hardy, intelligent, induswealth, and power of the na-in which these homesteads were located, entrious, and patriotic population to the States tion-Democratic hostility-The hancing greatly the value of the lands of those Homestead Principle essentially States, enlarging their productive industries, Republican. 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. Instead of being "fraught with mischief of the most demoralizing kind," as denounced by the Democracy, its wisdom and justice, its CHAPTER XVI. The Tariff Question. "A Tariff for revenue only."-Declaration 3, Democratic National Platform, 1880. PART I. they should promote such manufactures as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly for military, supplies." Protection essentially the “AmerThe very first act of the First Congress-as ican System ”—Among its Illus-pointed out in the able and exhaustive trious Advocates: Washington, speech of Mr. Hubbell of Michigan, in the Franklin, Hamilton, Clay, Jack-House, March 21, 1876,--from which this part son, Madison, Adams, Webster, amble declaring its object in this language: is mainly condensed-was prefaced by a preLincoln and Grant. Whereas it is necessary for the support of the GovGeorge Washington, in his first message to ernment for the discharge of the debt of the United Congress, declared that: States, and the encouragement and protection of manufac turers, that duties be levied on goods, wares and mer "The safety and interest of the people require that chandise imported." In his second message to Congress, George Washington said: "Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, directed their attention to the encouragement of manufactures. The object is of too much consequence not to insure a continuance of their efforts in every way which shall appear eligible." Benjamin Franklin, in 1771, said: "It seems the interest of all our farmers and owners of land to encourage our young manufactures, in preference to foreign ones imported among us from distant countries." Alexander Hamilton, in 1779, wrote: "To maintain between the recent establishments of Brief History of Tariff Legisla one country and the long matured establishments of another country a competition on equal terms, both as to quality and price, is in most cases impracticable. The disparity in the one or in the other, or in both, must necessarily be so considerable as to forbid a successful rival-ship without extraordinary aid and protection from the government." Henry Clay, in 1824. in the course of one of his great speeches, said: * "It is most desirable that there should be both a home and a foreign market. But with respect to their relative superiority, I cannot entertain a doubt. The home market is first in order and paramount in importance. ** * * But this home market, desirable as it is, can only be created and cherished by the protection of our own legislation against the inevitable prostration of our industry, which must ensue from the action of foreign policy and legislation. * * If I am asked why unprotected industry should not succeed in a struggle with protected industry, I answer: The fact has ever been so, and that is sufficient; I reply, the uniform experience evinces that it cannot succeed in such a struggle, and that is sufficient. If we speculate on the causes of this universal truth, we may differ about them. Still the indisputable fact remains. *The cause is the cause of the country, and it must and will prevail. It is founded on the interests and affections of the people. It is as native as the granite deeply embosomed in our mountains." ** General Jackson, in 1824, wrote: "It is time that we should become a little more Americanized, and, instead of feeding the paupers and laborers of England, feed our own.' James Madison, in 1828, said : "A further evidence in support of the constitutiona power to protect and foster manufactures by regulations of trade-an evidence that ought in itself to settle the question-is the uniform and practical sanction given in that power, for nearly forty years, with a concurrence or acquiescence of every State government throughout the same period, and, it may be added, through all the vicissitudes of party which marked that period." Mr. Adams, in 1832, in a report from the Committee on Manufactures, said: "And thus the very first act of the organized Congress united with the law of self-preservation, by the support of the Government just instituted, the two objects combined in the first grant of power to Congress: the payment of the public debts and the provision for the common defense by the protection of manufactures. The next act was precisely of the same character: an act of protection to manufactures still more than of taxation for revenue." Daniel Webster, in 1833, said : "The protection of American labor against the injurious competition of foreign labor, so far, at least, as respects general handicraft productions, is known historically to have been one end designed to be obtained by establishing the Constitution; and this object, and the constitutional power to accomplish it, ought never to be surrendered or compromised in any degree." Abraham Lincoln, in 1832, said: "I am in favor of the internal improvement system and a high protective tariff." tion-1824 to 1860. A careful and conscientious writer thus condenses the history of the American Protective Tariff and the Democratic opposition to it in a few brief lines: "After the war of 1812 closed, there came a series of hard years in this country. Business was prostrated, wages were low, and employment was hard to get. A protective tariff was adopted in 1824, and strengthened in 1828, which revived our industries and brought good times. Town and country prospered alike, and the mechanic and farmer were equally benefited. The South hated this tariff, which made it pay tribute, its statesmen said, to the Yankees of New England. South Carolina tried to nullify it, and prevent the customs officers from collecting the duties at her ports. "In 1832 the Democrats struck down this tariff by a law reducing duties on a sliding scale for ten years. Prosperity was immediately checked. Times grew harder and harder, until the great crash of 1837 came. No one whose memory does not go back to that time can imagine the misery which came upon the country. Flour sold as low as $2.50 per barrel, and in many localities laboring men worked for thirty cents a day. "In 1840 the people put into power the new Whig party, pledged to re-enact a protective tariff. The result was the tariff of 1842, which gave fresh life to the manufacturing and agricultural interests, and put business upon its feet again. "In 1844 the Democrats carried the Presidential election by cheating the Pennsylvania voters into the belief that they would not disturb the protective tariff. Their campaign cry in that State was: Polk, Dallas and the Tariff of 1842.' As soon as they got possession of the government they proceeded to pass a low tariff bill at the dictation of the South. The vote on it was a tie in the Senate, and Vice President Dallas, a Pennsylvanian, pledged to protection, gave the casting vote to destroy the protective system. The bill established what was known as the tariff of 1846. It seriously crippled the manufacturing interests of the country. The growing industries of New England, New Jersey and Pennsylvania received a heavy blow. The worst effects of this Democratic revenue tariff were not immediately felt throughout the country, however, because of the stimulus which came from the discovery of gold in California. But in spite of that great gain to the national wealth, the crash of 1857 came, and swept business, labor and agriculture away into a common disaster. "In 1860 the Republicans came into power and passed the Morrill Tariff Bill, which was based on the principle of protection. Many changes have been made in the law since, but in no case has this principle been abandoned. The Republican party has steadfastly defended all the great national industries, and their flourishing condition to-day is directly attributable to the long period of Republican ascendency." PART III. The Morrison Tariff Bill—Its proposed iniquities—Analysis of the Democratic monstrosity. The first attempt made by the Democrats |