Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

treaty stipulations, and absolutely prohibiting all | Further Republican Efforts at Anti-Coolie Chinese immigration.

This, in my judgment, is still the better course; and every thing I have written is secondary and subordinate to such judgment. I am now only indicating the acceptance of a situation not by any means satisfactory, but out of which some practical, beneficial results may possibly be obtained. I therefore make these suggestions with the fullest reservation to urge measures of total exclusion, not only as the better, but the only effective course. Very truly yours,

WM. M. MORROW.

Hon. JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate.

PART IX.

The Republican Senate's amendments to President Cleveland's Treaty Pending anti-coolie legislation.

In accordance with the suggestions of Mr. Morrow, Articles I. and II. of the Chinese Treaty were amended by the Senate, and now stand as follows:

Article I.

The high contracting parties agree that for a period of twenty years, beginning with the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, the coming, except under the conditions hereinafter specified, of Chinese laborers to the United States shall be absolutely prohibited; and this prohibition shall extend to the return of Chinese laborers who are not now in the United States, whether holding return certifi cates uuder existing laws or not.

Article II.

The preceding article shall not apply to the return to the United States of any Chinese laborer who has a lawful wife, child, or parent in the United States, or property therein to the value of $1,000, or debts of like amount due him and pending settlement. Nevertheless, every such Chinese laborer shall, before leaving the United States, deposit, as a condition of his return, with the collector of customs of the district

from which he departs, a full description in writing of his family, or property, or debts, as aforesaid, and shall be furnished by said collector with such certificate of his right to return under this treaty, as the laws of the United States may now or hereafter prescribe, and not inconsistent with the provisions of this treaty; and should the written description aforesaid be proved to be false the right of return thereunder, or of continued residence after return, shall in each case be forfeited.

Legislation.

Not resting, however, with amending the Chinese treaty in the manner indicated, the Republican Senate, August, 1888, at the instance of Senator Stewart of Nevada, passed a Senate bill (S. 3304) "to prohibit the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States." Its provisions are in harmony with the amended treaty, and conform to the restrictions thereof. It provides additional safeguards for personal identification of returning Chinamen; requires that they shall be admitted only at the American port from which they departed; provides that "no Chinese person except diplomatic or consular officers and their attendants shall be permitted to enter the United States, except at the ports of San Francisco, Portland (Ore.), Boston, New York, New Orleans, Port Townsend, or such other ports as may be designated by the Secretary of the Treasury;" and prescribes that "the collector shall in person decide all questions in dispute with regard to the right of any Chinese passenger to enter the United States, and his decision shall be subject to review by the Secretary of the Treasury, and not otherwise."

Subsequently the Senate bill - after some further delay, induced by the Democrats in the hope of making party capital - passed the House of Representatives. without a division.

PART X.

Falsity of Democratic charges against Senator Harrison ← His remarks in the Senate, 1882-Statements of Senators Dolph, Mitchell, Stewart, and Allison.

For lack of any thing else to say against the Republican candidate for the Presidency, certain Democrats have not hesitated to falsely charge General Harrison with being opposed to the restriction of Chinese immigration. The charge is ridiculous, as will be seen by the following:

What Senator Harrison said when the AntiChinese Bill of 1882 was before the Senate. In the United States Senate, April 22, 1882, the Anti-Chinese Bill being up for consideration

And such right of return to the United States shall be exercised within one year from the date of leaving the United States; but such right of return to the United States may be extended for an additional period not to exceed one year in cases where, by reason of sickness or other cause of disability beyond his Mr. Harrison said, "I only want to make a sugges control, such Chinese laborer shall be rendered unable tion. In the treaty the word laborers' is used. I sooner to return, which facts shall be fully reported to take it that it is not in the power of Congress to enlarge the Chinese consul at the port of departure and by him the meaning of that word. Whatever it meant in the certified to the satisfaction of the collector of the port treaty, it would mean the same thing as used in the at which such Chinese subject shall land in the United law. We cannot make it mean more than that. There States. And no such Chinese laborer shall be perfore, why not let it stand in the law as in the treaty. mitted to enter the United States by land or sea with out producing to the proper officer of the customs the return certificate herein required.

Without the words, in italics, inserted by the Republican Senate, the Treaty negotiated by the Democratic Administration would have

and let the use of that word include what it will?»

Mr. Grover objected to this proposition, for the reason, he said, that the word can be defined in differ ent ways; and, if it is left to be construed by those who administer the law, they will have to determine i either one way or the other.

Mr. Harrison replied to this in the following: ** is possible that the senator is right in saying that th word may be construed differently; but can we enlarg

meaning of it as it is used in the treaty?

the question I present. If we use the same word in the law that is used in the treaty, we are going as far as we can go, for we cannot enlarge the word as it is used in the treaty."

Mr. Grover proposed to put a legislative interpretation upon it, and Mr. Miller of California remarked, "We start out with the presumption that Congress will not legislate to violate a treaty; so that, in fact, it is probable that the words of the treaty would govern, unless there was a plain intent manifest that Congress intended to violate the treaty or legislate in conflict with it. If any one can show a good reason or apprehension that skilled labor, so called, would come into this country under this bill unless this section were adopted, I should certainly desire to have it adopted." Mr. Grover read an extract from the Daily Record Union of California, of April 22, which discussed the amendment made by the Senate committee, criticising the effect of leaving out the provision of the fifteenth

section.

Mr. Harrison replied to Mr. Grover as follows: "Will the Senator from Oregon allow me to make a suggestion to him? He reads an extract from a paper to the effect that the word laborers,' as used in the treaty, or as used in the law, may be limited, by meaning applied to those who are unskilled. If the court should so decide, giving that meaning to the word laborers,' as used in the treaty, would the Senator from Oregon be in favor of going beyond what we are authorized to do by our treaty?"

Mr. Grover answered, "The commissioners on the part of the United States, who negotiated this treaty, are unanimous in their expression that this clause is properly in the bill."

Mr. Harrison replied, "It reminds me of a will case that I was once trying, when the lawyer who drew the will was on the other side. There was a great deal of controversy about the meaning, and he undertook to settle it by saying that he wrote the will, and knew what it meant. It seems to me that is a parallel case with our commissioners undertaking to say what the word means."

Mr. Grover again answered, "The President of the United States, after considering the protest of the Chinese ambassador, and reading what the American commissioner said, decided that this clause was correctly in the bill. If any court should decide that there is a conflict between the law and the treaty, I think the treaty will go to the wall."

Mr. HARRISON. That does not answer my question. Is the Senator from Oregon in favor of driving the treaty to the wall by legislation here?

Mr. GROVER. I think I have answered that sufficiently in stating that the commissioners and the President have given their construction of the treaty. That is the American view of it, and I follow that.

Mr. HARRISON.-That does not answer the question at all. The question I asked the senator is whether, if the treaty and the law in the section to which he has referred are in conflict, he still believes in passing the law and driving the treaty to the wall, or, in other words, trampling upon our treaty obligations?

This branch of the debate closed by Mr. Grover declaring that he would stand by the authorities he had cited, and the bill, after the debate, went over for the day (Record, vol. 13, pt. 4, pp. 1351 to 1360).

Senator Dolph's Testimony.

The following remarks were made in the U. S. Senate, Aug. 15, 1888, on the subject of Senator Harrison's attitude on the Chinese question [see Congl. Record]:

Mr. DOLPH. - But, sir, I deny that the record of General Harrison in Congress will show that he ever was in favor of the admission of Chinese laborers into the United States, or that he was ever opposed to the restriction of the immigration of Chinese laborers to this country.

By the representations of leading citizens of the Pacific coast of both parties the Government was induced to take action, and a Republican administration negotiated a new treaty modifying the treaty of 1868 so as to permit. Congress, without a violation of the treaty, to enact laws for the restriction of Chinese immigration. I repeat, it was a Republican measure; and all that has ever been done until the

exclusion of Chinese laborers from this country, or the restriction of Chinese immigration, has been done by the Republican party.

That treaty, negotiated under a Republican administration, authorized the United States for a limited time to restrict but not to wholly prohibit Chinese immigration. A bill was introduced-it was a Senate bill, I think; at least it was pending before the Senate - which provided that for twenty years the coming of Chinese laborers to our shores should be prohibited. Mr. Harrison, it appears, was opposed to the period of twenty years, and thought the time of seclusion, to conform to the treaty, should be less. Whether he had any intimation from the President, that according to his judgment that was too long a period or not, is not known, but the action he took upon that bill shows that he was in favor of restriction. The senior Senator from Texas, upon the passage of the bill, got up in his place in the Senate and said substantially- I have not the Record before me-"I have received a letter fiom Mr. Harrison, in which he states that if this amendment is not adopted"- that is, the amendment reducing the time to ten years" he will vote against the bill." That leaves the fair inference that if the amendment had been adopted he would have favored and voted for the bill, does it not? Is not that logical? Mr. BECK. But the bill came in

Mr. DOLPH. I will get to that in a moment. Mr. COKE. The senator alludes to my former colleague, Senator Maxey, I suppose.

Mr. DOLPH. Yes. I said the senior senator from Texas. I meant Senator Maxey, who was the senator who was paired with Mr. Harrison, and who stated on the floor of the Senate that he had received a letter from Senator Harrison, who was detained from the Senate on business of the Senate, in which he said that if the amendment was not adopted he would vote against the bill. I think I state it too strongly, but let it stand as I have stated it. The letter will speak for itself.

I say the fair inference from the statement was, that if the amendment had been adopted Senator Harrison would have favored the bill, and it shows that he favored the restriction of Chinese immigration; and that cannot be denied.

Well, the bill passed-passed without the vote of Senator Harrison for or against it, and went to the President. He vetoed it, and vetoed it upon the very ground upon which Senator Harrison had opposed the bill, and I say if the rest of the Senate had been as wise and acted as judiciously as Senator Harrison did, and had adopted his views in regard to that amendment, it would have saved all the subsequent trouble of passing a new bill.

After the veto of the bill by the President another bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by a Republican member, Mr. Page, and largely by his efforts passed through the House. It came into the Senate, and came up for consideration. It contained two provisions which Senator Harrison objected to

the fourteenth and fifteenth sections, which have been referred to by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Vest]. One of those sections provided in substance that no court should have the power or authority to naturalize Chinese subjects. Senator Harrison opposed that provision, and so would I have opposed it if I had been here, and I think that every other man who knew what the law was, and was not willing to legislate for political purposes, would have opposed it, too. Everybody knew that a Chinese subject could not be naturalized in the United States, and although it had been attempted by some judge up in Boston - I forget whether it was the United States circuit or United States district judge up there - the judges on the Pacific coast, one or more of them-I am not sure but the district judge and the circuit judge and Associate Justice Field - had all decided that a Chinese subject could not be naturalized.

Now, what would have been the effect of Congress saying the courts should not have that power to natu ralize Chinese, assuming by legislation that they already had the power to naturalize Chinese subjects? It would have thrown a doubt, at least, upon the action which had already been taken by the courts. The attempted naturalization of Chinese was illegal. Even the record of such a proceeding would not have entitled a Chinese subject to citizenship, and Senator Harrison knew it, and as a lawyer he was bound to vote against

As to the other provision referred to which was opposed by Senator Harrison, the provision undertaking to construe the word "laborer" as used in the treaty, the senator from Missouri rightly says that Senator Harrison was too good a lawyer not to know that the treaty itself could be set aside by a law of Congress. That is not what Senator Harrison was discussing. He said that the word "laborer" had a fixed meaning, and it was used in the treaty with reference to this meaning, which the courts could determine, and that we could not make the word laborer, as used in the treaty, mean more or less by an act of Congress. Of course, if we wished to go beyond the treaty, if we wished to violate the treaty, if we wished to exclude classes of Chinese by the law that were not excluded by the treaty, that could be done; but that was not what General Harrison was talking about. He was talking about enlarging the definition of the word "laborer as used in the treaty by an act of Congress, and a very sensible remark he made about it, too, and his action in that matter shows, just as his action upon the previous bill showed, that he favored the restriction of Chinese immigration.

But suppose that that were not so. Is a man to be held forever to a position that he has taken at a particular time or to his views upon a question at a given time? Is there no room for change? Why, sir, it is only a fool or a bigot who never changes his opinions. Senator Harrison was a member of the Senate in 1884, when an amendatory Chinese restriction bill was passed, and there is not a line or a scratch of a pen to show that he was opposed to it, and was not in favor of it. I do not think the roll was called upon it. I do not know that Senator Harrison was present.

Mr. MITCHELL. In 1886?

Mr. DOLPH. In 1884 the bill was passed; 1886 I will come to in a moment.

I say there was a bill passed amending the act of 1882, more stringent in its provisions in regard to the main thing which was sought to be accomplished by it, the restriction of Chinese immigration, than the law of 1882, and Senator Harrison, for all there is in the record, appears to have been in favor of the bill; at least there was no sign, no word, no vote, and no action showing any opposition to it.

Well, sir, we come down to 1886, when a bill was reported from the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by the distinguished senator from the State of Ohio [Mr. Sherman]. Mr. Harrison was then a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations. That bill reported in 1886 was an excellent bill. It would have cured the defects which had been discovered in previous legislation; it would have gone far to prevent the evasion of the laws of 1882 and 1884 by Chinese coming to this country. Mr. Harrison as a member of the committee joined in the report of the committee, was present when the bill was considered, made a friendly suggestion in answer to an inquiry by the honorable senator who now occupies the chair [Mr. Ingalls], as to some objection that had been made by Senator McMillan from Minnesota. Mr. Harrison stated that the senator from Minnesota had withdrawn his objection, thus showing his friendly interest in the bill and in the measure, and that he favored the bill, which was passed without a call of the yeas and nays.

Now, let us trace that bill a little farther. As I have said, that was an important bill to the Pacific Coast, -a bill that we were demanding, a bill that would have gone far to relieve the United States courts of the City of San Francisco, which were being overwhelmed with Chinese habeas corpus cases to the detriment of the public business. It went into the House of Representatives, and was placed in the tomb of the Capulets to sleep its last sleep, and no attention was ever paid to it

Mr. HOAR. What House of Representatives? Mr. DOLPH. A Democratic House of Representatives. Therefore, Mr. President, I assert again that Mr. Harrison was in favor of Chinese restriction. The record shows that he favored and supported two bills for that purpose which have passed the Senate of the United States, -one of which afterwards became a law, and one of which was pigeon-holed by a Democratic House of Representatives. The record does not show that he was ever opposed to the principle, that he was opposed to the general proposition, and his opposition to the bill of 1882 was placed on other and perfectly defensible grounds. I shall be very much

that the statement which has been to-day made by the senator from Missouri, and subsequently reiterated by the senator from Kentucky, concerning the naturalization of Chinese in Indiana, is a mistake, an entire and total mistake on their part, and something far worse than a mistake on the part of others.

Senator Mitchell's Testimony.

On the same day Senator Mitchell of Oregon added his testimony as follows:

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, it is conceded, I believe, by all, that General Harrison was a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations of this body in 1886. I hold in my hand a bill looking to the restriction of Chinese immigration, reported from that committee by the senator from Ohio [Mr. Sherman], and agreed to unanimously by every member of that committee, as I understand, Republican and Democrat. That bill was reported to the Senate, and passed the Senate by a unanimous vote. The record shows, as has been already stated, that General Harrison was present in the Senate removing obstacles that seemed to arise, first one and then another, in regard to getting the bill up. There was no roll-call. The bill was passed unanimously, and this is the bill; and I ask to have it incorporated as part of my remarks in the Record.

I desire to say in this connection that in my judgment it is the best bill on the subject of Chinese restriction that has ever been reported from any committee of either House of Congress or has ever been passed by either House of Congress.

This bill, the Democrats of the Senate must admit, received the approval of General Harrison. Whatever may have been his notions years before, this shows what his record was two years and over two years ago on this subject.

Mr. TELLER. What became of that bill?

Mr. MITCHELL. That bill was passed, as stated by my colleague, by the Senate a Republican Senate-and was sent to the House of Representatives-a Democratic House-and there it was suffered to die; it never was reported, no action was taken on it.

That is the record of General Harrison on the Chinese question over two years ago, and all the amendments which have been referred to by my honorable friend from Missouri [Mr. Veft], in which Senator Harrison declined to vote for certain amendments proposed and in favor of others that were proposed, were simply not because he was opposed to legislation_restricting Chinese immigration to this country, but because he desired to keep within the provisions of the treaty. The Record shows that all the way through, as was stated by my colleague clearly and distinctly in the correspondence he had with the then senior senator from Texas, Mr. Maxey, that he was not opposed to a bill restricting Chinese immigration, but he was opposed to one that would prohibit Chinese immigration at that time solely because it was a violation of the then existing treaty between the two countries.

Mr. VEST. Will the Senator from Oregon permit me to ask him a question?

Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly.

Mr. VEST. Does he mean to say that the passage of the bill which he holds in his hands was indicative of the approval of its provisions by every member of the Senate? It passed unanimously and without the yeas and nays.

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.

Mr. VEST. I should like to know if the Senators from Massachusetts approved that bill. They stand exactly in the same position that the senator from Indiana, General Harrison, did. I do not think the senators from Massachusetts will say they would have voted for it on a yea-and-nay call.

Mr. MITCHELL. General Harrison was on the committee, and the report was unanimous.

Mr. VEST. There is a record of that committee, and we all know how those reports are made and what they are worth so far as testing the opinions or making the record of any public man.

Mr. MITCHELL. The record shows that he not only joined in the report, but that he aided in bringing the bill to a vote when it was brought to a vote in the Senate.

himself. In the letter which the senator from Nevada was kind enough to put in the Record the other day, to Rev. Mr. Brant, of St. Louis, he gives two reasons for his action in 1882. One is, that the two acts violated the treaty - for he voted against both. The second one is, that he could not divest himself of the old idea that this country was a free place of refuge to all comers. I leave him to answer for himself.

Mr. MITCHELL. I have nothing further to say-I said I would only occupy a minute-except that the only Chinese restrictive legislation that has ever been approved in this country, two bills that have become laws, were approved by the Republican candidate for

President.

Senator Allison's Testimony.

On the same day, in the Senate, the following remarks were made:

|

House bill, the Chinese question was considered practically settled. The public sentiment of the country has crystallized in so large a majority in favor of that legislation that even the stringent opponents of the bill which had passed ceased their opposition.

Now, Mr. President, I make this assertion - and that is the test of the accuracy of the conclusions at least drawn by the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. ALLISON. I have not yet concluded.

Mr. VEST. He says that the acts of 1884 and 1886, that were passed here nem. con. and without the yeas and nays, show that every member of the Senate approved that legislation. I say now that the Senators from Massachusetts will neither of them say that they approved those laws, in my judgment, unless I am greatly mistaken in their opinions then and now.

bill is read by the Secretary and I make no objection to it, and it passes, and I neither explain my vote nor my situation respecting it, I am bound by that record as one who did not oppose that bill.

Senator from Missouri and the Senators from MassaMr. ALLISON. Well, Mr. President, I leave the chusetts to settle that question. I want to say that if Mr. ALLISON. Mr. President, a few moments ago II am present here in my seat in this Chamber, and a sought the floor for the purpose of moving an adjournment, and I should renew that motion now without making a single observation but for the fact that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Vest] sought to emphasize the action of the Republican party in former years as in favor of the immigration of Chinese into this country, and claimed that the Democratic party was a party opposed to Chinese immigration, thus endeavoring to draw a distinction upon that subject between the two great political parties in this country. As the Senator has made that attempt, and sought to emphasize it, I wish, before this Senate adjourns, to put in my own emphatic protest against any such claim. ... So then in 1884, with General Harrison sitting in this Chamber, a more rigid bill than was even suggested or thought of in 1882 was passed by the unanimous vote of this body, reported, as the Senator from Nevada has stated, by the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which General Harrison was an able and strong and active member.

I have referred to what occurred here in 1884. Then we come to 1886, General Harrison still a member of this Chamber, and a still more stringent bill was reported in 1886 by a Republican Committee on Foreign Relations and passed again in this Chamber without a single hostile voice or hostile vote, and yet the Senator from Missouri takes pains now in the very beginning of this canvass to arraign the Republican candidate for the Presidency on the idea that he and the Republican party stand in a hostile attitude to the prohibition of the Chinese coming into this country, when he ought to know, and when every other man does know who investigates the subject, that upon that question the Republican party is as vigorous and as strong as is the Demooratic party.

Mr. President, I make these statements not for my own vindication, although my own votes have been somewhat arraigned. I voted then, as I always try to do in this Chamber, from the light I had at the time. I voted as I did then because the lawyers of this Chamber convinced me that, with the ink scarcely dry upon the treaty of 1880, we were by legislation seeking to infract it.

Mr. VEST. I think the Senator from Iowa is a fair disputant, and that he does not want to do any injustice intentionally.

Mr. ALLISON. Certainly not.

Mr. VEST. But I make this statement, and every intelligent man in this country will corroborate it. After the contest of 1882 and the signing by President Arthur of the second bill we passed, which was a

Mr. President, I do not rest General Harrison's record upon that statement, I rest it upon the fact that he was a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, which consisted of Democrats and Republicans, five of them Republicans and four of them Democrats. They are the proper witnesses, and I challenge here and now any Democrat or Republican, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee at that time, to say that Senator Harrison there or here did not give his hearty approval and concurrence to those two bills. If I intended to be hypercritical-indeed, I could do so without being hypercritical-I could say that the bill of 1886, which passed this Chamber with absolute and practical unanimity, went to the Democratic House of Representatives and there slept the sleep of death.

Mr. MITCHELL. Senator Harrison was a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations in 1886.

Mr. ALLISON. I am corrected by saying that General Harrison was not a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations in 1884, but he was in 1886. Then I am invigorated, I am strengthened, by the fact that General Harrison was a member of this committee in 1886, when this most stringent legislation was passed.

Mr. STEWART. And the chairman of the committee said in his report that the bill was unanimously agreed to by the committee.

Mr. ALLISON. I thank the Senator from Nevada for calling my attention to that.

That bill went to the House of Representatives. If the Democratic party were so vigorous and so ready to secure some stringent prohibitory legislation, they had the Speaker of the House, they had the committees of the House, they had the control of the floor; and why is it that they did not exercise that great power which they had? Because in that Congress they had more than forty majority, while in this one they only have sixteen, and there might be some excuse for saying that the majority was so small that they could not bring this up; but here they were in the vigor of their power, in the plenitude of their influence, and yet they allowed that bill to die.

In view of these facts I say that it does not lie in the pathway of any proper or just criticism of any Repub. lican for any Democrat to stand in this Chamber and arraign the Republican party or any member of it for hostility to the principle of prohibition of Chinese immigration.

CHAPTER IX.

The Homestead Question.

[ocr errors]

"We re-affirm the policy of appropriating the public lands of the United States to be homesteads for American citizens and settlers, not aliens, which the Republican Party established in 1862, against the persistent opposition of the Democrats in Congress, and which has brought our great Western domain into such magnificent development. We charge the Democratic Administration with failure to execute the laws securing to settlers title 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.

PART I.

The Great Question of 1858- Started by Free Soilers in 1852 - Reasserted by Republicans in 1856-Land for the landless.

In 1852 the Free Soilers in their convention declared "that the public lands of the United States belong to the people, and should not be sold to individuals, nor granted to corporations, but should be held as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people, and should be granted in limited quantities, free of cost, to landless settlers." This plank was substantially reasserted in the Republican platform of 1856, and in addition the Republicans declared in favor of land aid to secure the construction of Pacific railways. A fierce political battle ensued which did not cease until the passage of the Homestead bill of 1862, after the Republicans had obtained control of all the departments of the government. During all the time, from 1854 to the passage of the bill, the demand of the settlers was incessant and constant for the passage of a law that should confine locators to small tracts, and require actual occupation, improvement, and cultivation.

In 1858 it was estimated that there were within the States and Territories 1,000,000,000 acres of the public lands unentered. The great question of the day was, "What shall be done with this immense domain? Shall it be open to monopoly by speculators, be used to build up a landed aristocracy, or shall it be reserved to actual settlers at a nominal price, or without price?" The Republicans pro

The Republican attempt to secure to the poor settler ten years to pay for his farm from proceeds of soil is defeated by the Democracy.

At the first session of Thirty-fifth Congress, Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, a member of the House, introduced into that body the following bill for the protection of actual settlers on the public domains:

The Grow bill-The vote defeating it.

Be it enacted, etc., That from and after the first day of September, A.D. 1858, no public lands shall be exposed to sale by proclamation of the President until the same shall have been surveyed, and the return thereof in the land office for at least ten years.

cedence over the speculator, but it was defeatThis bill gave to the settler ten years' preed by the following vote (Republicans in Roman, Democrats in italics, Southern Americans in small capitals):

Bingham, Blair, Bliss, Brayton, Buffinton, Burlingame, YEAS.-Messrs. Abbott, Adrian, Andrews, Bennett, Case, E. Clark, H. F. Clark, Clawson, Colfax, Comins, Cox, Cragin, James Craig, Burton Craige, Curtis, Dodd, Durfee, Foster, Geddings, Goodwin, Granger, Damrell, Davis (Mass.), Davis (Iowa), Dean, Dick, Grow, R. B. Hall, Harlan, T. L. Harris, Hickman, Hoard, Horton, Howard, G. W. Jones, Kellogg, Kelly, Kelsey, Kilgore, Knapp, Leach, Lovejoy, Mason, Parker, Pettit, Pike, Potter, Ritchie, Royce, A. Shaw, Morgan, Isaac N. Morris, F. H. Morse, Palmer, J. Sherman, J. W. Sherman, Spinner, W. Stewart, Tappan, G. Taylor, Tompkins, Wade, Walbridge, Walton, C. C. Washburn, E. B. Washburne, Israel

Washburn-73.

NAYS.Messrs. Anderson, Atkins, Avery, Barksdale, Bishop, Bocock, Boyce, Branch, Bryant, Burnett, Burns, Caruthers, J. B. Clark, Clay, Clemens, Clingman, Cobb, John Cochrane, Cockrill, Crawford, son, English, Foley, Garnett, Gartrell, Gillis, Goode, Davidson, Davis (Ind.), Debrart, Dowdell, EdmunGreenwood, Gregg, L. W. Hall, Hawkins, Houston, Hughes, Jackson, Jewett, J. G. Jones, Owen Jones,

« AnteriorContinuar »