Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

ent with the policy and object with which the different "bounty land acts" have been passed.

What was the object of those acts? What were the lands distributed by these acts, given for? As bounties, as rewards for public services; for services which had been rendered by soldiers for the whole country. What was the policy of those acts? To encourage the citizen to answer promptly his country's call upon him, to redress her wrongs; to defend her liberties; to fight her battles; by showing him that if he survived those battles, the Government would well reward him; and if he did not, that it would take care of his wife and children. If this was not the policy, then those acts were not justifiable.

Now, this "homestead bill" not only gives the same or a greater quantity of land to the poor man, because he is poor, that the "bounty land act" gives to the old soldier because he had been brave, and thus puts poverty and bravery on a par for the Fature enlightened favors and kind regard of the Government; but by it the Government wholly, or partially, takes away from the old soldier even the bounty which it has bestowed by the bounty land act. This bill will make his land warrant valueless or nearly so. He" asked for bread," and we gave it to him, with many fine speeches and compliments, for his bravery and patriotism; and now, within a brief period, by this bill, we "turn his bread into stone," and put him upon a par with the "squalid and the suffering," whom my friend from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CHANDLER,] in his speech, so classically, beautifully, and humanely expresses his desire to see taken by it "from the crowded, unhealthy alleys of our cities."

resenting a manufacturing interest, (the iron interest of Pennsylvania, for instance,) to advocate and press this measure, and afterwards come forward and ask for an increase of the duty on foreign iron, to protect the iron interest of Pennsylvania. To be consistent they must begin now, and protect that interest by voting against this bill.

VI. Mr. Chairman, the principle upon which this bill proceeds, as a measure of public policy, or of political economy, is so evidently novel and extraordinary-so utterly opposed to, and destructive of, the true principle upon which labor should be encouraged and protected by the Government, as shown by all human experience, that I have not thought till now of stating this, as a distinct objection to the bill.

All human experience, from the days of Adam to this day, has shown that the true way for a Government to encourage industry and reward labor, is to protect property; so that while its acquisition shall be the stimulus to labor, its security shall be the reward of labor. The great principle is to make the acquisition of property desirable, and thus induce to industry. To do this, protect it by equal and just laws; free it from unnecessary restrictions; give the holder of it the right freely to dispose of it, by will or otherwise; give it to his nearest of kin on his death, if he has not disposed of it while living, and thus bring in the force of the affections and the ties of blood to the aid of industry. In this way the reward of the laborer will be according to his merit, because he will have and enjoy all he has earned and saved.

But this bill proceeds upon an entirely novel principle-to encourage industry by a distribution of bounties; not for services done, nor according to merit, for it gives as much land to the man who has spent in idleness and dissipation all of his patrimony but $400, as to the man who, by hard labor and economy, has saved $400.

V. It is evident, from what has been said, that this measure is inconsistent with an increase of the present tariff, either for revenue or for protection; for how can you call such increase, a tariff for revenue, when with one hand you give away the revenue, and with the other increase the tariff to sup- The principle upon which it proceeds would ply the deficiency; and how can you call such appear to be as little in accordance with the prinincrease, a tariff for protection, when by this home-ciples of divine justice as of political economy. stead bill you produce or increase the very cause for which you grant the protection, and for which it is asked?

What is the difficulty with manufactures now? Why does even the manufacturer of iron ask for further protection? Is it a want of a market for his iron, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. RANTOUL] would seem to suppose? Protect iron to any extent, and we will not be able, in years, to manufacture all the country will want.

No; it is the cost of manufacturing it here that calls for the protection. And why the cost here? It is not the cost of the raw material-of the ore, or of the coal. It is, then, the cost of the laborthe high price of labor here. Take the manufacture of pig iron in the United States. The capital invested is $17,346,425; the value of the raw material-ore, fuel, &c.,-$7,005,289; the amount of wages paid for a year, $5,066,628; value of entire products, $12,748,777.

I am not advocating now, either protection and low wages, or free trade and high wages; but my point is, that this homestead bill will take labor from the manufacturing States to the land States-from the manufactories of the East to the farms of the West-and thereby increase the cost of labor and the cost of manufacturing; and that, therefore, it is inconsistent for gentlemen here, rep

||

Look at the parable of the talents in the 25th chapter of Matthew, and of the parable of the pounds in the 19th chapter of St. Luke. In the former, which of the servants did the "man traveling into a far country" reward on his return-the man who had hid his talent in the earth, or the servant who had made other five talents? In the latter parable, did the "nobleman" reward the servant who had tied his pound in a napkin, or the servant who had made other ten pounds?

Even indiscriminate private charities are thought by some to do more hurt than good by encouraging idleness; but what shall we say of this great public charity, by which the Government offers a bonus to idleness, by giving the same bounty to the idle and vicious spendthrift, as to the industrious and thrifty laborer?

I am as much the friend of the laborer, as the gentlemen on the other side of this question. We differ in the way of showing our friendship, in the way of benefiting him. I would do it by encouraging his industry, protecting his person and property, and by giving him all possible liberty, both of person and property, consistent with a well-organized, efficient civil government, and the rights of others; they (if I am correct in my view of this bill) would do it by taking the property of all, and giving it to the few-they would do it by

giving the same reward to the vicious and idle poor man, as to the honest and industrious laborer, and thus put honest labor and vicious poverty on a par. I think this bill is an attack on the rights of property, for I can see no difference in principle, in taking the property of A B and giving it to C D, because he has none; and taking the property of all the people of the United States, and giving it

to those only who have no land. I look upon this bill as agrarian, and if it should become a law, as the first only of measures brought forward to more nearly equalize the distribution of property.

I say the honest and industrious laborer will be injured by any departure from that great principle, the security and freedom of the rights of property, and therefore I am his friend by defending it.

« ZurückWeiter »