state of the Union on the Homestead Bill

Mr. EWING said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I do not propose to confine myself to the merits of the bill immediately under the consideration of the committee, although I conceive it has merits, and I am inclined to give it my vote. I look upon it at least as one of the most harmless developments of that idea of progress, now so prevalent in the country; and in the genéral distribution of the public lands, which is threatened, I know of no more worthy recipients who are likely to be benefited, than those proposed in the bill. Besides, there is perhaps no other mode by which any portion of the citizens of my own State will ever be made to share in the distribution.

In reference to this idea of progress, Mr. Chairman-one much derided upon the one hand, and perhaps extravagantly lauded upon the other allow me to say, that there never was a humbug so empty-never a philosophy so vain, which met, for any length of time, with any response from any quarter, which had not at its basis some foundation of truth. And it does not become us to reject even popular error, without sifting out and separating the truth which has given it currency.

We are told that progress is an empty wordthat it means everything, or that it means nothing. Not so, sir. It may be shadowy, indefinite as that mysterious, uncertain future to which it refers, and in which it lives. It is no fixed measure or series of measures. It is a spirit-a vivifying principle. Why, Mr. Chairman, he who preaches content preaches a false philosophy. He who tells us to be satisfied with the present existing state of things at any time will teach in vain. That restless, dissatisfied spirit—that irrepressible longing after something new, something better, in the future that never-dying hope, urging us ever onward—was implanted in us by Him who made us, doubtless to induce us to seek a better world

in man, it manifests itself in all with which he has to do, in every relation in which he is called to act, individual, social, and political. I believe there is an idea generally prevalent at the present time in the country, that a new era has arisen-that another political cycle has revolved itself—that new measures must be adopted, new principles evolvedperhaps new attitudes and relations of parties. The time has come, as I humbly conceive, in the convictions of the American people, when we should stop and inquire whether there is in this country a party, in any or all political organizations, in whatever geographical section, with sufficient power to control the destinies of the country, and having a sincere love and admiration for the Constitution-the whole Constitution, in all of its parts and provisions—and a living faith in the Union and its permanency, who are ready to act upon that faith, and so acting, to go on in the development of the happiness and greatness of this country, to make it what it should become the grandest empire the world has ever seen. When parties are divided upon principle, the spoils, as a necessary concomitant, follow the victors, and though an evil, are tolerated as an inevitable one. But, when party array and party conflicts degenerate into nothing else than a struggle for the spoils, an indignant and impatient people will reject the outrageous imposition.

But, sir, the idea of progress under the broad shield of its popularity covers many errors. Some men think that change is progress. Mere noveltyinnovation, the simple abandonment of ancient principles-is not necessarily progress. It is sometimes counter-revolution-retrogression. The revolution which gave into the hands of Robespierre and his associates the power in France, which they so terribly abused, was no more an example of progress than the revolution of the 9th Thermidor, which restored it to those who exercised it with more humanity; nor the revolution of

the 19th Brumaire, which placed Napoleon in power, any more than the restoration of the Bourbons. There are errors now abroad under that popular name, to which they have no right or title, like the heresy which corrupts and perverts the true religion. Kossuthism is defunct, and I should insult your good sense, either to advocate or oppose it on this floor. That King of Spouters, that hero of sounding periods, has made his campaign of five hundred speeches in less than four monthsI confide in his own estimate, rather than undertake the enumeration myself—and accomplished a signal though a brilliant failure. He has strutted as a hero his brief hour upon the stage; he has drunk the brimming cup of adulation, until a steadier, wiser brain than his, might have reeled with the delicious intoxication;-he has been called a second Washington, for what reason I know not, unless perhaps because Washington was said to be a master of retreats, and he himself has achieved one of the most extraordinary retreats on record, from the time of Xenophon down-a retreat from a hundred and thirty-five thousand of his own men, with five hundred field pieces. Sir, has been said to be one of the most striking and beautiful figures of rhetoric or poetry to magnify an idea by the comparison of it with something infinitely superior. If this be true, there never was a more poetic idea, or a more daring flight of the imagination, than the comparison of Kossuth with Washington. But his hour has gone by; he only lingers on the stage after his part is played. His mad schemes, with his twelve hundred saddles for imaginary horses, and his forty thousand twodollar muskets for visionary men; his extraordinary plans for the conduct of a war with Russia and Austria, by charitable contributions, as good people would support a missionary in the Sandwich Islands, do not startle us; only because, in the extravagance of their insane folly, they sink into

contempt.

But there are distinguished gentlemen in the other end of this Capitol, statesmen, exponents of great political parties, seeking to become the heads of those parties, and by that means the heads of this Government, who thought a short time since that here was a god-send-a happy breeze in the dead political calm which was to waft them into the haven of success. They thought this was to be the popular tide, which, taken at the flood, should bear them into power. I was much reassured some weeks since, though I confess not entirely relieved, by the assurance of my esteemed friend from California, [Mr. MARSHALL,] not now present, that his favorite, Judge Douglas, was sound upon the question of the

the

relative position of the two sides of the earth, up-side and down-side. [Laughter.] I much fear if the destinies of this earth were intrusted into his hands-and I believe he aspires to no less-an "ocean-bound republic," with all the islands included, has become too small a theater for his vaulting ambition-has shrunk into too narrow a field for his extraordinary schemes. The time has come when in his opinion we should have a "foreign policy." I much fear that the destinies of this good mother earth would not be very safe in his hands; that the old beldam would rock to her foundation-we would have to write upon it as we do upon glass-ware, "right side up with care." [Laughter.] In the locomotive spirit of his progressive Democracy her progress through the heavens would be altogether too tardy, her very revolutions would seem too monotonous and regular-not half so stirring as a Hungarian or French revolution, almost as antique and obsolete as the principles of our own. I admire the boldness of his schemes, while I am startled at their novelty. They prove him to be a true and lineal descendant of that other great Douglass-" that sprightly Scot o' Scots," whom that renowned philosopher, John Falstaff, said "would run up hill perpendicular o' horseback." The Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Cass,] following after with a lagging sort of old fogy pace, in this race of progress, only exciting the contempt and derision of his more youthful and nimble coadjutors and contestants, is satisfied, for the present, with no greater share in the government of the affairs of this world, than the simple expression, in a Congressional form, of his "deep concern at the outrage perpetrated by Russia; leaving it for those who come after us, when we shall have progressed still further-to the still younger Democracy-to choose between the alternative of fighting, or backing out. He gives us many a worthy precedent and example in history in which nations have protested, and expressed their deep concern, but which had resulted in no war, nor, indeed, as is, perhaps, worthy of remark, in anything else. It is true, that able Senator has been recently endeavoring to convince us that his "deep concern" is, after all, not so very deep, perhaps, extending but little beyond the result of the next presidential election. If it means no more than he recently argues, I confess it is not worth the discussion. It either means something or nothing. If it means nothing, it is simply idle and ridiculous, and it is not worth a single speech from a man of his conceded ability; it is surely not worthy, as a grave proposition, to be entertained week after week in the Senate Chamber of the United