Library Collections: Document: Full Text

The Senate Reacts To Franklin Pierce's Veto

Creator:		n/a
Date:		May 4, 1854
Publication:		The Congressional Globe
Source:		Library of Congress

Previous Page Next Page All Pages



36		I will add another remark, and not trouble the Senate further. It was said by the honorable Senator from South Carolina -Mr. BUTLER- yesterday, and, I think, properly, that this is a large subject, and the important principles involved in the bill and the message of the President, make it highly proper that the subject should receive a full and thorough examination; and if, as has been said by gentlemen on this floor, that bill was passed through the Senate without adequate consideration and full discussion, it is the more important, I think, that we should take time to look with care into the subject before we discuss and dispose of the bill upon the President's objections.

37		Mr. DAWSON. Mr. President, if I understood the precise object which the different friends of the postponement to Monday and Monday two weeks have in view, I should know better how to act. The Senator from Wisconsin -Mr. WALKER- is anxious to take up the homestead bill, and therefore asks for a longer postponement of this question. Some of the friends of the homestead bill, I believe, think that the message upon your table does not affect or touch that bill.

38		Several SENATORS. We do not know about that.

39		Mr. DAWSON. Gentlemen who understand the character of the veto have been saying that it does touch the homestead bill; but, as I understand, there is not a gentleman on this floor who will undertake to say that the homestead bill falls within the principle of that message.

40		Mr. BAYARD. As one, I consider that it would certainly require the veto of the homestead bill.

41		Mr. DAWSON. Then, one considers that it does require the veto of that bill; and if that be the opinion of the friends of the Administration generally; wherefore should we occupy the time of this body by making long and tedious speeches upon the homestead bill, when we know it will be met by a veto?

42		Mr. BADGER. Long -- not tedious. -Laughter.-

43		Mr. DAWSON. Yes. I strike out the word "tedious." Now, for one, I am disposed to believe that the author of the message does not believe that the homestead came within the principles of the message; and the friends of the homestead and the friends of the Administration, being willing to have it taken up and acted on immediately, is an evidence of that fact. The Senator from California, who wishes to postpone this to the most distant day, is governed, not by a desire to take up the homestead bill, but the Pacific railroad bill.

44		Mr. GWIN. Yes, air.

45		Mr. DAWSON. If that be the object, I shall vote for the earliest day; but if it be for the purpose of taking up the homestead bill and having the whole batch of land bills before the President at once in order to receive his veto, and then to have all the measures acted on at once, I will agree to any postponement you desire. That is perfectly fair.

46		Mr. BELL. But if you pass the homestead bill, you do not then know, on the principles of the message, whether he will veto it or not.

47		Mr. DAWSON. Then we shall have to wait, of course, for the President to send another message; but I rely very much upon the information which gentlemen will receive, that I may be informed what is the position of the land bills. I am one who opposed originally the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands. I changed my opinion, because Congress, by a continuous number of decisions, declared that we had the right to dispose of the public lands in the way we have been going on to do for years, and I saw the public lands all going to private companies and into the hands of individuals. I determined then to adopt the principle of the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands. That was right; and the first effort we could make was to touch the insane and the lunatics. Why? Because they could not go and occupy the lands under the homestead bill, having no volition, being controlled by guardians. They could not occupy it and settle it. Recognizing the principle of the President, that the General Government is the trustee for the whole of the people, and that we ought to regulate our trust funds, or the land in the States, on principles that a discreet landed proprietor would do, I considered that a discreet landed proprietor, if he had a number of children for whom he was trustee, and they were insane or lunatics, would make some provision for them, and that it would be for the general benefit of all; and, as I knew that the lunatic or insane had never received a dollar's advantage out of the public treasury of the country, or out of the lands which belong to them as well as to anybody else, I thought it was a fair ground at once to commence the distribution, and act as a sensible landed proprietor or trustee would do, by dividing the estate among the ceslui que trust, and I went for that bill. But if the President is determined to arrest these railroad bills, and the homestead bill, and this bill also, and we shall adopt some new rule by which the public lands shall be disposed of, I am prepared to listen to it, and hear it, and if a better plan can be adopted, I will go for it. But for one, representing an old State, I am not going to suffer the public lands to go into the hands of private companies, or the States in which the lands lie; and be still, and not ask for any proportionate share to the old States, and show our modesty and diffidence in attempting to get justice. The bill which the President has returned to us was for the benefit of the people who are entitled to the highest claim, and to the kindest generosity and philanthropy of Congress. It was for this insane portion of the ceslui que trust, residing in every State of the Union, and it divided the lands so as to make it equal throughout the country. Still, I say that if the President vetoes all these measures, and establishes the old principle that the public lands belong to the people generally, and ought to be disposed of for the payment of the debt due by the Government, and for a diminution of taxes, it will all be right; but if that rule is not adopted, and favoritism and partiality shall prevail, I go for the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands, or the lands themselves, to all the States who are entitled to them. There is nothing wrong in that. But I come back to the point. The friends of the measure are most anxious to have it acted upon; but if the homestead is not to be discussed and decided before we decide on the veto, let us act upon the veto at once. There is no necessity for any delay. If it comes not within the principle of that veto, let us act upon this at once; but if the friends of the Administration think that it does, I am for postponing it.