Some Political Aspects of Homestead Legislation 29 not in justice to the public debtors be given away. The plan would also be unjust to those who already held land in the new states, as so much free land placed upon the market would at once reduce land values. The committee further held that not only had the government no right thus to decrease the value of farm lands, but it was especially estopped because of the effect which such an action would have on the grants recently made for internal im- provements of various kinds.' The antagonism between the home- stead system and the beneficiaries under the internal improvement grants was thus sharply brought out. During the next Congress the public land question was most prom- inent of all. It was between the advocates of homesteads and the railroad land-grants that the chief conflict occurred. Governor Farwell of Wisconsin, in his message of 1852, argued that the grants for railroads injured rather than benefited the Western states, because of the inclusion, in the grants, of the most valuable portions of the public lands and the consequent retarding of settlement." On the other side it was stated that the only formidable opposition to the homestead bills came from the friends of land-grants/ and that, while the House was opposed to the land-grant bills, they might be passed by compromises with those who were more opposed to grants to settlers.* On comparing the vote on the homestead bill with that on a typical land-grant bill it will be found that the mem- bers divide into three classes of almost equal strength, one opposed to the one and in favor of the other measure, a second opposed to both plans and a third favoring both.^ The tariff question again appeared in connection with the home- stead grants. In 1850 and 1852 charges were made in the debates over the bills that their supporters wished to accomplish what Tho- masson had in 1845 frankly stated to be his object, the creation of a need for high tariff duties." It is quite probable that such influences were at work in the minds of some of the Whigs, but that party still retained its love for the distribution of the proceeds," which would have accomplished the same object as the homestead law as far as the effect on the treasury was concerned. The discussions over the homestead question in the Congres- sional session of 1851-52 exhibited also some manifestations of ^Sftiate Reports, 31st Cong., first session. No. 167. 2 Wiscottdn Assembly Journal, fifth session, 30-31. 2 Globe, 32nd Cong., first ses-ion, App., 574.
- Pike in the Semi-Weekly Tribune, March 19, 1S52.
5 See my Grants in Aid of Railways, 46-49. ^ Globe, 31st Cong., first session, 264; 32nd Cong., first session, App., 238. ' See Wentworth, Congressional Reminiscenies, Fergus Historical Series, No. 24, p. 40.
