AND LABOR 
 
 THEIR RELATIONS—EMANCIPATION OF LABOR DEMANDS A RE¬ 
 FORMED LAND POLICY-RAILROAD AND CANAL SUBSIDIES 
 —THE PERIOD OF DISTRIBUTION TO FOLLOW THAT 
 OF DEVELOPMENT—THE MEASURES AND 
 POLICY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 
 
 Published by the Union Republican Congressional Committee, Washington, D, G. 
 
 Relations cf Land to Labor. 
 
 On the subjects of land and labor, the Hon. George W. Julian, who, during his 
 long and useful career in the United States House of Representatives has made these 
 questions a speciality, and who has all the time held with reference to them advanced 
 opinions, in a recent magazine article says : 
 
 “ Among the problems of American politics yet to be solved, the right disposition 
 of our public domain may fairly be regarded as first in importance. It stands inti¬ 
 mately related to the questions of labor, of finance, and of trade. In one form or 
 another it touches all the springs of our well being as a people. It reaches down to 
 the very foundations of democratic equality, and in its great social and economic 
 bearinge takes hold on coming generations.” 
 
 The National Government, by its declaration that there should be no more servile 
 labor under its flag, established a new era for the industrial millions, and gave dignity 
 and hope and opportunity to the laboring man. 
 
 Until I860 the country, fora quarter cA a century, had been governed and con¬ 
 trolled by the Democratic party, and that, party bad been dictated, in its measures and 
 policy, by the slaveholding oligarchy of the Southern section of the Union. Under 
 such control labor was debased, deprived of its just power and influence in public 
 affairs, and forced to toil for a governing and despotic class. 
 
 Where so much debasement and so much oppression existed, and where na'ional 
 laws and policy were dictated by the oppressors, it was simply impossible that labor 
 anywhere, under the same Government, should rise to its proper level, or hold the 
 preponderating influence to which it was and is justly entitled. 
 
 Upon losing control the Democracy did not await the development of reforms, but 
 instantly, with the-loss of their power to oppress, they organized and precipitated a 
 revolution in hostility to free, and in the interest of servile labor. 
 
 The progress of this contest developed the fact that, this revolution had been long 
 premeditated, that it was supported ardently by the entire Democracy South, and bad 
 
2 
 
 the hearty sympathy of the Democratic leaders in every section of the country. Thai 
 in the Republican party it found not one advocate or supporter in all the Nation , but 
 united and stem and successful opposition. These facts are too patent to require the 
 support of examples. Almost every vote in Congress, during and since the rebellion, 
 will attest the position of the Democracy as above stated. Nor are other instances 
 laoking t» prove the recent hostility of the Democratic leaders to the elevation o. 
 labor. 
 
 Under the plan of reconstruction of the late insurgent States by Andrew Johnson 
 everywhere praised and sanctioned by the Democracy, the poli ical power was to b;‘ 
 placed wholly in, not only rebel hands, but in the hands of the rebels who hold ifa 
 land monopoly of the South • This purpose of the Democracy was seen in the p ans 
 they proposed for the reorganization of labor in those States, in each of whict an 
 apprenticeship or kindred contract system was to be estabhs'ned. which, in name only, 
 was better than slavery. Inform it was not less oppressive; in practice it would? 
 have been more unbearable and equally degrading. Under such a system lab >rcoulo 
 not have been respected, con’d not have risen above serfdom, could not. have acquired 
 homes or education, or exercised any adequate force in the making or execution os 
 he laws. 
 
 fc is not necessary to recite in detail any of the numerous plans to oppress and da. 
 ^rade labor, which the Johnson Democratic policy developed, they are familiar 13 
 the country, and were so revolting to th Q public’sense of just ce, that the whole schema 
 was repudiated by popular direction in 13G3—and reconstruction, based upon citizen 
 ship and the elevation of labor, substituted. 
 
 Now while we bear in mind that this proposed practical return to slavery was cor 
 dially sanctioned by the Democracy of the whole country, and that they even now 
 threaten to return to it, by tho repeal of the Republican measures of reconstruction 
 let us pause for one moment and contrast this with 
 
 What the republican Party has Done for Labor. 
 
 1st. Among the first, acts of the Republican Congress, after some necessary measure 
 to resist the Democratic Rebellion, wasthe adoption of the Homestead law under which, 
 the whole mass of the public domain is opened to the possession and ownership of 
 the laboring man, upon the condition of settlement and cultivation, at the nomiual 
 price of $10 for a 160 acres. 
 
 2d. Provision was made by which this vast property is largely enhauced in value, 
 and rendered accessible to men of limited means, over the lines of the Trans-conti¬ 
 nental Railroad,—the construction of which, had been delayed under Democratic rule, 
 by the fear that fre© labor would possess this rich inheritance, to the exclusion of 
 slave labor. 
 
 3d. The whole system of servile labor was abolished by the Republican party, in 
 spite of the unitod and persistent opposition of the Democracy in Congress and on 
 the battle field. 
 
 4tb. Again, the whole mass of unrequited labor was lifted to the dignity of the 
 country’s defenders, thereby giving it enlarged opportunities, enabling it to command 
 the attention and the sympathies of the nation, aud rendering its future subjection to 
 bondage absolutely impossible. 
 
 5th. This whole class was endowed with citizenship and all its rights and advan¬ 
 tages—against all of which acts, the Democrats, in Congress and in the States, re¬ 
 corded a united negative—yet it is easy to see, that each successive step added im¬ 
 measurably to the dignity and power of labor. 
 
 6th. The whole remaining public lands of the South, were reserved from sale, and 
 appropriated to the exclusive use of actual settlers, by which, the landless laborers of 
 that section, come to the ownership of more than 45,000,000 acres, sulficient for half 
 a million of homes of 80 acres each, and by which, also; the further progress of land 
 monopoly in that section is forever stopped. 
 
 7th. It has given guaranty by a solemn and unauimous declaration of the House of 
 Representatives, that the future land policy of tne party shall be in tho interest of in- 
 dividaal occupation and ownership, and opposed to sales or grants under conditions, 
 which will admit the further growth ot personal or corporate monopoly. 
 
 8th. And finally it has given practical evidence of its fidelity to the principles of 
 land distribution to actual occupants, through it 3 organized land committees, and ia 
 the defeat of numerous bind grant hills, at the recent session of Congress. 
 
I 
 
 I 
 
 Land Sudeidies. 
 
 Railroad Grands to States prior to 1861. Acres. 
 
 Illinois. 1850.. 2,605,058.00 
 
 Mississippi, 1850 and 1856. 1,400,440.00 
 
 Alabama, 1856. 3,729,120.00 
 
 Florida. 1856. 2,360,112.90 
 
 Louisiana, 1856. 1,588,720.00 
 
 Arkansas, 1858 . 2,149,239.68 
 
 Missouri, 1852-3. 2,162,442.21 
 
 Iowa, 1856. 3.382,287.56 
 
 Michigan, 1856 . 4,763,450.85 
 
 Wisconsin, 1856-7. 2,338,360.50 
 
 Minnesota, 1857. 3,493,000.00 
 
 Acres. 29,971,226.65 
 
 Railroad Grants to States subsequent to 1861. Acres. 
 
 Arkansas, 1866. 2,655,032.00 
 
 Missouri, 1866 . 1,582,718.00 
 
 Iowa, 1864. 3,358,920.52 
 
 Michigan, 1862 to 1865. 664,480.00 
 
 Wisconsin, 1882 to 1866. 3,040,000.00 
 
 Minnesota. 1864 to 1866. 4,783.403.00 
 
 Kansas, 1863 to 1866 . 7,753,000.00 
 
 California, 1866-7. 3,720,000.00 
 
 Minnesota, July 28, 1868. 200,000.00 
 
 Oregon, March 3. 1864. 75.000.00 
 
 Do.May 4, 1870. 1,200,000.00 
 
 Total acres, estimated.28,932,553.17 
 
 Grants far Canals prior to 1861. Acres. 
 
 Indiana. 1,439,279.00 
 
 Onio.~. 1,100,361.00 
 
 Illinois. 290,915.00 
 
 Wisconsin. 125.431,00 
 
 Michigan. 760.000.00 
 
 Acres... 3,705,986.00 
 
 Grants for Canals subsequent to 1861. Acres. 
 
 Wisconsin.:.. 200,000.00 
 
 Michigan... 500,000.00 
 
 Acres. 700,000-00 
 
 Grants to States for Wagon-Roads. > Acres. 
 
 Wisconsin, 1863.. 250.000.00 
 
 Michigan, 1863-4.!.1,718,613.27 
 
 Oregon, 1864 to 1866. 1,256,800.00 
 
 Total acres, estimated. 3,225,413.27 
 
 Grants to Railroad Corporations. 
 
 Union and Central Pacific Rcilroa.ds, with branch from Omaha, Acres. 
 
 Nebraska. 85,000,000.00 
 
 Northern Pacific Railroad, original grant, estimated. 47,000,000.00 
 
 Northern Pacific Railcoad, under joint resolution of May 31, 1870, 
 authorizing the Company to issue bonds and mortgage its road to 
 secure the same, and to construct a branch road, and for. other 
 
 purposes. 11,000,000.00 
 
 Atlantic and Pacific Railroad. 42,000,000.00 
 
 Total acres, estimated.135,000-000.00 
 
I 
 
 4 
 
 Recapitulation . Acres. 
 
 Prior to 1861—Grants to States for railroads. 29,971,226.65 
 
 Grants for canals. 3,706,986.00 
 
 Subsequent to 1861— 
 
 Grants to States for railroads. 28,932.553.17 
 
 Grants for canals. 700,000.00 
 
 Wagon-roads. 3,225,413.27 
 
 Grants to incorporations.135,000,000.00 
 
 Total acres, estimated.201,535,179.09 
 
 Some small grants have been made for the improvement of rivers, which are not 
 included in the above estimates. 
 
 The quantities stated are taken from the official estimates of the number of acres 
 that will inure under the respective grants by the terms of the statute. But few of 
 the grants have, as yet. been adjusted, the title having actually passed from the United 
 States to lees than 30,000.000 of acres. 
 
 The final adjustment will be less than the estimates by some millions of acres, being 
 reduced by sales, homesteads, and pre eruptions, which will take hold of the lands 
 between the dates of the acts respectively, and the actual marking of the lines of the 
 roads upon the ground, after which the rights of the grantees are to be respected. 
 
 The Policy of these Concessions. 
 
 The policy of granting alternate portions of the public domain, for the improve¬ 
 ment or construction of channels of intercommunication, was inaugurated as early as 
 1827, when more than one million of acres of land were granted to the State of Indi¬ 
 ana to aid in the construction of the Wabash and Erie Canal. It was contended in 
 favor of the bill that it would render the interior of the State accessible, and enhance 
 the value and stimulate the sale of the remaining portions—an argument familiar to 
 all and conceded by all. 
 
 The vote on the bill was : 
 
 In the Senate —Yeas, 28 ; nays, 14. 
 
 In the House of Representatives —Yeas, 90; nays, 67. 
 
 No political classification of the vote is given, and a careful examination indicates 
 that it was not regarded as a political issue. 
 
 The next imnortant grant of land, tor internal improvements, was made in 1850 to 
 the State of Illinois, to aid in the construction of the Central railroad in that State. 
 This grant was infinitely more valuable, in proportion to the expenditure require of 
 the grantee, than any since made. The vote on the passage of the bill was : 
 
 In the Senate : Yeas—Democrats, 18 ; Whigs, 8 ; total, 26. Nays—Democrats, 
 7; Whigs 7 ; total. 14. Not voting—Democrats, 10; Whigs, 10; total, 20. 
 
 Among the Democrats voting for the bill were : 
 
 Thos. II. Benton, Jesse D. Bright. Jefferson Davis, Stephen A. Douglass, and 
 Henry S. Foote. 
 
 In the House of Representatives : Yeas—Democrats, 41 : Whigs, 60. Nays—Demo 
 erats. 43 ; Whigs. 32. 
 
 The fate of this bill does not appear to have been decided upon any political grounds 
 but there is a clear indication that sectional feeling entered into the contest, the 
 larger portion of Southern men voting against the bill and a majority of the North¬ 
 ern men for it. 
 
 The beneficial effect which this important measure had upon the State of Illinois 
 gave a great impulse to popular feeling in favor of the policy it indicated ; and, in¬ 
 cluding that grant, the concessions nnder Democratic auspices—that party holding 
 the control of Congress and the Executive Departments—had, on the 4th of March, 
 1861, swollen to the amount before stated—33,677.212.65 acres—nearly all of which 
 was in the older and better settled land States. 
 
 The Republican party, continuing the policy in response to the popular judgment; 
 has, since 1860, allowed to be appropriated for like purposes 28,932,553.17 million's 
 of acres to States. But, in neither period, that from 1850 to 1860, or from I860 to 
 1870, were these measures advocated or opposed upon political grounds. An exami¬ 
 nation of the record will show that the majority of both parties, in most instances, 
 supported the policy and voted for the measures. 
 
o 
 
 Grants to Corporations. 
 
 We now come to tbe consideration of the large appropriations of land cc* «<id xnthe 
 construction of the three great trans-Continental railways. These line?, pacing 
 mainly through sparsely peopled territory, without the limits of any State, meet neces¬ 
 sarily be constructed under national authority, and to that end corporations have been 
 created and land concessiens made as hereinbefore stated: 
 
 To the Union and Central Pacific railroads, estimated. 35,000.000 00 
 
 To the Northern Pacific railroad and Branch, estimated. 58,000,000 00 
 
 To the Atlantic and Pacific railroad, estimated. 42,000,000 00 
 
 Total estimated acres. 135,000.000 00 
 
 Union and Central Pacific Railroad. 
 
 The vote on the passage of the bill for this road was: 
 
 In the Senate: Yeas—Republicans, 27; Democrats, 8. Nays—Republicans, 3; 
 Democrats, 2. 
 
 Among the yeas are O. H. Browning, Edgar Cowan, James Dixon, and James R. 
 Doolittle, who have since joined the Democratic party. 
 
 In the House of Representatives: Yeas—Republicans, 66 ; Democrats, 13. Nays— 
 Republicans, 27 ; Democrats, 22. 
 
 Northern Pacific Railroad. 
 
 In the Senate ; The bill passed without a division, there being no vote against it; 
 at least no one who desired to be so recorded. 
 
 In the House of Representatives : Yeas—Republicans, 52 ; Democrats, 22. Nays— 
 Republicans, 29 ; Democrats, 31. 
 
 It will hardly be contended by any candid mind, that there is a party .contest indi¬ 
 cated in the foregoing votes on the Pacific Railroad, bill, yet. these were the bills 
 which appropriated the land for those roads and which have led to the construction of 
 one, and will end in the completion of the others. 
 
 The plain facts are. that all saw the necessity and advantage of these great national 
 thoroughfares and united, without distinction of party, in measures to secure their 
 construction. 
 
 No bills, so.important as these, can ever pass either House without incurring more or 
 less of opposition. The Democratic party had tried for fifteen years to inaugurate 
 this great work of connecting the oceans, and opening up to the settler the interior 
 of the continent, but had utterly failed, because of its inability to overcome sectional 
 opposition. When the opposing section went into rebellion, it opened the door for 
 Republican enterprize. The opportunity was promptly improved, and the country 
 has the result in one completed road across the continent and two others in progress, 
 and certain of completion at no distant day. 
 
 At the last session of the 41st Congress, application was made by the Northern Pacific 
 Railroad Company for authority to mortgage its property and franchises, as-security for 
 a loan to aid in the construction of its road. To this measure, there was considerable 
 opposition, instigated to some extent, no doubt, by rival interests, and to some ex¬ 
 tent, by a desire on the part of a few Democratic leaders, to reap political capital by 
 a pretended friendship for the settlers, which they had hitherto failed to manifest. 
 The policy of constructing these continental lines was, however, adhered to by a ma¬ 
 jority in both Houses, and the necessary legal provision has been made. 
 
 Having thus secured the opening of the interior of the continent, and done impar¬ 
 tial justice to the sections of country immediately interested, it seemed clear to the 
 thoughtful members of the House of Representatives, that the time had arrived when— 
 some radical change or material modification of the land policy should be inaugurated. 
 It was the judgment of a very large portion of the House that, \ihrn the great thor¬ 
 oughfares already provided for should be completed, the country would be sufficiently 
 opened to settlement, and that the construction of local counecting lines might well 
 be left to local, State and individual or corporate enterprize, unaided by government 
 subsidy. And at least, that in any future grants, the pre-emption principle should be 
 rigidly applied, holdir.^ the granted lands, equally with those of t-e government, 
 open to the settle , at the minimum price put upon the government lauds, and re¬ 
 stricting sales by the companies to actual occupants : and also requiring the com¬ 
 panies to dispose of their lands within some limited period. 
 
6 
 
 With such wholesome restrictions, it was thought, that some few grants forming con¬ 
 necting links between prominent business points and populous sections af the interi¬ 
 or, might be made with advantage to the public. 
 
 The policy thus indicated, but for the extraordinary rapacity- of the Railroad in¬ 
 terests, would no doubt have been, to some extent introduced. But the vast number 
 of schemes brought forward, alarmed the more prudent minds in the House, and the 
 consequence has been the defeat of all of them, save those mentioned above, as pass¬ 
 ed in 1868-9—70 and further, the unanimous adoption of the following resolution, in 
 favor of terminating at once the Land Grant policy : 
 
 RESOLUTION. 
 
 u Resolved, That in the judgment of this House, thepeliev of granting subsidies in 
 public lands to railroad and other corporations ought to be discontinued; and that 
 every consideration of public policy and equal justice to the whole people requires 
 that the public lands of the United States should be held for the exclusive purpose of 
 securing Homesteads to actual settlers under the Homestead and pre-emption laws, 
 subject to reasonable appropriations of such lands for educational purposes.” 
 
 This resolution was presented by Mr. H dman, a Democrat, but it was unanimously 
 adopted by a House of Representatives which is three-fourths Republican, and it 
 indicates clearly the views of the Republican party, as contrasted with any further 
 extension of the land grant policy, except in the exceptional cases and with the con¬ 
 ditions above mentioned* 
 
 It is clearly indica'ed by the adoption of the foregoing resolution, and the signal 
 defeat of the vast number of land grant propositions by the Forty-first Congress at 
 its recent session, that'a new policy is to prevail, and that the period of development, 
 by means of approach through governmental aid, is substantially closed. 
 
 The great body of the lands in each section having been rendered accessible to the 
 settlers, the next great economic step must be that which will most certainly multiply 
 the number ^proprietors, prevent monopoly, and preserve for the occupation of the 
 people the remainder of this vast public estate. 
 
 But, before considering a new policy, let us see how far we have advanced—what 
 the land grant policy, the unrestricted sales, and the optional homestead measures 
 have accomplished. 
 
 What the Land Grant Policy has Accomplished. 
 
 When this policy was adopted, the whole vast territories of the United States, from 
 the head of Lake Erie to the Pacific Ocean, were little else than an untraveled wil¬ 
 derness, beyond the reach of the poor man, and practically unknown and uudesirable 
 to the affluent. 
 
 Twenty years of this jDolicy has created States and Territories throughout this vast 
 region, transferred to the then desert places prosperity, refinement, cultivation, and 
 supremacy. It has added thousands of millions of wealth to the possessions of labor 
 for the few hundreds it has received through the national beneficence. It has taken 
 valueless and unoccupied places and converted them, and all surrounding them, into 
 busy prosperous kome3 of in i.ustry and intelligence. For each dollar it has gained, 
 the people and the country ha/e gained thousands. It is more than possible that but 
 for the development ftius ca sed slavery would have triumphed over liberty in the 
 recent contest between the opposing systems of labor. It has opened up a pathway 
 for the advance of labor to the possession of the continent, with all its wealth of soil, 
 Climate, and mines; and has planted the channels of international and domestic 
 commerce in the midst of the future homes of our people. It is giving to agricultu¬ 
 ral and mechanical industries opportunities and adequate rewards in localities where 
 before such opportunities and rewards were impossible. Finally, it has accomplished 
 the grand purpose of its adoption, and rendered possible and desirable a uevv policy. 
 
 Unrestricted Sales aad Optional Homesteads. 
 
 The policy of unrestricted sales of the public lands has been coincident with the 
 system. Its operation has been availed of: 
 
 First. By the cultivators—actual settlers—almost unifonnly throughout the North 
 and West, in small quantities, 40, 80, 160, 320, and 640 acres in the great majority of 
 cases, the purchases not averaging more than 100 acres each. In the South the 
 spirit of monopoly has prevailed, the farms are large, the proprietors few, the labor- 
 
7 
 
 ing masses landless- This was due to the system of degraded labor in the South, and 
 many years must elapse before proprietorship in that section can be multiplied to a 
 proper extent. Until then the development of the country will be slow and difficult, 
 and too wide a difference will continue between the proprietor and the laborer. It is 
 demonstrated that the Northern system, of small holdings and numerous proprietors, 
 is 1 est for the State and best for the people. 
 
 It is know n and admitted 1 hat as proprietors are multiplied, and the area of estates 
 correspondingly diminished, the community is most prosperous, patriotic, and intelli¬ 
 gent ; ai c there is little danger that this sjstem will be carried too far while there is 
 still uroccu;ied space. 
 
 But free sales have induced another class of purchasers—non-resident proprietors 
 —capitalists who purchase lor investment—for speculation. 
 
 V hen the country was wiihoutthe means of cheap and rapid transit, little embar¬ 
 rassment was felt Irom th s class. It was even contended that they were beneficial in 
 mnkii g known and aiding in the development of the country, by stimulating enter¬ 
 prise. '] his may have been true then; it is not true now. Experience proves that 
 with the improved means of travel, and the greater prospects of rapid advance of 
 values, these capiralits, or more properly speculators, will keep just in advance of the 
 settlements, continually driving the cultivator into the wilderness, beyond roads, 
 schools, mills, mechanic 6hops, and other reeled facilities, doing nothing for im¬ 
 provement; on the contrary, absolutely impeding progress. 
 
 From all of wbmh it is seen that fiee sales have produced but one of three classes 
 of purchasers (hat is now desirable—he who buys on an average not more than 1 GO • 
 acres, and resides upon and cultivates the same. It is only through the homestead 
 and pre-emption that the nation and people are reaping unmixed good. Under these 
 we secure the only desirable purchaser, and with these only we exclude the undesira¬ 
 ble. 
 
 Land Scrips. 
 
 Here w r e have a most fruitful source of land monopoly. 
 
 Such paper invariably diminishes in value, thereby reducing the price of lands to 
 the speculator, who purchases in large quantities, while it offerg less of advantage to 
 the setth r than the homestead law. All such issues are unmixed evil, and cannot be 
 tolerated without detriment to the public interest. They are immeasurably w-orse than 
 grants for local improvements, because they bring no adequate compensation to any 
 section. 
 
 Land Distribution. 
 
 We have now considered briefly the various modes which have to this time prevailed 
 in the disposition of the public lands, and their effect upon this country and people, 
 and their relations to labor. It remains to inquire, whether, in the increase of popu¬ 
 lation, the advance of improvements, and the diminishing areas of the public domain, 
 reasons exist fora change of measures, the adoption of a new policy, and the aban¬ 
 donment of one or all of the various systems which have thus far operated, and which 
 have brought us to the present time and to our present condition as a neople. 
 
 In the rapidly diminishing ratio between population and arable territory, in the 
 effect which has been produced upon the industry, intelligence, and power of the 
 people by land monopoly in the South, as compared with land distribution in the 
 Noith, we have warning, that the period has approached when prudence and a due 
 regard to the future demand a modification, if not a radical change of policy—de¬ 
 mand, at least, that monopoly shall be prevented and that distribution shall be en¬ 
 couraged. 
 
 The lines of communication already provided for, the wealth of the soil and mines 
 of the interior, and the inherent enterprise of our people, give ample assurance that 
 the remaining portion of the public domain will be absorbed by actual occupation, as 
 rapidly as‘will comport with the best interests and ultimate destiny of our people. 
 
 it is not, therefore, to be doubted but the policy of appropriating the public domain 
 for roads and canals is, in the main, to cease, and to be supplanted by the policy of 
 reservation for actual settlement under the provisions of the Homestead and Pre¬ 
 emption Laws 
 
 There are, however, some sections which will claim, with great show of justice, 
 appropriations to place them upon an equal footing with su^h as have already been 
 provided for. These will be exceptional cases, and their demands may, after due 
 consideration, be acceded to- For instance, tho proposed line of road on the 32d 
 
8 
 
 t 
 
 parallel of latitude by which the Southern States shall enjoy a direct route to the 
 Pacific, and the great and rich Territories of New Mexico and Arizona find outlets te 
 the oceans for their vast mineral wealth. 
 
 It may be also, that the progress of settlement will develop the necessity for one or - 
 more national North and South routes between the Mississippi and Pacific. 
 
 But, in any future concession, even to the most important and deserving localities, 
 the policy of restricting sales to actual settlers, in limited quantities, will unques¬ 
 tionably be enforced, thereby, putting an end to the further progress of corporate 
 monopoly of the public domain. That such provision will be incorporated in the few 
 land grants likely to find favor with the public hereafter, is clearly indicated by the 
 declaration of the House of Representatives in the resolution hereinbefore quoted, 
 in the resolute attitude of the Committee on public lands of the House, and in the 
 signal defeat of the vast number of schemes, pending before Congress at its last 
 lession. 
 
 With this brief review of its record, measures and policy in relation to the public 
 lomain and the rights, interests and claims of labor as connected therewith, the Re- 
 jublican party may well challenge its opponents, to an appeal to the matured and en¬ 
 lightened judgment of the people.