The vote upon the motion to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole, was as follows— the Democrats in Roman, the Republicans in Italics, and the Southern Americans in SMALL CAPITALS: MAINE.-Wood-1. YEAS. CONNECTICUT.-Arnold, Bishop-2. NEW-YORK.-Burroughs, Maclay, Russell, Taylor-4. PENNSYLVANIA.-Ahl, Chapman, Dewart, Montgomery, to monopoly by speculators, leading inevitably | ried, the bill never would have been reached, to a landed aristocracy? or shall it be reserved and would never have been heard of afterward. for actual occupants in small quantities, at a nominal price, or without price ?" There would be no difficulty whatever in adjusting this question at any time and in the right way, if the Negro question, which, in the National Administration, absorbs or overrides all others, were not behind it. Although this is an old question, it had never commanded in Congress, the attention to which it is entitled, previous to the organization of the Republican party; because until that time both the great parties into which the country was divided were either controlled, or their action was modified, by the Slaveholding interest of the country. That interest, which is ever vigilant, understands that Slavery cannot well exist were small freeholds prevail, and hence it opposes, with all its great power, all Preemption and Homestead laws, knowing well that if our new States and Territories are to be occupied in quarter-sections, they will be occupied by working farmers, and not by speculators and great planters. Since this question has assumed a national importance, a concise record of the proceedings and votes in Congress during the session of 1858-9, and 1859-60, upon the disposition of the Public Domain, will be of interest as a matter of record. MARYLAND.-HARRIS, RICAUD-2. VIRGINIA. Bocock, Caskie, Edmundson, Faulkner, Garnett, Millson, Powell-7. NORTH CAROLINA.-Craige, Ruffin, Scales, Winslow-4. FLORIDA.-Hawkins-1. ALABAMA.-Curry, Houston, Moore, Shorter-4. TENNESSEE.-Atkins, Jones, MAYNARD, READY, Savage, KENTUCKY.-Burnett, Jewett, MARSHALL, Peyton, Stevenson, Talbott, UNDERWOOD-7. MISSOURI, ANDERSON, Caruthers, John B. Clark, James Craig, Phelps, WOODSON-6. OHIO.-Burns, Cockerill, Groesbeck, Harlan, Lawrence, Nichols, Pendleton, Vallandigham-8. INDIANA.-Davis, English, Gregg, Hughes, Niblack-5. NAYS. MAINE-Foster, Gilman, Morse, I. Washburns. RHODE ISLAND.-Brayton, Durfee-2. On the 20th of January, 1859, (See Congressional Globe, p. 492,) a bill relating to preëmptions, reported from the Committee on Public Lands, was pending before the House. The bill proposed to make some changes in the details of existing preemption laws, but without affect-mins, Dawes, Hall, Knapp, Thayer-S. ing the substance of the present system of disposing of the public lands. It was, however, in parliamentary order to propose to amend the bill so as to change the present system, and to bring the House to a direct vote upon such propositions. The friends of such change were prompt to avail themselves of this advantage. Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend the bill by adding the following as an additional section: Be it further enacted, That from and after the passage of this act, no public land shall be exposed to sale by proclamation of the President, unless the same shall have been surveyed, and the return of such survey duly filed in the Land Office, for ten years or more before such sale. The force and effect of this amendment would be to give the preemptors ten years the start of the speculators and land monopolists. That is to say with the addition of Mr. Grow's amendment to the existing laws and regulations touching the Public Lands, they would be open to preëmption ten years before they could come within the grasp of the speculator, thus giving the poor, industrious settler ample time to "clear up" his farm and pay for it from the proceeds of the soil. This was just what the South and the Democracy did not want, as the sequel will show. The opponents of the bill forthwith resorted to parliamentary tactics to avoid a direct issue upon Mr. Grow's proposition. Their first movement was a motion to refer the bill and amendment to the Committee of the Whole, familiarly and aptly styled "the tomb of NEW-YORK.-Andrews, Clark, John Cochrane, Dodd, NEW-JERSEY.-Clawson, Huyler-2. NORTH CAROLINA.-GILMER, VANCE-2. OHIO.-Bingham, Blise, Giddings, Hall, Leiter, -5. -4. MISSOURI.-Blair-1. MICHIGAN.-Howard, Leach, Walbridge, Waldron -4. WISCONSIN.-Potter, Washburn-2. CALIFORNIA.-Scott-1. MINNESOTA.-Cavanaugh, Phelps-2. Total, 92. The motion to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole having thus failed, the House was brought to a direct vote upon Mr. Grow's amendment, which was adopted by the following votes: -5. YEAS. MAINE.-Foster, Gilman, Morse, Washburn, Wood -10. NEW-YORK.-Andrews, Bennett, Burroughs, Clark, the Capulets." If that reference had been car-John Cochrane, Dodd, Fenton, Granger, Hoard, Kel DELAWARE-Whiteley-1. VIRGINIA.-Bocock, Caskie, Edmundson, Garnett, Goode, Hopkins, Millson, Powell-S. NORTH CAROLINA.-Branch, Craige, GILMER, Ruffin, SOUTH CAROLINA.-Bonham, Boyce, McQueen, Miles-4. GEORGIA-Crawford, Stephens, TRIPPE, Wright-7. FLORIDA.-Hawkins-1. ALABAMA.-Cobb, Curry, Dowdell, Houston, Moore, MISSISSIPPI-Davis, McRae, Singleton-S, TENNESSEE.-MAYNARD, READY, Smith, Watkins, ZOLLI COFFER-5. KENTUCKY.-Burnett, Elliott, UNDERWOOD-8. ALABAMA.-Cobb, Dowdell, Houston, Moore, Shorter. MISSISSIPPI.-Barksdale Davis, McRae, Singleton-4. ARKANSAS.-Greenwood-1. TENNESSEE.-Atkins, Avery, Jones, MAYNARD, Ready, INDIANA.-Davis, Foley, Gregg, Hughes-4. MISSOURI, ANDKRSÓN, Caruthers, Clark, Craig, Phelps, The defeat of the bill, in consequence of the incorporation into it of Mr. Grow's amendment, shows that a majority of the House was really opposed to that amendment, although it had been adopted by a vote of 98 to 81. Cer tain members, who did not dare to vote directly against the amendment, joined in killing it OHIO.-Burns, Cox, Hall, Pendleton, Vallandigham-5 WOODSON-6. CALIFORNIA.-Scott-1. Total, 81. Upon the adoption of Mr. Grow's amendment, the Republican vote, as will be seen, was unanimously in the affirmative. Of the votes from the Slave States, all but nine were in the negative, and, as we shall presently see, there was only one of that number who was really in favor of it, this one being Mr. Blair, Republican, of Missouri. Mr. Grow's amendment being incorporated into the bill, the next question was upon the passage of the bill, which was defeated by the following vote: RHODE ISLAND.-Brayton, Durfee-2. NEW-YORK.-Andrews, Bennett, Burroughs, Clark, -21. NEW-JERSEY.-Clawson, Robbins-2. been made a part by their own votes. Thus Messrs. Stewart, of Maryland, Atkins, Avery, Jones and Savage, of Tennessee, and Jewett, Stephenson, and Talbot, of Kentucky, who had voted for the amendment, voted after ward against the bill. Only one, Mr. Blair, of the nine Southern supporters of the amendment, proved true to it in the end, and no other Southern member came to its support in the final vote, saving only Mr. Davis, of Maryland, who represents the free-labor interest of the city of Baltimore, rather than the interest of the slaveholding and landed aristocracy of the planting States. Afterward, on the same day, when these votes upon Mr. Grow's amendment were given, the representatives from Minnesota, both of them members of the Democratic party, delivered speeches, in which they made no secret of their chagrin that a measure so vital to their constituency encountered the nearly unanimous opposition of their political friends. Mr. Cavanaugh, one of the members from Minnesota (Globe, p. 505), said: With reference to the vote on this bill to-day, with an overwhelming majority of this side of the House voting PENNSYLVANIA.-Covode, Dick, Edie, Grow, Keim, against my colleague and myself, voting against this bill, Morris, Purviance, Ritchie, Stewart-9. MARYLAND.-DAVIS-1. OHIO.-Bingham, Bliss, Cox, Giddings, Hall, Harlan, Horton, Leiter, Miller, Mott, Sherman, Stanton, Tompkins, Wade-14. -4. MICHIGAN.-Howard, Leach, Walbridge, Waldron say it frankly, I say it in sorrow, that it was to the Republican side of the House to whom we were compelled to look for support of this just and honorable measure. Gentlemen from the South, gentlemen who have broa acres and wide plantations, aided here to-day by the votes more to make Republican States in the North the by any vote which has been cast within the last t years. These gentlemen come here and ask us to sup the South; yet they, to a man almost, vore against the free, independent labor of the North and West. I, sir, have inherited my Democracy; have been attached to the Democratic party irom my boyhood; have believed in the great truths as enunciated by the "fathers of the faith," and have cherished them religiously, knowing that, by their faithful application to every department of this Government, this nation has grown up from struggling colonies to prosperous. powerful, and Sovereign States. But, sir, when I see Southern gentlemen come up, as I did to-day, and refuse, by their votes, to aid my constituents, refuse to place the actual tiller of the soil, the honest, industrious laborer, beyond the grasp and avarice of the speculator, I tell you, sir, I falter and I hesitate. The amendment of Mr. Grow. forbidding the public sales of lands for at least ten years after their survey, would secure the great bulk of the lands to preemptors, and would give them a long pay-day, and thus save them from the enormous usury they are now compelled to pay to money-lenders. It would not reduce the revenue derived by the Treasury from the public lands, but would only postpone it, and this postponement would be far less prejudicial to the Government than it would be beneficial to the settler. The Government can borrow money at four and a half per cent per annum, while the settler frequently pays five per cent. per month for the money to enter his lands, to prevent their sale at public auction. death of the surviving parent, and in accordance with the laws of the State in which such children for the time bein⚫ have their domicil, sell said land for the benefit of sa infants, but for no other purpose; and the purchase shall acquire the absolute title by the purchase, and be entitled to a patent from the United States. §3. And be it further en acted, That the register of the land office shall note all such applications on the tract-books and plats of his office, and keep a register of all such entries, and make a return thereof to the General Land Office, together with the proof upon which they have been founded, $4. And be it further enacted, That all lands acquired under the provisions of this act shall in no event become liable to the satisfaction of any debt or debts contracted prior to the issuing the patent therefor. § 5. And be it further enacted, That if, at any time after the filing the affidavit, as required in the second section of this act, and before the expiration of the five years aforesaid, it shall be proven, after due notice to the settler, to the satisfaction of the register of the land office, that the person having filed such affidavit shall have actually for more than six months at any time, then, and in that changed his or her residence, or abandoned the said entry event, the land so entered shall revert back to the Government, and be disposed of as other public lands are now by law, subject to an appeal to the General Land Office. shall be permitted to make more than one entry under §6. And be it further enacted, That no individual the provisions of this act; and that the Commissioner of and issue such rules and regulations, consistent with this the General Land Office is hereby required to prepare act, as shall be necessary and proper to carry its provi sions into effect; and that the registers and receivers of the several land offices shall be entitled to receive the visions of this act that they are now entitled to receive same compensation for any lands entered under the prowhen the same quantity of land is entered with money. one-half to be paid by the person making the application, certificate by the person to whom it may be issued: at the time so doing, and the other half on the issue of the Provided, That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to impair or interfere in any manner whatever with SET-existing preemption rights. On the first of February, the question of the Public Lands was again before the House, the pending bill (House bill No. 72) being a bill to secure Homesteads to actual settlers, and being in the words following: A BILL TO SECURE HOMESTEADS TO ACTUAL §1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who is the head of a family, or who has arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and is a citizen of the United States, or who shall have filed his intention to become such, as required by the naturalization laws of the United States, shall, from and after the passage of this act, be entitled to enter, free of cost, one quarter-section of vacant and unappropriated public lands which may, at the time the application is made, be subject to private entry, at $1 25 per acre, or a quantity equal thereto, to be located in a body, in conformity with the legal subdivisions of public lands, and after the same shall have been surveyed. The previous question having been ordered, the House was brought to a direct vote upor this bill, without debate. A motion to lay the bill on the table was los -Yeas, 77; Nays, 113; and the bill was ther passed-Yeas, 120; Nays, 76. As these two votes were substantially the same, we only give the last one, which was upon the passage of the bill, and which was as follows: YEAS. MAINE.-Abbott, Foster, Gilman, Morse, Washburn -5. NEW-HAMPSHIRE.-Cragin, Pike, Tappan-3. NEW JERSEY.-Adrian, Clawson, Robbins, Wortendyke -4. § 2. And be it further enacted, That the person applying for the benefit of this act shall, upon application to the register of the land office in which he or she is about to make such entry, make affidavit before the said register that he or she is the head of a family, or is twenty-one years or more of age, and that such application is made-10. for his or her exclusive use and benefit, and those specially mentioned in this act, and not either directly or indirectly for the use or benefit of any other person or persons whomsoever; and upon making the affidavit as above required, and filing the affidavit with the register, he or she shall thereupon be permitted to enter the quantity of land already specified: Provided, however, That no certificate shall be given or patent issued therefor until the expiration of five years from the date of such entry; and if, at the expiration of such time, or at any time thereafter, the person making such entry, or, if he be dead, his widow, or, in case of her death, his heirs or devisee, or in case of a widow making such entry, her heirs or devisee, in case of her death, shall prove by two creditable witnesses that he, she, or they, have continued to reside upon and cultivate such land, and still reside upon the same, and have not alienated the same, or any part thereof, then, in such case, he, she, or they, if at that time a citizen of the United States, shall, on pay. ment of ten dollars, be entitled to a patent, as in other cases provided by for law: And provided, further, In case of the death of both father and mother, leaving an infaut child or children under twenty-one years of age, the right and the fee shall inure to the benefit of said infant child or children, and the executor, administrator or guardian may, at any time within two years after the PENNSYLVANIA.-Covode, Dick, Florence, Grow, Hickman, Keim, Morris, Phillips, Purviance, Reilly, Roberts, Stewart, Kunkel-18. TENNESSEE.-Jones-1. dings, Groesbeck, Hall, Harlan, Horton, Lawrence, OHIO.-Bingham, Bliss, Burns, Cockerill, Cox, GidLeiter, Miller, Pendleton, Sherman, Stanton, Tomp kins, Vallandigham, Wade-19. INDIANA.-Case, Colfax, Davis, Foley, Gregg, Kilgore, Pettit, Wilson-8. ILLINOIS. Morris, Smith, Washburne-7. MICHIGAN.-Howard, Leach, Walbridge. Waldron 4. NORTH CAROLINA. - Branch, Craige, GILMER, Ruffin, Scales, Shaw, VANCE, Winslow-8. SOUTH CAROLINA. - Bonham, Boyce, Keitt, McQueen, Miles-5. GEORGIA.-Crawford, Gartrell, HILL, Jackson, Seward, Stephens, TRIPPE, Wright-8. ALABAMA.- Cobb, Curry, Dowdell, Housn, Moore, Shorter, Stallworth-7. MISSISSIPPI.-Barksdale, Lamar, McRae, Singleton-4. ARKANSAS.-Greenwood-1. TENNESSEE. Atkins, Avery, MAYNARD, READY, Smith, Watkins, Wright, ZOLLICOFFER-S. KENTUCKY.-Burnett, MARSHALL, Mason, Peyton, UNDER WOOD-5. The Republican vote, with a solitary exception, was given solid for the bill. Of the Northern members connected with the Democratic party, twenty-nine voted for the bill and six voted against it. Thus, of the entire Democratic party in the House, a large majority was against the bill, but even this is less important than the other fact, that the Southern wing of the vote was almost unanimously against, it being this Southern wing which controls in the party councils, and which, when out-voted in the House, has other departments of the Government, the Senate and the President, with which it is more powerful, and by means of which it has so far rarely failed to defeat measures, however popular and beneficial, which it dislikes. The Homestead bill had now passed the House by a decisive majority, but it had yet to encounter the more dangerous ordeal of the Senate, in which the Democratic majority was larger, and in which the representation of the slaveholding States is proportionably greater. No direct vote upon the measure was, in fact, reached in the Senate, because the Southern managers would not permit it. There are two ways of killing off obnoxious measures. One is, to act upon them and vote them down. Another is, to overslaugh them whenever they are proposed, by proceeding to consider some other business. This latter method is invariably resorted to, where a measure, obnoxious to a majority of the Senate, is supposed to be acceptable to the people. And it was precisely by this method, and for that reason, that the Homestead bill was run over, shoved aside, evaded, and left unacted upon, by the Senate during its late session. The regular appropriation bills and the bill for the purchase of Cuba were being pressed upon the time of the Senate during the last days of the session, both of them commanding the support of the majority of that body. On the 17th day of February, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, (Con. Globe, page 1074,) moved to post pone all prior orders and take up the Homestead bill, which had passed the House. The following extracts from the debate upon this motion will exhibit the points made: Mr. Wade. The Homestead bill, to which I am a good deal attached, has, I believe, twice passed the House and come to this body, but somehow it has had the go-by, and we have never had a direct vote upon it here that I know of. I do not propose to discuss it for a single moment, and I hope none of its friends will debate it, because it has been pending before Congress for several years, and I presume every senator is perfectly well acquainted with all its provisions, and has made up his mind as to the course he will pursue in regard to it. I have no hope that anything I could say would win an opponent of the bill to its support; and I hope every friend of the measure will take no time in debate, but will try to get a vote upon it, for I think it is the great measure of the session. All I want, all I ask, is to have a vote upon it. Mr. Reid, of North Carolina.-I think it is too late in the session now to take up this bill to be acted upon here, at least until we act upon other great measures upon which there is more unanimity of sentiment in the country, and a higher sense of duty upon us to pass them during the few days of the session that remain. Mr. Hunter, of Virginia.-I believe that a fortnight from to-day will take us to the 3d of March. Now, it is known that we have nearly all the important appropriation bills, and one that is unfinished, to take up. I hope there will be no effort to press this Homestead bill, so as to displace the appropriation bills. I must appeal to the Senate to consider how little of the session is now left to us, and whether we ought not to take up the appropriation bill and dispose of it. Mr. Shields, of Minnesota.-The friends of this bill desire nothing but a vote upon it, not to waste time in debate. Let us take it up, and have a fair vote upon it. much opposed to it; but I suppose whenever this bill Mr. Hunter-I do not conceal the fact that I am very comes up, it must be the subject of debate. Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts.-I appreciate the anxiety of the senator from Virginia to take up the appropriation bill; but I would suggest to that senator that he allow us to take up this bill, and have a vote upon it. I do not suppose that anybody, who is in favor of the measure, desires to consume the time of the Senate, at this stage of the nation. It is well understood. I believe it is susthe session, by discussing it. It has been discussed before tained by an overwhelmning majority of the people of the country. us, that this is the last opportunity we shall have to act Mr. Wade. I have no doubt, from the business before upon this great measure, I hope, as I said before, that every friend of it will stand by it until it is either triumphant or defeated, and that, too, in preference to any other business that may be urged upon us. As to the appropriation bills, I have not the least fear but that they will go through. Their gravitation carries them through. motion was carried by the following vote, the The question was then taken, and Mr. Wade's Republicans being indicated by italics: Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Gwin, Hale, YEAS-Messrs. Bright, Broderick, Chandler, Collamer, Hamlin, Harlan, Johnson, of Tennessee, King, Pugh, Rice, Seward, Shields, Simmons, Smith, Stuart, Trum bull, Wade, and Wilson-26. NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benjamin, Bigler, Brown, Chestnut, Clay, Clingman, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, Hammond, Hunter, Iverson, Lane, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Reid, Slidell, Toombs, and Ward-28. Upon an examination of this vote, it will be seen that the Republicans voted unanimously in the affirmative, and that the Slave State Senators were all in the negative, with the solitary exception of Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee. Of the Free State Democrats, Gwin, Bright, Pugh, Rice, Shields, Smith, and Stuart, all being from the new States, vcted for Mr. Wade's motion. The Homestead bill was now up, and, so far as its friends were concerned, nothing was asked but a vote, which would not have consumed ten minutes. But a vote was precisely what the Southern managers were determined to avoid. these five, Mr. Gwin, is only a temporary resident of 2 Free State. Of the twenty-eight votes in favor of sustaining the bill, only three are from the South, and only one of the three (Johnson of Tennessee,) is a Democrat. Instantly, therefore, upon the announcement of the success of Mr. Wade's motion, which brought the bill before the Senate, Mr. Hunter took the floor, and moved that it be set aside, so as to take up another bill, viz.: the Diplo-motion was negatived by the following vote: matic and Consular Appropriation bill. Two days afterward, on the 19th of February, Mr. Wade again moved to set aside all prior orders and take up the Homestead bill; but this No question of order was raised upon this motion of Mr. Hunter, but it was well characterized as "child's play," to move to set aside a bill, instantly after a vote to take it up. Pending some conversational debate upon Mr. Hunter's motion, the hour of twelve o'clock arrived, and the Vice-President decided that the Cuba bill, having been assigned for that hour, was the subject pending before the Senate. Hereupon, Mr. Wade moved to postpone the twelve o'clock order, and continue the consideration of the Homestead bill, and this motion prevailed by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Bell, Bright, Broderick, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Douglas, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, Johnson of Tennessee, King, Pugh, Rice, Seward. Simmons, Smith, Stuart, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson -27. NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Bates, Benjamin, B'gier, Brown, Clay, Clingman, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, Hammond, Hunter, Iversons, Johnson, of Arkansas, Lane, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Toombs, Ward, and Yulee-26. On this vote, an additional Southern Senator, Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, ranged himself on the side of Homesteads. But this was offset by the ratting back to the negative side of Mr. Gwin. The Homestead bill was now again before the Senate, but the question, as stated by the Vice-President, was still upon Mr. Hunter's motion to set it aside, and take up the Consular and Diplomatic Appropriation bill. Mr. Mason, of Virginia, threatened an "extended debate" upon the Homestead bill, if its consideration were insisted upon. He declared, at any rate, for himself that he intended to "go into it pretty largely, because he had not yet known a bill so fraught with mischief, and mischief of the most demoralizing kind." YEAS.-Messrs. Broderick, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dion, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Hals Hamlin, Harlan, Johnson of Tennessee, Jones, King, Pugh, Rice, Seward, Shields, Simmons, Stuart, Trum bull, Wade, and Wilson-24. NAYS.-Messrs. Allen, Bates, Bayard, Benjamin, Bigler, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, Hammond, Houston, Bright, Brown, Chestnut, Clay, Clingman, Crittenden, Hunter, Iverson, Kennedy, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Polk, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Smith, Toombs, Ward, and Yulee 81. Upon these two days, the 17th and 19th of February, the question was made between the consideration of the Homestead bill and the consideration of the appropriation bills, the neces|sity of passing which last bills did not fail to be insisted upon by the Democratic managers. At a subsequent stage of the session, as will be presently seen, the question was made between considering the Homestead bill and considering the Cuba bill. Upon the 25th day of February, upon the occasion of a motion by Mr. Slidell to postpone all prior orders and take up the bill for the purchase of Cuba, Mr. Doolittle resisted it, and it down, so that he himself might submit a mocalled upon the friends of Homesteads to vote tion to take up the Homestead bill. Mr. Doolittle said: I think it would be better to take up this question of the Homestead bill and vote upon it, and then the Cuba bill will come up. I ask the friends of the Homestead bill now to stand by it and give it the preference. The vote was then taken, and the motion to take up the Cuba bill prevailed, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Bell, Benjamin, Bigler, Brown, Chestnut, Clay, Clingman, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, Hammond, Houston, Hunter, Iver son, Jones, Lane, Mallory, Mason, Polk, Pugh, Reid, Rice, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Smith, Stuart, Toombs, Ward, Wright, and Yulee-85. NAYS-Messrs. Broderick, Cameron, Chandler, Clark, Collamer Dixon, Doolittle, Douglas, Durkee, Fessen den, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, King, Pearce, Seward, Simmons, Mr. Wade and Mr. Seward, in brief and ener-Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson—24. getic terms, exhorted the friends of the bill to stand firm. The vote was then taken upon Mr. Hunter's motion, and resulted as follows: Y&A8.—Messrs. Allen, Bates, Bayard, Benjamin, Bigler, Brown, Clay, Clingman, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, Hammond, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Kennedy, Lane, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Toombs, Ward, and Yulee-28. NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Bright, Broderick, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Douglas, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, Houston, Johnson of Tennessee, King, Pugh, Rice, Seward, Simmons, Smith, Stuart, Trumbull Wade, and Wilson-28. The Cuba bill was now up, and the discussion upon it protracted the session late into the night, and almost into the next morning. It was distinctly seen during the progress of this discussion that it would be without practical result, and that no vote could be reached before the final adjournment of Congress. Accordingly, at ten o'clock in the evening, Mr. Doolittle felt it to be his duty to renew the attempt to set aside the Cuba bill, the subjectmatter of a manifestly idle debate, so as to take up the Homestead bill. His motion to that effect, and the commencement of the debate upon it, will be found on page 1351 of the Congres sional Globe. Such extracts are made as will exhibit its general character: was, The vote being a tie, the Vice-President, Mr. Breckinridge, voted in the affirmative, and thus, after a long struggle, the Homestead bill for that day, overslaughed. Of the twenty-eight votes for overslaughing it, all but five are from the South, and :ne of Mr. Trumbull.-If there was any assurance that the tion was disposed of, I should be willing to see it have Homestead bill could be taken up, after the Cuba questhe go on the present occasion; but we have sought |