only slave state with a vote for it[1] The provision allowing the en- try of 80 acres of land held at $2.50 an acre partly opened up the reserved lands in the railroad grants, but 160 acres of the $1.25 lands could be taken up by the homesteader. Not until 1879 could the latter amount of the reserved lands be entered under the pro- posed act.
It was evident that the bill could not pass the Senate, and therefore Johnson proposed a substitute which gave to actual set- tlers the right of pre-emption at twenty-five cents an acre. A test vote on the homestead principle itself was furnished by the motion of Wade to substitute the original House bill, but this was lost 26 to 31, with votes from three free states, Pennsylvania, California and Oregon, against it.[2] The bill was then passed with only eight votes against it, seven of which were from the slave states.[3] The House at first refused to recede from its original bill but finally yielded to the Senate, considering that it was doing the best thing possible under the circumstances.[4] But even this concession to the friends of homesteads was not destined to become law, for Buchanan returned it to the Senate without his approval and the attempt to pass it over the veto failed, 27 to 18.[5]
Buchanan considered that the price charged would be merely nominal, so that the measure would be open to the same objections as a direct grant. That such a grant was unconstitutional Bu- chanan had already held in his veto of the agricultural college land- grant bill.[6] Congress was a trustee of the public lands, and when it was authorized by the Constitution to "dispose of" them, such a power was limited by the purposes for which the government was created, by the enumerated powers of Congress. He also consid- ered the bill unjust to those who had already settled in the West and who had paid a much higher price for the lands. The holders of bounty land-warrants could also object, for the value of those instruments would be reduced by the bill. It was further unjust in that it confined its benefits to one class of the people ; in that it would offer inducements for emigration from the old states, and because it would encourage immigration from abroad. Buchanan considered that the old system of holding the lands for revenue should be retained, and estimated that from them an annual income of $10,000,000 could be obtained.[7]
