The party merely goes into the land office. makes application for a piece of coal land or iron land. pays the fee of $15. or whatever it may be. and gets his certificate. That is the sole act necessary for acquiring title toa piece of land of this character. Now. if you wish to give the immigrant. who has come here intending honestly and faith. fully to become a citizen. the privilege of making this entry. why do you tell him in the next breath that theentry shall not be available for five years to come. that during this time his entry shall be of no use to him in the market. that it shall not benefit his heirs if he should die before the expiration of the five years ? I see no sense in the discrimination which is thus made. Why do you not draw the line against the man who wants to till the soil as weil as against the man who wishes to invest in mineral lands in the Territories of the West? I am not here to discuss this question from any sentimental point of view. I am not in a position to appeal to feeling one way or the other. but I submit that the House should exercise good judgment and consistency in disposing of this question. If you wish to say to the immigrant that he shall till the soil and do nothing else. say so. but if you want him to assist in developing your coal or iron mines or other mineral wealth give him a decent show. A gentleman suggests to me that this proposition does not prevent that. It does so in this manner: The immigrant is prevented from saying that he is the owner of the land until the lapse of five years. assuming that he makes entry as soon as he has declared his intention.
Keywords matched
immigrant