to defeat the adoption of that acknowledgment in the Constitution, to say nothing of their attempts to defeat various measures of legislation enacted by Republican Congresses for the benefit of the Union soldier, to which reference will hereafter be made. Thus the declaration in the National Republican Platform of 1864, touching Union soldiers, that "the Nation owes to them some permanent recognition of their patriotism and their valor, and ample and permanent provision for those of their survivors who have received disabling and honorable wounds in the service of their country," has been put by the Republican Party into imperishable acts; while the canting and hypocritical promise in the National Democratic Platform of 1864, that "in the event of its [the Democratic Party's] attaining power, they [the Union soldiers and sailors will receive all the care, protection, and regard that the brave soldiers and sailors of the Republic so nobly earned," was within two years (in 1866) ruthlessly and shamelessly violated. The acts upon which the Democracy base their claim to the title of the "soldiers' friend" are the following: On May 24, 1878, the House passed a bill to increase the pensions of pensioned soldiers and sailors who had lost either both hands or both feet, or the sight of both eyes, in the service of the country. It provided that the pensions of such soldiers and sailors should be increased to $72 per month. This bill, which became an act June 17, 1878, and its supplement of March 3, 1879, affected only those who were previously entitled to $50 per month under the act of June 18, 1874, and probably embraced less than 200 pensioners. already entitled to $24 per month, and the law was intended to benefit only those who had suffered amputation just at the elbow or knee, or so near as to destroy its use. As a matter of fact it was not rejected by the Senate, but was referred to its Committee on Pensions, which failed to report it to the Senate. The only provision which passed the House under Democratic control, except the Republican Arrears Act, that would have affected any very large number of soldiers, was the bill to increase the pensions of those who had lost one limb. The increase proposed was twelve dollars per month, and it would have benefited about 4,000 pensioners. The only additional Democratic measure was that of Feb. 28, 1877, "to allow a pension of $36 a month to soldiers who have lost both an arm and a leg." This benefited a number not exceeding two hundred pensioners. Another measure for which the Democracy claim credit was a bill reported in June, 1876, to regulate the issue of artificial limbs. The first section provided that every person who in the line of his duty in the military or naval service of the United States shall have lost a limb, or sustained bodily injuries depriving him of the use of any of his limbs, shall receive once every five years an artificial limb or appliance, under such regulations as the surgeon-general of the army may prescribe; and the period of five years shall be held to commence with the filing of the application after the 17th day of January, in the year 1870. Now, the facts are that the practice of granting artificial limbs to soldiers and sailors who lost their natural limbs in the service has existed since the passage of the act of July 16, 1862; and on July 28, 1866, Congress passed an act "to authorize the Secretary of War to furnish transportation to discharged soldiers to whom artificial limbs are furnished by the Government." On July 27, 1868, an act was passed placing officers upon the same footing with privates as to artificial limbs. On July 17, 1870, Another bill passed on May 24, 1873, in- another act was passed authorizing the War creased the pensions of all soldiers who had Department to furnish a new limb or appasuffered amputation of their leg at the hip-ratus to all those previously supplied, and at joint, to $37.50 per month. This bill, which became an act March 3, 1879, increased less than twenty pensions, and they were before in receipt of $24 per month. On May 23, 1878, Mr. Riddle of Tennessee reported a bill to amend the pension act of 1874 so as to extend its provisions to all persons who had lost an arm below the elbow, or so near the elbow, or a leg below the knee, or so near the knee, as to destroy the use of the elbow or knee-joint, and rated such persons in the second class and to receive a pension of $24 per month. This bill, had it become a law, would have affected but few, probably not more than one hundred. Those who lost the arm above the expiration of every five years thereafter another. Or if the soldier so elected he could receive money commutation therefor of from fifty to seventy-five dollars; and the act of June 30, 1870, extended the provision to all classes, including transportation. Under these laws advantageous arrangements were made with manufacturers through whom limbs were procured at rates largely reduced from market prices. The act of Aug. 15, 1876, was simply a re-enactment, with slight and unimportant changes, of previous enactments. Democratic "aversion" to pension bills. Democrats admit it. That the Democratic Party in Congress has the Union soldier, is surprising in view of its known hostility to him and to the great cause he represents. That party, as the record plainly shows, has fought the Union soldier often enough, and when he most needed help, in the halls of Congress, and its impudent claim at this late day that it has done "more for the soldiers than the Republicans have" will not avail it in its effort to catch the soldiers' vote at this election. "Whales are not to be caught by gudgeons." The plain truth of the matter is that Democratic Congressmen have, as a rule, inherited a legacy of hate for the Union soldier, and while generally pretending to love him just before a Presidential election, the moment the election is over, they would fling him aside like a piece of waste paper. It is the "Confederate" and not the "Union "soldier that they really love. To show that that legacy of hate continues, it is only necessary to refer reasonable men to the proofs hereafter given in their action upon the Arrears of Pensions bill of 1879 and upon proposed legislation in the present Congress. But for those who need further proof, let them read the thoroughly proved up letters written by two Northern Democratic Representatives to their Pensylvania constituents in 1880, in which one of them, the Hon. F. E. Beltzhoover, Democratic Congressman from the Nineteenth Congressional District of Pennsylvania, declines (April 23, 1880) to introduce and urge the passage of a pension bill, because, "with the present Democratic House, pension bills do not have much favor and the rebel general who is at the head of the Pension Committee in the Senate is still more averse to allowing any such bills to pass: "while the other, the Hon. J. W. Ryon, Representative in Congress from the Schuylkill District of Pennsylvania, also declares in a letter to the same person that "the present House is averse to allowing claims for services rendered in support of the United States during the late war. The Beltzhoover letter to Mr. Curriden. Following is the letter of Representative Beltzhoover: } HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D. C., April 23, 1880. DEAR SIR: Your favor was received. I would most cheerfully introduce and urge the passage of a bill such as you suggest, but with the present Democratic House pension bills do not have much favor. It has become almost impossible to get consideration of such a bill at all, and when considered its chance of passing the House is very remote, and the rebel gen eral who is at the head of the Pension Committee in the Senate is still more averse to allowing any such bill to pass. It would not be at all probable, therefore, that the bill will be got through. I will confer with your brother. If he thinks there is any thing in the matter, I will very cordially act in the matter. Very truly, Representative Ryon's letter to Mr. Following is a letter from Mr. Minnick, addressed to the York (Pa.) Evening Dispatch of September 6, 1880: Why it is that the publication of letters from the Hon. F. E. Beltzhoover, with reference to the difficulty of obtaining favorable action in Congresss on Pensions and other military claims in behalf of the late Union soldiers or their representatives, should cause such a stir among Democrats, is a question every loyal veteran should ask before he makes up his mind to vote in favor of the "change" asked by that party. The honorable member from that district is not the only one of his party that has admitted those facts. The Hon. J. W. Ryon, from the Schuylkill District, in a communication sent me after his failure passed, admitted that "the present House is averse to allowing claims for services rendered in support of the United States during the late war," although he favored and did all he could in support of the claim, which was substantiated by conclusive evidence of some of the best citizens of his district. to have a meritorious measure in behalf of a soldier In a communication I received from Mr. Beltz hoover on the 19th ult., in reference to a claim for pension now pending, he admits "that the last session was a very bad one for pensions," and such frank admissions, or the publication thereof, are certainly more to the credit of those gentlemen than against them, although not so with the majority of their colleagues on the same side of the House. J. A. C. MINNICK, Pension Claim Agent. In the New York Tribune, September 10, 1880, fac-similes and affidavits of the genuineness of these letters place the proof of their authenticity beyond all question. PART IV. The Republican Arrears of Pensions Act. of 1879-The Fraudulent Democratic Claim to its Paternity and Enactment -The Conclusive Vote in Both Houses. On Feb. 13, 1878, A. V. Rice, the Democratic chairman of the House Committee on Pensions, reported a bill granting arrears of pensions: "also to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to restore to the roll the names of invalid pensioners, stricken therefrom on account of disloyalty," etc.; this latter provision being the sop thrown to the rebel brigadiers to secure their support of or acquiescence in the measure. This bill was made a special order for Feb. 27, 1878, but Mr. Rice failing to secure its consideration on that day, Mr. Cummings, a Republican member from Kansas, on April 2, 1878, introduced the bill (H. R. No. 4234), which was subsequently passed. It was referred to Following is another letter, like unto the the Committee on Pensions, from which it F. E. BELTZHOOVER. E. W.CURRIDEN, Esq. the committee having for two months and more held on to the bill without reporting it Mr. Haskell, a Republican member from Kansas, moved a suspension of the rules, in order that the Committee on Pensions may be discharged from the further consideration of bill H. R. No. 4234, and that it be passed with an amendment. Thereupon the following colloquy ensued: MR. BANNING. I understand that this is the bill reported by the Committee on Pensions, and recommended by them. MR. RIDDLE. No, sir, it is not the bill. commence, not from the date of the dis- Compare the Rice bill, which was not passed, with the Cummings-Haskell bill, which was passed, in the amount of money it bestowed and the numbers benefited. According to the estimate of the commis THE SPEAKER pro tempore. Debate is not in sioner of pensions the Rice bill granted order. MR. BANNING. I ask for the reading of that section which was not contained in the bill reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions. MR. RICE of Ohio. This bill was not reported from the committee at all. MR. EDEN. That is in the nature of the debate, and is not in order on a motion to suspend the rules. MR. CUMMINGS. I call for the yeas and nays upon the motion to suspend the rules. . . . I withdraw the demand for the yeas and nays for the present. The question was put on the motion to suspend the rules-ayes, 90; nays, 20; no quorum voting. MR. HASKELL. I call for tellers. MR. BROWNE. I call for yeas and nays. MR. WHITE. Cannot we understand whether this is the bill that was reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions or not? MR. RICE of Ohio. I will state that it is not the bill. I have been trying to get the bill, reported unan arrears as follows: To the widows, minors, moth ers, etc..... To wounded and injured sol diers.... 5,645 ..... 16,659 To the deceased soldiers....... $4,841,152 00 10,313,586 90 3,034 606,800 00 25,338 $15,761,538 90 The Cummings-Haskell bill granted arrears on claims allowed before January 1, 1879: To widows, minors, mothers, Total 9,049 36,106 $8,758,066 80 25,114,434 40 45,155 $33,872,501 20 A difference in favor of the soldiers in the imously from the committee, acted upon, but have Cummings-Haskell bill over the Rice bill of The bill, the passage of which was secured under Mr. Haskell's motion, granted arrears to the date of discharge or death of the soldier, without restriction or limitation, and gave to the pensioners, as estimated by the Commissioner of Pensions, the sum of $34,000,000 in claims settled before the date of the act, while the bill which Mr. Rice had reported to the House four months before, and which he had "been trying to get acted upon," but had "failed to do so,' was a qualified bill in the following respects. 16,413 soldiers and $14,194,047.50, and of 3,404 widows, dependent parents, and orphans, and $3,916,914.80. Moreover, as the title above quoted shows, the seventh section of the Rice bill proposed the repeal of section 4716 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that no money on account of pension shall be paid to any person or to the widow, children, or heirs of any deceased person, who, in any manner, voluntarily engaged in or aided or abetted the late rebellion against the authority of the United States," and to pay all invalid pensioners, mostly of former wars, and who in many instances had served in the rebel army, and in consequence had been stricken from the rolls for disloyalty, arrears of pensions back to December 25, 1858-in nearly every instance for a longer period than the same bill granted to deceased loyal soldiers of the war of the rebellion. While the amount estimated to be payable under the Cummings-Haskell bill, as above stated, was upward of $33,000,000, it was modified by the act of March 3, 1879, which reduced the estimate of the Pension Office to $25,000,000, and $24,728,155 have actually been paid thereunder. In the first place, it was limited by its fourth section to the pensioners on the roll. A pensioner having deceased, his widow or child, or other relatives, could not get a dollar under its provisions; a widow having remarried, or a minor child having become sixteen years of age, could not get a dollar. Secondly, it divided the pensioners on the roll into three classes and bestowed arrears upon them unequally. To only widows, minors, mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters, receiving pensions, did it give the benefit which they derive from the present law. To the soldiers themselves it was not so Indeed, Rice's bill was simply a liberal. Those disabled by wounds and in- under which dropped disloyal pensioners juries were to be paid from date of discharge, might be restored to the rolls and collect provided they filed their original claims their arrears. It was justly defeated. But within five years; otherwise the pension the Cummings - Haskell bill, a Republican shall commence from the time of the devel-measure which actually passed, and for which opment of the disability resulting from such this Democratic Party, with characteristic wounds or injuries," etc. assurance, claims all the credit for the Democracy, embraces only the loyal soldier. To those soldiers who are pensioned for the effect of diseases - the sick, the bedridden, who, while equally incapacitated with the wounded, are, as a class, the greatest cover The Democratic fraud in claiming any credit for the passage of this bill (H. R. 4234) is readily exposed by an analysis of the CARLISLE, PENN., August 14, 1880. "The bill of Mrs.is pending before the Committee on Pensions of the House. I do not think the The bill will be finally disposed of next session. The claim has been finally rejected by the Pension Office. last one was a very bad one for pensions. Very truly, F. E. BELTZHOOVER. the Union soldier, is surprising in view of its Representative Ryon's letter to Mr. Following is a letter from Mr. Minnick, addressed to the York (Pa.) Evening Dispatch of September 6, 1880: Why it is that the publication of letters from the Hon. F. E. Beltzhoover, with reference to the difficulty of obtaining favorable action in Congresss on pensions and other military claims in behalf of the late Union soldiers or their representatives, should cause such a stir among Democrats, is a question every loyal veteran should ask before he makes up his mind to vote in favor of the "change" asked by that party. and the rebel general who is at the head of the Pension Committee in the Senate is still more averse to allowing any such bills to pass: while the other, the Hon. J. W. Ryon, Representative in Congress from the Schuylkill District of Pennsylvania, also declares in a letter to the same person that "the present House is averse to allowing claims for services rendered in support of the United States during the late war.' The Beltzhoover letter to Mr. Curriden. Following is the letter of Representative Beltzhoover : HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D. C., April 23, 1880. DEAR SIR: Your favor was received. I would most cheerfully introduce and urge the passage of a bill such as you suggest, but with the present Democratic House pension bills do not have much favor. It has become almost impossible to get consideration passing the House is very remote, and the rebel gen eral who is at the head of the Pension Committee in the Senate is still more averse to allowing any such bill to pass. It would not be at all probable, therefore, that the bill will be got through. I will confer with your brother. If he thinks there 18 any thing in the matter, I will very cordially act in the matter. Very truly, of such a bill at all, and when considered its chance of F. E. BELTZHOOVER. E. W.CURRIDEN, Esq. The honorable member from that district is not the only one of his party that has admitted those facts. The Hon. J. W. Ryon, from the Schuylkill District, in a communication sent me after his failure to have a meritorious measure in behalf of a soldier passed, admitted that "the present House is averse to allowing claims for services rendered in support of the United States during the late war," although he favored and did all he could in support of the claim, which was substantiated by conclusive evidence of some of the best citizens of his district. In a communication I received from Mr. Beltz hoover on the 19th ult., in reference to a claim for pension now pending, he admits "that the last session was a very bad one for pensions," and such frank admissions, or the publication thereof, are certainly more to the credit of those gentlemen than against them, although not so with the majority of their colleagues on the same side of the House. J. A. C. MINNICK, Pension Claim Agent. In the New York Tribune, September 10, 1880, fac-similes and affidavits of the genuineness of these letters place the proof of their authenticity beyond all question. PART IV. The Republican Arrears of Pensions Act. made a special order for Feb. 27, 1878, but the committee having for two months and more held on to the bill without reporting it Mr. Haskell, a Republican member from Kansas, moved a suspension of the rules, in order that the Committee on Pensions may be discharged from the further consideration of bill H. R. No. 4234, and that it be passed with an amendment. Thereupon the following colloquy ensued: MR. BANNING. I understand that this is the bill reported by the Committee on Pensions, and recommended by them. MR. RIDDLE. No, sir, it is not the bill. commence, not from the date of the dis- Compare the Rice bill, which was not passed, with the Cummings-Haskell bill, which was passed, in the amount of money it bestowed and the numbers benefited. According to the estimate of the commis THE SPEAKER pro tempore. Debate is not in sioner of pensions the Rice bill granted order. MR. BANNING. I ask for the reading of that sec tion which was not contained in the bill reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions. MR. RICE of Ohio. This bill was not reported from the committee at all. MR. EDEN. That is in the nature of the debate, and is not in order on a motion to suspend the rules. MR. CUMMINGS. I call for the yeas and nays upon the motion to suspend the rules. . . . I withdraw the demand for the yeas and nays for the present. The question was put on the motion to suspend the rules-ayes, 90; nays, 20; no quorum voting. MR. HASKELL. I call for tellers. MR. BROWNE. I call for yeas and nays. MR. WHITE. Cannot we understand whether this is the bill that was reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions or not? MR. RICE of Ohio. I will state that it is not the bill. I have been trying to get the bill, reported unanimously from the committee, acted upon, but have failed to do so. MR. CONGER. I demand the yeas and nays. The bill, the passage of which was secured under Mr. Haskell's motion, granted arrears to the date of discharge or death of the soldier, without restriction or limitation, and gave to the pensioners, as estimated by the Commissioner of Pensions, the sum of $34,000,000 in claims settled before the date of the act, while the bill which Mr. Rice had reported to the House four months before, and which he had "been trying to get acted upon," but had "failed to do so,' was a qualified bill in the following respects. arrears as follows: To the widows, minors, moth ers, etc..... To wounded and injured sol diers...... To the deceased soldiers Total..... ... A difference in favor of the soldiers in the Cummings-Haskell bill over the Rice bill of 16,413 soldiers and $14,194,047.50, and of 3,404 widows, dependent parents, and orphans, and $3,916,914.80. Moreover, as the title above quoted shows, the seventh section of the Rice bill proposed the repeal of section 4716 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that no "money on account of pension shall be paid to any person or to the widow, children, or heirs of any deceased person, who, in any manner, voluntarily engaged in or aided or abetted the late rebellion against the authority of the United States," and to pay all invalid pensioners, mostly of former wars, and who in many instances had served in the rebel army, and in consequence had been stricken from the rolls for disloyalty, arrears of pensions back to December 25, 1858-in nearly every instance for a longer period than the same bill granted to deceased loyal soldiers of the war of the rebellion. While the amount estimated to be payable under the Cummings-Haskell bill, as above stated, was upward of $33,000,000, it was modified by the act of March 3, 1879, which reduced the estimate of the Pension Office to $25,000,000, and $24,728,155 have actually been paid thereunder. In the first place, it was limited by its fourth section to the pensioners on the roll. A pensioner having deceased, his widow or child, or other relatives, could not get a dollar under its provisions; a widow having remarried, or a minor child having become sixteen years of age, could not get a dollar. Secondly, it divided the pensioners on the roll into three classes and bestowed arrears upon them unequally. To only widows, minors, mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters, receiving pensions, did it give the benefit which they derive from the present law. To the soldiers themselves it was not so Indeed, Rice's bill was simply a liberal. Those disabled by wounds and in-under which dropped disloyal pensioners juries were to be paid from date of discharge, might be restored to the rolls and collect provided they filed their original claims their arrears. It was justly defeated. But within five years; "otherwise the pension the Cummings - Haskell bill, a Republican shall commence from the time of the devel- measure which actually passed, and for which opment of the disability resulting from such this Democratic Party, with characteristic wounds or injuries," etc. assurance, claims all the credit for the Democracy, embraces only the loyal soldier. To those soldiers who are pensioned for the effect of diseases - the sick, the bedridden, who, while equally incapacitated with the wounded, are, as a class, the greatest cover The Democratic fraud in claiming any credit for the passage of this bill (H. R. 4234) is readily exposed by an analysis of the |