Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ent upon their own labor for support," was by Mr. Matson, on instructions from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, presented to and passed the House of Representatives under a suspension of the rules, Jan. 17, 1887, by a vote of 180 yeas to 76 nays-62 members absent, paired, and not votingtwo-thirds voting in favor thereof.

On Jan. 22, 1887, this bill passed the United States Senate without a dissenting vote.

President Cleveland's veto.

Congress had completed its labors upon this important pension measure when it was referred, in the usual course of business, to President Grover Cleveland for his consideration and signature; but instead of giving it his approval, as the country had a right to expect and as he had done less than a fortnight before in the case of the Mexican Pension Bill, which was for service without disability-he saw proper to veto it on Feb. 11, '87, upon the following grounds: That it was "the first general bill sanctioned by Congress since the close of the war, granting pensions to Union soldiers and sailors because of service and present disability, without evidence of any injuries received while performing such service, and, further, because the demand for the reduction of the burdens of taxation upon our labor and production has increased in volume and urgency."

The President did not stop to ask himself the question, and probably, under his advocacy of free trade, did not care to know; where our labor and production would stand to-day had it not been for the valor and patriotism of the very men whom this pension bill was intended to benefit.

Bragg's attack upon the defenders of the

Union.

On Feb. 24, 1887, the bill was taken up by the House of Representatives with a view to passing it over the veto of the President. During the discussion that arose on the soldiers' claim for the passage of the bill, General Edward S. Bragg, a Democratic member of Congress from Wisconsin, and, the only Northern man who voted against the original passage of the bill, took occasion to unburden his pent-up feelings in the following manner: Who were the majority of those men that found themselves in the service of the United States from December, 1864, to February, 1865, that Congress should sit up nights to pass pensions to provide for them? They were the scum of the earth.... These men (referring to Union soldiers) that go to the poorhouse are native there: they are drones; they have lived from hand to mouth; they have got no enterprise; they have got no self-respect; they have got no char acter. They lie down and open their mouths for a teat to suck, and it does not make much matter what animal has the teat so long as they can suck any thing from it.... Yes, I believe him; and, whether I be. lieve him or not, Uncle Sam has plenty of money, and we (the soldiers) may just as well put our hands' into the Treasury as have some other scoundrel and thief do it.- Congressional Record, Feb. 27, 1887.

McKinley defends the Union soldier.

Mr. McKinley, the Republican member

Bragg's uncalled-for assault upon the Union soldier:

Mr. Speaker, if I believed, as the gentleman from Wisconsin believes, that the beneficiaries under this and "vagabonds," I should not vote for the passage of bill were "good-for-nothing shirks," "scoundrels," this bill against the veto of the President, nor should I have voted for it when it first came to the House; but I do not believe with the gentleman from Wisconsin

that the beneficiaries of this bill are either shirks or vagabonds or good-for-nothing scoundrels. I do believe that there are thousands scattered all over this country who fought as bravely as the gentleman from Wisconsin fought, although they are not here to tell of their heroic deeds, their lofty courage and glory. The larger the class thus dependent and totally disabled, it only appeals the stronger to our patriotic feeling and duty, and makes greater and more comthe disgrace and inhumanity to withhold it. Conmanding the necessity for this measure, and the greater gressional Record, Feb. 27, 1887.

The vote in the House to pass the bill over the President's veto was: yeas, 175; nays, 125; not voting, 18. Voting for passage of the bill were 140 Republicans and 35 Democrats; voting against the passage of the bill were 125 Democrats and not one Republican. The vote in detail, by political parties, was:

YEAS (Republicans).- George A. Adams, Charles H. Allen, Jno. H. Anderson, Atkinson, Baker, Bayne, Charles E. Brown, William H. Brown, Brunson, Buck, Bingham, Bound, Boutelle, Brady, Thomas A. Browne, Bunnell, Burleigh, Burrows, Butterworth, Jacob M. Campbell, Cannon, Caswell, Conger, Cooper, Cutcheon, Davenport, Davis, Dingley, Dorsey, Dunham, Ely, Evans, Everhart, Farquhar, Felton, Floeper, Fuller, Funston, Gallinger, Gilfillen, Goff, Grosvenor, Grout, Guenther, Hanback, Harmer, Hayden, Haynes, D. B. Henderson, T. J. Henderson, Hepburn, Hermann, Honk, Jackson, James, F. A. Johnson, J. T. JohnHeistand, Hires, Hiscock, Hitt, Holmes, Hopkins, ston, Kelly, Ketcham, La Follette, Laird, Lehlbach, Libbey, Lindsley, Little, Long, Lontill, Lyman, Markham, Negley, Nelson, O'Donnell, O'Hara, Charles O'Neill, Jno. J. O'Neill, Osborne, Owen, Parker, Payne, Payson, Perkins, Peters, Pettibone, Phelps, Pindar, Plumb, Price, Ranney, Rice, Rockwell, Romeis, Rowell, Ryan, Sawyer, Scranton, Sessions, Smalls, Spooner, Steel, Stephenson, Jno. W. Stewart, bee, E. B. Taylor, I. H. Taylor, Zach Taylor, Jno. R. E. F. Stone, Strait, Struble, Swinburne, Symes, TaulThomas, Thompson, Van Schaick, Wade, Wadsworth, Wait, Wakefield, William Warner, A. J. Weaver, Weber, West, A. C. White, Milo White, Whiting,

Woodburn.

YEAS (Democrats) Bliss, Bynum, James E. Campbell, Carlton, Eldridge, Ford, Frederick, Geddes, Hale, Holman, Howard, Kleiner, Landes, Lawler, Le Neece, Randall, Riggs, Seney, Springs, Swope, TarsFevre, Lore, Lovering, Mahoney, Matson, Maybury, ney, Townshend, James H. Ward, J. B. Weaver, Wilkins, Wolford.

NAYS (Democrats) — Jno. J. Adams, Jno. M. Allen, Bacon, Ballentine, Barbour, Barksdale, Barnes, Barry, Belmont, Bennett, Blanchard, Bland, Blount, Boyle, Bragg, C. R. Breckenridge, W. C. P. Breckenridge, Burns, Cabell, Caldwell, Felix Campbell, Timothy J. Campbell, Catchings, Clements, Cobb, Collins, Compton, Comstock, Cowles, S. S. Cox, W. R. Cox, Davidson, R. H. M. Davidson, Dawson, Dibble, DockCrain, Crisp, Culberson, Curtin, Daniel, Dargen, A. C. ery, Docherty, Dunn, Eden, Ermentrout, Findlay, Fisher, Forney, Gay, C. H. Gibson, E. Gibson, Glass, Green, Hall, Halsell, Hammond, Harris, Hatch, Herd, Hemphill, J. S. Henderson, Herbert, Hill, Hudd, Hut ton, Irion, J. D. Johnston, J. H. Jones, J. T. Jones, King, Laffoon, Lanham, Martin, McAdoo, McCreary, Morrison, Muller, Neal, Norwood, Oates, O'Farrell, McMillan, McRae, Miller, Mills, Mitchell, Morgan, Outhwaite, Peel, Perry, Reagan, Reese, Richardson, Robertson, Rogers, Sayers, Scott, Seymour, Shaw, Singleton, Skinner, Snyder, Sowden, Springer, Stahlnecker, C. Stewart, St. Martin, Stone of Kentucky, Stone of Missouri, Storm, Jno. M. Taylor, Tillman,

Ward, A. J. Warner, Wellborne, Wheeler, Willis, that all men entering an army were free from disease Wilson, Wise.

NAYS (Republican) - None.

NOT VOTING (Democrats) - Aiken, Candler, Clardy, Croxton, Ellsberry, Foran, Glover, Henley, Lawry,

Pidcock, Rusk, Sadler, Throckmorton, Wallace,

Winans.

NOT VOTING (Republicans) -C. M. Anderson, Buchanan, Reed.

General Bragg of Wisconsin, the only Northern man who voted against this bill on its passage by the House, having been defeated in his Congressional District for a renomination, turned squarely about from being an anti-administration man and became a rabid Cleveland supporter. He is now Minister to Mexico.

[blocks in formation]

Five bills were vetoed by President Grant because the beneficiaries had been pensioner under the general pension laws. The other three vetoes of pension bills by President Grant were on the ground that the records of the War Department showed the beneficiaries

to have been deserters.

The test of a President's friendliness towards pension legislation is not on how many

bills he approves. The test is on his reverse action. The language used by President Cleveland in his veto message, of private pension bills has been undignified, unbecoming, and uncalled for. The general course of treatment of President Cleveland towards pension bills sent to him has been unfriendly.

Brief extracts from some of the veto messages.

Following are a few brief extracts from President Cleveland's multifarious vetoes of private pension bills:

I cannot spell out any principle upon which the bounty of the Government is bestowed through the instrumentality of the flood of private pension bills that reach me. The theory seems to have been adopted that no man who served in the army can be the subject of death or impaired health except they are chargeable to his service. . . . If such speculations and presumptions as this are to be indulged, we shall

or the liability to disease before their enlistment, and every infirmity which is visited upon them thereafter is the consequence of army service. . . .

Ferris, June, 1886, he uses the following In the veto of the bill passed for John W. language:

ent attacks upon the public Treasurer by those claimThe ingenuity developed in the constant and persisting pensions, and in the increase of those already granted, is exhibited in bold relief by this attempt to include sore eyes among the results of diarrhoea.

Again, in the case of John W. Luce, June, 1886:

It is alleged that the examinations made by the Pension Bureau developed the fact that the deceased soldier was a man of quite intemperate habits.

June, 1886.

In his veto in the case of Alfred Denny, June, 1886, who swore that he was injured by being thrown forward on the pommel of his saddle, the President becomes facetious and says:

The number of instances in which those of our soldiers who rode horses during the war were injured by being thrown forward on their saddles indicates that those saddles were very dangerous contrivances.

The innuendo clearly points to the charge that many claimants of that kind were perjured. In the case of Edward Ayers, May, 1886, the President in his veto says:

It is reported to me by a report from the Pension Bureau that after the alleged wound, and in May or June, 1863, the claimant deserted and was arrested in the State of Indiana, and returned to duty without trial.

Here the President fastens on the ex-soldier a stain and a crime the penalty of which would have been death, on the authority of a mere report.

In the case of David W. Hamilton, May, 1886, he says:

If he had filed his application earlier it would have appeared in better faith, and it may be that he would have secured the evidence of his family physician if it

was of the character he described.

His delay in filing his claim, in the mind of the President, seems conclusive proof of perjury.

will realize the injustice of the charge as Every soldier who has served in the army from pride, have been restrained for years made by the President. Many poor soldiers, from presenting their just claims for a pen

sion.

The wit and humor of the President rise

again to the surface in his veto of the bill of Andrew I. Wilson, in June, 1886:

ments during his short military career, it must be conWhatever else may be said of this claimant's achieveceded that he accumulated a great deal of disability.

Other cases might be multiplied in his numerous vetoes, but it is unnecessary to of drunkenness and loathsome diseases. make more public his charges against soldiers

It should not be forgotten that in all his vetoes of private pension bills he virtually accuses every claimant and many witnesses with wilful perjury, and the reports upon which he promulgates his libelous charges are founded on one-sided reports and rumors. If he were not shielded by his Presidential mantle, actions for libel could be successfully

It should be remembered that he judges the claimant from his standpoint, and not by the testimony of the claimant and his witnesses under oath, backed by the full indorsement of the Senate and House of Representatives. Surely in such cases the power and cruelty of the one man is very great.

PART XII.

Tabulated Statement of Votes by both Parties on Pension Bills, from the Forty-Fifth Congress down.

It is admitted by all who value their reputation for fair-mindedness and veracity that, down to March 4, 1875, when the Democratic party returned to power in the House, the credit of all pension legislation which existed belonged to the Republican party.

It is true that, up to 1874, when the Revised Statutes were compiled, there was not a word in the law, not a section nor a statute, relating to the subject of pensions, that had not been put there by the Republican party; and there is not now a single section that has been placed there except by their action. Every important item of pension_legislation since that date was either a Republican measure, or owed its enactment to Republi

can votes.

In order that these significant votes may be more readily referred to, they are appended in tabulated form.

Tabulated statement of votes on pension

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

This tabulation shows that not one of all those bills could have passed upon the Democratic vote. It is the barbed spear, on pension bills, that will impale the Democratic party.

It will be noted, first, that only in one case (that of the widows' increase bill) were there more Democrats who voted for than against any bill; second, that in all these

[blocks in formation]

Mr. HOVEY. The Representative on this floor who does not know that the Republican party in this day to the present hour to procure the consideration of House this session has earnestly labored from the first pension legislation, and that the Democratic party here has as earnestly and persistently labored to prevent it, is an imbecile who should be sent to some asylum for safe-keeping.

There can not be found an intelligent man who has watched the proceedings of this House who does not fully understand the motives and attitude of the respective parties on this subject, and that the Demofollower, is strongly opposed to all pension legislation. cratic party, from the President down to his lowest In my first speech in this House on the 20th of April, I said:

"On the 4th of January last I offered a servicepension bill, No. 1320, granting a pension of $8 per month for life to every honorably discharged officer, soldier, or sailor who had served in the Army of the United States not less than sixty days between March 4, 1861, and July 1, 1865. This bill was the same day referred to the Invalid Pensions Committee. On the same day I offered bill No. 1319, granting a bounty of 160 acres of land to every officer, soldier, and sailor engaged in the military or naval service of the United States during the late rebellion of the so-called Confederate States. On the 16th of January last I offered a bill No. 5052, 'to equalize the payment and do justice. to the officers, soldiers, and sailors of the United States in the late rebellion who were paid in currency com. monly called greenbacks,' which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

"I had hoped that at least one of these bills might possibly meet with the favor of one of these omnipotent committees, and be reported to this House for fair discussion, so that a vote on the ayes and noes might be taken; but, like many other bills which have been introduced for the relief of the ex-soldiers of the late rebellion, neither of them has been reported; and they, too, have been smothered or filed in the unremem. bered pigeon-holes of the committee-rooms. Our ex-soldiers and sailors seem to be forgotten. Even the President in his message made no illusion to them, their services, or their sufferings, and his henchmen and partisans are following silently and closely in his footsteps.

"The Committee on Invalid Pensions is composed of nine Democrats and six Republicans; the Committee on Public Lands, nine Democrats and five Republicans; and the Committee on Military Affairs, eight Democrats and six Republicans, so that the Democrats of those committees have the power to report to this House any bill referred to them, or they can crush, by refusing to report, every bill offered in favor of the ex-soldier. The responsibility is theirs; and I assure them that they will be well remembered hereafter by the men whose rights they have so unfeelingly ignored. "Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the committees to whom these important bills have been refer

[ocr errors]

Ward, A. J. Warner, Wellborne, Wheeler, Willis, that all men entering an army were free from disease Wilson, Wise.

[blocks in formation]

Five bills were vetoed by President Grant because the beneficiaries had been pensioner under the general pension laws. The other three vetoes of pension bills by President Grant were on the ground that the records of the War Department showed the beneficiaries

to have been deserters.

The test of a President's friendliness towards pension legislation is not on how many bills he approves. The test is on his reverse action. The language used by President Cleveland in his veto message, of private pension bills has been undignified, unbecoming, and uncalled for. The general course of treatment of President Cleveland towards pension bills sent to him has been unfriendly.

Brief extracts from some of the veto messages.

Following are a few brief extracts from President Cleveland's multifarious vetoes of private pension bills:

I cannot spell out any principle upon which the bounty of the Government is bestowed through the instrumentality of the flood of private pension bills that reach me. The theory seems to have been adopted that no man who served in the army can be the subject of death or impaired health except they are chargeable to his service. . . . If such speculations and presumptions as this are to be indulged, we shall

or the liability to disease before their enlistment, and every infirmity which is visited upon them thereafter is the consequence of army service. . . .

Ferris, June, 1886, he uses the following In the veto of the bill passed for John W. language:

The ingenuity developed in the constant and persistent attacks upon the public Treasurer by those claim. ing pensions, and in the increase of those already granted, is exhibited in bold relief by this attempt to include sore eyes among the results of diarrhea.

Again, in the case of John W. Luce, June, 1886:

It is alleged that the examinations made by the Pension Bureau developed the fact that the deceased soldier was a man of quite intemperate habits.

June, 1886.

[blocks in formation]

The number of instances in which those of our soldiers who rode horses during the war were injured by being thrown forward on their saddles indicates that those saddles were very dangerous contrivances.

The innuendo clearly points to the charge that many claimants of that kind were perjured. In the case of Edward Ayers, May, 1886, the President in his veto says:

It is reported to me by a report from the Pension Bureau that after the alleged wound, and in May or June, 1863, the claimant deserted and was arrested in the State of Indiana, and returned to duty without trial.

Here the President fastens on the ex-soldier a stain and a crime the penalty of which would have been death, on the authority of a mere report.

In the case of David W. Hamilton, May, 1886, he says:

If he had filed his application earlier it would have appeared in better faith, and it may be that he would have secured the evidence of his family physician if it

was of the character he described.

of the President, seems conclusive proof of His delay in filing his claim, in the mind perjury.

will realize the injustice of the charge as Every soldier who has served in the army from pride, have been restrained for years made by the President. Many poor soldiers, from presenting their just claims for a pen

sion.

The wit and humor of the President rise

again to the surface in his veto of the bill of Andrew I. Wilson, in June, 1886:

ments during his short military career, it must be conWhatever else may be said of this claimant's achieveceded that he accumulated a great deal of disability.

Other cases might be multiplied in his numerous vetoes, but it is unnecessary to of drunkenness and loathsome diseases. make more public his charges against soldiers

It should not be forgotten that in all his vetoes of private pension bills he virtually accuses every claimant and many witnesses with wilful perjury, and the reports upon which he promulgates his libelous charges are founded on one-sided reports and rumors. If he were not shielded by his Presidential mantle, actions for libel could be successfully

It should be remembered that he judges the claimant from his standpoint, and not by the testimony of the claimant and his witnesses under oath, backed by the full indorsement of the Senate and House of Representatives. Surely in such cases the power and cruelty of the one man is very great.

PART XII.

Tabulated Statement of Votes by both
Parties on Pension Bills, from the
Forty-Fifth Congress down.

against one of them, and that was from the State of Florida. This table, taken from the official record, ought to settle now and forever the attitude of the Democratic party toward pension legislation.

PART XIII.

General Hovey's Arraignment of the Democratic Party, in 1888, for its opposition to all Pension Legislation. It is admitted by all who value their repu- In his speech in the House, Aug. 2, 1888, tation for fair-mindedness and veracity that, Representative Hovey of Indiana, in reply to down to March 4, 1875, when the Democratic a printed speech of Representative Watson, party returned to power in the House, the-both now rival candidates for Governor credit of all pension legislation which existed of Indiana, who labored to show that the belonged to the Republican party. Democratic party is, and has been, the true friend of the ex-soldiers of the United States," said:

It is true that, up to 1874, when the Revised Statutes were compiled, there was not a word in the law, not a section nor a statute, relating to the subject of pensions, that had not been put there by the Republican party; and there is not now a single section that has been placed there except by their action. Every important item of pension legislation since that date was either a Republican measure, or owed its enactment to Republi

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

This tabulation shows that not one of all those bills could have passed upon the Democratic vote. It is the barbed spear, on pension bills, that will impale the Democratic party.

It will be noted, first, that only in one case (that of the widows' increase bill) were there more Democrats who voted for than against any bill; second, that in all these

Mr. HOVEY. The Representative on this floor who does not know that the Republican party in this House this session has earnestly labored from the first day to the present hour to procure the consideration of pension legislation, and that the Democratic party here has as earnestly and persistently labored to prevent it, is an imbecile who should be sent to some asylum for safe-keeping.

There can not be found an intelligent man who has watched the proceedings of this House who does not fully understand the motives and attitude of the respective parties on this subject, and that the Demofollower, is strongly opposed to all pension legislation. cratic party, from the President down to his lowest

In my first speech in this House on the 20th of April, I said:

"On the 4th of January last I offered a servicepension bill, No. 1320, granting a pension of $8 per month for life to every honorably discharged officer, soldier, or sailor who had served in the Army of the United States not less than sixty days between March 4, 1861, and July 1, 1865. This bill was the same day referred to the Invalid Pensions Committee. On the same day I offered bill No. 1319, granting a bounty of 160 acres of land to every officer, soldier, and sailor engaged in the military or naval service of the United States during the late rebellion of the so-called Confederate States. On the 16th of January last I offered

a bill No. 5052, 'to equalize the payment and do justice. to the officers, soldiers, and sailors of the United States in the late rebellion who were paid in currency commonly called greenbacks,' which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

"I had hoped that at least one of these bills might possibly meet with the favor of one of these omnipotent committees, and be reported to this House for fair discussion, so that a vote on the ayes and noes might be taken; but, like many other bills which have been introduced for the relief of the ex-soldiers of the late rebellion, neither of them has been reported; and they, too, have been smothered or filed in the unremem. bered pigeon-holes of the committee-rooms. Our ex-soldiers and sailors seem to be forgotten. Even the President in his message made no illusion to them, their services, or their sufferings, and his henchmen and partisans are following silently and closely in his footsteps.

"The Committee on Invalid Pensions is composed of nine Democrats and six Republicans; the Committee on Public Lands, nine Democrats and five Republicans; and the Committee on Military Affairs, eight Democrats and six Republicans, so that the Democrats of those committees have the power to report to this House any bill referred to them, or they can crush, by refusing to report, every bill offered in favor of the ex-soldier. The responsibility is theirs; and I assure them that they will be well remembered hereafter by the men whose rights they have so unfeelingly ignored. "Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the committees to whom these important bills have been refer

« AnteriorContinuar »