. 

482 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 16, 

be paid the value of three barrels of brandy improperly taken from 

him by UnitedStatesofficials-r-tothe Committeeof Ways and Means. 

Also, memorial of the American Health Association, a"'king certain le~lation affecting the public health-to the ~loot committee on the 

ongin, introduction, and prevention of epidemic diseases in the United 

States. 

By Mr. H.A.R?tlER: Papers relating to the war claim of Henry Frank, 

of Philadelphia, Peunsylvani~to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. HUNTON: The petition of James Beckham and wife, for 

compensation for property destroyed byUnited.States soldiers during 

the late war-to the same committee. 

By Mr. JACOBS: The petition of J. W. Jewett, W. H. Crockett, 

and 8 others, citizens of Washington Territory, for the r0atoration of 

the branch lands of the Northern Pacific Railroad to the public domain-to the Committee on Public Lands. 

Also, the petition of John A. Shoudy and 39 others, citizens of Washington Territory, of similar import-to the same committee. 

Also, the petition of H. L. Yesler and 1,005 others, voters of Washington Terr1tory, of similar import-to the same committee. 

By :Mr. JONES, of New Hampshire: The petition of Mrs. B. A. Sherwood and 32 other women of Milton Mills, New Hampshire, for such 

legislation as will make effective the anti-polygamy law of 1862-to 

the Committee on the Judiciary. · By Mr. LAP~: Memorial of the representatives of the religious 

society of Friends, in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, re- monstrating against the transfer of the management of the Indians 

from the Interior to-the War Department-to the Committee on Military' Affairs. 

By Mr. McKINLEY: The petition of L. C. Rice and 70 citizens of 

:Michigan, against the extension of the Birdsell clover-huller patentto the Committee on Patents. · Also, the petition of 58 women of Carrollton, Ohio, for legislation 

to make effective the anti-polygamy law of 1862-to the Committee 

on the Judiciary. By Mr. MONROE: The petition of S. S. Eberhatt and 29 others, citi- zens of Ohio, against the extension of the Birdsell clover-huller patent-to the Committee on Patents. . Also, the petition of A. K. Richard~ and 32 others, citizens of Ohio, 

of similar import-to the same committee. 

Also, the petition of H. M. Culbertson and 10 others, citizens of Ohio, 

of similar import-to the same committee. 

Also, the petition of Rev. Mason Noble, D. D., and the delegates of 

fifty-three religious and secular temperance organizations in the District of Columbia, repre~nting six thousand members, asking Con- <rress to pass more efficient laws to provide against t.he evils resulting 

.from the sale of intoxicating drinks-to the Committee for the District of Colnmbia. ~y Mr. MORRISON: The petition of Carlos J. Stolbrand, for au- thority for the Navy Department to test the usefulness of a" subaqueous vessel and mine "-to the Committee on Naval Affairs. 

By Mr. PRICE : ·The petition of the Women's Christian Temper- ance Union, of Bellevue, Iowa, and others, for a commission of inquiry concerning the alcoholic liquor traffic-to the Committee on 

the Judiciary. 

By Mr. RICE, of Massachusetts: The petition of Mary L. Turner 

and others, for the extension of the sewing-machine patent granted 

Sidney S. Turner,.August 22, 1854-to the Committee on Patents. 

By Mr. ROBINSON, of Massachusetts: The petition of Mrs. Betsey 

DeWitt and others, of Agawam, Massachusetts, for the suppression 

of polygamy-to the Committee on the Judiciary. ' 

By :Mr. SAYLER: The petition of John E. Kelly, for compensation a-s a messenger and doorkeeper for the Committee of Ways and 

Means, House of Representatives-to the Committee of Accounts. 

By Mr. SINNICKSON: The petition of Mrs. Edna Taylor, guardian of two orphan children of the late General John Williams, that 

they be gfanted a pension-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. 'STARIN: The petition of manufacturers of Buffalo, New 

York, against the extension of the shoe-last patent of Nathaniel 

Jones-to the Committee on Patents. 

Also, the petition of G. Westinghouse & Co., of Schenectady, New 

York, and others, against the extension of the Birdsell clover-huller 

patent-to the same committee. 

Also, the petition of churchmen o.f Johnstown, New York, for legislation prohibiting lif.!uor traffic in the several States and 'l'erritories 

and the District of Colnmbi~to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Also, the petition of the women of Charleston, New York, for legislation that will render effective the anti-polygamy law of 1862-to 

the same committee. 

Also, the petition of women of Coglingsville, SaraV..ga County, New 

York, of similar import-to the same committee.· By Mr. STENGER: The petition of 13 women of Mount Union, Pennsylvania, for such legislation as will make effective the anti-polygamy 

law of 1862-to the same committee. 

By Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia: Resolutions of the city council of 

Augusta, Geor~ in favor pf th~ establishment_ of a United Sta~s 

ilistrict court m that city with circuit court powers-to the same committee. 

By MF. STONE, of Iowa: The petition of Sarah F. Moore and 150 

other ladies, of Birmingham, Iowa, for such legislation as will make 

effective the anti-polygamy law of 1862-to the same committee. 

j 

By :Mr. TURNEY: The petition of citizens of Pennsylvania who 

served in the Union Army in the late war, and who were honorably 

discharged, for the passage of a law granting them aid in making settlements on the public lands-to the Committee on Public Lands. 

By Mr. VANCE : A paper relating to the establishment of postroutes from North Cove to Marion, and from Old Fort to Grassy Knob, 

via Stone Mountain, Bu:ffalo, and Cedar Creek, North Carolin~to theCommittee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. WALSH : .The petition of Frederick Schaum, for a pensionto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. WILLIAMS, of Wisconsin: The petition of Mrs. H. K •. Moore and 50 others, for legislation that will make effective the antipolygamy law of 1862-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. WILLIAMS, of Delaware·: The petition of 206 citizens of 

Delaware and Maryland, for a survey of the Nanticoke River-to the 

Committee on Commerce. 

By Mr. WILLIS, of New York : The petition of WilliamS. Can-, for an extension of a patent for an improvement in water-closets-to the . 

Committee on Patents. 

IN SENATE. 

THURSDAY, Jamtary 16, 1879. 

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. BYRON SUNDERLAND, D. D. 

The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communisation 

from the Secretary of War, transmitting a -letter fro:n the Chief of 

Engineers inclosing reports from Lieutenant-Colonel George Thoro, 

Corps of Engineers, upon the results of examinations made in compli- ance with the river and harbor act of June 18, 1878, at Lincolnville 

Harbor, Lubec Channel, Maine, Scituate Harbor, Massachusetts, and 

Charles River, Massachusetts; which was referred to the Committee· on Commerce, and ordered to be printed. · He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary 

of War, forw.arding a letter from ·the Third Auditor of the Treasury,. 

calling attention to the subject of the unpaid claims of citizens of 

Montana and Dakota Territories under the actR of March 3, 1873, and 

March 3, 1875, and recommending an appropriation of $15,000 for that 

purpose; which was refen-ed to the Committee on Appropriations. 

He also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary 

of War, transmitting a report of the Quartermaster-General, recom- mending the passage of Senate bill No. 485 repealing the laws prohibiting payments to land-grant railroads for the transportation of 

property or troops of the United States, with certain amendments;. which wa-s ord-ered to lie on the table and be printed. 

PETITIO~S AND :MEMORIALS. 

Mr. WALLACE presented a memorial of the representatives ot thoReligious Society of Friends, of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, remonstrating against the change of the Indian Bureau from 

the Interior Department to the War Department, and giving reasons therefor; which was referred to the select joint committee to consider 

the subject of the transfer of the Indian Bureau from the Interior tothe War Department. 

He also presented the petition of Mary G. Kelly and other women, 

of Huntingdon C(')unty, Pennsylvania, and the petition of Mrs. Kate· M. Shafer and other women, of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, praying for the passage of an act making effective the anti-polygamy law 

of 1862; which were referre~. to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Mr. }.,ERRY presented the petition of E. V. Smith and 35 others, 

citizens of Michigan, and the pet.ition of Richard 'Vhiteside and 563. 

others, citizens of Michigan, praying for the pa,ssage of the bill (H. 

R. No. 4234) granting arrears of pensions; which were ordered to lie on the table. 

He :tlso presented the petition of Mrs. L. J. Anderson and 29 other· women, of Van Buren, Wayne County, Michigan, praying for the passage of an act making effective the anti-polygamy law of 1862; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

J\Ir. MATTHEWS presented the petition of Henry Rigler and a.. large number of others, soldiers at the National Soldiers' Home, Dayton, Ohio, praying for the prompt passage of the bill (H. R. No. 4234) 

granting arrears of pensions; which was ordered to lie on the table. 

Mr. HOAR presented the petition of James King, late private Company B, Second Regiment Massa~husett. Volunteers, praying to be--

allowed a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois, presented the petition of John Bauman and 

others, citizens of lilinois, praying for the passage of the bill (H. R. 

No. 4234) granting arrears of pensions; which was ordered to lie on the table. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Mr. MAXEY, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 1627) making appropriation for the purchase 

of Fort Clark, Texa-tf, reported it without amendment, and submitted. a report thereon, which was ordered to be printed. 

Mr. THURMAN, from the Committee on the J _udiciary, to whom. 
1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 483 

was referred the bill (S. No. 468) to extend the operation of the act 

of February Zl, 1815, entitled "An act to proVIde for settlements 

with certain railway companies" for one year, reported it with an amendment. 

Mr. EATON, from the Committee on Patents, to whom was referred 

the petition of Helen Frances Manville, executrix, &c., praying the 

extension of the several patents granted for the McKay sewing-machine, August 12,1862, No. 36163, and reissued July 6, 1875, No. 6535, 

submitted a. report thereon, accompanied by a bill (S. No.1629) to 

allow the Commissioner of Patents to extend the patent numbered 

6535 of reissues. 

The bill was read twice by its title, and the report was ordered to be 

printed. · Mr. EATON. I will state that this is the report of a majority of 

the Committee on Patents, and a minority report will be submitted 

in the case. Mr. FERRY, from the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-R~ads, to 

whom the subject was referred, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 1630) authorizing and directing the Postmaster-General 

to readjust the salaries of certain postmasters in accordance with the ·provisions of section 8 of the act of June 12, 1866. 

The bill was read twice by its title, and the report was ordered to 

be printed. 

Mr. INGALLS, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 1419) granting a pension to ~Irs. Rosa Gale, 

reported it without amendment. • He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(S. No. 1474) granting a pension to John G. Eckles, reported it without amendment. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. No. 3572) granting a pension to Andrew J. Morrison, reported 

it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon; which was ordered to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom wa.s referred the bill 

'(H. R. No. 4364) granting a pension to Lydia A. Morris, reported it 

without amendment, and submitted a report thereon; which was ordered to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(S. No. 12tl8) to repeal section 4717 of the Revised Statutes, reported 

it without amendment. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Elizabeth Joines, widow of.John Joines, late a sail-maker in 

the United States Navy, praying to be allowed a pension, reported 

adversely thereon; and the committee were discharged from the further consideration of the 1>etition. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was ref!3rred the bill 

(S. No. 1!54) granting a pension to. Ann M. Paulding, widow of Hiram 

Paulding, late senior rear-admiral of the United States Navy, reported 

H without amendment. 

Mr. KELLOGG, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 4975) granting an increase of pension to ~Irs. Eliza H. Frailey, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon; which was ordered to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. No. 4986) granting a pension to H. Louise Gates, reported it 

without amendment, and submitted a report thereon; which was ordered to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. No. 124) granting a pension to James B. Treadwell, major of 

the Eighty-fifth Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers, reported it withOilt amendment, and submitted a report thereon; which was ordered 

to be printed. • · He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. No. 2296) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to place 

upon the pension-roll the name of John Ward, late sergeant of Company K, Second Regiment West Virginia Volunteer Cavalry, reported 

it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon; which was ordered to be printed. , . 

ADMISSION TO THE FLOOR. 

Mr. BLAINE. A day or two since a resolution was passed by the 

Senate, on motion of t~e senior Senator from Ohio, [Mr. THUIDIAN,] 

directing the Conu:nittee on Rules to inquire into the expediency of so amending them that the oldest ex-cabinet minister should enjoy the privileges of the floor. The resolution was intended to apply to 

Hon. George Bancroft. The Committee on-Rules haveinstructedme 

to report a resolution, of which I ask the present consideration. I 

presume there will be no objection to it. 

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed 

to, as follows ·: 

th:es:!V:i;. That Ron. George Bancroft be admitted w the privileges of the floor of 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

Mr. MITCHELL asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave 

to introduce a bill (S. No.1631) for the relief of William Gallich; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims. 

:Mr. 'V ALLACE askedt~and by unanimous consent obtainee, leave· to introduce a bill (S . .No. 1632) to authorize the Secretary of the 

Treasury and Commissioner of Internal Revenue to adjust and settle 

certain claims for succession taxes erroneously paid; which was read 

twice by its title, and referred to the Commintee on Finance. 

Mr. McPHERSON (by request) asked, and by unanimous consent 

obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1633) for the relief of the 

captors of the ram Albemarle; which was read twice by its title, and, wit~ the :accompanying papers, referred to the €orumittee on Naval 

Affrurs. . Mr. INGALLS (by request) asked, and by unanimous 'eonsent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No.1634) for the retirement of an Army officer; which was read twice by its title, and refe1Ted to the 

Committee on Military Aff~s. 

AMENDME~TS TO POST-ROUTE BILL. 

l\Ir. PLUMB and Mr. INGALLS submitted amendments intended 

tQ be proposed by them respectively to the bill (H. R. No. 5218) to 

establish post-routes herein named; which were referred to the Committee on Post·Offices and Post-Roads. 

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS. 

On motion of Mr. KELLOGG, it was 

Ordered, That the claimant or his attorney in the claim of .r. Phelps & Co. have 

leave to withdraw from the files certain papers heretofore filed by him in said case by leaving copies thereof. 

EXPE~SES OF n~~ SERVICE. 

Mr. DORSEY submitted the following resolution; which was con- sidered by unanimous consent, and agreed to : 

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is.,.. directed to furnish the Senate with a statement of all appropriations and expenaitures from 

the National1'reasury or otherwise for the purpos~,Y~8,~g the current and con- tingent expenses of the Indian department, and · g treaty stipulations, in· 

cluding all payments and expenditures for and on account of Indian tribes from 

.Tuly 16, 1790, to .Tune 30, 187i:!, with such notes and references as may be requisite for a full understanding of the subject. 

:\HGRATION OF COLORED PERSONS. 

Mr. WINDOM. I offer a. resolution, a.nd I ask that when it is read 

the resolution may lie on the -table, as I shall in a few days request 

the indulgence of the Senate to be allowed to make some remarks 

upon it. 

The resolution was read, as follows : Resolved, That with a new to the peaceful adjustment of all questions relatinrr to suffrage, to the effectiv~ enforcement of constitutional and natnral rights, ana to the promotion of the best interests of the whole country, by the elimination of 

sectionalism from politics, a committee of seven Sena.rors be appointed by the 

Chair, and charged with the duty of inquiring as to the expediencv and practica.· bility of encouraging and promoting by all just and proper methOds the partial migration of colored persons from those States and congressional districts where 

they are not allowed to freely and peacefully exercise and enjoy their constitutional rights as American citizens, mto such States as may desue to teceive theiij. a,pd will protect them in said rights, or into such Territory or Territories of the 

United States as may be provided for their use and occupation; and if said com- mittee shall deem such migration expedient and practicable, that they report by bill or otherwise what in their judgment is the most effective method of accomplishing that object; and that said committee have leave to sit during the rece s. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The resolution will lie on the table subject to the call of the Senator from Minnesota. 

Mr. WINDOM. Let it be printed. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT~ It will be printed. 

LAURENA C. P. HASJU..~S. 

Mr. McMILLAN. I desire to call attention to an order made yesterday upon the bill (S. No. 413) to increase the pension of Laurena. 

C. P. Haskins when it wa.s reached on the Calendar. On reaching the case upon the Calendar the bill was indefinitely postponed, at the 

instance of the chairman of the Committee on Pensions, [Mr. INGALLS. J I ask a reconsideration of the vote postponing the bill indefinitely, in order that the bill may ·resume its place upon the Calendar. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the request of the 

Senator from Minnesota that the yote by which the bill was indefinitely postponed be reconsidered ' The Chair hears none, and the bill 

will be placed on the Calendar. 

l\IESSAGE FR0:\1 THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. GEORGE M. 

ADAMS, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following bills; in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: 

A bill (H. R. No. 5477) to authorize the issue of C<'rtificates of 

deposit in aid of the refunding of the public debt; · A bill (H. R. No. 5548) to make United States notes receivable for 

duties on imports ; and 

A bill (H. R. No. 5808) to facilitate the refunding the national debt. 

The message also announced that the House insisted on its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. No. 

5312) making appropriations for the cQnsular and diplomatic service 

of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1880, and for other 

purposes, agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and had appointed 1\Ir. 

0THO R. SINGLETON of l\Iississippi, }!r. EUGENE HALE of Maine, 

a.nd Mr. HIEsTER CLTI:IER of Pennsylvania, managers at the con- ference. on· the part of the House. 

~"ROLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

The message further announced that the Speaker of the Honse had 
' 

' 

484 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY, 16, 

signed the following enrolled bills ; 

by the Vice-President : and they were thereupon signed Mr. INGALLS. The object of the bill is simply to remove the limitation that is imposed bv section 4709 of the Revised Statutes. I 

A bill (S. No. 605) for the relief of William M. Kendall; 

A bill (S. No. 893) to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to 

examine the evidence of payments made by the State of Missouri 

since April17, 1866, to the officers and privates of the mili.tia forces 

of said State for military services actually performed in the suppression of the 'rebellion, in full concert and co-operation with the autbor- itie~ of the United States and subject to their orders, and to make 

1·eport thereof to Congress ; 

A bill (H. R. No. 5503) to remove the political disabilities of James 

Chesnut, of South Carolina; and 

A bill (H. R. No. 5230) making appropriations for the support of 

the Military Academy for the fiscal year ending June 30, lstlO, and ·for other purposes. ARREARS 'OF PEXSIOXS. 

Mr. INGALLS. Mr. President, I have given notice on several occa- sions heretofore that at the conclusion of the pending bill, to amend 

the patent laws, I should ask the Senate to proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 4234, known as the bill in relation to arrearages 

of pensions; and ~ there is no business of the morning hour at this 

time before the Senate, I move now that the bill be taken up for 

consideration. 

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the 

Whole, proceeded to cons_ider the bill (H. R. No. 4234) to provide that 

all pensions on account of death, or wounds received, or disease con- tracted in the service of the United States druing the late war of the 

rebellion, which have been granted, or which shall hereafter be 

granted, shall commence from the date of death or discharge from 

the service of the United States, for the payment of arrears of pensions, and other purposes. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment. 

MI·. SAULSBURY. I 'Should like the chairman of the Committee on Pensions to im!icate to us something as to the amount of money 

which will be required to pay the pensions here provided for. We 

ought not to vote blindly on this matter. 

1\'Ir. INGALLS. Mr. President, in 1876, when a similar measure was pending before the Senate, I addressed a communication to the Commi~sioner of Pensions, and asked him for information in. regard 

to the amount which would be required to make the bill operative. 

I received from him a statement which was printed as Miscellaneous 

Document No. 113, at the first session. _of the Forty-fourth Congres , which gives in detail, as far as it could be ascertained from the rec- ords of the Pension Office, the amount that would be required to pay 

the arrears both of invalids and widows and dependents in each year 

since the adoption of section 4709 of the Revised Statutes. I do not 

know that it will be necessary to read specifically the annual amounts, 

but up to the 1st of Jan nary, 1876, the Commissioner reports that there were 16,454 invalid cases to which the limitation of the section applied, 

and the estimated amount of 11l'l'ears at that time was $9,529,775. The 

number of widows and dependents was 5,145. The amount required to 

pay the arrears of those would be "3,887,334; making a total at that 

time of $13,417,109. 

There have been three years since that date, and of course I can only estimate what amount would be required since this computation was made; but taking the estimate for 1875 as an average, my 

judgment would be that to this sum should be added not less than 

five million dollars for claims since allowed to which the limitation now applies. Of course these estimates are very largely in the nature 

of surmises, because we cannot tell until the bill is put practically in 

operation. exactly what will be required. · Mr. CONKLING. Making in all how much, as the Senator has it 

there! 

Mr. INGALLS. Making in all, up to the 1st of January, 1876, the sum af $13,417~109, and that amount I should judge would be increased ·by not less than $5,000,000 up to the 1st of January, 1879. 

Mr. CONKLING. Which makes about $19,000,000! 

Mr. INGALLS. I should judge somewhere from eighteen to twenty 

Inillion dollars, in round numbers. Of course it is impossible to make 

anything like an accur-ate calculation upon matters of this kind. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. I should like to inquire of the chairman of the 

Pension Committee whether the bill covers the cases of persons who 

have received pensions under special acts of Congress and not under 

the general law ! 

:Mr. INGALLS. The bill does not cover cases where pensions have 

been granted by special act. The uniform custom and practice of the 

Pension Committee has been in no case to allow pensions unless they were claims that had been rejected for some informality of evidence 

before the Commissioner of Pensions. Therefore in all those ca5es 

where special acta have been passed since I have been a member of 

the committee, for the last six years, the claims bad been originally . rejected, and therefore are not technically allowable under the gen- eral pension la.w: The committee believed that this class of,. caSes, 

therefore, should not be included in legislation of a general character; 

but in case these pensionere should be thought entitled to arrears it 

would require some legislation of a different character. 

Mr. FERRY. I desire to ask the chairman of the committee whether 

the bill applies to all pensioners under the general law, those who 

have received their pensions as well as those who may hereafter re- ceive them! 

will read it: ~ 

.All pensions which ba>e been, or which may hereafter be, granted in conse- quence of death occm·ring from a cause which originated in the service since the 

4th day of March, 1861, or in consequence of wounds or injuries received or dis- ease contracted since that date, shall commence from the death or disohaqte of the 

person on whose account the claim has been or is hereafter granted or from the te~a~on of the right ?f party hning :prior title to such ~ensi.on ; provided the 

appbcation for such pens10n has been or IS hereafter filed with the Commissioner 

of Pensions within five years after the right thereto has accrued; otherwise the 

:~fishs~ sa~~ence from the date of filing the last evidence necessary to 

Mr. FERRY. Then it is simply the removal of the limitation. 

Mr. INGALLS. It is the removal of what is known as the fivey,ear limitation clause of section 4709. 

Mr .. CliRISTIANCY. I wish also to address an inquiry to the 

chairman of the Committee on Pensions. I do not profess to know 

much about tlie pension law; but I will ask if there -are not cases under the pension law as it now stands in which a party becomes 

first. en~itled to a pension s<;>me time afte~· his discharge from the 

service m consequence, for rnstance, of dtsease contracted in th6 

service, bnt which has not reached the point of such disability as to 

entitle him to a pension until perhaps a year or two after his discharge V Are there not cases of that kind ' 

Mr. INGALLS. I do not know that I quite comprehend the question of the Senator. 

:Mr. CHRISTIANCY. Here is a soldier who has been discharged oh a ce~ain day. ~e has contracted the seeds of disease during his 

serviCe, but the dtsease does not develop to such an extent as to entitle him to a pension until some years after his discharge. Are there 

not cases of that kind f 

Mr. INGALLS. I presume there are. Mr. CHRISTIANCY. Then I would suggest that such cases ou(J'ht 

to be provided. for in this bill, because the bill makes the pension 

date from the death or discharge. It Inight, therefore, entitle such :11 

person to a pension during a portion of time in which be should not 

be entitled to a pension. 

Mr. INGALLS. Undoubtedly the intention and object of this bill 

where it uses the word "dischar~e," is that the pension shall date 

from the discharge when the disatlility is the cause of the discharge. 

I presume that the case the Senator from Michigan refe1-s to would 

not come within the provisions of the bill, because there must be a. p1'ima facie case established in the discharge papers of the claimant 

in order to entitle him to a pension upon them without additional 

evidence. If it appears that the ·soldier was discharged for disability resulting from a gunshot wound, that is a specific fact of which 

the Pension Bureau would take notice; but in cases where the disease 

arises after the discharge I do not under8tand that the bill would 

carry the pension back to the date of the discharge. 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. As the bill now reads, if I can really understand English and understand the case, I think it would. 

Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. To what lines of the bill does the Senator 

refer T 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. I will read the first section down to the proviso, and then it will be seen: · · 

That all pensions which have been granted under the general laws regnlatin~ 

pensions, or may hereafter be granted, inconsequence of death from a cause which 

originated in the Unired States service durin~ the continuance of the late war of 

the rebellion, or in consequence of wounds, mjuries, or disease received or con- trooted in said service during said war of the rebellion, shall commence from the 

date of the death or discharge from said service of the person on whose a.ccOt:wt 

the claim has been or shall hereafter be granted, or from the termination of ijle right of the party having prior title to such nension. 

It seems to me this language does cover a period of time during 

which the party ought not to receive a pension. If, for instance, he 

has contracted a disea.se during the war and before his diRcharge 

which has not yet sufficiently developed to entitle him to a pension, 

but may do so a year or two afterward, and has done so, I see no rea- son why, under this or any other bill, he should receive a pension for 

the particular period intervening between the discharge and the actual 

disability. 

1\lr. FERRY. I ask my colleague if that does not depend upon the 

proof Y The bill covers such a case. The proof is required that the 

disease was contracted in the military service. . It seems to me that 

it depends entirely upon the proof, and the case would rest there. · .Mr. CHRISTIANCY. But the pension "shall commence from the 

date of the death or discharge." 

Mr. FERRY. Yes, but that depends upon the proof. To be sure, 

the pension would commence from the discharge of the soldier, but 

it depends entirely upon the proof of the disease, whether it was con- tracted in the service or not. 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. In re~ard to time he is to be entitled to a pension from the date of his d1scharge when he may not have become 

entitled to it for a year or two after. . Mr. }"'ERRY. My colleague asks if, under the bill, the pension 

would not da;te from the discharge when the soldier has not proved 

his disease or disability at the time of the discharge. 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. No; not exactly that. 

Mr. FERRY. Then I do not understand my colleague. . l'rlr. DAVIS, of West Virginia. There seems to be a lette:r, which 

the chairman of the Committee on Pensions haa k-indly handed me1 
1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.:_SENATE. 485 

from the Commissioner of Pensions, which contains considerable information on this subject, together with an estimate of the expense 

involved. I would sugO'est that it had better be read for the information of the Senate. ft is not very long. 

Mr. INGALLS. There is but a very small portion of the communi- ~ation to which the Senator alludes that relates to the subject now nnder consideration. If he will examine it minutely, he will see th.at 

all that refers to it is on page 4. The rest refers to the ;J?roposed legislation in regard to the penswning of the surviving sold1ers of the war of 1812. i: would suggest that the Secretary merely read that part.-on 

page 

4

' · · · 'I'h t · 11 tha. t 't · t l\Ir. DAVIS, of West Vngm1a. a lS a 1 IS necessary o read. The part relating to the bill now before us is all that it is neces- sary to read, and the chairman of the committee says it is on tJ;le last 

page. I think he will find something on another page relatmg t.o this bill. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

This section not only provides for the payment of arrears in claims all,1udicated, 

but also includes claims hereafter to be allowed. The sum of nearly $16,000,000 

will be required; for the latter class a. largely increased anunal.appropriati~n will 

be necessary, as each year will add to the sum due to each pens10~e~. Du.J:ing !he next fiscal yea.r the sum needed over that made necessary by eXISting legu!lation will probably exceed $4,000,000. 

Mr. DORSEY. I think the criticism of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. CHRISTIANCY] is a very just one, as I have had some practical experienee in that matter. It has not been more than a month 

since a soldier who served under me during the war was given a pension, thirteen years after his discharge, the disability not being developed for :five or six years after the discharge was made, though 

the cause of it occurred during his service in the· Army. I know of 

several such pensions having been granted. As this bill now reads, 

it seems to me such pensioners could get their an-ears from the elate 

of discharge when as a. matter of fact they would not be entitled to 

them at all They ma.y have been regularly discharged as soldiers, 

not discharged for any disability. The disability may have occurred 

three, four, six, or eight years, or, as in the case I have just alluded 

to, thirteen years after the discharge. I suggest to the chairman of 

the committee that after the word " death,'' in line 9 of section 1, he 

insert "disability" before "discharge;" so as to rea.d "from the date 

of the death, disability, or discharge." 

Mr. INGALLS. Let that clause be reporte(l by the Clerk as it 

would stand if amended. 

The SECRETARY.' On line 9, after the word "death," it is suggested 

to insert "disability;" so as to read: 

That all pensions which have been P'anted under the general laws regula~g 

pensions, or may hereafter be granted, m consequence of death from a clfuse which 

originated in the United States service during the continuance of the late war of 

the rebellion, or in consequence of wounds, injuries, or disease received or con- tracted in said service daring said war of the rebellion, shall commence from the 

date of the death, disability, or discharge from said service of the pet-son. on. wh?se account the claim b.as been or sha.ll hereafter be grant~d, or from the termmation 

of the right of the party having prior title to sucli pension. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of 

the Senator from Arkansas, [Mr. DoRSEY.] 

)fr. KERNAN. Mr. Presi(lent, I am not very familiar with the pension laws; but I think the construction of this House bill as now presented would, in connection with the pension laws as they exist, 

have the effect of only giving the pension from the date of the death or the injuries that caused the disability. If that is so, as I believe 

it is, without having had an opportunity to exarpine it carefully, I 

should regret this amendment, only because it serfds this bill back to 

the House. I desire very much that this bill shall pass. It is nothing 

but carrying out' the pledge that was given to the men who went 

into the Army that if they died or if they were disabled their widows 

and children should have a pension, which of cours~ would date from 

the time the man died, or, if he did not die, from the time when he was disablec!. The amount involved, I concede, is large, but this 

people and this Government are able and willing to pay what they are fairly obligated to pay to this class of persons. 

T hope the bill will pass, and I cannot believe there is danger that 

it will get a construction different from what Congress means; and if 

we pass it now as it is it will not have to go back to the House and 

be in danger of delay. Every Senator knows that there is a large 

number of women, representatives of deceased soldiers and of disabled soldiers, that feel the want of these arrears, which l think are due them. They need the money now; and they write imploringly to us, urging us to act upon the bill. I hope it may pass as it is, not 

belie'\Ting that there·is danger that where a man did not become sick 

until years afterward the Department will nllow a pension from the 

date of his discharge in good health. 

:Mr. FERRY. I now understand the object of my colleague. I call 

the attention of the Senator from Arkansas to the :fifth line where 

it is said that the pension shall have been'' granted in consequence · of death from a cause which originated in the United States service." 

Now, if the disease does not develop for even thirteen years, as stated 

by the Senator from Arkansas, the cause may be dated back to the 

service in the United States Army, apd must necessarily in order to 

entitle t~e pensioner to a pension. U seems to me that the amendment proposed by the Senator from Arkansas ought to be amended so as to refer to the proof of disability, and not simply the fact of 

disability, because if he will look to line 5 he will see that it dates 

back to the cause and is not necessarily dependent upon the development of the disea-se, and it seems to me thnt the amendment should cover proof of d)sability. 

Mr. DORSEY. I do not object to that . . :Mr. HOAR. That is inserting in the bill the Tery prineiple at which 

the bill is aimed, to wit, to have the pension paid from the time the 

title to the pension accrued witheut regard to the delay in the proof. 

Mr. INGALLS. In my judgment there is no danger of any injuri- ous or dangerous construction being pla~ed upon this measure by 

the Commissioner of Pensions; . and I nm very confident that the case which the Senator from :Michigan ~ggests is one that is not likely - under any circumstances to arise. This is a bill supplemental to the 

general law re~ting the subject of pensions, and will of course be 

construed in accordance "With the general principles and policy of that 

statute. I therefore venture to express the hope that those frien<ls 

of the bill who desire that it should become a law will reject all suggestions for amendment unless they shall be shown to be much more necessary than I believe that to be. 

Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, if I remember the language correctly 

the statute just now read by the SenatorfromKa.nsas gives a pension 

in case the application is made within :five years, to date from the 

death or from the discharge, using the very words which are used in 

this section now under consideration. Is not that so 'f 

Mr. INGALLS. The precise language is as follows : 

Shall commence from the death or discharge of the person on whose account the 

claim has been or is hereafter granted, or from the termination of the right of 

party having prior title to such pension. 

Mr. HOWE. These are the very words employed here-" from the 

date of the death f)r discharge." Now, the object of this bill, if I 

understand it, is simpl to give to the claimant who applies for a pension after :five years have expired· precisely the pension that he would 

get if he applied before the eXP,iration of the :five years. 

:Mr. FERRY. Yes; but the object of the amendment suggested by 

my colleague is that he should not hav-e n, pension earlier than the 

time he proved that the disability occurred. 

Mr. HOWE. Precisely; but under the present law if the application be made within the :five years, does the claimant get a pension 

earlier than the proof shows that the disa.bility occurred 'f ~Ir. FERRY. This covers broader ground than the present law. 

That is the point made by my colleague. It would date back to the 

time of discharge. 

Mr. HOWE. Why date back to the time of discharge 1 ~Ir. FERRY. So the bill provides. 

Mr. HOWE. The present law is that if he applies within five 

years his pension shall date from the discharge; but suppose the 

proof shows that the disability was subsequent to the discharge ' 

Mr. FERRY. The point made by the Senator from Arkansas is 

that in the case which he has cited of twelve or thirteen years ex- piring before the development of the disease, the party should not 

receive a pension from the date of discharge, but only from the date 

of the development of the disease. Now if the limitation of :five 

years is removed according to this bill, the claimant will be entitled 

to a pension from the date of discharge, provided he proves that the 

disease originated in the military service of the United States. 

Mr. HOWE. If I understand the case referred to by the Senator 

fTom Arkansas, it is the case of a claim made within :five years. 

Mr. FERRY. Oh, no; he cited the case of one claiming after 

twelve or thirteen years. 

Mr. DORSEY. I alluded to a case where the claim was not made 

until within the last three or four months. 

Mr. FERRY. Thirteen years after the war. Mr. DORSEY. Thirteen years after the discharge, and the pension was al.lowed, proof having been submitted to show that the man con- tracted his disease more than thirteen years a(}'o, but that it had not 

:finally developed until recently. I have no doubt that the suggestion made by the Senator from .Michigan--

Mr.COCKRELL. Will theSenatorspeaklouderf Wehavescarcely 

heard a word that has been uttered on that side of the Chamber, and we should like very much to hear what is being said, as we are cor- recting errors which have occurred in the past. · The Vice-President rapped to order~ 

Mr. DORSEY. Mr. President, to repeat substantially what I said, a soldier who was discharged in 1864, not for 'disability at all, but by reason of the expiration of his term of service, has recently applied, 

within the last four or :five months, for a pension, which has been 

granted him on the ground that he contracted a disease, which has 

just developed itself, while he was in the military service. Under 

this bill~ as it is reported by the committee, I think this soldier would 

be entitled to thirteen years' arrears of pension, while during those 

thirteen years he was just as well perhaps as any other person, and 

able to earn his owu living. 

I suggest that in lieu of the amendment I proposed, the one suggested by the Senator from Michigan farthest from me, [Mr. l<'ERRY,] . to wit, that proof of disability shall be the date from which arrears of pensions shall be paid, be adopted. I ihink that will correct the error. · ~Ir. FERRY. And I follow that by the suggestion that the whole 

theory of the pension law is on the basis of d1sability. If for thirteen years a claimant has pursued the avocations of life without the 

knowledge of any disability, certainly without the development of a 
486 COKGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 

disability, he should not be paid for the thirteen years in which he 

had no knowledge of such disability arowing out of military service. 

It seems to me that if it is based on the proof of disability, he would 

be paid by the Govemment all that he is entitled to by bein~ paid 

from the time of disability. If he has lived thirteen years without 

the knowledge of any disability occurring while he was in the military service, certainly he ought not to be paid a pension for that time 

simply on the development of a disease which he imagines, as may 

be the fact, has grown out of service under military orders. 

Mr. HOAR. I should like to inq.nire of the honorable Senator from 

Michigan how he justifies the bill at all if he supports that particn-" 

lar amendment! I understand that there are a vast number of pensioners who did not make their proof of disability in time. 

1.\lr. FERRY. I answer the Senator frem .Massachusetts on that 

point by his permission. The difficulty has been occasioned simply 

by ,neglect, simply by want of knowledge. I am not disposed to deprive a just .claimant for a pension of his rights simply because he 

has failed to make his proof in time, probably owing to lack of knowledge of the statute. 

Mr. HOAR. That I un9.erstand; but I understand that the amendment which the Senator seems to be supporting proposes to make the 

period of proof of disability the time for the beginning of the pension in all cases, not in the case merely of disease which has developed into disability recently, but in all cases. That is the proposition 

of the Senator from Arkansas. 

Mr. FERRY. Not at all. I recall the attention of the Senator from 

Massachusetts to line 9, where the language is that all pensions "shall commence from the date of the death or discharge." Now it is proposed to add to that "or proof of disability." 

Mr. II OAR. But if you add "from the proof of disability," then 

you would put the limit for all pensions on account of disability at 

the time of proof, which is the very thing that the· bill intends to 

change. 

Mr. FERRY. The Senator perhaps is a little more technical than 

lam. 

Mr. HOAR. My criticism is not of the position of the honorable 

Senator, but upon the form and the language which is proposed by 

the Senator from Arkans~. · · Mr. FERRY. I accept the criticism of the Senator from 1\Iassachusetts. Then I onld move to amend the proposition of the Senator 

from Arkansas by adding, after "disability," the word "proved;" so as to read " from the time of the disability proved." 

Mr .. HOAR. Will the Senator allow me to make a suggestion f 

1\Ir. FERRY. I will hear the suggestion. . Mr. HOAR. Add at the end of the section, where it says "P1·o·diled, 

the rate of pension for the intervening time," &c., this : And that no pension for disability shall be granted for any period hefore such 

disability occurred. • 

Mr. FERRY. That will do. That is substantially what I proposed 

in the modification of the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas, 

that it ought to be upon the disability proved. I accept the proposition o~ the Senator. 

Mr: HOAR. I do not mean by making that suggestion to say that it seems to me ay amendment ought to be made, because I am inclined tl() concur with tfie Senator from Kansas, who reported the bill, in thinking that the Department may be safely trusted tO make n. construction so consistent with the general purpose of the pension law that 

they will not grant persons pensions for a period of time before which 

they are entitled to them under the law, not merely by reason of the 

fact tbat,they have not made their proof, but by 1·eason of the fact 

that the cause does not exist. I only make that suggestion so that in case the Senate propose to make an amendment, they may have one that does not go further than the Senate intend. 

Mr. FERRY. One moment in that connection. I have a case in 

mind where a pension was granted and upon subsequent examination 

it was found that there wa-s fraud practiced and that the claimant was not entitled to a pension. lt seems to me that if the amendment 

proposed as now modified and perfected by the Senator from· Massachusetts should be adopted, it would prevent any such occurrence and 

any such fraud upon the Go>ernment. If a claimant shall prove that 

the disability be experiences occurred by service under the Government, then certainly he is entitled to a pension, but only from the 

time that he proves the disability occurred in such service. Now, if it 

is proposed here that no amendment .shall be made when we have a month and a half of time to have a bill perfected here and go to the 

House and be concurred in there, if it be proposed that this bill shall 

be passed simply as it comes from the House, without any modification, we may as well surrender any criticisms that may be made by 

Senators. It seems to me there is time enough to perfect this bill and 

let it go back to the House and have all proper amendments concurred 

in. It was passed by a large majority in the House, and I ha.ve no doubt that any amendment made by the Senate will be concurred in 

by the House. Certainly the Senate ought not to w:W.ve its right to 

perfect the bill according to the li~ht it now possesses. 

Mr. INGALLS. Mr. President, ~enators appear to treat this bill as if it was in some way an innovation upon existing law, or an n.ttempt 

to introduce a new principle in regard to the administration of pensions. But I want to call the attention of the Senate back again to 

this point that the purpose of this bill is simply to removo a li.mita.- tion that was imposed in section 4709 of the Revised Statutes, which 

was in itself arbitrary, which was unnecessary, which was unjust, 

and which finds no parallel, so far as I am aware, in any other legislation of Congress. Let me call the attention of the Senate to the 

law ~ it originally stood in 1862 when the first bill on the subject of 

pensiOns was passed. I read from volume 12 of the Statutes at Large, 

chapter 166, section 5: 

That pensions which may be grant-ed, in pursuance of the provisions of this act, to persons who may have been or shall be employed in the military or naval serv- iceof the United States, shall commence on the c:ta.y of the discharge of such per- sons in all cases in which the application for such provisions is filed within one year after the date of said discharge; and in cases in which the application is not filed during said year, pensions granted to persons employed as aforesaid shall commence on the day of the filing of the application. 

Here was~ then, in 1862 a limita.tion provided of one year, but if the 

application was made within that year, then in case the application was granted the pension should date back to the time when the 

discharge wa made. 

In 1864 the law was again amended. I rea-d from Yolume 1:~, chapter 

247, section 6 : 

That no pension claim now. ou file, uuless prosecuted to a successful issue within three years from the passage of this act, and no claim hereafter filed not thus pro . oouted to a successful issue within five years from the date of such filing, shall l>e 

admitted without Ratisfactory record evidence from the War Department to establish the same; and in every case in which a claim for pension shall have been 

filed for more than three yearsThe Senate will observe that the period is here increased from one year to three yearsafter the discharge or decease of the party on whose account the claim is made the pension, if allowed, shall commence from the date of filing the last paper h; said case by the party prosecuting the same. 

This period, which had originally been one year and was subsequently extended to three years, was by the statute~ow in furce 

extended to five years, ancl the limitation in section 4709 of the Revised Statutes reads: 

Provided, The application for such pension has been or is hereafter filed with the 

Commissioner of Pensions within five years after the rig;ht thereto has accrued ; otherwise the pension shall commence from the date of filing the last evicl.ell'Ce 

necessary to establish the same. 

The Senate will observe, ~herefore, that the tendency of legislation 

has been toward a constant liberalization of the policy in regard to 

granting pensions; that the_ period, at first one year, was. extended 

to three years, and now stands at five; and the object of the pending legislation is, not to establish any innovation upon the law as it now exists, not to establish new principles of administration or of 

granting pensions, but simply to enlarge the period within which 

applications may be. made for the administration of the law upon 

the princ~le& as they have always existed. . Mr. FERRY. If the Senator will allow me, there are two limitations--

The VICE-PRESIDE~'T. 'The morning hour has expired. 

Mr. INGALLS. I move tha.t the pending measure in regard to tbe 

patent laws be laid aside to allow us to continue the debate on thi 

pension bill. 

Mr. WADLEIGH. Informally f 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Is there ,.,.eneral consent that the unfinished business be informally laid aside! The Chair hears no objection. 

Mr. FERRY. The chairman of the Committee on Pensions will 

observe that the object of the last law was to remo-ye two limitations; 

iu the fu'St place, the limitat.ion of five years within which proof 

should be made; and second, the limitation of the date of the pension. That is the p~sent statute. Now, following out the liberal con- struction that is proposed to be made by the modification of the law, 

the pending bill designs, I suppose, to remove the limitation of the 

proof. 

Mr. INGALLS. Certainly; but the Senator still misapprehends my 

point. The language that is employed in the first section of this·bill 

is precisely the language now existing in section 4709 of\be Revised 

Statutes. 

Mr. FERRY. I understand that. 

Mr. INGALLS. And the removal Qf the period of limitation will 

in no way whatever affect the principles upon which pensions are granted. 

Mr. FERRY. As I understand lines 9 and 10, the pension" shall commence from the date of the death or discharge." 

Mr. INGALLS. That ~as been the law uniformly from the beginning of the Government. . Mr. FERRY. Exactly; but the present law limits the proof to 

within five years, and ·the previous law limits the pension, a.Rd also 

the law which provides the proof, to· be 'vithin five years, and limits 

the date of pension to the date of proof. 

1\Ir. INGALLS. No, 1\Ir. President, the limitation of 1862 and t!Je · 

limitation of 1864 did not interfere with the principles. upon which 

pensions were then administered nor affect the general subject of the granting of pensions; but under those limitations, the one-year limitation and the three-year limitation, if the application was made 

within tho e periods, then the pension dated back to the time of the 

death or discharge precisely as provided ,in this bill. · 1\Ir. FERRY. Then I did not understand the Senator in the statement of the effect of the law. If that be the ease, then t]J.~ object of 

this bill is simply to remove the limitation of proof. 

Mr. INGALLS. That is all. 
., 

1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 487 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Arkansas accept 

the amendment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts! 

Mr. DORSEY. Yes, sir. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The question then is on the amendment 

of the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. HoAR.) 

Mr. DAWES. I should like to hear the amendment proposed by 

my colleague. The VICE-PRESIDENT. It will be read by the Secretary. In lieu 

.of the amendment first proposed by the Senator from Arkansas and 

next by the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Massachusetts 

proposes what will be read. 

The SECRETARY. At the end of the first section it is proposed to 

.addAnd that no pension for disability shall be granted for any period before such 

disability occurred. • 

:Mr. DAWES. I should like to call the attention of my colleague 

to this view: the disability must originate before the discharge. I 

take it a man is not entitled to any pension who has not incurred :aome disability before his discharge, although it does not develop 

itself so as to be apparent until some years after. . 1\Ir. FERRY. But if the Senator from Massachusetts will allow 

me, the proposition of this bill is, as illustrated by the case cited by th~ Senator from Arkansas, that if the development does not occur for twelve or thirteen years the party shall be entitled to a pension 

during that time as well as thereafter. 

1\Ir. DAWES. And I am inquiring whether my colleague's amendment meets the case. Mr. FERRY. I understand that it does. · Mr. DAWES. With this idea, whether if the seeds of the disease 

originated in the service, the disability may not be said to have oc- curred then, and only deV"eloped, shown afterward by working out· into some effect upon the system f · Mr. HOAR. I think my colleague will see that the statute makes 

very plain the distinction _between a disability, which is after :ill 

simply an inability on the part of a man. to use his mind or body in 

the natural way, and the cause of the disability. The bill says, in 

the fifth line, speaking of the death: 

Death from a cause which originated in the United States service * * * or in consequence of wounds, injuries, or disease received or contracted in said serv- ice. 

·1\Ir. DAWES. I only called my collea~e's attention to it because 

I agree with the chairman of the committee that it is better not to 

amend the bill at all, and it seemed to me it was possible an uncer- tainty was introduced by the very phraseology which was suguested. 

I may not be correct, however. o 

Mr. HOAR. It seems to me that under the fifth section, making a distinction between the canso and the disability, this addition that 

the pension shall' not begin until the disability begins is sufficiently 

clear and Cft.nnot p068ibly lead to any difficulty. I will state a case which c~m~ un~er.my oWl!- knowledge in my own city about a year ago. 

A.. very drst1~gmshed soldier. had a b?-llet wound thr~mgh the jaw, the 

effect of whrch was not to disable him from the ordinary occupations 

o:f life. For a good many years after he had a bad sore in the· jaw. 

The effect of that was an incapacity to relish food, and at times an .absolute incapacity to eat to any considerable extent, and that developed into a pulmonary disorder. When he got from that pulmonary disorder in a condition that he could not work or perform the 

ordinary occupations o:f life, then his disabilitY. began, and not till 

then. · 

Mr. VOORHEES. Mr. President, the Senators from Massachusetts .are wrong in assuming that this bill attempts to fix any rules of 

proof. It does not. It seeks to change no rules of evidence heretofore established in the allowance of pensions. · · Mr. DAWES. Allow me to· say that I had no such idea as that. I 

supposed it only removed a limitation, and that precisely the same construction would be applied to the law a:fter the passage of this 

bill as before, saving this question of the limitation. There wns a suggestion of an amendment, and I was discussing the construction 

that might possibly be put upon the phraseology of the amendment 

to the bill, which was suggested by my colleague. 

Mr. VOORHEES. Yes. 

Mr. HO~. The Senator from Indiana undoubtedly did not hear 

what I sard when I first rose. An amendment was offered which 

seemed to me to defeat the object of the gentleman who offered it 

and I sng~ested to him a phrase which would accomplish that object 

.and would. not destroy the effect of the bill, saying, however, that I 

tloubted whether any amendment at all was necessary. 

Mr. VOORHEES. I did not hear that. Now, Mr. President, I hope no amendment will bo attached to this bill. As a member of the 

Committee on Pensions it has been my duty to examine it. It is simple in its character. The principle on which pensions are allowed at 

all is that at the time of a IDan's death in the service of his country 

those who arc dependent upon him have a ri~ht to the pension; or if 

he has not suffered death, but has been disablE}d by wounds received 

in battle or by disease contracted in the service, his right to his coun- try's beneficence thou accrues to him at once. That is the principle 

and the purpose of this bill is to carry it out. It simply says to thos~ who have. been disabled by wounds or disease, and to such as have 

been depnved of support by death, that they shall receive theirpen- ·sions from the date of death or disability, not withstanding they may 

not have made their application or their. proof within the limitation 

of time now on the statute-book. That is all there is in this bill. It 

asserts no new principle, but wipes· out a statute of limitation. 

Mr. FERRY. If the Senator will allow me a moment, it seemB to me that it covers still more than that. The object of the law of 11:!64, 

cited by the cB.airman of the committee, seemed to be to provide 

enough time for the claimant to prove his ca-se, giving him five years. 

Now nearly fourteen years have expired since the war closed. The 

proposition of this bill is to remove the limitation of five years an.d 

give every claimant the right t9 come forward and prove his disability and receive a pension from the time of his d~charge. It seems to me that five years was sufficient time for the claimant to satisfy himself that he was entitled to a pension for disability. Now, if the disability does not develop until the present year, fourteen years after 

the expiration of the war, it seems to me if he gets a pension from 

the time that his disability occurred, allowing fourteen years to 

elapse before he himself was aware of the disability, the legislative • power of the Government has been sufficiently gen~ous. 

The l![Oposition of this bill is to remove the limitation of proof in . the case of a claimant whose disability develops at the late date of 

thirteen or fourteen years after the expiration of the service, so that 

he shall not be debarred from the right to a pension by the present 

limitation o:f the statute. 

Mr. VOORHEES. For the purposes of the Senator's argument he assumes that the disability spoken of in this bill is to be developed now or at some recent time. The question when the disability develops is a matter of evidence; it is a question of proof to be decided 

by tbe Commissioner of Pensions. If it is shown by the evidence 

that this disability is of r00#3nt development, it would be a circumstance tending to justify the rejection of the claim. This bill, however, goes on the theory that a man has been disabled in the service, 

makes satisfactory proof of that fact, and has been honorably discharged from the service of his country. Now, let me ask the Senator a question. In such a case contemplated by this bill, where no doubt 

is left that actual disability or death took place in the service of the 

Government, would he reject the application for a pension because it was not made in five years or even in twenty years! 

Mr. FE.RRY. That would be an exceptional case. Mr. VOORHEES. The very kind of case we are oontemplatingand 

legislating for. 

Mr. FERRY. •General statutes do not provide for special cases. Now, I call the attention of the Senator, who is a member of the 

committee, to a case I have in mind, where within five years the 

claimant obtained a pension, and it was shown afterward that the 

proof was not sufficient and the claim was canceled and tl;le pension 

revoked. Now, under the present statute it is not an obliga tion on the part of the claimant thR.t he should prove his disability; he is 

entitled to a pension if he has been dischar~ed within the five yea.rsMr. VOORHEES. Certainly not. The bill does not so read. 

Mr. FERRY. So I read it. 

Mr. VOORHEES. Let me read the bill and compare it with the 

existing law. · · 

Mr. FERRY. I am talking about the present law. \Vtthili five ye~ any soldier claimant is entitled upon proof of discharge, or his 

herrs on proof of his death, to a pension. Now, the proposition of the 

present bill is to remove the limitation of five years and give every 

claimant the right to prove his disability. I say tha~ after the lapse 

of thirteen years, during which a man has not been conscious of disability growing out of service in the war, certainly be is not entitled 

to a pension ; out if he can prove and trace his disability to a disease 

contracted in the service, then he should be entitled to a pension from 

the date of the disability. If he has lived thirteen years without the 

knowledge of any such disease causing a disability or without the 

experience of the disability, certainly the Covernment ought not to 

pay him fer a time during which he considered himse:! perfectly wen, 

not experiencing any disability occurring by reason of service in the 

Army. . 

Mr. VOORHEES. I think the Senator from Michigan mistmderstan.ds both the existing law and the pl'Oposed legislation. Allow me to read section 4709 of the Revised Statutes: 

All pensions which have been, or which may hereafter be, granted in consequence of death occurring from a cause which originated in the service since the 4th day of March, 1861: or in conseg_nence of wounds or injuries received or disease con- tracted since tna.t date, shall commence from the death or discharge of the person on whose account the claim has been or is hereafter granted, or from the termina. 

tion of the right of party having prior title to such pension . 

Mr. KERNAN. Will the Senator allow me to put an inquiry! As 

I understand, the Pension Bureau has construed that to mean that he 

shall only draw pension from the time when he was actually disabled 

from the cause which occurred in the war, and then this law would 

be in exact harmony with it. 

Mr. VOORHEES. Precisely. The Senator from New York has 

caught the idea. 

Mr. FERRY. Allow me. lf I am not mistaken, in all special cases that have been re{)orted by the Committee on Pensions they have 

invariably given a pension from the date of the passage of the law. 

Mr. INGALLS. Why f . Mr. FERRY. I ask why. Mr. INGALLS. Because the cases upon which we have acted have 

been those that have-been rejected by t he Commissioners of Pensions. 

and therefore did not come within the provi!;io::J.s of the general Jaw. -
488 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 16, 

Yr. FERRY. For what reason has the rejection occurred, I ask 

the chairman of the committee! 

Mr. INGALLS. I have given the reason. ~. FERRY. Not. the re~on for rejection; simply the fact of 

rejection. 

Mr. -INGALLS. The rejection before the Commissioner of PensiQns was onder the general !a w, simply because there was a defect of proof or a disability on the part of the applicant to bring himself technically 

within the provisions of the law. 

Mr. FERRY. Then the case ha.s com~ to Congress because the 

limitation of five years has excluded the party. 

:Mr. INGALLS. Oh, no. Ml'. VOORHEES. I decline to yield ·further until I get through 

with comparing the existing law and the proposed legislation. I have 

read the statute so far as it goes until the proviso comes in. The proviso is: 

• P rovided, The application for such pension has been Oi' is hereafter filed with 

tb,e Commissioner of <ll'ensions within th·e years after the right thereto has ac- crued. 

· Now, sir, I desire to show that the bill under consideratiortreads 

exactly, word for word, as section 4709 does, with the exception of 

the proviso. It asserts nothing new, only leaves the proviso out. 

The present law, section 4709, pro-vides that a man's pension shnJ.l commence from the date of death or discharge, and as -the Senator 

from New York ha-s well suggested, the Pension Bureau has construed 

it to mean that no pension shall begin prior to the alleged disability. 

The position, therefore, of the Senator from Michigan need deter no- body from voting for this bill, the Pension Office haVing, as I said 

before, construed the existin~ law to mean that the pension shall not run back further than the di.Sability is sl:iown to exist, and the proposed legislation is word for word the same on that point as the law 

under which this construction has been made. 

Mr. FERRY. Will the Senator allow me then to ask the question 

whether he is unwilling to express in a clear expression as a statute 

what .the law power determines, rather than-leave it to the construction of an administrative officer' 

"Mr. VOORHEES. The Senator from Michigan certainly knows 

.that there is a broad field left for the Commissioner Qf Pensions, in 

which he fixes the rules o~ evidence and the amount of proof. In 

fact the procuring of pensions is purely a question of :tact. Dayafter 

day cases that have been rejected by the Commissioner of Pensions are brought before the Committee on Pensions of this body. Why 'f 

Because. the claimant alleges that he made proo.f enou~h and the 

Commissioner says he has not. It is altogether a questiOn of fact, 

and it is useless to talre the time of the Senate in discussing the question of the sufficiency of evidence which can never be :fixed by general legislation. 

lli. FERRY. If the Senat-or will allow me, his view of the province 

-of the Commissioner of Pensions does not relate to the facts, but to 

the regulations requiring proof. My object is to state io the statute 

the fact of disability, and from that fact I certainly am disposed, as other Senators are, to allow a pension from the date of the fact proved. 

But if a man has lived for thirteen or fourteen years without the con- sciousness of any disability growing out of service under the Govern- m~nt, he certainly should not come in at this late period when proof 

is so uncertain, and get a pension covering that time, unless it is evident disability occurred. I have a case in mind where proof has been so doubtful that the Commissioner has been unwilling to receive it. ~ow, if you allow thirteen years to expire and -permit any claimant 

to come up here and prove that the seeds of disease which ha-s developed thirteen years since the war were planted during his service 

in the Army, and get a pension to date back to the end of the war instead of from disability, I think it is very doubtful legislation; it 

is very unsafe legislation, atld it is opening the Treasury to a large 

amount of claim~hat I think would not be sanctioned if the Senate 

understood their proportions. · It seems to me the proposition of the Senator from Massachusetts 

imply :fixes the date of the disability proved as the period for the pension to commence; and when a man comes,whetherfourteen years after 

the war ends or twenty-fi. ve years after the war ends, and proves that he 

has a disability that arises from seeds planted in the service of the 

Government, he should then oe entitled to his pension from the date 

of the proof, not from the date of his discharge--

Mr. HOAR. From the date of disability. . Mr. FERRY. From the date of the disability, I should have said. 

Mr. VOORHEES. The Senator from Michigan has two or three 

times spoken of this question of conscious and unconscious disability. 

He must know, as every Senator knows, that .all this will be a matter 

of proof. The applicant for a pension must prove that his disability 

did exist, and if one of the facts connected witq his claim before the 

Commissioner of Pensions is that he went about as a well man, betrayed no consciousness or appearance of disability, it would be a 

circumstance, as I have before said, tending to justify the rejection 

of his claim. But it is a question of fact; and this bill makes no change whatever upon that subject. . I answer the gentleman's question; he does not answer mine. I 

asked him awhile ago, in case a man did make proof satisfactory to 

the Senator himself of his disability in the service of his country, and 

had not applied within the five years, had allowed himself to be debarred by the statute of limi_tations either from ignorance, obscurity, 

poverty, or any other cause, whether the Senator therefore wot:Ad 

reject the claim. 

Mr. FERRY. I am ready to answer the question. I am not disposed to waive any ttuestion propOsed by the Senator from Indiana. 

I would answer that question flatly ami directly thus: if a claimant 

remains thirteen years, as it is at the preS'ent time since the .close of 

the war, without availing himself of the benefit of a statute of which 

he should have knowledge, and if in the absence of knowledge without the consciousness of any disability whatever-which of course is 

entirely personal to himself and following him day by day and hour 

by hour-if he fails within thirteen years to make application or present proof of the fact when he knew that upon a claim being made 

and proof made he would be entitled to a pension, then I say he shoulc1 

not be entitled to a pension until his disability had been made apparent by proof. • 

Mr. VOORHEES. The Senator and I differ. If a man had gone on his crutches with one leg off for the last thirteen years, and from 

pride or any other consideration had not applied for a pension, I 

would not deprive him of one now, if he asked for it, because of the 

statutory limitation. · 

Mr. FERRY. I do not allow the Senator to cite the case of a man without a limb, because that is proof in itself. If a man has gone 

with the loss of a limb for thirteen years without making application 

for a pension, that is his own default; there is proof sufficient entitling him to pension. But I would cite to the Senator's attention a ease-l will not name the case-where a pension was allowed under 

the present law upon the proof of a surgeon, and it was found afterward, upon a re-examination instituted by the Commissioner here 

under a new agency, that that very applicant went upon crutches to 

the surgeon, and after he left the surgeon's office he walked without 

crotches ; and thereupon the Commissioner, as was his duty, revoked 

the pension. 

Mr. VOORHEES. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. FERRY. I ask the Senator if he is disposed to open the Treasury to cases of that kind ; ru:d if they would occur within six or seven years after the war ended, certainly more such cases would occur as a longer time expired after tlie war . Mr. VOORHEES. Of course frauds occur under our pension laws.; 

of course claims are sometimes .allowed that ought not to be, and as soon as the officers of the Government discover that fact they strike 

them from the pension-roll properly and rightfully. This bill, however, does not make it any more easy to commit a. fraud than the present law, for it is in the very same words with the exception of the 

proviso as to time. 

Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, it seems to me that the debate has 

wandered somewhat from the question before the Senate. As -I un- derstan(l it, the question before the Senate is simply this; I can illustrate it by stating a fact. A very well-known member of the 

9ther House, who served with the honorable Senator from Indiana 

and myself and several other Senators, was thrown from his horse in one of the battles of the war and received a concussion. He was insensible a few .hours, but got over it apparently, and has been a member of Congress and an eminent lawyer doing a lru:ge business ever since. He had some symptoms which indicated to an experienced 

surgeon that he was likely to be exposed some time to paralysis, but 

they never till lately resulted in anything which in the least interfered with the labors of his professional and public life. Last sum- mer he was struck with paralysis. Now, I suppose every Senator 

agrees that that officer ought to receive a pension for the disability 

occasioned by that cause which occurred during the war, and every 

Senator agrees that that pension ought to begin from the time. of the 

paralytic dhock of last summer, and should not go back to the date 

of the battle where the original cause was received; and the only 

question is whether this bill as it is reported enables persons in a case like that to go back to the time of the original cause, or whether it 

limits it to the time of the commencement of the disability. • It is a. mere question of the construction of the language of the bill. My 

amendment makes that certain. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The question is on the a.menilinent proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts. 

Mr. BLAINE and others. _ Let it be reported. ~ 

The VICE-PRESIDENT . . The amendment will oe reported. 

The SECRETARY. At the end of the first section of the bill it is 

proposed to add- -

And that no pension for disability shall be gra.nted for any period before such 

disability occun:ed. 

Mr. INGALLS. I call the attention of the Senate to the fact that 

that is merely an atte.mpt to re-enact what is now the recognized 

principle of the Pension Bureau, and that the language &f the bill now before the Senate is identically the same in terms with the lan-· 

guage that has been employed in the pension laws of 1862, of 1A64, 

and of 1873, under which all pensions have been granted; and if 

under the law of 1864 the applicant made his claim within three 

years, then the pension "dated back within that period as the Commissioner of Pensions might see fit under the proofs to establish it, and that is all that can be done in this case if this bill becomes a law; 

and the Senators who are attampting to introduce an amendment 

here are arguing as if this intended some innovation upon existing 

law, which it does not do, a-a I have repeatedly said. The langytage. 
--1'· ·~· • 

• 

1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 

is exactly the same as it bas been under the pen ion system ever since 

the war of the rebellion began. · · Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, as there seems to be a great deal of 

difference of opinion in regard to this point, and as I have. no doubt 

that when the Commissioner of Pensions proceeds to put this law, if 

it shall become a law, into €ffect~ he will disco.-er that it will require 

additional legislation, I submit that it will be entirely safe to leave 

it till then, and if there be any defects in it they will be developed. 

Congress is in session every year, and it will be safe and wise to take 

the bill as it is. I have no doubt some amendment to it will be neces- sary. · I vote. for it with that belief, but I will vote for it with the belief 

that it is bett.er to do justice so far as it goes, aml when positi.-e 

defects are developed we shall be here to correct them in the interest 

of pensioners and in the interest of the Government. 

::\Ir. ~..,ERRY. I am not disposed to sit in my seat here and allow 

the Senator from Maine to suggest that those who are criticising this 

bin are opponents of the bill--

Mr. BLAINE. I did not say so. Mr. FERRY. Oro£ the principle of the bill. The remark of the Senator from Maine is a proposition that Senators sboulQ rest in their 

seats and decline to criticise and perfect the bill which is before them 

for consideration, and allow the Commissioner of Pensions, who is to 

execut.e the provisions of the bill, to discbarga the duties which Senators should perform. 

Mr. BLAINE. Ob, no; the Senator entirely misapprehended me. I certainly ha-d not the remotest idea of making a reflection on anybo<ly. What I meant was this. Here between Senators equa.lly entitled to an opinion there is a very grave difference as to the real mean- ing of the bill, as to the necessity of the amendment offered by the 

honorable Senator from !tbssaohusetts or that of the honorable Senator from Michigan. I said in view of that difference, which I do not 

profess to be sufficiently v,;ise to resolve, it is safe to do the justice 

which the bill now pending will do; and if there shall be developed 

any of tho evils which have .been suggested by the Se11ator from 

Michigan and the Senator from Massachusetts we shall be here to 

remedy them. That is all I said. We do substantial justice and make a great st.ep in that direction by taking this bill as it comes fro~ the 

House, instead of at this period of the session trusting it to any of 

the doubts and the dangers of a difference between the two branches. 

That is all I meant. 

Mr. FERRY. I have risen as an advocate of the ptinciple of the 

bill, and yet 1 am calling the attention of Senatore to the fact, and 

I think it :ls within the experience of most Senators that there are cases where fraud is attempted to be practiced. J have known cases to be presented to me where I thought fraud bad been practiced; 

and for that reason I, holding the responsibility of a double dutyduty to the claimants for pension and duty to the Treasury of the 

United Stat.efl, the property of the people at large-could not allow a. bill of this kind to pass without presenting my objections. Now, if 

in the judgment of the chairman of the Coomittee on Pensions the 

object of this bill is simply to remove a certain limitation, that is one 

phase; and certainly if th~t be the sole object there cannot be an objectiOn to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Massa-· chusetts, which provides that the pension shall be paid upon the disability occurring. · . I reiterate that if a. claimant has lived twel.-e or thirteen years 

since the war without the consciousness of a disability growing out 

of military service, certainly he ought not to be entitled to a pension 

until he himself is satisfied that be has suffered a disability growing 

out of such service. Why is it that 'Ye have constantly before 'each 

session of Congress bill after hill for specific cases, except it be that 

the parties have not applied within the five-year limitation, or except 

it be that the case proposed does not come within the provisions of 

law t Now the object is to remove every limitation, and my purpose 

is t• place it upon the simple fact that a claimant has suffered a disability, and it is on that principle and fact that our pension law is 

baseti. . . If it is proposed, after the lapse of fifteen, twenty, or twen~y-:five 

years, when all witnesses have died or disappeared, that a man shall come here, where it is so easy to obtain a certain kind of proof, and 

submit to the Commissioner of Pensions his claim for a pension and 

be entitled to it whether disability occurred or not, and demand from 

the Treasury of the United States money to be paid him in that regard, 

I say it is loose legislation, and I say it is opening the Treasury of the 

Unite'd States to an amount of draught which the people will not 

indorse. .At least I am disposed to support tho amendment as modified 

by the Senator from Massachusetts, which I think will cover the ca-se .. Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, upon a hast.y reading of this bill, 

when the point was first suggested by the Senator from Arkansas, it ·eemed to me that the language of the bill was so clear as to admit 

of hut one interpretation, and that was that no matter when the disability occurred the pension would date back to the discharge of the 

Esoldier. That was what seemed to me upon the first reading of the 

bill; but since I kave looked at the stature now in force and learned 

t he interpretation that has beeri gi.-en to that statute by the Department, and it bas been constantly act.ed upon, I do not suppose there 

is any danger of that interpretation being given to this bill if it 

shoulcl become a law which it seemed to me at :first sight was the n atural reading of the bill. But, lli. President, I find on looking a,t 

section 4i09 of the RCfiTised "'tatutes that this bill is substantially 

that section, omitting the fi>e-year limitation. In respect to th6' 

lauguage under consideration, it is identical in the statute and in the 

bill. It reads in the statuteShall commence from the death or discharge of the person on whose account theclaim has been or is hereafter granted. 

Now, there are five years allowed in which to make the claim. 

The disability may have occurred in the fourth year; the claim is. 

then made: Now, according to the very letter of that law, it w:ould seem that that man was to get his pension from his discharge, fouryears before the disa.bilityoccurred, just as it is supposed would be· the case under this bill. But the interpretation placed upon it bythe Department and steadily aeted upon, as I aJD told by the chair- man of the Committee on Pensions, is that in such a case he cannot 

go back to the date of his discharge, but only b~k to the date of thedisability, and that instead of getting a pension for five years hewould get one for one year.; that is, it would commence only 9ne· year back instead of five years back. If that is t~e settled int-erpre- tation of the law as it now stands, the same interpretation must be 

given to this bill if it shall be passed. 

Mr. FERRY. Will tho Senator allow me to call his attention tolines 9 and 10, where we propose to enact that it shall be from the--

death or discharge of the claimant f 

Mr. THURMAN. That is the very language of the law now in 

force. 

Mr. FERRY. Exactly. Now, if the Commissioner of Pensions in. the execution of this law does not conform to it, and we are repass-· ing a similar statute, is it not the desire of Congress that his administration should conform to the statute ' 

M1.·. THURMAN. No; there is no more familiar principle of law- than this, that when a statute uses langilage that is in a former law 

and which has received a settled construction, the presumption isthat its use in t'be subsequent statut.e is according to the meaning· that was given to the previous statute. That is a well-settled prin- ciple of the interpretation of statutes. And it is upon that ground 

that I can vot.e for the bill without the amendment. It would havebeen much better if the House had made it clear·by inserting the word 

" disability," as suggested by the Senator from Arkansas or still more-- clear by such an amendment as was snggested by the Senator from 

Massachusetts; but I really do not see how it can be necessary to· amend the bill in that respect in view of the fact that the bill is precisely what the present la~ is in the particular under consideration, 

and that these words" death" and" discharge" have received an inter-· pretation, as I am told, and no doubt correctly, by the chairman oi 

the Committee on Pensions, at the Department, which has never been 

departed from. 

For these reasons, although it would have been better that the bill 

should have been clearer in its language than it is, I can vote for it as it 

is; and it may be that there is something wise in the bill being as it 

is· for, if it were changed as has been suggested, it would seem to be a determination by Congress that the old law had been incorrectlyinterpreted. 

Mr. FERRY. One word more. As I understand now from the Sena- tor from Ohio· the administration of the present statute bas been, 

and the probable administration of this bill if it becomes a law will 

be, contrary to its provisions. That is to say, if a claimant files his--

claim at the present time, thirteen years after the expiration of the 

war, he will not be entitled to a pension except from the date of the 

proof of his disability. Now, I understand the proposition of the Senator from Ohio who bas last spoken is that he is willing to waive his- duty to so frame laws that there ca.n be no doubt upon the question 

of their construction, a.nd leaye it for the a.dministration of the Commissioner of Pensions. He says tha.t it is a rule well known that wher& 

there is an administration under a statut.e that administration will 

continue under different administmtive officers. My experience has- taught me that different officers have different jud~ments, and my 

duty hero as a legislator is to make the law so expliCit that there can· be no question upon its administration. 

Mr. THURMAN. As I am a little sensiti.-e upo my law, I beg to· correct my friend. I did not say that one admin: tration would do-· just precisely like another in the interpretation of the law. I said: 

this, that when words in a statute have received a fixed interpreta-- tion about which there is no doubt, when the same words are used in 

a subsequent statute on the same subject the presumption is that they- are used in the sense in which they were used in the previous statute .. Mr. FERRY. 7'hat may be the presumption, but I am talking 

about fact. I :find in lines 9 and 10 that every claimant on proof of 

his disability is to have a pension from the date of his discharge.- !£ this bill becomes a law, and the limitation of five years be removed, 

every claimant on proof of his disability is really entitled by this 

statute to his pension from the date of his discharge, because thos& 

lines read ''from the date of the death or discharge." If the present 

Commissioner construes this to mean from the time of the proof made, 

his succesS"or may not. If it is the proposition of the Senator from 

Ohio, and others who view the question as be does, that for fear thisbill may not become a law when we have a month and a half, six 

weeks, before us, for it to go back to the Honse to have our amendments concurred in, we should take it just as it is sent to us, then we mi~ht as well w:ti.ve our right here a-s Senators to criticise and fram&-

legtslation. . The proposition of the Senator from Massachusetts is to express ill" 
• 

490 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE . JANUARY 16: 

.a proviso that no claimant at this late period shall be allowed to 

date his pension prior to the occurrence of his disability when there-

.striction of five years shall be removed entirely. This bill allows any 

claimant to present his proof at any time, whether it be thirteen, 

ID.fteen, or twenty years after the war. If on this bill such a. propo ition as tbatof theamendment is voted down, it will be the judgment · of the Senate and virtually of Congress that the construction made by 

the Commissioner of Pensions shall be the rule of this Government, 

-that any man who, twenty-five years from this time if he pleases, shall 

prove that he suffers from disability growing out of military service . under the Government shall be entitled to a pension from the date of 

his discharge, not disability, or, in the construction or administration 

of the then Commissioner, from the date of the proof of his disability. 

1\Ir. MORRILL. Mr. President, I expect to vote for this bill or .something of the kind, but I trust the Senate is not to be deterred 

from perfecting a ltill that is to take fifteen or twenty millions ont of 

the Treasury by any fear lest any proper amendment shall not be .:adopted by the other House. There is ample time for its consideration there, and it is entirely unfounded to suppose that any proJ?er 

.amendment which may be made to this bill will not be received With 

favor by the other House. · AB I understand, nearly all the pensions that have been granted are i:o be reopened and a new account taken by the Commissioner of Pensions. It is not only to reopen the cases that have been barred by the 

()ne and three and five years limitation, but it is to reopen those which 

have been granted from the time the record of proof was made in 

the office instead of from the time of the disability; and I think that 

the chairman of the Committee on Pensions is mistaken in supposing 

that the pensions which have boon separately granted by Congress in 

special bi.Jls will not be reopened. I am very sure that in regard to 

.all thos~ acts which have been pasSed granting pensions, from the 

time of the passage of this bill there will be a presentation of the 

.Claim of each and every one of them for arrears of pension commenc- i ng from the time when the disability occurred. 

Mr. INGALLS. , May I interrupt the Senator a momentf 

Mr. MORRILL. I am going to talk only a few moments, and I prefer to go on with what I have to say. Under these circumstances, with a bill before us that is to take out ~f the Treasury so much aa the chairman of the Committee on Pen- sions has asserted, e~hteen or twenty millions, I think it is entirely 

prudent on the part of the Senate to make any just and proper amendment. For instance, it occurs.to me that the Commissioner of Pensions 

is at the present time two years behindhand in taking up the ca~es 

that have already been lodged in his office. Now, how is he to go on with this vast addition to the labors of that office unless we give him .a greater force T If w~ are to pass this bill, I am in favor of giving 

the Oommissioner of Pensions an additional number of clerks to en- .a.ble him to execute the provisions of this act. 

Another thing I desire to call the attention of the Senate to-the 

.amount of burden that is to'be imposed upon the Treasury. I suppose not all Senators are aware that our expenses have been much ~eater for the past six months than for the corresponding six months m the previous year. I. will just read to the Senate what the condition of faets is in relation to the position of the Treasury as to imposi ng further burdens upon it at this time. 

The expenses for the six months ending respectively December 31, 

1877, and Dec.ember 31, 1878, were for 1877 $136,053,399.83and for 187H 

.$141,167,879.08. Our ordinary expenditures for t.he last six· months ·exceed those of the corresponding six months of the previous year by 

near1y $13,000,000, including the award under the Halifax commis- ·sion ; so that instead of having a surplns as we had last year of over '14,000,000, the present year's surplus will be only $7,138,720. 

If this bill is to pass, in my judgment, instead of imposing it upon 

the Treasury with a clear apprehension that there is to be a deficit, we ought to provide that the Treasury may issue bonds in sufficient 

.amount to cover this additional burden. I shall not propose such an amendment as that, but I clearly think that it is the duty of the chair- ..man of the Committee on Pensions to consider that matter. I shall 

propose, if the bill to become a law, that we give the Commissioner 

-of Pensions an additional increase of clerks to enable him to execute ·the provisions of the act. . Mr. PADDOCK. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Vermont if it is right and proper that this bill should pass and that this 

beneficent provision should be adopted, although it may in some -degree increase the burdens of the country, would he not say that it -ought to be done f It is only a little time since that, alihough the 

eountry questioned the justice and the right of the thing, we made 

the Halifax award, to which my friend has alluded. He was in favor 

-()f that award, as I remember, and in favor of the prompt payment of 

the millions required to meet it, although there was a question with 

-very many people in .this country as to the propriety and justice of :such award. Now here" is a matter that is manifestly just, manifestly 

proper, manifestly demanded of the justice of this country, and although it may increase the burdens lightly, although it may 1·equire ..a few additional clerks to do this work, yet, because it is right and • -proper and a thing that ought to be done, it ought to be done without 

reference to any such considerations a-s are urge,:! by my distinguished 

-friend from Vermont. I am for this bill because the principle involved 

is correct and just and proper. I am opposed to any and all amend- :ments because they imperil its passage. Supplemental legislation can 

readily be secured if necessary to make plain and certain tha.t that 

may appear ambiguous and indefinite. I hope that the amendment 

will not prevaiL . The VICE-PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment pro- posed by, th~ Senator from Arkansas [Mr. DoRSEY] a-s modified on t he suggestion of the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. HoAR.] 

The question being put, a division was called for; and the ayes were18. 

1\Ir. INGALLS. Probably we bad better have the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. FERRY. I ask that the amendment be again reported . The VICE-PRESIDENT. It will be again read. 

The SECRETARY. The amendment is to add at the end of the first 

section: 

And that no pension for disability sha.U be granted for any period before such 

disability occurred. 

Mr. DAWES. Is this an amendment to an amendment T 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. It is not . Mr. DAWES. It has beeu adopted by the mover T 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The mover of the original amendment 

accepted it as a modification. 

Mr. DAWES. I supposed it wa-s an amendment to an amendment, 

and as I preferred this form of amendment I voted for it. I am opposed to amending the bill at all. If this is not an amen,dment to the 

original amendment suggested by the Senator from Arkansas, I shall 

vote against the amendment on the ground that I would rather the 

bill should not be sent back to the House. · Mr. McMILLAN. I should like to inquire if au amendment was not adopted inserting the word " dis~bili ty" after the word ''death" 

in the ninth line i 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. · No such amendment waa adopted. That was the amendment proposed by the Senator from Ark.'l.nsas. 

Mr. McMILLAN. I thought it was adopted and subsequently the 

other amendment proposed f • 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The proposed amendment was withdrawn 

and the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts accepted ill 

lieu thereof. 

Mr. INGALLS. Mr. President, the pending amendment, I repeat, 

proposes merely to re-enact existing provisions of law and long-standing constructions of the statute; and, inasmuch as it is superfluous 

and unnecessary, and will do no good, and may defeat or hinder or delay the passage of the bill, I hope that the friends of the measure will vote against the amendment. 

Mr. McMILLAN. I should like to inquire of the chairman of the Committee on Pensions whether or not the point raised here has been 

affirmatively decided by the Commissioner of Pensions in the con - struction of the existing law' 

Mr. INGALLS. I so understand it, and have repeatedly stated 

it so. 

Mr. FERRY. I do not want the romarks of the chairman of the 

Committee on Pensions to go forth to the country that those who vote 

for this amendment are attempting to interrupt or impede the passage 

of this b\ll. I am in favor of the bill in principle. The chairman of 

the Committee on Pensions smiles, and he ought to smile, when he 

rises here and says that this amendment is simply a re-enactment of 

the construction of the present Commissioner of Pensions or any com- missiener. If that be th~ case, there cannot be any objection to the 

adoption of the amendment; for it specifically declares the intention 

of the Senate upon this point, that when after the lapse of thirteen 

years or more application is made, the pension shall date, not from 

the discharge, but from the revelation of the disability or the experience of the disability. 

AB I said, I am in favor, and most of us are in favor, of this bill, but 

I :un opposed to opening the Treasury to fraud, and I have heard of cases of fraud where parties at this late period are attempting to 

obtain proof that they were entitled to a pension for disability, and are yet unable to prove it. 

Mr. PADDOCK. I understand the judgment of those who have 

this bill in charge to be . unanimous that there is no change in the 

rule of proof. 

Mr. FERRY. If I, as chairman of the committee of which the bon- ora ble Senator who bas just spoken is a distinguished member, should 

propose to dictate a policy in behalf of that committee, I think I 

should be depriving him of his right on the floor of the Senate t o express his dissent or comment on such construction ; and therefore 

I am not here to yield to the judgment of any Senator or any com- mittee upon a question of snob policy that involves 20,000,000 ont of 

the Treasury and ont of the pockets of the people of this country. I 

think no Senator here occupying a seat-and there are many present 

to-day-will waive his right to express his judgment upon a con- struction and shield himself, as it is proposed to do now, upon the 

construction of the head of -a bureau, becanse heretofore the con- struction has been to date a pension from the time of the proof of 

disability. I say that while the bill is.pending before us with ample time for this amendment to be concurred in by the House, namely, _ six weeks yet to expire before the termination of this session, it is my 

duty, if it is not the duty of other Senators, to cast my vote in behalf 

of a construction that shall be so plain that this Commissioner, so dis- tinguished as he is, and so faithful to his duty as he is, as well as other 
1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 491 

.commissioners who shall succeed him, will have no doubt whatever as to the constmction to be placed upon the statute. 

Our duty is to frame statutes. I see my aSSBociate on another committee, who is a member of this committee, [Mr. VooRHEEs,] rising, 

probably to defend this committee. I say in his presence that he can- not run any risk whatever in allowing this amendment, which is so .explicit and will express the judgment of this Senate so squarely and 

fairly and directly-he can run no risk by allowing this amendment 

to be appended to the bill. The simple question before the Senate~ 

whether the Senate now, in its deliberate judgment, will express itself 

in behalf of allowing pension& to date from the discharge of the claim-

-ant after t he lapse of thirteen years or more, or confine the pension 

to date from the existence of disability. 

Mr. HOAR. Will the Senator allow me to call his attention to the 

fact that everybody, as I understand, agrees that the pension should 

go back to the time of t,be existence of the disability, even if it ex- isted thirteen years ago, without any regard to the date of the proof. 

The only question here ls the mode .of accomplishin~ an arrangement 

by which the pension shall not go back to the discnarge of the soldier, t.hat clischarge being many years prior to the existence of the 

disability. The date of the proof has nothing whatever to do with 

it, as I understand . . Mr. FERRY. I may be unfortunate in understanding the force of 

language, and I will cover my unfortunate condition by attaching 

my support to the full amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts, 

iet it cover what it may. As I understand that, it covers a difterent 

principle from the bill; and that is that after the lapse of thirteen or more years, if a claimant proves his disability, his pension shall date 

from the occurrence of the disability. Do I understand the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts f 

Mr. HOAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FERRY. I have his assent. ThP-n we agree on that point. 

'Then then;l are two principles involved, if the Senator from Indiana 

will be pat.ient with me-- Mr. VOORHEES. Certainly. 

Mr. FERRY. The bill proposed and reported by the Committee on Pensions in\olves an important question. As wa.s very wisely suggested by my friend in front of me, the chairman of the Committee on Finance, it is whether the Senate will now reopen all cases that 

have been decided and allow pensions to date, not from their allow- , .ance on proof, but date back to the discharge of the claimant in all 

-cases, not only those in the past, but all cases in which application 

shall be mn.de to give the pension from the date of discharge. On the 

()t.ber band, by supporting the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts the principle will be settled that all claimants shall have 

their pensions from the date of the occurrence of t.he disability as -e tablished by proof. I think I state the force of the amendment. 

Mr. VOORHEES. I do not intend to go into the discussion of this 

matter again, but there is a feature of this debate which strikes me with great force and some ludicrousness. 'Vehave a law now on the 

statute-book that will be seventeen years old in March . . In March, 

1862, we enad.ed section 4709 on the subject of pensions, and it bas 

been on the statute-book ever since. We now bring in here to-day a bill that does not differ in one word or letter in its phra eology from 

that statute, with the exception of leaving out the statute of limitat ions. · 

:Mr. HEREFORD. Will the Senator allow me to a.sk him a ques-

<tion righ~ there f 

Mr. VOORHEES. Yes. 

Mr. HEREFORD. The question I ask of the Senator is in regard 

to the remark he has just made and which is only a reiteration of the 

remark he ma~e when he was up before, to the effect that there was nothing in the bill except the repeal of section 4717. 

Mr. VOORHEES. The bill is not merely the repeal of that secti~. . Mr. HEREFORD. The third section of the bill now under consid-

-eration does that very thing in terms, and why do you want four more .sections f The third sectioB in terms does repeal section 4717; and 

what do you want with four more sections if the object of the bill is 

.simply to repeal that section f 

Mr. VOORHEES. The r~pealing section of the bill is in these 

words: 

That all acts or parts of acts, so far as they may conflict with the provisions of 

this aot, be, and the same are hereby, repealed. 

A question more wide of the mark I was discussing could hardly 

be propounded. What I wish to state is that we have had a law for now nearly seventeen years which has been construed in a certain way 

by the Commissioner of Pensions during a'll that time. A bill is now 

brought forward the same as that law, with the e~ception of the time 

within which the application shall be made. The Senator from 

Michigan at once soos great danger growing out of this proposed new legislation, which proposes no change at all with the exception 

tlf wiping out the statute of limitation; and he appeals to Senators 

with great earne-stness that we opght to seize the opportunity to put 

it beyond the power of a Commissioner to make an erroneous con- struction of the law. The Senator from Michigan has been in the 

public service a lona time. I have had·the honor to serve with him 

in both branche-s of Congress. He was in Congress, either in the other 

branch or here, when tlie existing law, construed for so many years 

by the Commissioner, was enacted. · 

Mr. FERRY. Pardon me. If the Sen a tor will allow me, I was not 

in Congress in 1862 or 1864. • Mr. VOORHEES. Ever since that time, however, the Senator baa 

sat here and has raised no cry of alarm. The Senator from Vermont 

and the Senator from Michigan--

Mr. FERRY. The Senator from Indiana will not misrepresent me. Mr. VOORHEES. No, I will not. 

Mr. FERRY. I know he does not intend to misrepresent me. Our 

relation is such that he would not do that. I was not in Congress 'in 

1862 or 1864, when the pension laws were passed; and it was not my 

duty outside of Congress to protest or declare against a law that was 

in force. 

Mr. VOORHEES. Not at all; but if the Senator from Michigan . with his well-known acuf!eness found a law susceptible of dangerous 

construction by the Commissioner of Pensions, and has allowed it ~o 

pass under his observation without protest for the last fifteen years, 

I should say that his new-born zeal in the cause of public safety 

to-day is rather surprising. 

I say that the law as it stands, and as it has been construed bysncceeding Commissioners of Pensions, is the same as the law now proposed, so far as the time when a pension shall begin. The danger 

observed by the Senator from Michigan is that a pension will begin 

when it ought not to; that is to say, before a disability is proven to 

exist. The Commissioner of Pensions under the existing law has 

ruled that a pension shall commence from the time only when the disability is proven to have existed. 'Ve propose nothing new upon that 

subject; and yet Senators who have known of the existing law, and 

had it under their ob~ervatlon in public life for many years, pretend 

to fliscover a great danger growing out of the fact that we propose 

to reiterate and reassert the same principles in the same :phraseology 

which have evoked the construction I speak of. What new danger 

is thero under this new legislation proposed that did not as!'ail the 

public interest under the old law Y What new danger is there that 

the Senator discovers to-day upon the consideration of this bill that 

he would not have discovered yesterday under the law as it then 

stoodf 

:Mr. FERRY. If the Senator will allow me, I will say that I have 

always been in favor of this bill. I was in favor of it at the last ses- sion, and at prior sessions whenever a similar measure was before us; 

but I have not conceived it to be my duty at every session or on every day of the session to propose a modification of the pension law or any other law. I have rather followed in the lead of the distinguished Senator from Indiana and his colleagues on the Pension Committee to await the proper moment for action, just as he has waited 

for the Committ,ee on Finance upon questions of finance. He has not 

deemed it his obligation at every time to protest against inimical legislation as he conceived existing upon that question, but at the proper 

time he has been vigilant and able in pressing his views whenever 

financial measures have been before the Senate for consideration. 

Mr. EATON. If my friend from Michigan will permit me, I do not 

think he intends to misrepresent my honorable friend the eSenator · 

from Indiana, but I think "in season and out of season" he has been 

very ready on the question of .finance. 

Mr. VOORHEES. I am obliged to my friend fro~ Connecticut. 

All I desire to imp1·ess on the minds of Senators now is that we have 

operated under the law and paid our pensions, and our Commissioner 

has made his construction for the last seventeen years on exs.ctly the same kind of a law, so far as the point discussed by the Senator from 

Michigan is concerned, as we propose here to-day. That is to say, 

there is no change proposed by the bill under consideration from the 

existing law as to the time when a pension shall cbmmence growing 

out of a disability, and we have operat-ed, as I repeat myself, for sev- enteen years safely under a construction given by the Pension Office 

to the existing law. Consequently I do not share in the alarm that 

Senators express here for fear of a different ruling. 

I express the hope again that the bill may not be amended. It is as good perhaps as we can make it, and if we find out hereafter that some Commissioner departed from the precedents set by his p.rede- cessors in office for seventeen years past, or should appear likely to 

break away from the present construction of the law, as the Senator 

from Maine well said, we will be here and we can take care of that 

question. 

Mr. FERRY. I desire to state that we cannot speak with perfect 

confidence that we shall all be here at all times. 

Mr. VOORHEES. I beg the Senator not to suppose that I aUuded 

to any passing ev~nts at a.ll. 

Mr. HOAR. When I first suggested this form of amendment it was merely to suggest to a Senator who proposed an amendment which I 

thought did not accomplish the purpose a different expression, without having come to any conclusion in my own mind as to whether 

tho bill ought to be amended or not; but the progress of the debate 

has satisfied me very clearly that tho amendment ought to be made. 

In the first place, there is not the slightest possible doubt, so far as we can speak of any matter in future legislation, that this bill is to 

pass. The Senate is unanimous for it; there ha.s not been a voice 

raised against its principle; and without adverting, as I have no right to do, to the particular vote or majority by which it passed the 

other House, I have a right to say that a bill on this subject, for 

which the Senate is unanimous, is sure to find a unanimous House 

when it goes back to that body with amendments. There is plenty of 
492 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN.A.TE. JANUARY 16, 

time; and therefore the question to us is a question of general prin- therefore present to the Commissioner a different question. It might 

ciple in legislation, wftether when a bill is before us we shall, as one be said that he did not construe section 4709 merely in the light of 

branch of the Government, perfect it. · the words ''from the death or discharge of tlfe person on whose account 

Here is a bill in which, as the Senator from Ohio very justly re- the claim has been or is hereafter granted," but that he construed 

marked, the plain and clear language of the text means one thin a-, the whole section together; that the proviso limiting the pension toand but one, and that is that hereafter pensions fur disabilities which the time the disability or the right to the pension accrued affected th& 

do not exist until to-day shall be paid from the time of the discharge language in the former part of the statute and enabled him to say 

of the soldier at· the end of or during the war. That is the plain Ian- that no pension should be granted except from the date of the death 

gnageof this-bill. Nobody can stand up here to deny it, or will stand o:atbe date of the disability. I was not certain upon that point, and 

up here to deny it, or has stood up here to deny it; and the plain therefore present this view to the Senator from Kansas and ask him 

language of the bill is exactly what the Senate does not mean shall if he has considered itf 

be the law, as everybody on both sides of the question who has spoken Mr. INGALLS. I think I apprehend the particular doubt of th& 

has declared. Senator from Minnesota, and, without intending either to be curt or· The Senator -from Indiana thinks that it i.s a good plan in leo-isla- .disrespectful in my reply, I will simply say that if the Commissioner of 

tion to pass a law, the plain, clear meaning of which means one thing, Pensions does not interpret and construe this statute, should it become 

the intent of the Senate and of the Honse being a different thing, one, as we think it ougnt to be construed, we can very readily pass 

and to trust the Executive Departments of the Government with the a supplemental act that will give him proper instruction in regard topower to reverse t.hat clear meaning of the law when they think it its meaning. 

wise or expedient or just. · He proposes to pass this bill in that way Mr. CHRISTIANCY. Mr. President, that is very true, but that is 

because a subordinate executive officer has in the past previously so shutting the stable-door after the horse has been stolen. 

dealt with another statute phrased in the same way. Will the Sen- Mr. INGALLS. I think not, because nobody knows better than the a tor apply that principle to Secretary Sherman 1' Will he apply that Senator from Michigan that no pay~ent can be made until the money 

principle to the Comptroller of the Currency Y Will he apply that is appropriated to pay it. 

principle to the Attorney-General f Will he apply that principle to Mr. FERRY. I want to call the attention of the chairman of theany other executive officer of this Government who has to deal with Committee on Pensions to the fact that when a bill is before us makany question in regard to which the political parties are at issue t · ing an appropriation to pay pensions, we generally pass what is recom- )lr. VOORHEES. Will the Senator allow me to say one wordY mended by the Commissioner of Pensions to cover the statute. In 

Mr. HOA.R. The Senator will allow me to add one sentence, and fact we are derelict in our duty if we do not appropriate according tothen I will yield the floor. the statute. If we pass this proposed statute, providing for the payllr. VOORHEES. I was only going to say simply that as to the ment of $20,000,000, or nearly that amount, out of the Treasury of theSecretary of the Treasury I would not allow him to construe any law United States, it becomes our dn ty to make the appropriation. 'l'here- or give him any power of construction at all. fore I think the reply of the chairman of the committee does not relieve , Mr. HOA.R. The Senator who votes against this amendment votes us of our responsibility in so framing this proposed statute that therethat he is content that executive officers of ~he Government, in cases can be but one construction made of its terms. 

where they deem it just or wise, shall construe and act upon statutes Mr. INGALLS. If there could be but one construction put upon a in opposition to their plain, clear, and undisputed meaning. And statute, the occupation of courts and lawyers would long ago have 

they are so content that that practice shall go on that they will not been gone. • amend a bill when the amendment does not have the slightest effect Mr. EATON. Mr. President, it strikes me as very s·ingnlar that. on the prospect of its ultimate and speedy passage. this discussion should have arisen when there is no cliiferenoe of 

:?IIi. McMILLAN. Mr. President, this bill, I understand, has had opinion whatever between the Senator from Massachusetts and the· the examination of the Committee on Pensions of this body, and I Senators from Ohio and Indiana, so far as I know, in regard to the 

presume they have carefully compared the present statute with the proper construction of the proposed statute. If I understood my 

proposed legislation. The chairman of the committee has stated that friend, the Senator from Ohio, he said he would not vote fOl' the bill · the present ruling of the Commissioner of Pensions has been ripon a except with the construction which had been put upon a similar law 

Jaw embodying the same •terms that the act proposed contains. I heretofore. There is where I think, with all due deference, my friend 

should like to ask the chairman of the committee1 so as to relieve any errs, and errs very greatly. The construction of the Supreme Court 

clou bt which might exist in regard to that questwn, whether he haa of the United States upon a statute of Congress is of some value; 

adverted to the fact that in section 4709 of the Revised Statutes the the construction of a bureau officer is of no value whatever. Here 

proviso aontains this language: is a. man who is Commissioner of Pensions to-day. He goes out of 

Provided the application for such pension has been or is hereafter filed with the office and somebody from Ohio, whom my friend from Indiana does 

Uommissioner of Pensions within five years after the ri~ht thereto has accrued; not like very well, may come in to-morrow, and then comes his con- otherwise the pension shall commence from the date of filing the last elidencenec- strnction upon this statute, if it become a law. 

essary to establish the same_. I desire to vot.e for this bill; but I cert.'l>inly desire that it shall be 

Here is language in one P.art .o~ the section, the proviso! "": hich made so plain that there will be no doubt as to the way in which any 

refers to the date when the disability occurred. The Comm1sswner bureau officer will have to construe it. With the amendment of the· may have taken t1le whole section together, instead of passing merely I Senator from Massachusetts in my jnd(J'ment the bill will be perfect- npoB the words contained in the principal part of the section, pro- and therefore I shall vote f~r the ame~dment. • · ' 

viding that all pensions .~an!ed in c~msequen?e of death, "orin ?On- Mr. CONKLING. I want to inquire of the Senator from Kansa& 

sequence of wounds or IDJUnes received or d1~ease contracted smce whether I understood him aright a moment ago when I think that he 

that date, shall commence from the death or diScharge of the person said that there were other amendments to the bill which he or the on whose account the claim has been or is hereafter granted." That committee intended to move f · 

language is the same as that conta.iried in the :first section of the pend- Mr. INGALLS. The Senator misunderstood me. ing_ bill, but there is no language i~ the proviso ~ bich I haye read l\Ir. CONKLING. So that unless the present amendment is adopted,. 

whwh relates or bas reference particularly to the time at which the so far as the Senator knows the bill will not be amended before it 

1·ight to the pension accrued. I should like to know if the chairman receives final action V ' . 

has adverted to that fact in his remarks, and if he has considered The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. MITCHELL in the chair.) The. 

the effect of that language. . . quest.ion is on the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. 

Mr. INGALLS. I have not. I pr?pose to. str1~e ,that l.a~guage o.nt. DoRSEY] as modified by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. HoAR,]' 

llr. McMILLAN. Thatlanguageis contamedmtheongmalsectwn on which the yeas and nays have been ordered. 

of the Revised Statutes, unde1· which the Senator says. the decisions The Secretary called the roll. 

have been mane. The whol.e.of se~tion 4709 reads in this wa-,-- l\lr. WALLACE, (when Mr. WIITTE'snamewas<Ja.lled.) The Sena.-

1\Ir. INGALLS. I am famlliar with the l~nguage o~ the section. tor from .Maryland [Mr. 'VHYTE] is detained from the Senate by ill-

_.Mr. Mc¥-ILL~. For the sake of makmg my pomt apparent I ness in his family. · 

wtll read It: The result was announced-yeas 20, nays 27; as follows : 4709. All pensions which ha>e been, or which may hereafter be, grantetl in con- YEAS-20. 

sequence of death occurrin~ from a cause which originated in the service since the Christiancy, Jones of Nevada, 4th day of March, 1861, or m oons&quence of wounds· or injuries recei>ed or dis· ,Anthony, ease contraeted since that date, shall commence from the death or discharge of the Barnum, Dorsey, McCreery, person on whose account the claim bas been or is hereafter granted, or from the Beck, Eaton, :McPherson, 

termination of the right of party having prior title to such pension. Booth, Ferry, Ma.x:ey, Burnside, Hoar, Morgan, The language of the bill under consideration conforms to that 

phraseology, but the existing section of the Revised Statutes pro- Allison. Dawes, NAY~~illan, ceeds further: . Armstrong, Gordon, :Matthews, 

Provided the application for such pension bas been or is hereafter filed with the Blaine, . Howe, :Mit~hell, 

Commissioner of Pensions within five years after the rigbt.thereto has accrued; Butler. Ingalls, Paddock, 

otherwise the pension shall commence from the date of filing the last evidence nee- I Cockrell, Kernan, Plumb, 

Davis oflliinoia :McDonald, Saunders, 

:Morrill, 

Sargent, 

SauLsbury, 

Sharon, 

Withers. 

Spencer, 

Thorman, 

Voorhees, 

Wadleigh, 

Wallace, esaary to establish the sa-me. I Conkling, Lamar, Rollins, Windom. 

Mr. INGALLS. That part of the section is omitted in the pending ' AESE..."'IT-29• 

bill. Bailey Cameron of Pa., Coke, Dennis, Mr. 1\IcMILLA....~. There is no language in the pending measure Bayard Cameron of Wis., Conover, Edmunds, 

referring to the time the right to a pension bas accrued. . That would : llrnce, ' .Chaffee, Davis of w. Va., Eustis, 
1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 493 

Garland, Hill, Merrimon.. Teller, 

Grover, JohnSton, Oglesby, · Whyte. 

Hamlin, Jones of Florida, Patterson, · Harris, Kellogg. Randolph, 

Hereford, KirkwOOd, Ransom, 

, So tile amendment was rejected. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. I move at the end of the first section of the 

biW. to acld the following proviso : 

Provided, That the proof of disability upon which any pension has 'already been p ·anted shall not be conclusive of the ri~tht of any claimant to the arrears of pen· ion under this bill, but the q_uestion of disability shall be open to re-examination 

by the Commissioner of Pens10ns, ·who may, in his discretion, require addilitional or further proof. · 

Let me state briefly my obje.ct in offering the amendment. I understand that a former Commissioner of Pensions expressed the opinion 

tha.t at least one-fourth of the pensions granted were fraudulentclaims upon the Government; and I understand that the same opinion was also expressed at one time by the chairman of the Pension 

Committee. If the bill-passes as reported from the committee, all 

those fraudulent. claimants will be entitled to arrears of pensions. 

The amendment I have ofiered simply provides that the proof originally offered and furnished to the Pension Bureau of disability shall 

not be conclusive upon that question, but that the Commissioner of 

Pensions, aeting in his discretion, whenever he thinks the interests 

of the country require it, may re-examine and require, if the case needs it, proper additional proof of disability. It is simply a measure to protect the pension fund from frauds upon it. It seems to me tl1e 

provision is a wise one. I offer it in. no hostility whatever to the bill, 

but simply to perfect the bill in the manner in which I think it ought 

to be perfected. Proof furnished ten years ago of disability may 

have satisfied the then existing Commissioner of the party's right to a pension, but that proof may not be such as a Commissioner now, 

removed from the influences which the war created, would deem 

proper to establish the right of a claimant to arrears of pension. All 

I -want is that the proof may be such as would be satisfactory and 

conclusive to the mind of the present Commissioner. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from Delaware, [.Mr. SAlJLSBURY.] 

Mr. INGALLS. The position taken by the Senator from Delaware 

is a singular one for a lawyer to assume, and I presume that upon 

reflection he will probably withdraw hiS' amendment. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. Let us hear the Senator's objection· to my 

nmendment. 

Mr.- INGALLS. There is one very important function that is carried 

on' by the Commissioner of Pensions from day to day, and that is the 

examination of claims alleged to be fraudulent. Every year a con- siderab'le number of persons are dropped from the rolls either because 

they were placed there improperly in the first place or because circumstances subsequently arising have shown that they should no longer be continued. Tkerefore_ the amendment proposed gives no power to the Commissioner that is not now enjoyed and constantly 

exercised. Its adoption wo'u.ld simply be an embarrassment to the 

bill, without giving any additional power or authority to the Commissioner and without in any way carrying out the object which the 

Senator undoubtedly has in view, and which he and I possess in com- mon. It is true, as has been stated, that from a variety of causes there are fraudulent claims made against the Government in the 

matter of pensions as well as in everything else; but it is not for a moment to be understood that because a pensioner is once placed 

upon the rolls by testimony that was improper or false or f.r.:audulent 

he is to be continued there after the fraud is discovered. · The process 

of elimination and of droppin~ names improperly upon the rolls is 

constantly carried on, and that lB one of the most important branches 

of the pension service. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. I was aware that the Commissioner ha-d power 

under the existing law to drop from the rolls the name of any pensioner who.was not found to be entitled to a pension upon are-ex- amination of his case ; but I hold that under the provisions of this 

bill everypensionerupon the rolls upon the passage of the bill would 

become vested with the right to the arrears of pension which the bill 

grants to 'him. 

Mr. INGALLS. Do I disturb the Senator from Delaware t 

Mr. SAULSBURY. Not at all. 

Mr.' INGALLS. If the Senator will refer to a table that was furnished by the Commissioner of Pensions in 1876 he will see that the 

number of those entitled to arrears is very small compared witli the 

aggregate number on the rolls. Take, for instance, the year 1868. 

Tile number of invalids admitted that year was 9,460. Theyreceived 

pensions without the application of the limitation in the law of 1864. 

The number to whom arrears were denied that year, to which the 

limitation appliedhwas but 270. The Senator will see that a great 

majority of cases ave already been pa-ssed upon under the operations of this very principle that we now seek to apply to those who were rejected. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. :But the bill provides that persons who were disabled and who did not get their pensions allowed until some time 

afterward shall be entitled to arrears of pensions from the date of 

their. disability. · 

Mr. INGA.LL . The great mass of pensioners have received that 

already. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. A.ll that my amenc.ment proposes is to give to 

the Commissioner of Pensions the right to re-examine, so that he shall 

not be concluded by the proof already furnished, but may re-examine, 

if he thinks it prop2r to do so, before he pays any of these arrears. That is all I seek to a.ccQmplish by the amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

of the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. SAULSBURY.] 

The questio~ being put, there were on a division-ayes 7, noes 16; no q norum voting. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. I give it up. _ The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is rejected. 

The bill was ordered to a third-reading, and read the third time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill puss f 

1\Ir. MORRILL. I have an amendment that I desire to offer as an additional section, to come in before the last section of the bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. An amendment cn,n only be received 

by unanimous consent at this time. Is there objection Y 

.Mr. INGALLS. I will hear the amendment read, reserving the right 

to object. I want to hear it in the first place. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be reported for 

information. 

The SECRETARY. It is proposed to insert as an additional section· the following : 

SEc.-. That the Commissioner of Pensions is hereby authorized to t~mpornrily 

employ such number of clerks, not exceeding fifty, as may be necessary to promptly execute the provisions of this act ; and for the payment of such oler ks the sum Of 

$75,000 is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise ap· 

propria ted. 

1\Ir. MORRILL. I desire merely to say th:\t any one who knows the 

present condition of the Pension Bureau knows that this proposed 

law will be entir~ly inoperative unless some provision of this kind shall 

be attached to it. The bureau is now already at least two years behind 

time in the examination of cases. If the pending bill is to pass, a-s I hope and expect it will, but in a proper shape, we ought to furnish 

the meaus by which the bureau can execute the law. It should not 

be.a law on the statute-book and inoperative for two years, as it will 

practically be unless some amendment of this kind is adopted. 

Mr. INGALLS. The Senator from Vermont is for him unusually 

inaccurate in saying that unless the amendment passes the bill will 

become utterly inoperative. I suppo e he meant to say, or if he did 

not I would suggest to him to say, that the execution of it might be 

delayed, or procrastinated, or deferred. It is true that tile business 

of the Pension Bureau is now very much behind. There are more than one hundred thousand cases unacted upon. Instead of there 

being an increase of the force by the addition of fifty clerks, there 

ought to be at least two hundred additional clerks employed in the 

bureau of the Commissioner of Pensions and in the office of the Surgeon-General. At the proper time, I will co-operate with the Senator 

from Vermont in securing that addition to the force. This is not, 

however, the time, nor the place. 

Mr. PADDOCK. I should like to ask the Senator from Kansas if 

he makes that statement in reference to the present condition of 

things without regard to the additional force required by the pend- in bill!. · irr. INGALLS. I make it without reference to this bill at all. 

There are more than one. hundred thousand cases unacted upon in 

the bureau of the Commissioner of Pensions. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. ls there objection to the runendme11t 

of the Senator from Vet·mont l 

Mr. P .AD DOCK. I object. 

Mr. KERNAN. I feel constrained to object. I clo not think it 

germane to the bill. · The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection being made, tP,e amendment is not in order. The question is on the passage of the bilL 

Mr. FERRY. I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas anrl nays were ordered. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. Mr. President, I think the pill is one at least 

of very doubtful propriety. It proposes to impose an additional burden of $18,000,000 at least to the burdens of the people of this coun- try. I would not do any act of injustice to the men who served their 

cotmtry in the time of danger and alarm. I think the Government 

has been liberal toward its soldiers. Perhaps no country on earth has 

been more liberal in the way of bounty and pensions than has .the 

American Government been to the people who served in its Army. 

Now after the lapse of more than thirteen years from the termination of the war we come in and offer a gratuity (because it is no claim of right which these parties have; it is a mere gratuity on tbe 

part of the Government) to the soldiers who have already been pensioned. The law provided that those who served their country ia 

the Army, or their widows and childJ:en in the case of their death, 

shonld be entitled to certain pensions upon certain condit.ions. So far as I am informed, upon compliance with those conditions every person 

entitled to a pension has received it at the hands of the Government. 

This proposition is simply a revocation of the conditions which en- titled the party to his pension, and, in that view of it, it is a mere gratuity on the part of Congress toward a class of very worthy 

people doubtless; but while we are generous we_ought also to be just. 

The people of this coun·try have been taxed· for a series of years 

beyond that which has been imposed upon any other people on the 

face of the earth. Under the present taxing system the industries of 

this country have been crippled, the business interests of our people 
494 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 16, 

have declined. That which men have needed for the support and 

comfort of themselves and their families has been taken from their 

pockets to pay the debts of the National Government. If we keep on adding to this continual drain upon their resources the people of 

this country will become still more impoverislied than they are. While 

I would be generous to the soldier, I would be just to the tax-payer. 

Why is it that every industry in our country is depressed to-day 7 

Various causes have been assigned; but in my humble judgment there 

is none more potent than the continual drain upon the resources of 

the people, taKing ~om the pocke.t of the farmer, ~he m~hanic, and 

the artisan that wh1eh they need to carry on therr busmess and to 

support their wives and their children. I think we have done ample 

for the soldiery. I wish now to see some legislation that will relieve 

the burdens of the people generally. For that reason, as the yeas 

and nays have been called for upon this question, I shall vote against 

the passage of the bill ; and it was because of the fact that the yeas 

and nays were demanded that I have seen proper to express my opinion on this subject. 

Mr. KERNA.l.~. Mr. President, I differ with my friend entirely. If 

I thou~ht this was a gratuity I should vote against the bill. I regard 

it as discharging a just obligation to a class of people who ought to 

be dealt with justly. Bow can the Senator from Delaware say that 

it is a gratuity f There was a statute of limitations shorter than 

exists in my State for ordinary debts. A class of pensioners were 'unable to perfect their claims within the five years prescribed. I 

have their letters here in my drawer; numbers of them letters from 

widows who could not find the officer to whom to give the certificate 

that their husband wa.s dead. That class of cases exists. I am for 

waiving that statute in such cases, and if I shall ever vote for enforcing it, as I would against some claims, it will be in regard to a different 

class of claims from these. 

I admit there is heavy taxation, aml I will join with my friend in 

economy; but I will·strike the :fi.n;t blow somewhere besides cutting 

these people off by a short statute of limitations. We have plenty of 

opportunities here to save by the million, and I hope we shall do so. I do not mean to vote for gratuities, because I think they are unjust 

to the tax-payers; but I will vote to pay an obli~ation incurred to 

these people who are lame and sick, and to the1r representatives, 

when they prove their claim j,o it. I will not do this on the theory 

of a gratuity, but on the principle that we are fulfilling an obligation which ever has been held by the people of this country to be of 

the most sacred character. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the passage of the 

bill, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered. 1

_ 

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 44, nays 

4; as follows: 

Allison, 

Armstrong, 

Barnum, 

Blaine, 

Booth, 

Bruce, 

Burnside, 

Butler, 

Chri tiancy, Cockrell, 

Conkling, 

YE.A.S--44. 

Dans of Dlinois, 

Dawes, 

Jones of Florida, 

Kellogg, 

Kernan, 

}fcDonald, 

Mc::llill.an, 

McPherson, 

:Matthews, 

Maxey, 

Dennis, 

IX>rsey, 

Ferry, 

Gordon, 

Han is, 

Hill, 

Hoar, 

Howe, 

In gall~. 

Mitchell, 

Morrill, 

Paddock, 

XAYS-4. 

Davis of West Va., Hereford, McCreery, 

ABSE:NT-28. 

Patterson, 

Plumb, 

Rollins, 

Rannders, 

Sharon, 

Spencer, 

Thurman, 

Voorhees, 

· ·wadleigh, 

'Vallace, 

Windom. 

SaulsbW'y. 

Anthony, Coke, Hamlin Ogle by, Bailey, Conm-er, Johnsto'n Randolph, Bayard, Eaton, Jones of Neva.c}a., Ransom, 

Beck, Edmunds, Kirkwood, Sargent, 

Cameron of Pa., Eustis, Lamar, Teller, 

Cameron of Wis., Garland, Merrimon, 'Vhyte, Chaffee, Grover, Morgan, ~ithers. 

So the bill was J;assed. · Mr. INGALLS. I present a petition of a large number of citizens 

of Pennsylvania, which I have just received by mail, praying for the 

passage of the bill (H. R. No. 4234) granting arrears of pension-the 

bill just disposed of. I move that it lie on the table. 

The motion was agreed to. 

PERSONAL EXPL.L"'iATION. 

:Mr. SAUNDERS. Before the Senate resumes the consideration of 

its regular order, I wish to oc~upy a few minutes, not exceedin~ five, 

in order to make an explanat10n. You will remember, Mr. President, that on Friday last when we had 

before the Senate the Indian appropriation bill a discussion took 

place between the Senator from Kansas [Mr. INGALLS] ·and myself, 

in regard to the removal of the Nez Perce Indians to the Indian Territory. The Senator from Kansas seemed to have the impression made 

upon his mind that they were removed without authority of law, and 

that afterward an appropriation was asked to defray the expenses 

of their removal. I understood the matter dift'erently; that is, that an appropriation had been first made, and that actual congressional action had been taken. I think I was correct, for I found afterward 

where action was taken upon the subject in an appropriation bill 

that was passed in May last. I think the Senator from Kansas was mistaken, as probably he may have learned. by this time. I care but 

little about the matter myself, but others do care about it as it places 

them in an unpleasant situation. Seeing the Senator in his seat, I 

will ask him if he meant to say that that removal was without au- thority of law, and also if he does not now remember that an appropriation had been made and that the Indians were afterward re- moved to the Indian Territory. 

Mr. INGALLS. I really mnst beg the pardon of the Senator from 

Nebraska; I did not know he wa.s addressing me at all. My attention was called another way. . · Mr. SAUNDERS. I was calling the attention of the Senator to a little discu'ssion on an amendment to the Indian appropriation bill 

that took place between us on Friday last. 

Mr. INGALLS. Is that bill now before the Senate f . 

Mr. SAUNDERS. I will read for the information of the Senatorwhat he said. 

Mr. INGALLS. Is the bill now before the Senat-e V 

Mr. SAUNDERS. No, sir. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has asked 

to mn.ke a personal explanation. 

Mr. INGALLS. Oh! 

Mr. SAUNDERS. I will state that I was in favor of leaving thematter open so that the President could remove any Indians that he- saw fit into the Indian Territory if the Indians in the Territory holding the title to the Janel and the Indians wanting to go there agreed 

to it. The provision of the bill as it came from the House prevented 

that. lt did not allow the President to make such a. removal of the 

Indians without an act of CongreRs. I was opposing that provision 

of the bill at the time, and after I ha(l made some remarks the following colloquy occurred: 

Mr. INGALLS. The Senatorfrom Nebraska seems to intimate or endeavor to leavethe impression that the Indians who have been removed to the Territory went there because they desired to do so. Nothing conld be more inaoonrato. Taketh& case of the Nez Perces. .After having revolted in the Northwest they were cap- tured and taken to Fort Leavenworth. They desired to be returned to their origi- nal reservation. Their request was refused, and they were sent to the Territory against their wishes and over their protest; and they are to-day rapidly becoming exterminated from climatic influences and from the want of proper medicine ood 

food. 

To this I replied: 

Will the Senator from Kansas allow me to ask him if it was not Congress in placeof the Administration that senti.hem down there! 

Mr. INGALLS. No, sir; it waa not Congress. 

Mr. SAUNDERS. Yes, sir; I understand that it was. Mr. DiGALLS. It was by an order of the ExecutiT"e, without sanction of law. 

This is the point to which I wish to call the attention of the Senator from Ka.nsas, because others have felt thep!selves aggrieved that. it should be stated here, in open Senate, that they had done this thing 

without authority of law when in fact they were carrying out a law 

that had been passed some months before. 

I wait now to give an opportunity to the Senator from Kansas to 

state whether he so understands the matter. 

Mr. INGALLS. What is the peculiar, special object of catechising me on this point t I may or may not have been correct, or the fact 

may or may not have been as I stated. Does the Senator desire to 

raise a question of veracity with me f 

l\Ir. SAUNDERS. Not at n.lL I have no fault to find, no com- plaint to make myself; but the Indian Department seem to feel 

themselves arraigned in this matter by its having been said that they 

had, contrary to la.w, or without law, done this thing. I took the 

contrary position at that time, and I simply wanted it to go on the 

record according to the facts. 

Mr. INGALLS. I suppose if tho Administration are dissati~fied 

with any statements I make, they can apply to me for a correction. 

I do not understand that I am put on the defensive here by anybody. 

Mr. SAUNDERS. I certainly want no discussion of the matter 

particularly with the Senator. I am only fulfilling an obligation by 

having read a letter that I send to the desk, which will probably 

satisfy the Senator that I was correct. 

Mr. INGALLS. The Senator entirely misunderstood me if he supposed that I was makin~ any controversy with him. 

Mr. SAUNDERS. I did not so understand; but, after he had said 

that this was done without law, I received some tele~rams saying 

that that thin~ sounded very badly for the AdministratiOn that they 

should be senaing Indians into the Territory without any authority 

of law, and that they thought I was correct in the matte.r, that legislative action had been taken beforehand, and they said this matter 

ought to be set right before the Senate. Now, in order to set it right, 

I communicated with the Department, receiving the letter which I 

send to the desk. · Mr. INGALLS. Certainly, let that go on the REcORD. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. asks 

that a letter be read. Is there objection f The Chair hears none and 

it will be read. · The Secretary read as follows : 

DEPA.RTMIU.'T OF THE D."TERIOR, OFFICE OF L~DIA.N AFFAIRS, 

. Washington, January 16, 1879. 

Sm: In reply to yoW' request for information in regard to the removal of the 

Nez Peroos, I have to say that the Nez Perces were not removed from military con- trol at Fort Le;~ovenwortii until the 21st of July last; and the removal was made 

in accordance with the provision of law contained in the Indian appropriation bill, dated May 27, 1878, which reads as follows: •• For this amount, or so much thereof as may be necessary to. bo expended under 

the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, in the remova.i of the Nez Perc6 Indians of Joseph's band, now held as prisoners of war at Fort Leavenworth, Kanaaa, 
. 

• 

. 

1879. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- . SENATE. ·495 

to such suitable location in the Indian Territory as the United States has a right to use for such purpose, consistent with existing treaties or arrangements wlth 

tribes ooonpying-Indian Territory, and for their settlement thereon, "' "' "' the sum of f20 000,: P·r<Ytfided, That such amount of the above sum as may be neces15ary for 

said r~moval and for subsistence for remainder of the fiscal year ending June 30, 

1878, may be immediately available." 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, E. A. HAYT, Oommissio-ne-r. 

Ron. A. SA~DERS, United States Sen.ate. 

::\fr. SAUNDERS. That letter confirms wbat.I have said on the 

subject, and I presume the Sen:~ttor from Kansas has no objection 

t{) tbe position taken. He was only mistaken, I presume, in saying 

that the impressian seemed to be on his mind that they had been re- moved and the appropriation asked for afterward, when, in fact, the 

appropriation was tirst made and then they were under authority of 

that law removed to the Territory. That is all there is of it. 

REPORTS OF CO~Dfi'ITEES. 

::\fr. BRUCE, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was re- ferred the bill (H. R. No. 309) for the relief of Andrew F. Higgins of 

Brown County, Ohio, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon; which was ordered to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. No. 5219) granting a pension to Belinda Ma~donald, reported 

it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon; which was ordered to be printed. Mr. VOORHEES, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 1182) granting a pension to Louis S. Blair, 

reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon; 

which was ordered to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(H. R. No. 1789) granting a pension to Miles L. Reed, of Newcastle, 

Indiana, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report 

thereon ; which was ordered to be printed. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill 

(S:No. 1414) granting a pension to James H. WDodard, reported it 

without amendment, and submitted a report thereon; which was o.t'dered to be printed. 

BILL L~'.fRODuCED. 

~fr. HILL asked, a~d by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No.1635) for the relief of Samuel I. Gustin; which was read twice by its tit~e, and referred to the Committee on C1'tims. 

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS. 

::\Ir. HOWE. I was told just now, and I ask the at.tention of the 

Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. KELLOGG,] that an order was passed 

during the morning hour authorizing Mr. Harlow J. Phelps to withdraw some papers from the files of the Senate. Among these papers are some originals not filed by l\Ir. Phelps, but communicated to the 

Senate by the Secretary of the Treasury, papers which are necessary 

to the files of the Treasury Department, and which they are likely to 

have occasion to use in liti~ation very soon. I wish to suggest that 

the order should be so modified as not to authorize the withdrawal of 

those papers, but only the papers filed by )fr. Phelps himself. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to this modification of the order made this morning 7 

l\fr. KELLOGG. I have no objection. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears no objection, and ft 

is so ordered. · On motion of Mr. BRUCE, it was 

Orde-red, That Ennice J. Stockwell have leave to withdraw her papers from the 

files of the Senate upon leaving copies of the same. 

REVISION OF THE PATENT LAWS. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order, being the bill (S. 

No. 300) to amend the statutes in relation to patents, and for other 

purposes, is before the Senate, a-s in Committee of the Whole, the 

pending question being on the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, 

[llr. MATTHEWS,] upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered. 

Is the Senate ready for the question 't 

1\Ir. EDMUND,S. Let the amendment be reported again. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER • . The amendment will be read. 

The SECRETARY. The proposed am~ndmentis in section 2, line 10, to 

strike ont all after the word ''cases," where it first occurs, down to and 

including the word" awarded," in line 2.1; in line 27, to strike out all 

after the word "case," down to and including the word "recovery," 

in line 29; and to strike out lines 36, 37, 38, 39, and down to and including the word "aforesaid," in line 40, and in lieu thereof to insert 

the following: 

:No a-ccount of profits or savings shall in any case be allowed; but evidence 

thereof may be adinitted as tendiri~ to prove whnt shall be deemed a reasonable 

license fee as compensation for the infringement. 

llr. WITHERS. Before the yelis and nays are taken, I wis~ to state 

that my colleague [Mr. JoHNSTO~] is detained from his seat by indisposition. ~Ir. ALLISON. I think I ought to state that the Senator from 

North Carolina [Mr . .RANSOM] wascalledawaythisafternoon by sick- ness in his family. I do not mow ho'f he would vote on the proposition, nor do I know how he would have voted on the preceding bill. 

I-rise to state the fact that he was called away from the Chamber. 

Mr. MAXEY. My colleague [Mr. CoKE] is absent on a very sad 

official duty in Texas. His views are similar to those indicated by me in my vote. I shall vote" nay" on this question. 

The question being taken by yeas. and nays, resulted-yeas 6, nays 

32 ; as follows: · 

Beck, 

Christiancy, 

Allison, 

Booth, 

Burnside, 

Cockrell, 

Davis of W.Va., 

Dawes, 

Dennis, 

Dorsey,-

YEAS-6. 

Davis of lllinois, Matthews, 

McCreery, ~AYS-32. 

Eaton, Kellogg, Edmunds, Kernan, 

Harris, McDonald, 

Hereford, McMillan, 

Hoar, :Maxey, 

Howe, Mitcliell, 

Ingalls, Mor~ 

Jones of Nevada, Morrill, 

A.ESENT-38. 

Anthony, Chaffee, mu, 

Armstrong, Coke, Johnston, 

Bailey, Conkling, Jones of Florida, 

Barnum, Conover, Kirkwood, 

Bayard, Eustis, Lamar, 

Blaine, Ferry, McPhorson, 

Brnoe, Garland, Merrimon, 

Butler, Gordon, Oglesby, 

Cameron of Pa., Grover, Paddock, 

C:uneron of Wis., Hamlin, Plumb, 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. No quorum ha-s voted. 

Wallace. 

Patterson, 

lli>llins, 

Sargent, 

Saunders, 

Voorhees, 

Wadleigh, 

Windom, 

Withers. 

Randolph, 

Ransom, 

Saulsbury, 

Sharon, 

Spencer, 

Teller, 

ThUl'D111n, 

Whyte. 

Mr. DAVIS, of Illinois. It is pretty late and gentlemen have goneaway. 

Several SE~ATORS. Call the roll! Call the roll! 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will call the roll. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll, and forty·eight Senators. 

answered to their names. Mr. SAULSBURY, (when Mr. BAYARD's name was called.) I wish 

to say that my colleague [Mr. BAYARD] is not present because he has 

gone with a committee to Texas. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

:Mr. DENNIS. I wish to place on record that my colleague [1\fr. 

WHYTE] is detained at home by illness i.it his family. 

Mr. HARRIS. I wish to say that my colleague [Mr. BA.IT..EY] is :t.bsent upop. a committee of investigation under the order of the Senate~ 

Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to say that Senators KIRKWOOD, TELLER,. 

and Mr. ClliERO~ of Wisconsin are absent under the command of the 

Senate on a committee. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary reports forty-eight Senn.tors present. 

Mr. l\1AXEY: I desire to state that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. 

GA.RLA...."'D] is not present because he is away on official busitl.ess as a member of a rommittee. · The VICE-PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. The Secretary 

will again call the roll on the amendment offered by the Senator from 

Ohio. 

EXECUTIVE SESSIO~. 

?tfr. THURMAN. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. · Mr. ED-MUNDS. May I ask if there are any executive messages. from the President to-aay f 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. There are. The que~tion is on the motion 

of the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. THURM~""f.] 

The motion was agreed to; there being on a division-ayes 21, noes 18; and the Senate proceeded to ~be consideration of executive busi- ness. After thirteen minutes .spent in executive session the doors. were reopened. 

HO'CSE .BILLS REFERRED. 

The following bills :from the House of Representatives were. sev- erally read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Finance: 

A bill (H. R. No. b477) to authorize the issue of certificates of de-· posit in aid of the refunding of the public debt; 

A bill (H. R. No. 5548) to make United States .notes receivable forduties on imports; and 

A bill· (H. R. No. 5808) 'to facilitate the refunding the national debt~ 

ME....~ORIAL SERVICES TO PROFESSOR HENRY. 

Mr. WITHERS. I ask for the consideration of-the resolution 1 

submitted yesterday. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The resolution will be read. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

Resolved, That the Senate will now take a recess until 7.45 p.m., at which timethey will meet in this Chamber and proceed to the Hall of the House of R-epre· sentatives to participate in the ceremonies commemorative of the life and serVIces 

of Professor Hemy, law Secret:).ry of the Smithsonian Institution. 

The resolution was agreed to ; and the Senate accordingly took a recess until seven o'clock and forty-five minutes p.m. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. J move that "the Vice-President be directed on the return of the Senate from the Hall of the House of Representatives 

to adjourn it until to.morrow at twelve o'clock. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. To this suggestion the Chair hears no· objection. S~nators now present will proceed to the Hall of the 

House of Representatives to participate in the ceremonies commemo- rative of the life and serrices of Professor Henry, late Sooretary of" 

the Smithsonian Institution. 

The Senate accordingly proceeded to the Hall of the House of" 

Representatives; and on its return (at eleven o'clock and two minutes p.m.) adjourned. 
496 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE~ JANUARY 16) 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

THURSDAY, January 16, 1879. 

The House met· at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by Rev. ·w. V. TUDOR, 

:Methodist Episcopal Church South, Saint Louis, Missouri. 

The Journal of yesterdar was read and approved. 

ORDER OF BUSDI""ESS. 

Mr. BEEBE. I desire' to introduce a bill fo~ reference. 

:Mr. WOOD. I demand the regular order. 

The SPEA.l(ER. The regular order is the bill (H. R. No. 5808) to 

-facilitate the refunding the national debt, which comes over as unfinished business, the previops question having been ordered. on the 

-engrossment and third reading . . Mr. HEWITT, of New York. My colleague from New York yieli:lB 

"to me. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York [Mr. WooD) demands the regular order, and cannot yield. 

Mr. HE"WITT, of New York. This is a matter of some importance 

"to the business of the House. 

Mr. BALLOU. I desire to make a privileged report. Does not that 

take precedence of the regular order t 

The SPEAKER. It does not. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry. Will 

the regular order, the bill of the gentleman from New Xork, [Mr. 

WooD,] conflict with the special order for this day-the Mississippi 

levee billY 

The SPEAKER. It will not, except that it has first to be ~ot rid 

.Qf, and then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Lomsiana, 

'fMr. ROBERTSON.) 

Mr. BEEBE. My colleague yields to me. The SPEAKER. Then the gentleman from New York withdraws 

the demand for the regul~· order, and the gentleman from Rhode 

Island [Mr .. BALLOU] rises to make a privileged report. 

1\fr. WOOD. I demand the regular order, and yield to no one. 

REFU:m>I:SG NATIONAL DEBT. 

The SPEAKER. The regular order being d:emanded, the House 

1.·esnmes the consideration of the .unfinished business, being the bill 

(H. R. No. 5808) to facilitate the refunding the national debt, on which 

the main question has been ordered. The question is on ordering the 

bill to be engrossed and 1·ead a third time. . The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time ; and b~ing engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time. 

Mr. WOOD. I demand the previous question on the passage of the 

ibill. 

Mr. BUCKNER. Let the bill be again reported. 

The bill was again read. · Mr. MILLS. I ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. WooD) to 

permit me to offer an amendment to the bill, providing that all bonds 

hereafter issued by the Government shall be liable to federal taxation. 

Mr. WOOD. I decline to yield for that purpose. 

1\Ir. EDEN. Would it be in order to amend the bill so that this ·double interest should only run for thirty days and the interest on called bonds cease in thirty days t 

1\Ir. WOOD. We haveanotherbillmakingthatprovision, and will 

take an early opportunity of reporting it. · The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered ; 

and under the operation thereof the bill was pa-ssed. 

.Mr. WOOD moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. · 

IMPROVEMENT OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER. 

The SPEAKER. In obedience to the order of the House, made 

under a suspension of the rules, assign:in~118 a special or4er for to-day 

the bill for the improvement of the :MisslSSippi River, for consideration in Committee of the Whole, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Louisiana, [Mr. ROBERTSON.) . Mr. ROBERTSON. I move that the Honse resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the consideration 

of the special order, the bill 'for the improvement of the Mississippi 

River. . The motion was agreed to; and the Honse accordingly resolved 

itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. 

CARLISLE in the chair,) and proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 

4318) to provide for the organization of "the Mississippi River improvement commission,'7 and for the correction, permanent location, 

and deepening of the channel, and the improvement of the navigation 

of said Mississippi River and the protection of its alluvial lands. 

The bill was read, as follows : · • 

Be it enacted, cf:c., That there is hereby created a commission, to be called "the 

MissisW>pi River improvement cemmission," to be composed of five persons. 

SEc. 2. That the President of the United States shall, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, app«?int five commissioners, and shall in like manner fill any 

vacancy or vacancies which mar occur in said commission~ Said commission shafl 

be composed of three officers o the Army Engineer Corps, one of whom shall be 

designated by the President of the United States as president of the commission, 

and two persons from civil life, who, by their residence and experience, shall be 

familiar with the navigation of said river, and with the effect of the overflow of 

said river upon the alluVial lands of the Mississippi Delta. And for the services 

nnd duties hereinafter prescribed, the said Army officers shall receive no ot~er or 

•• 

additional pay or compensation than is now allowed them by law, and the other two commissioners shall receive as pay and compensation each the sum &t \13,000 per annum. Said commissioners appointed as above shall remain members of said 

board during good behnvior, subject to remo-.al by the President of the United 

States for cause. SEc. 3. It shall be the duty of said commi01sion to direct and complete such sur- veys of said river, between the city of Saint Louis, in the State" of Missouri, anu th~asses at the month of said river, as may now be in progress, and to make such 

additional surveys, examinations, and investigations, hydrographical and topographical, as may be deemed necessary b:fsaid commission, to enable it to perform its duties and to carry oat the objects of this act witn the greatest advantage to th~ 

public interests; and to enable said commission to complete such surve:vs, and to make such additional surveys, examinations, and investigations; and the Secretary 

of War shall, when requested by said commission, det..1.il from the En~ineer Corp~ 

of the Army such officers and men as may be necessary, and shall place m the charge 

and for the use of sa.i<l commission such vessel or vessels and such machinerv nRd 

instruments as may be under his control aml may be deemed necessary; and the 

said commission may. with the approval of the Secretary of War, employ such ad· 

ditional force and assistants, and provide, by purchase or otherwise, such vesBflls Ol' boats and such instruments and means as ma~ be deemed necessary. 

SEC. 4. It shall be the duty of the said commissiOn to take into consideration such 

plans and estimates for the correction and permanent location and deepening of 

the channel of the Mississippi River and the improvement of the navi~ation of said 

river, and for the protection of the alluvial lands of the Mississippi Delta from 

overflow from said river, as may be suggested by any member or members of said 

commission, and by other persons, and to prepare and mature plans for, and esti· mates of, the cost of a general system of works for the correction and permanent 

location and deepening of the channel and the impro>ement of the navigation of 

said Mississippi River and the protection of said L'lnds between Saint Louis, Mis· 

sonri, and the passes at the mouth of said river; and when so prepared anll matured 

and approved by the president of said commission, to make and submit to the Pres- ident of the Unite<L States of America a full and detailed report of their ~roceedings 

and a{Jtions, and of such plana and estimate , for the purposes afores:ud, to be o y him transmitted to Congress. · SEC. 5. If such pla.ns and estimates, or such plans, shall be appro>ed by the Con- gress of the United States, then the construction and completion of said works 

according to such J?lans shall be conducted and caiTied on bv the Secretary of War . under the supervision and direction of saill commis::~ion; antl said commission shall 

annually, pnor to the commencement of each regnla.r session of Congress, make 

and submit to the Secretary of War, to be by him submitted to the Congress of the 

United States, fall and detailed reports of their proceedings and actions, and of 

all works and improvements done, and the cost thereof, and of the progress nnu effects of such works, and of estimates of the necessary amounts of appropriations for successfully and efficiently carrying on the Construction of said woms :md improvements, and also for the completion of such works and improvemeJ?.t3 accord- ill"" to the said plana. · §Ec. 6. The said commission, or a majority of said commission, including the president thereof, may, {lrior to the completion of all the surveys and exaruina· 

tiona contemplated by this act, and prior to tlte submission to the President of tb e United States of their maturetl plans and estimates for the purposes aforesnid, ptepare and submit to the President of the United Sta.tes plana, specifications, antl 

estimates for such immediate works as may be neaessary for closing such outlets 

of said river and such gaps and crevasses in the levees on the bankS of sai<l river, 

and, as may be necessary, in the judgment of said commission, to secnre an earlier 

correction and Ifermanent location and deepenin~ of the channel of said river, and 

for the protection of said lands, and as may constitute a part of the general system 

of works herein contemplated and provided for, to he by him transmitted to Con· 

gress ; and if such plans, specifications, and estimates shall be approved by the 

Uong_t:ess of the Umted States, then the Secretary of War, under the st~pervision 

and uirection of said commission, shall cause the immediate construction of such 

works in such manner a.s may be deemed most speedy and economical. 

SEc. 7. When said commission shall have so prepared and matured such pla.J.l1; 

for and estimates of the cost of a general system of works for the pnJY.Oses afore - said, and shall have so reported and submitted the same to the Pres1dent...of tho 

United States1 and the same or said J?lans shall have been so approved by t~e Congress, as herem provided for, then 1t shall be the duty of the Secretary of Wa..rc 

under the supervision and direction of said commission, to cause said works anu improvements to be constructed and completed as rapidly a-s the appropriations 

made by Congress therefor shall iustif:v. And it shall be the duty of saill commis· 

sion, or a majority thereof, including tlie president of said commission, to prepare 

and submit to the Secretary of War detailed plans, specifications, and estimates 

for said ~ene:tdl. system of works, or such portion or portions thereof as may from 

time to trme be deemed necessary to secure the earliest and most economical con- struction and completion of the same, or any portion or portions thereof; and thereupon the Secretary of War shall contract and let said work, or any portion or por: 

tiona thereof, to the lowest responsible bidder or bidders, either by advertising for 

sealed proposals or bids for the construction, or the construction and completion 

of said works, or any portion or portions thereof, according to said plant~~ and speci- fications, or in such' other manner as he may deem best to secure the construction, or construction and completion of such works, or any portion or portions thereof, at the lowest prices and in the best manner; and shall, as a condition prece<lent to the acceptance or approval of any contract or lettin~t, require of such contractor or bidder such safeguards and such bond or bonds with such conditions and sure- ties as he may deem necessary to secure the earliest :md best construction and 

completion of said works, or any portion or portions thereof, according to said 

plans anll specifications, and shall prescribe such I"ules and regulations for con- ducting such work as he may deem necessary; and in the event of the failure, 

refusal, or neglect of any contractor or bidder to construct or complete such wowk 

according to said plans and specifications, or to perform and comply with the terms ana conditions of the bond, or with the rules and regulations prescribed, the 

Secretary of War may rescind said contract or bid, and decla.re the same forfeited, 

and relet such work, and shall have the same rights and powers in regard to each contract or bid and to each bidder or contractor ·under the first or any subsequent lettin_g or reletting as.herein given; and no payment shall be made by the Secretary of War for any work done, in whole or in part, until such work shall be 

accepted by said commission and approved by the Secretary of War. 

SEc. 8. The Secretary of War may detail from the Engineer Corps of the Army of the United States any officer who may he selected and recommended by saitl 

commission, or a majority thAreof, including the president of s~id commission, t1l 

act as secretary of 11aid commission. • SEc. 9. The Secretary of War is herebyoauthorized to expend the sum of 250,000 

for the payment of the salaries herein provided for, and of the necessary e::~..-penses 

incurred in the completion of such surveys as may now be in pro!rress, and of such 

additionalaur>eys, examinations, and investigations as may be ffeemed necessary, 

and in maturin~ and perfecting and reporting the plans and estimates, and the 

plans, specifications, and estimates contemplated by this act, as herein provided 

for; and said sum is hereby appropriated for said purposes out of any money in 

the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 

The amendments reported by the Committee on Levees and Iruprovement of the Mississippi River were read, as follows: 

In sectio~ 4, line 17, strike out the words "President of the United Stat~~ of 

America," and insert the words "Secretary of 'Var." 

•