Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1839-02-26
,T1ycnty-fifth Congress---3d sess.


TWenty-fifth Consress---sa Sess.
SPEECH OF MR. RHErr, OF SOUTH CAROllNA'
On the Report Of The Committee q ways ena Isan rs J nv
Lrered IN ie House u Representatives, o" 'ae i't aug
of february. lo39. o:,,o r.
n Spr,Kpr: | am a member of the Committee OF
Ways and Means and trust, therefore, the HOUSE WIN
perceive the propriety OF my oe'enaihs e "a or
commi,tee has made the state OF the hnahces' au
showipo if can that the 'magn'hcent o'unoefS anu
"scapGaTous ignorance" imputed to II by Inc gentleman
from P,nnsyvana (Mr Bidde) exist rather 10 ms IAN
~ than in fact So enormous and complicated inoeeu
do our errors appear the sober estimation OF la' gen
iIeman that the usual process oil amendment ~ tue
House will no, do On motion made by the chairman
of the committee. (Mr Cambreeng) io1 eaVe 10 suAe
out single sentence IN part Of the aPPenu'"' eu'
,,nno statement from the Indian bureau uie genlIe
ma, from PENNSYLVANIA moves 10 recommt ihe whnle
report that it may undergo thorough anu luxurious
Ius,ra,ion from It's manifold impurities fot'nna!ey'
Sir the gentleman has given US an VI ou
erro,s by which the House Judge OF the pt"pt'ey
of his motion and the iabGrs OF the c"nnii'ec, u MS
motion prevails, may he greatly abridged
Bni h. fore enter on these imputed errors IN the re
port permit 10 say few words as 10 the PI'ncpes
on which the House will recomnt report, or Tue
n,snha,< NJ committee may be held responsible Tor
its facts Il is obvious that IN iaooiious anu
LENGTHY document, like that under Conscientious con-
tanning Of facts there may De si'ght naecua
ces boh in fact and differences. winch the coHinllce
mar oysr,o,k and the House would disregard But
any material fact, leading ~ any inaleTia prlncipe,
misstaipd, The cnmmlitre-the whole c"mhitee, ID
bamcuble and il many such errors exist 50 as 70 enoer
il n, all Difficult, TO recy them IN the house, The re-
nort ouyht 10 be recomniItsd. ! will add one other
principle not affecting The relations between Tue com
mi,,ee and the House "Libeis or scandals, las The
gentleman from pennsy lvanIa calls heh on lnclvldu-
ns not on this floor ought clearly to be stricken from
n report They constitute, indeed, good ground tor
con,rmptuousIy spurning the document winch contains
them from your table Now with these principles tor
our conduct which, trust, Will obtain the sanction OF
WhD hears let examine TIE
errors imputed &c The committee by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania
The first, and If il exists at all, trust will show
the only error IN fact made by the committee, 10 that
with r.spcc, 10 the pc laws, which the gentleman
from Pennsy has quoted in his speech, now in my
hand.
"Prior to 1885, says The report, "ihere was node.
nar,ure from the ordinary pension rules except as 10
EVOLUTIONARY soldiers but that year, provision made
generally Tor pensions in ordinary cases of DEATH while
in the service after the Goth April, 1915 whether oil
wounds or not
The gentleman from Pennsy lvauia contends that the
act of Sc included The militia only; whereas the slate
ment this clause Of The report 49, that It includes the
regular army aso anu hot tins is foul imputaon on
the twelve thousand who composeit Now, SIR, am
willing 10 admit, that the inference cohenceu o' may
he deduced from the words Of The report Certainly lis
language is quite explicit as should desire; but
the question not whether there is room Tor an errone-
Gus inference by those who may be ignorant OF our pen
sion laws but whether there is any error IN tact lbs
the report stated what is untrue the gentleman main.
tains? This will turn, entirely on the meaning OF the
word "gcneraHy" in the clause. Neither the regular
army nor the militia, are expressly mentioned Does
the use This word necessarily include The regular army
The gentleman admits that the whole mrilia povid
ed for by the act of So Well, is il not Ihen prov
sion "aeneIay' for the whole mitia' and when the
act itself in reference 10 which The committee uses this
genera phraseology, specifically mentioned, and quot
ed as its authority what ground can there be for mis-
rehenson? The committee Is addressing The Con
gress OF the United States assembly OF distinguish
ed lawyers, and II ought not 10 be very violent pre-
eu,npion that they are no. entirely ignorant OF the
act Of Sc ard will therefore, not feel profoundly puz
zed with the general phrase used in describing H. The
act Of SO, eenerdt act IN favor OF The militia; 1t
would be more generat, if extended 10 The regular
army; il would be still more general II II embraced Gil
the officers aud retaines Of the Government, whether
in its civil or military employment. But because legs
laon extending to the militia and regular army or all
the officers of this Government, would be general il
does not follow that legislation, with respect 10 any
of tb.se great departments Of service, may not with
propriety, be termed general also. To maintain the
con,rsry would involve in an absurd calculation Of
quantities.
from Pennsyivania relies prove That the regular army
was included their general Phraseoogy. If, says
the committee in concluding their remarks on the sub
iect of pensions, f we continue TO grant PENSIONS IN
cases of ordinary DEATH i'll in war to the repre-
scn,u,ives Of all Who employed in The military
vice whether in the regular army not, and TO all in
the naval service, shalt soon follow the example Of
mOnaychieB, &c fere again, is lOoSe pnrastolo
ov hut there is no assertion that the innovation spoken
81 actually extends all the services enumerated for
;f an Then the suggestion that shall soon lolcw the
e,nmrle or some monarchies, is absurd. We actual
lv following their example. The clause is merely ny
po,hecal Il supposes state Of things not existing,
and points TO their example, 10 be avoided
Blu, am willing Mr. Speaker, to admit, if the gen.
tleman wishes it, that the regular army are included in
the general phraseology the committee has used; What
harm is il? The committee is arguing upon grave mat
ters of principle and policy Ii says that departure
from the principle Of pensionng only the families Of
those who fall in battle die Of wounds received in
the service has been made and they quote the act Of
1886 TO supper, their assertion. That such legislation
exiss with respect the militia and the navy il not de.
MED OF what consequence Sir, it the principle
against which they contending-of what conse
can it be To the House in egslang on this prea,
nrincine if in their general phraseoIogy they do inn
pv or assert that the regular army favored by similar
legislation? Certainly the intelligence Of the House can
he but little perverted BY harmless But then
il is foul wrong ndvduasit is atrocious Sian.
der on regular army who not being here to defend
themselves, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, gene.
,ousy steps forth shield them from the imputation
Sir we have suddenly become very cbary the subject
IF neusions like this tone of high dsdan at being
suppoeed 10 be pensioners this Goyernment but fear
the has il all himself and that there is bu,
little participation in his feelings by those whom he
.nnooser himself defending II such a noble spirit of
indepe udence existed there would be hope that
our whole pension system, not exceeded in prohiqacy
by tina, of any people on EARTH wsuls some day other