The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-02-17

might save the trouble OF q second speech. ~
gentleman says he will vote for the amendment viii
great cheerfuness, II the construction put upon
is true, that il enlarges the boundary in favor o
widows. But the gentleman, 10 Committee Of tn
Whole on the state Of the Union, when AN amend
ment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky Il
pension all widows married previous 10 the yea
1900, was decided by the chairman out Of order
ysted in Hfirmanee Of tho decision Of the chair
thereby declaring out Of order Yet he tells us il
the House that an amendment couched in the sans
language az he voted TO exclude, he would volt
for,
Mr.. ADAMS. Really am not able to answer
any member Of this House how | voted upon
question Of order two or three years ago.
Mr. MCKAY. II was Thursday last TO which
referred; and the amendment was the amendment
Of the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.. TBBATTs,
proposing to give pension to ali widows married
previous to 1900. question Of order was raised
the chairman Mr.. BRoDBEApl decided the amend
ment out Of order; and the gentleman from
Massachusetts voted 10 sustain the decision Of the
chair
MIR. ADAMS (resuming) said, ofcourse il he had
thought tie amendment was out OF order, he had
voted against il. Surely the gentleman in his grea
zeal for guarding the public treasury should not al
low himself TO be carried so far as TO believe be-
cause he (Mr. A. had voted against a proposition
when he had professedy voted against il because il
was out of order, that he was therefore bound To
vote against it when IL was offered in order. But
because he had voted against il expressly upon the
ground that it out Of order, il his friend would
exercise his logical powers he would be very likely
conclude that he would vote for IL il il in or
der That was exactly the fact. He wished 10
vote for IL because Il was in order
But this amendment, Continued Mr. A., y consist.
ed of two parts, both of which intended fr-
cilitate widows obtaining their pensions. Now he
said that the widow Of an officer or a soder-a pub
lie servant actually pensioned for suffering or service
n the public cause.-The said TO his friend the chair
man Of the Committee of Ways aud Means, that he
would apply his sweeping spirit Of retrenchment
and his sleepless vigilance in guarding the public
treasury better IN any other way than by resisting
the applications for pensions Of the widows oil
mertorious men. With reference 10 these IA
Ciiites they rendered necessary by the strict
ness of the Commissioner Of Pensions--an admira.
bic officer whom he approved in these striclnesses
He was officer with whom he (Mr A had had q
good deal to do IN application for pensions in behalf
Of his constituents but happened that in all the
applications which he had submitted to him, he had
always found him a perfectly fair and meritorious
public officer. Mr. A. obliged TO render him
this tribute because he perceived that this principle
Of strictness, in which he sympaIhized well with
the chairmsp of the Committee Of Ways and Means
carried him far; and Mr.. A. would add that, with
his principles Of strctness, he united those of JUS
tee. lie had always found him perfectly fair TO.
Wdrus applChnts TOT penslODs
The first provision of this amendment was that no
widow should be required to prove the services oi
her deceased husband il at the time Of his decesse
he was actually pensoned. What could be more
reasonable and just than that man was pen.
stoned; he could not be pensioned unless he had
furnished all the evidence Of service required by the
department The very fact of his being pensioned
at the time Of his decease appeared to him, upon
every rule Of evidence, conclusive to the Justice
Of the pension. II the fact was proved that he was
pensioned, the law Of Congress which extends "a
the widow carries with il the pension to her. Sup.
pose, then, that the Commissioner Of Pensions did
sometimes require the widow to give additional tes-
tmony, even although the records of the Office
showed that the husband had been pensioned. Mr.
A should be glad TO remove this scruple from his
mind by saying that the fact of the husband recsy-
ing pension at his death should be considered con-
elusive evidence for the widow.
He found also in the letter Of the Commissioner
Of Pensions that he had some question as to the
amount which would be due under that part of the
amendment. Ii seemed to him Mr.. A. that if the
fact was established that the husband enioyed a
pension, the amount he received must be on the
same evidence. There was nothing to do but 20
10 the record and see what amount the husband
enjoyed, to know according to the law of Congress
what was the amount which the widow should en-
Joy after his decease.
1t was suggested to himthat the husband who en-
vice, ard all the incidents necessary to obtain a
given amount Of pension. He did not how i,
could give any trouble except little research of the
records which he knew the Commissioner Of Pen
sions would cheerfuy give.
As to the fact Of marriage, as he had already OBJ
served 1t should be 30 that this amendment should
be construed to entirely the limitation of the
present law, II would be much the more q favor.
tie amendment to him. He wished to sec the limit
alton abolished; and he never in his life had seen
that limitation applied to the of applicant fol
pension without blushng for his country that we
had ever allowed such limitation in our law
Why, his honorable colleague Mr.. WNTHRoPl al
this very session Of Congress had presented petit
ton from the widow of revolutionary officers
man who had also endeared himself to his country
by the great discovery Of the Columbia rver-who
after the close Of the war, in consequence o.
"Othello's occupation" being "gone," was pur
suing the occupation in which he had made the
discovery of the Columbia river and from tn,
reading of the petition, it appeared that that very
man was an officer in the revolutionary army
and that his wife would now be entitled to thu
pension she asks, if she had been married only
TWO months before she was. But because she wa,
married in the month of February, 1874, and no
on the 3lst December, 1893, she Gu, off, under
the existing law, from a pension There was tn,
generosity which the government extended TO the
widows of mertorious officers and public servants
He wished to support her claim andall such claims
by removing that arbitrary limitation. He had beer
under the necessity Of disappointing the widows o
revolutionary officers and soldiers-in one case of
woman who had married on the 9th of January
1894, within one week of the limitations; and If
several other cases, where the marriage took place
shortly after. He had always felt that it gross
injustice on the nart Of his country; and he did moi
think it possible Tor n man to render a greater anC
more valuable service to his country than to be the
agent of doing away this injustice. If the Com
missioner of Pensions should give different con
struction to the amendment from that which hi.
friend, the chairman Of the Committee of WAY,
and Means, seemed to be so much afraid of, he (Mr
A. should be ready to pnss another act in so many
terms, that the Commissioner Of Pensions SHOULD
have no apology for applying this limitation, by re
moving it altogether.
He had risen for the purpose Of paying to thu
chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means
new tribute to the care with which he guarded tn,
public treasury and for which he Justly entitled
to so much credit and he wished to remind the gen
tleman, that in England, the treasurer Of England
bears staff, the reason assigned by Lord Coke 70
which is to drive away applicants from the publi
treasury. He thought if this House should say
that anybody should bear staff here, it should b.
his friend the chairman Of the Committee Of Way