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


first aud the second clsuses) he said that il was re.
CURED that there should be suficien, evidence in
the department to show that the applicant was the
widow OF man who was drawing pension, and
who was married prior 10 1884.
But gentlemen were mistaken; and the commits
sioner did not state 10 the House what he required
before furnishing pension. There were many
gentlemen around him who stated that the commits
sioner required other evidence. IL was not the law
that record evidence was required in courts Of JUS
ice, uness Il be proved TO the court that there Is
record evidence. Record evidence was the higher
evidence; then the evidence of persons present at
the marriage; then evidence by reputsuon-to W.T.:
that the parties had been living together as man and
wife. But il was not Incumbent the court TO re-
qure record evidence unless such evidence was hrst
proved TO exist The difference between the com
missioner and the courts was this: the commission
requires the party prove that thee u no record
evidence, while the courts did not require record
evidence unless such evidence was proved TO exist
and with the commissioner the affidavit Of the party
was not sufficient the evidences OF those not Interest,"
ed must be brought; he was therefore presuming a
fact winch, the court does not presume. Whenever
one party calls upon the opposite party 10 produce
higher evidence the court asks hun, els that higher
evidence ia existence" And when this 10 shown,
then il is that the party Is required to pro-
duce it.
One answer 10 all these objections was this: II
this is the law already praetlsed upon by the de-
partment, this amendment can do no hurt; and the
Commissioner of Pensions and the chairman Of the
Committee Of Ways and Means cannot object to it..
II this was the law praetised upon as they we're
told, then the amendment was required SO that In
either case il could do no harm.
Mr. HAMLlN said the gentleman from Georgia
had anticipated much of what he intended 10 say.
There were, however, one or two suggestions
which the gentleman did not make, which be trusted
he might be pardoned in mentioning to sthi
House.
First, in reply to the chairman Of the Committee
Of Ways and Means. II that gentemans construc-
lion was correct, that the Commissioner of Pensions
might draw from this amendment power and au-
thorty to place the names of certain widows mar
red subsequent, well rs prior 10 1884 upon the
pension ist-if that the proper construction Of
the amendment the would vote for II for this sim
ole reason. He would ask the chairman Of tho
Committee Of Ways and Means by what reason
that arbitrary limitation ns To the time OF marriage
was fixed BY what sort Of charm they were to
declare that the widow of his ancestor married up
on the last day ofIhe year 1893, was entitled to
ceiye the bOuneS ofthis government, while widow
married the hIst day OF the succeeding year, was
entirely cut of, while the services Of the second
husband may have been twice those Of the first
He did not entirely concur with the gentleman,
that that the construction. II It were, he would
vote for the amendment, iffor no other reason.
Mr.. MCKAY MIR II. yielding for explanatory
" u
construction were placed upon it, would, in his own
opinion, as well as in the opinion Of the Commits
sioner Of Pensions, not only abolish what the gem
tleman called the arbitrary rule Of marriage prior
10 1894, but further that It's necessary consequence
would he, not only TO remove that limitation, but TO
place the widows OF oil officers and soldiers Of the
last war, OF all who were wounded, or had hesome
invalids upon the pension roll. IL was not confn-
ed to revolutionary officers. Gentlemen shook
their heads; butwas there anything in the amend
rnent which showed it was confined TO revo!utiona-
ry officers or solders' Not word.
Mr.. HAMLlN, resuming, said he would not
himself admit that the construction Of the gentle
man from North Carolina, and of the Commission
Of Pensions, the true and proper one; but he
repeated once MORE if it was the true one, and lift
went TO the precise extent now laid down by the
enllemsn, he would vote for il.
Let them examine and see what classes of persons
were entitled to pensions for services during the Last
war; None other than those deprived OF their bod
ly health, those who suffered loss oflimbs. And
he did not know but he would vote to extend to the
widows Of these a pension. He thought he would.
He did not, however, admit that that was the
proper construction which was attempted TO be
placed upon it, He believed that the main construc-
lion properly to be placed upon it, and the construc-
ton intended by the honorable gentleman who Of.
fered this amendment, wus, that when our govern
ment has evidence within its archives within Its own
possession showing the services Of the husband,
they should not call on the wife by other evidence
to show that he was entitled TO pension. The rule
Of construction adopted by the department was all
wrong. We have held out 10 the world that for
certain services rendered by the husband, we will
bestow on his surviving widow pension; and yet,
with the generosity Of the law spread out to the
world, you hug within yonr possession and keep
within the secrets of your department the evidence
that would entitle these individuals to your bounty;
no, not to bounty but to pay for their services. He
believed that the only construction intended by
the honorable mover of the amendment, and the only
one which could properly be placed upon it.
But he said once again, if the amendment was as
bread as gentlemen declare, he would vote for it;
because il aboshes arbitrary law, and because, If
it did extend pensions to the widows of those who
served in the last war, il would then only include
the widows of those who lost their lives or health
in the service He would vote for it, because proper
~ compelled the government to disgorge the evidence
which it has within its archives. He disliked to
say to any class Of the community that we will give
grutuity, what is justly due from us, and then
to say we will not let you have the benefit of that
evidence which we have in own possession,
and which would entitle you to it. 1t was wrong in
spirit, wrong in substance, and wrong from begin
ming TO end. IL our pension law is wrong say 30;
but do not say to any class of our community you
will give them that to which they are entitled and
at the same time lock up in eternal silence the evil
dence which you have to show that they are entitled
to it, You would say of an individual that it was
disngenuous, ungenerous and mean to pursue such
a course of actrn-to profess to be willing to give
him compensation for services actually rendered at
the risk of life and health and then secretly to with
hold the information which he had in his posses.
sion to entitle the person thus rendering the ser.
vices to his compensation. He hoped the amend
ment would be adopted.
Mr.. ADAMS obtained the floor, and (after re-
mark from Mr. CHAPMAN, Of Alabama, as to the
purport of clause of the letter read Of the Com
missioner of Pensons,) proceeded to say that the
commissioner, in what had just been read by the
clerk, said that he never required any proof OF
widows when he knew that there this proof in
the department Now the amendment of the gen.
teman proposed that the widow shall not be re-
auired to produce evidence when the evidence is
in the archives Of the government.
Mr.. A. said that the latter was a more excn-
sive term than the former, and that there were
many papers-the papers of General Wash
ington, for instance-whch were in the archives OF
the government, which were not among the list OF
what was technically said to be the papers OF
the regular department He thought the object
Of the amendment was, that all widows should have
| the benefit of evidence in whatever form or manner
it might be in the possession Of the government, as