The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-02-22

dfsyensea
Congress had intended il should have been adhered TO Ia
his case, the provision would naturally have been. Colonel
he quilt the The reference 70 earlier period must
have had some meaning and the only rational consroc
ton put upon the clause s that Colonel Pfestons pen
sion should when his disability commenced
the object OF the act being clearly 10 dispense with the
pcaon and 10 x itself the dime hon which the pension
Il may be added ,hat. subsequently, ibis time iastan
occurred In which pensions were granted TO officers oil
LEWIS cAss
Here is the verihcaton OF all have said that the rule
has not been an nvarabe one but that il has been ad
heed TO and suspended al the executive discretion But
have said enough upon this point TO show that this
is precisely in point and that the rule has been vaci
iatng and not uniform. lew words more, and have
done.
contend that this bill ought 10 pass, upon The ground
OF handed Justice. contend that disabled officers
of the army should be placed upon the footing as
the gallant and disabled officers OF The navy. Can any
reason be assigned why pension should begven TO the
officers OF the navy, from the date oil their wounds and
not TO the officers OF the army The same rule, be
eve, applied TO officers OF the navy prior 10 1887
when Congress passed law for the benefit OF wounded
and disabled seanen By the second section Of that act
oil March 3, 1887 II Is provided
That the pensions which may have been granted, or
which may hereafter be granted, 10 officers seumen and
marines in the naval service, disabled by wounds nu
ries received while ia the line of their duty shall be
sidered commence from the time OF their being die
abled and That the amount OF pension 20 which sad ol
cors, seanen ana marines may be entitled Shall be regu
lated according 10 the ply OF the navy as 1t existed ON the
first day OF January, 1918
Under this law the officers OF the navy drew pensions
from the time they wounded, though they held
their commissions in the navy and drew full pay during
the same time.
Then contend that this bill ought to pass as a meas
ure Of even handed justice TO the officers of the army
They should be placed upon the same footing when
wounded and disabled the officers of The navy
No reason, II strikes me- can be assigned why should
not be So
have now given brief explanation of this bill, and
have assigned the why think it ought to pass
hope It will meet the universal appreciation OF the
Senate.
Mr. CLARKE | have listened with attention, and
confess with some graicauon, TO the rema ks made by
the honorable senator from New Hampshire Mr.. Non
RIs | cheeriully add my feeble testimony 10 the en-
comums which he has passed upon the bravery OF the
distinguished officer General McNeill to whom he has
alluded and whose services have been made the subject
oil debate, and form the grounds OF the bill which is
before the Senate. have no doubt II 10 rueIt cannot
be doubted that General McNei entered the service of
the United States in 1912, in The then projected or exist
ing war with Great Britain. There is doubt that he
was gallant and merliorous officer He was upon the
frontier IN the hour, perhaps, OF the greatest trial that
our troops had upon the frontier and IN the war; and he
was there wounded. had the pleasure OF meeting that
gentleman frequently 1926, and from his own mouth,
and from the personal acquaintance | had with him,
cep that which before the public at large evncng
his character as gallant and meorious officer AT The
battle OF Brdgewater he received severe wound 1t
was in his knee. He lost leg. How long he was
kept from his duty by that wound am unable TO say
When | met him IN 1926 the disability occasoned by il
was of the slightest description Very few men had
the personal energy and activity OF General MCNEIL and
when him, except that the joint had sthened be-
lieve there inconvenience experienced from his
wound AT the time he received he major in the
service He afterwards promoted to lieutenant,
colonelcy, then TO oolonecy and subsequently, un-
dersand the SENATOR he received the grade oil brgader
general
When saw him in 1926 at Detroit the residence OF
my friend from Michigan, [Mr. CAss.l he on his
way to Green Bay, under charges that bad been
preferred against him as commanding officer at Green Bay
10 take his tral before court martial He was then
a q q
manhood any gentleman | have seen in my life.
he renamed IN the service, receiving his pay aud emo
uments until, believe, 1880 or 1881 | think II
1880. he received pay as major, then as lieutenant
colonel then colonel and If he beyeted brig adler
general he probably received pay II in separate COM
mand, according 10 his brevet In ls3o-or may have
been 1899 my memory Is not retentive enough 10 be
confident OF the daiehe resigned his commission
in the army because he had received the appointment OF
surveyor OF the port of Boston believe he did not
sign his commission IN the army from inability TO per-
form lis duties, but because the appointment which he re-
celyed lucrative and more to his taste than The
position he held IN the army The suryeyorship of the
porl OF Boston Melted him. suppose, $4,000 year He
retained that office during almost the whole OF tie balance
OF his life In $780, when another administration came
IN he may have been superseded but he was again 70
ipstaed and remained there during the rest OF his life
Has the country been ungraefu 10 General Mcneil
admit all his services | admit he brave and gal
LIANT officer But he received all his pay during the whole
time Of his service in the army He resigned his com
mission in the army because he received more ucra
tive appointment in the civil service OF the government
and he received the emoluments arising from the perform
ance OF his duties in the latter capacity during almost the
whole balance OF his life,
The honorable senator from New Hampshire puts the
claim OF General Mcneil upon The ground that there was
proposed by the government and binding upon
IL, ia 1872 when he enlisted in the army OF the United
States II that be 80. il claim OF General Mcneil
HIMSELF OF his executors administrators. against the
government for such pension as he should have been
allowed from the time he received his wound in the SER
vice OF the country until the time OF his death but II
forms no ground whatever for dating and carrying back
the pension 10 his widow from the time OF his decesse TO
the ilme he received his wound understand also that
lie did receive some pension from the government OF The
United States The only question, then, is whether II
should have been larger allowance from the govern
ment than II was, or whether the allowance made by the
government was sufficient
Mr. NORRIS. Do | understand the senator to say that
General Mcneil received any pension from The govern
mentl
Mr. CLARKE. | understood the senator from New
Hampshire TO say that he had received some allowance.
Mr.. NORRIS Then the senator misunderstood me
altogether He received no pension.
Mr. CLARKE. II he did not he received his full
pay and emolumenis during tina, time Now, my obec
ton to this bill is not that gives pension 10 The
widow | am for providing for the widows and child
rem OF those who suffer IN the service OF their country
this bill provided that the widow OF General Mcneil
should receive pension from his DEATH in consde alton
bu, when il provides that thirty dollars month shall be
allowed from 1915 the present time, think il is extra
ordinary-
Mr. BORLAND | would state TO the senator from
Rhode Island that the bill provides FOR the payment OF
the sum of thirty dollars per month"; not from 1913 10 the
present time but from lSl3 when Gen. Mcneil received
his wound, to $780, when he went out OF the service
Mr. CLARKE. Then | certainly misunderstood the
provisions OF the bill II ltprovides as the senator IRON
Ax.~. al Ia aInpI Ul tn