The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1866-09-04
Rather Hard on Niblack.
From the Indianapolis Herald, Sept. ]

| u lie
THE EXTRA BOUNTY.
The bill, facetiously called bill for the
| equalization of bounties, was, as everybody
knows, very iInperfectIy and bungingIy
framed. One section, at least, is notorious
ly inopperative, from the fact that it APP
plies to no class of soldiers who served In the
army. We have serious doubts If the bill
was ever intended. by its trainers, to bestow
additional bounty upon any class of
soldiers, and are inclined to think it was
Grtftlly drGOn 1oith Uiel0 to render Il iaOper-
Gtive and void, and simply put forth as a bait
TO catch votes. It is not surprising If this Is
the case, that the stOiedlers should attempt
to throw the blame Of delaying the opera
ton OF the bill upon the shoulders OF the
President, as we see they are doing. In
stances are by no means uncommon in
which the cry of " stop thief" is raised, for
the purpose Of facilitating the escape Of the
real thief. We repeat the opinion that we
expressed some time since that no soldier tOiU
erer receive q cent Of bounty under this bin,
and that it t0as neveT Intended that he should
We may be mistaken in this, and hope we
are.
Now we submit that this is very
unkind treatment from the leading
Copperhard newspaper of the State
to our worthy Congressman, Mr.. NIB
LACK. He boasts of his services in
securing the passage of the Bounty
to the soldiers, and declared that the
only reason why he voted for the in
iquitious provision to increase the
pay of Congressman, was because he
had to do it to secure the passage of
the Bounty to the soldiers. We have
conclusively proved that his state
ment was plain perversion of the
fact. But to have him thus denounced
in the house of his friends, is to
be too much for his poor human ma
ture. Can it be that Mr.. NIBLAcK
had anything to do with having it
" artfully drawn with view to rem
der it imperative and void?" Is it
possible that such a hight toned gen
tleman as our handsome Representa-
tive would so tamper with just and
righteous claim as that of our Union
soldiers and so frame a bill that it
would be " simply put forth as bait
to catch votes?" Is he one of the
swindlers" referred to by the Heralds
And what does the. Herald mean
by alleging that it was gotten up
for the purpose of facilitating the es-
cape Of the real thief?p Does it mean
to say that the law for the increase of
pay to Congressman could not have
been cotton through Congress but for
the aid of this sham of a Bounty
Bill, and that NIBLAcK and the rest
of them virtually stole the extra 81, 900 |
voted themselves, the mileage, and |
the seventeen months back pay? And |
after Mr.. NIBLACK' boast of what he |
had done for the soldiers, and how he |
had abused has conscience by voting
himself largely increased pay, simply
to pass the Bounty Bill, it is in very |
bad taste for the Democratic organ of |
the State to say that no soldier will |
ever receive cent of bounty under
this bill and that IL scas neuer intended
that he should" ya ~
A few days ago we reviewed NIB
LACKS action on the Bounty Bill and |
Increased Pay to congressman, and
proved to the satisfaction of every
candid man that he was notwarranted
in the statement, which he made that
he was compelled to vote for the in
creased pay in order to secure the |
passage of the Bounty Bill but on the
contrary established the fact beyond
all controversy that his statement was
directly in opposition to the facts, as
derived from the Congressional record.
We further showed that he and Others |
struck out SCHEMES Bounty Bill, |
which was Gberalin its provisions, and |
substituted the present meager one,
which, if we believe Democratic au-
thority, the Herald, is, worse than