Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1872-03-28

charged soldier who.had enlisted ii the
service on or about the 18th of July.
1861, and was honorabiy discharged on
or about the 3rd day of Jan1ary. 1854
on surgeons certificate Of disability
he had laid in his claim for the bosinfv
OF one hundred dollars promised in the
order of May 4th, 1851. His claim was
rejected sby the Pay-Master- General.
and this rejection subsequently approy,
ed by the second Comptroller. He then
brought an action in the Court of Claims,
and this court sustained it. The u. s.
Attorney afterward appealed the case
TO the Supreme Court, and the iudg-
ment of the court below was affirmed.
In order to secure this decision, how
ever, in favor of the appellee, il had to
be admitted in the petition that he
was a member of the original forty reg
ments.
This decision settled the question as
to the rights of all soldiers belonging
70 these regiments-that they We're en-
Titled to the bounty, if honorably dis
charged, irrespective of the time serv-
ed or the nature of the disability re-
quiring their discharge. But the men
OF these forty regiments who were dis
charged on account of sickness before
the expiration of two years have not
received their bounty. No power has
been able to determine which OF the
eighty-two regiments accepted and
mustered III at that time belonged to
and were of the original forty; conse-
quently the accounting officers of the
Treasury Department have uniformly
refused to pay any of them until other
wise directed by Congress.
Legislation of the kind contemplated
by this resolution will relieve these
men and place them in a situation
which viii enable them to receive the
bounty that they are entitled to, both
by the order under whi,.i they enlisted
and the subsequent decision of the Su-
preme Court.
On the Sd day of March, 1863, an
amendatory act was passed which pro-
yided for the payment of bounty of
one hundred dollars to every enlisted
man who had been, or should be, dis.
charged on account of wounds received
in battle, whether having served two
years or shorter period. And ii was
decided by the Master General.
on the 10th of April, 1866, that the
word wound is to be understood In
the sense OF injury, hurt or damage,
centradistinguished from disease or
sickness" al ye ~ : 10. - :
Herein is exhibited an unjust, un-
reasonable and causeless discrimination
between disability from sickness or dis
ease, and that resulting from wounds.
Soldiers enlisting for three years of|
during the war, and afterward discharg-
ed on account of wounds or injuries re-
celved in the servicc-whether theyi
had suffered loss of limb by shells, or
hernia, produced by heavy cartridge
box; whether injured by falling limb
In the forest, or by the kick of q MULE
We're entitled to and received a bounty
OF one hundred dollars on their musteri
out; and by a subsequent law Of Con-
gress, passed July 2Sth. 1856, they werel
given another hundred as additionalI
bounty. But not so, the equally bfavei
and meritorious boy who perchanee
|still suffers from the frigid blasts which
leaped and whirled along the pickett
line; who, exhausted and jaded by
forced marches in the scorching sun |
Lof the Southern climate, compelled tol
lay himself upon the damp ground, |
wrapt in the blanket that was made |
heavy by the midnig ht storm, was dis |
abled and stiffened by rhenmatisn, or |
so reduced by that scourge of the camp,
chronic diarrhea, that he had 70 be |
sent home before the end oftwo years, |
a shadow of his former self. Not doll
lar of bounty did he get, either ofigi-
nal or additional. Many of this class,
once strong and vigorous, are now
hard pressed for the comforts of life;
and that too with the Government in
debt to them.
This resolution looks to legislation |
for the relief of this class of citizens. |
1t does not ask for anything unreasona-
BILE; it asks nothing that will involvei
an excessive expenditure. This is the
objection urged against what is known I
as the Eight-and One-third dollar BOun-
ty bill, which once passed the Ioweri
House of Congress. 1T failed in thel
Senate because of the heavy draughtl |
it would create upon the Treasury. |
But no such objection obtains againstl
this measure. The Schenck bill, Just
referred to, would if passed require an |
expenditure, tits said, of one hundred
and fifty millions of dollars-that con-
templated in this resolution cannot ex-
ceed fifteen or twenty millions.
1t is estimated that the class of dis
charges referred to numbers twenty
thousand in this State. That which,
is asked for is not only right and just in |
itself, but partakes Of the nature of the
payment of d debt which this nation
owes to so large class OF its worthy
defenders.