National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-02-24
THE BOUNTY BILL,

A Few Pertinent Facts About Equalization.
To the Editor orthe National Republican:
SIR: A communication in your paper and re-
marks of Senator Sargent, who spoke Of the bill
as entaIlng an expense Of also 900 900, induce me
to offer few words in relation to the equalIzs-
ton bounty bill now before the Senate. Your
correspondent, If, as he says, he was wounded, has
received or is now entitled to receive the full
bounty which any member Of his regiment re-
ceived. Under existing laws q discharge for
ter how short the SERVICE gives the same bounty
that service for the full term gives. murphy
gets no more than your correspondent, and your
Correspondent is entitled to . pension besides,
which murphy" is not.
As to Senator Sargent's statement all men IA
milar with the legislation OF Congress for the last
fifteen years know It is based on wrong ideas.
The total cost Of equalizng bounties was esti-
G1sS o6o S6o 'n inne tbat tma thSss 81 a beI
passed bounty acts as follows:
Act Of June, 1865, putting colored troops, In
some respects, on an equality with white troops.
The cost has been great.
Act Of July %, 1865, "equalIzing " bounties
This has or will cost over one hundred million
Act of March 8, 1850, which has cost MIL
Act of April p, 1878, which has cost mil
lions.
Act of March 8, 1872, which has cost MIL
lions.
In one sense they have done it-they have made
the man with 800 equal to the man who got 500;
Dut IN taCt Ile result mas not Deel eQuallZllR
tranquilizing. For instance, the act Of July %,
1885, which cost, say 81, ,0Oo applied exclu-
sively to two classes, viz: Those who enlisted be.
tween the beginning Of the war and December 81
1863 and those who enlisted between April ], 1854
and July lS 1854 Half OF this Sl25 000 900 goes to
those who enlisted between the latter dates and
who had already received 800 bounty, and who
therefore have received Sl62S per month of bounty,
their service not exceeding, on an average, one
year.
or course, there were more enlistments between
April, 1851, and December, 1858, than between
April and July IS, 1884; but so many Of the for
mer class 'yeteraniZed" or SUBSEQUENTLY enlisted
for one, two, or three years, and. therefore, re-
ceived no money under the equalization act Of
July Is, 1885, that, in fact, onehaf the money ap-
had already received all that the present act calls
for for any party, viz ts1S per month. The act
Of April; ls72, gives 400 to man enlisting at
twenty. This was another attempt at equalIza-
ton. The act Of March 8, 1874 while just in IT.
self, was conspicuous failure as an equalization
measure, being open to the same objection as the
act Of July 2S, 1856, discussed above.
The present bill does not propose to equsliEe the
several hundred millions, but It does propose to
pay, provided the soldier has not received It al
ready, Ss 80 Is for each month OF actual service
on enlistments during the war. Nine-tenths of
the soldiers have received that and more; some
by legislation and War Department orders during
the war, and some by halfway equalization"
legislation since the war. This bill IS in fact, an
effort to bring those who have received nothing
as near as possible TO those who have received
something. It seems to be well calculated for
that purpose.
There are two further reasons why this bill will
not cost SO much as estimated. The first BILL on
which Senator Sargent's extravagent estimate
was made, included soldiers Of the regular army
who were in service when the war broke out.
This ones does not, and millions must be taken
from his figures for that one reason. The first
bill made no deductions for State bOunties. This
one does, thereby keeping many millions In the
Treasury. A familiar acquaintance with the
whole subject since 1868 leads me to believe that
Senator Logans estimate Of so 900 900 is liberal
one. b.