The National tribune., 1882-08-12

| you have nothing except the evidence of the
| rolls to show whether there was desertion or
| not.
1t has been said here that where there was
| absence without leave there was charge OF
desertiOn. In many cases that depends largely
upon the officer in command, the captain OF the
company. Where a soldier left, disappeared
without leave, the captain in his discretion
might carry him on the rolls as absent without
leave, or he might have him marked as de-
serter.
Take the case which was put little while
ago, where the war was practically closed, and
the soldier left his command for q day or two,
expecting to return before his command was
mustered out. The captain, when he found by
the roll-call that he did not appear, marked
him as deSerter.
Now, the soldier intended to do the very
thing he did do. He intended to leave in vio-
latiOn of the rules, under circumstances which
justified his being marked on the roll as
deserter. The soldier comes back a week
afterward and finds that the regiment is mus
tered out. Now, this bill affords that man no
relief under heaven.
L Will take another case /; | have in mind
another instance. A soldier enlisted in an IL
linOis regiment and was wounded at the battle
of Pea Ridge. He went into hospital, and
while there his command left. Soon afterward
another regiment came along and he enlisted
III bIdI lcSAiIIGHt uHucE dllobnST 11OW,
the very fact that he enlisted under another
name indicated purpose on his part to desert
contrary to the rules of war
Mr. TowNsHEND, of Illinois. Did he desert
the service?
Mr.. RYAN. You do not say anything in
your bill about deSerting the service; all you
say IS that the person to be benefited by this
bill shall not appear to have been an Intentional
deserter. Now, let me go on.
AS L said, another regiment came along and
he enlisted in that regiment under another
name. He served honorably and faithfully in
that regiment and died on the battlefield Of
wounds received while in that service. Now
there is no relief for his representatives under
this bill. And there are plenty of such eases.
Now, ifthe committee of conference had made
provision as | have indicated, if they hal
not said Intentional desertion of service" it
would have enabled the Department to have
provided for that class of persons; but this bill
in my judgment does nothing of the kind.
Mr.. CALKINs. 1 now desire to move the
previous question on the adoption of the report
of the committee of conference.
Mr.. HENDERSON. 1 would like to say
word on this subject.
Mr.. TowNsHEND, of Illinois. I hope my
colleague, the chairman of the Committe on
Military Affairs, Mr.. HENDERSON, will be
allowed to say word or two.
Mr.. CALKINs. yield to the gentleman from
Illinois.
Mr.. HENDERSON. I want to say this: This
bill seems in some way to have got out from
under the control of or to have deserted the
Committee on Military Affairs; still feel an
interest in the passage of the bill.
l will say to the gentleman from Kansas
Mr.. RYAN that it is almost impossible to so
frame general bill as not to admit OF the re-
moval of the charge of desertion in some cases
where it ought not to be removed.
The bill was prepared carefully by the Com
mittee on Military Affairs, and with express
reference to guarding against the possibility OF
having the charge of desertiOn removed from
those who Intentionally deserted the flag of
their country. The case spoken of by my
friend from Kansas Mr.. RYAN is one of that
class which l think ought to be and must be
provided for by special law, for the very reason
that if you undertake to pass general law
here which will embrace all those cases it will
be so broad in its scope that it will admit OF
the removal of the charge of desertion from
some who were willful deserters.
Now, think this bill ought to pass in tie
shape it now is. / should have had no serious
objection if it had passed this morning in the
way it came from the Senate.
Mr.. CALKIN5 | now demand the previous
question upon the adoption of the report.
The previous question was ordered, and the
report of the committee of conference adopted.
The report was also adopted in the Senate, and
on Monday, the 7th inst, it received the Pres
ident's signature, and is therefore now law.