The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1882-02-11
Justice, not Charity.

defense of the Arrears of Pensions Act. Its pub
LEGATION has been unavoidably delayed but it is
one of those mastery appeals to human reason
that calls them forth passes away. Every line
of this remarkable speech breathes forth the most
exalted patriotism, but it derives its greatest
force from the fact that it is ringing call to the
country to render-not pity, not charity, not
alms-but simple, naked Justice to its pensioners.
Before its fervent periods all the sophistres, the
calumnies, and willful falsehoods which the enc
mics of the Pension acts have brought forward
melt away like the mists of morning before the
rising sun, and the truth, fixed and eternal,
stands out like the North star in the heavens
on some clear and frosty CHIT
We shall attempt no analysis of on this
memorable address, but there are two points, at
least, which cannot be too earnestly pressed upon
the attention of the public. In the first place, is
the American soldier to be treated as the almoner
or the creditor of the Nation, and in the second
if he is creditor, is bis claim equally good with
that of the bondholder? Upon these hang all
the law and the prophets. An affirmative
answer carries with it the justification of the
Arrears of Pensions Act and negative answer
it's condemnation. What are the facts? The
Government, at a time when it had sore need of
men to fight its battles, entered into contract
to care for those who were disabled in its service,
and support the families of those who were killed
At the same time having need also of the means
to defray the expenses of the war, it entered into
a contract to pay certain interest on such loans
of money as might be made to it. This last
contract was expressed in the form of bond,
the value of which depended absolutely upon
the result of the war. Had the Government
from any cause-its inability to raise an army
or the refusal of that army to do its duty-failed
to put down the rebellion, it's bonds would have
been worthless, so that it is to the valor and
patriotism of the American soldier that the
bondholder is indebted for the recovery of his
money. If the Governments obligation, then, to
carry out its contract with the bondholder was
sacred, how much more sacred was its obligation
to the soldier who made that possible! He, not
the bondholder, by every principle of equity
and Justice was the preferred creditor; and yet.
when the time for the fulfllment of the Gov
ernment's obligations came around, the soldier
was forced to accept part pay while the bond
holder was paid in full That is to say, Con-
gress, in all the pension laws that it passed
down to 1879, set a limit as to the time for
which pensions should begin, so that, unless a
ant would be debarred from drawing pension
from the date at which his service ended and his
part of the contract was discharged. The bond
holder, on the contrary, was permitted to present
his claim at any time. 1t was to atone for this
rank injustice that the Arrears of Pensions bill
was passed, and its effect was neither more nor
less than to place the men who gave their lives
to the country on an equal footing with those
who merely lent their money.
It has been charged that this measure was a
gigantic swindle, and at this very moment the
newspapers are urging its repeal. If it was a
swindle, in what did the swindle consist? The
Government evidently was not swindled, for the
act simply compelled it to discharge debt of its
own creation, and to creditors the legality of
whose claims it had itself prescribed the manner
of proving and the bill made no claim valid
that was not so before Who then was swindled?
1t has been said that it opened the door to the
payment of fraudulent claims. How, wider than
before, without a change in the laws as to the
character of proof required to establish the va
lidity of claim? But the payment of the ar
rears, it is further said involves the Government
in greater expense than its revenues warrant
Surprising, for the sake of argument, that such
was the case, in what way would that diminish
the obligation of the Government to pay its debts
or affect the principle involved in paying them
But as Senator Voorhees, points out, the facts as
well as the arguments are all the other way
The total amount paid for pensions up to July
LIST. 1881, was but S516, 5s3, 1896, while on that
date 81 49,, 567,901 had been paid for interest
alone on S2O49975,700 of Government bonds
which really cost the holders but 81 81 ,44 ,238
since they paid for them in deprecated currency
and sold them for gold the difference amounting t.
clear bonus of 1878 551 462, S162 ,008 066 more
than the entire cost of pensions But the insin
oar;+y of tb;c cry of economy becomes still more