The National tribune., 1882-07-29

of tl,a Good faith of the soldier that he served
twelve months? Why should we have tins
clause in a bill at all, or who received n local
bounty?" 1t is put here, as L understand, to
prevent bounty-iumpers from taxing adVah-
lace of the provision of this act. If man
served twelve months is not that a guarantee
that he was not bounty jumper? Why Is 1t nee
essary 10 nut that in here to see that the class
of people who are called bounty jumpers shall
not be relieved of the charge of desertion?
In the Eastern States almost all the soldiers
who volunteered received local bounties and
as it seems TO me, leaving that clause in
the last section simply prevents any one
of our citizen-soldiers who volunteered from
the Eastern States and from New York and
from many other States deriving the slightest
advantage from this bill. 1t seems to me to be
entirely unnecessary.
move TO strike out in line II of section the
words or who received local Bounty
Mr. PLUMB l suggest to the Senator from
Connecticut that he ought to move to strike
out the next two words as well, the words ana
deserted"
Mr.. PLATT. I will so modify my amend
ment.
The President pro tempore. The amend
ment will be reported as modified.
The ACTING SECRETARY. In section f. lines
Is and 10 it is proposed to strike out the WoiuS
cor who received local bounty and deserted;
SO as TO read:
That no soldier, nor the heirs or legal represent
atives of any soldier, who served in the army a
period of less than twelve months shall be ent'ieu
10 the benefit of the provisions OF this act
Mr. HARRISON. wish to make suggestion.
There may be some reason i'll the suggestion OF
the Senator from Connecticut that If soldier
received a local bounty, as very many western
soldiers did, as well rs the Eastern, and served
until the expiration of the term of enlistment
or until the 22d day of May, 1863, and then
under his own summary and ill-consldered
construction, perhaps, of his contract of enlist
ment, went home, he should receive the bene-
fits of this measure.
Mr. COCKRELL. He would be relieved under
the first section of the bill just the same as any
body else. Under the first and second sections
those who received local bounties are relieved
Just as much as any others.
Mr.. HARRISON. ] am not sure that the Sen
ator from Missouri is right in saying that this
general provision in the bill, excepting all
those cases where a soldier received local bOun
~, would not also apply TO the first section. l
think it would. If so, then the clause which
the Senator from Connecticut moves TO strike
out should be made to read &" or who received
local bounty and deserted before the expiration
of their term of enlistment or before the 22d of
May. 1860" With that modification there
might be some reason for the amendment. As
the amendment was proposed by him 1t would
apply to a case of desertiOn prior to the 22d day
of Nav, 1865. The deserter TO be excused is
one who received no bounty as provided in the
first section after the expiration of the term OF
enlistment or after the 22d day of May, 1865.
Mr.. HoAR. Do not the other sections of the
bill make provision for all that by only describ
ing certain classes OF cases that come within 1t
Mr. HARRISON. / think the provision in the
fourth section that no soldier &c, who served
in the army period of less than twelve months,
or who received a local bounty and deserted,
shall be entitled TO the benefit of the provisions
of this act, takes that class of men out of the
benefits of it. 1t extends the period of deser-
ton after the expiration of the term of enlist
ment or after the 22d day of May, 1865. l
should have no objection if the words We're in
serted in the sixteenth line after the word
deserted" before the expiration of his term
of enlistment or before the 22d day Of May,
1868" / suggest to the Senator from Missouri
whether that would not be right
Mr.. COCKRELL. l have no objection to that
amendment. 1t makes it just what | think it
would be any way. ] think the approximations
of the Senator from Connecticut are not well
founded
Mr. PLATT / feel quite an interest III this
matter. because there are in Connecticut, as in
other States a class of young men VINO went to
the war who volunteered from patriotic mo-
tives, who received local bounties who fought
bravely until the war was practically over, and
then MlllOuI waiting 10 De mustered out went
to their homes. 1t was not a thing which
should stand against them charging them as
deserters, and which their children would look
to as a record of the unfaithfulneSs of their
fathers. This bill is presented here because
the Secretary of War has no power to-day to
remove the charge of desertion under such cir
cumstances
There is another class spoken of in the first
section, and that is those soldiers who were
from ~ Tor pfCa
vice by reason Of wounds received and of dis
ease contracted, and who were not present
when their regiment was mustered out The
Secretary of War cannot relieve that charge of
desertion, and in my Judgment if this clause
remains here he will not be able to remove it
after the bill passes. The object Of the bill is
to enable him to do something which he has
not the power to do now. He will not be able
to remove the charge of desertion either in the
case of the soldier who served faithfully through
the war but went home when the war was over
or who was prevented from being with his reg
jment when it was mustered out by reason of
sickness, nor in cases where he did not intend
to desert, and after the charge of deserti0n re-
turned to his command. ii seems to me we
ought TO be very careful not to shut a man out
from the provisions Of the bill in this respect
because he received from his town or his State
q local bounty.
] think, nearly twenty years after the war,
when-my brethren on the other side will per
nit me to say tive have removed almost
every disability from those who fought against
us, it is not fair because a man happened TO re-
ccive a local bounty that the charge Of deser-
ton should still remain against him in the
Office of the Secretary Of War, all other things
being In his favor; and it does seem to me that
the anxiety TO prevent bOunty-UmperS from
receiving the benefits Of this act, an anxiety in
which / share as well as the members of the
Military Committee, is perfectly met and an
swered by the provision that no one shall be
entitled to the benefits of it unless he served
twelve months. If person served twelve
months think it is fair TO assume that he was
not bounty-jumper. SO hope that the amend
ment which | have suggested will prevail.
Mr. PLUMB. l think if the Senator from
Indiana will examine this section carefully he
will find that the amendment of the Senator
from Connecticut covers the precise point which
he himself seems TO be driving at. The whole
effect Of that prOviso is to limit the class of per-
sons TO whom it shall be applicable, and pro-
cocds on the theory that twelve months service
constitutes pTiaG- fdcie case. / think il should
DE amended, in order 10 make the bill barmOni-
Gus, by providing at the close Of line Is Of sec
non ! ihat Tins class Of persons should not have
tne dement, OF section l Of the act, that being
The only section which actually states an act
OF grace.
Inc next section provides fora different class
oil persons, Tor those who did not intend to de-
sert ana WEo, after the assumed act of descr-
ioh, returned 10 their command That of
ltseIi ought 10 De sufficient, without any further
provision or any distinction. that sIcb a norso,
should be entitled to have the CHARGE If desor.
ton removed from him.
Mr. HARRISON. Not altoootI,o. r