The National tribune., 1882-01-07
Three Lies in a Lump.

! New I ork Herald says:
| "The Herald has on many occasions called at
tention to the enormity of the act which is now
in operation, and which was signed by President
Hayes after it had been vetoed by his predeces-
sor called the Pensions Arrears Act The his
! tory of modern legislation does not show any
more shameful and barefaced swindle. This was
passed as "a measure of justice to the soldiers :"
at time when the Republican party was court
ing the soldiers vote. 1t was never thoroughly
debated"
From the foregoing it may be easily perceived
that the Herald is rapidly adding to its reputa-
ton as a first class liar In the first place, the
act signed by Mr.. Hayes, to which reference is
made, had never been vetoed by his (Hayes's)
predece nor by any one else.
! It was the first measure of the kind ever passed
first President who had the opportunity of act
ing upon it.
In the second place, the bill originated in a
Democratic House. was voted for by members of
both political parties, every northern Democrat
present, with, we think, three exceptions, answer
ing in the affirmative when the roll was called,
and, nearly year afterwards, came up in the
Senate, when it was passed by an almost unani-
nous vote only Senators Davis and Hereford of
West Virginia, McCreary Of Kentucky, and
Salisbury of Delaware, voting against the bill.
Among the prominent Democratic Senators
who voted in favor of the Arrears Act may be
named Barnum of Connecticut, David Davis of
Illinois, Butler of South Carolina, Gordon and
Hill of Georgia. Herman of New York, Wallace
Voorhees, and Mcdonald of Indiana, Cockrell of
Missouri Thurman of Ohio; and that these men
favored it is sufficient to show that it was by no
means q party measure, but one which all good
and just minded men felt compelled to support
regardless of their partisan affiliations.
When the editor Of the Herald intimates that
the act was intended to catch the soldiers vote
he assails the integrity of every of the gentle
men we have named as well as of every Republi-
can and Democrat who voted in favor of the bill.
Again. the Herald says the bill was never
thoroughly debated. This is the third lie con-
tanned in the dozen lines We have quoted from
that mendacious sheet.
The matter was fully considered, and in the
Senate was thoroughly discussed by Senators
ingalls,, Ferry Hoar, Mcmillan, Blaine, Morrill,,
Paddock, Dawes, Howe, and others from the
Republican side and by Senators Voorhees,,
Eaton, Thurman, Herman, Hereford, Salisbury,
and other leading Democrats. There was no
difference Of opinion as to the justice of the pro-
posed measure, nor was any opposition to it made
upon the ground that it was unjust except by
Senator Salisbury, who thought ample Justice
had been done the soldiers, and was opposed to
the payment of any further gratuities to them.
Upon this point Mr.. Salisbury was replied to by
Senator Herman OF New York. and Democrat
who said
Mr.. HERMAN. Mr.. President, differ with nav
friend entirely. If l thought this was a gra-
tuity should vote against the bill. I regard it
as dischargng Just obligation to class of peo-
pie who ought to be dealt with justly. How can
the Senator from Delaware say that it is gratrl-
ity? There was statute of limitations shorter
than exists in my State for ordinary debts
class of pensioners were unable to perfect their
claims within the five years prescribed. I have
their letters here in my drawer; numbers of them
letters from widows who could not find the officer
to whom to give the certificate that their husband
was dead. That class Of cases exist | am for
Waiving that statute in such cases. and if shall
vote for enforcing it, as would against some
claims it will be in regard to different class of
claims from these
l admit there is heavy taxation, and will Join
with my friend in economy; but will strike the
first blow somewhere besides cutting these peo-
pie off by short statute of limitations We
have plenty Of opportunities here to save by the
million, and / hope we shall do so. I do not
mean to vote for gratuities, because think they
are unjust to the taxpayers; but will vote to !
pay an obligation incurred to these people who |
are lame and sick, and to their representatives
when they prove their claim to it. I will not do |
this on the theory of gratuity, but on the prin-
ciple that we are fulfilling an obligation which |
ever has been held by the people of this country
TO be Of the most sacred character.
Following S1r Kernan's remarks the vote was
taken, and the bill passed by an overwhelming
majority, only four nays being recorded against |
it, as already stated.
These the plain facts of the case, as the off,
cal record will show. We therefore suggest to
the editor Of the Herald to either stop lying alto
gether; or if that be impossible to get at least