The National tribune., 1883-01-11
THE FORTY DOLLAR BILL.
Sentiment of the Senate Pensions Commit
tee-An adverse Report ProbahIe.

Sentiment of the Senate Pensions Commit
tee-An Adverse Report Probable.
The Senate Committee on Pensions did not
report this week upon the bill to grant $40
month TO soldiers who had lost an arm or a
leg. The committee is having great difficulty
with the bill, owing to the widely divergent
opinions entertained with reference TO il. The
four Democratic Senator's Jackson of TennC5-
Sec Camden Of West Virginia Slater Of Oregon
and Barrow Of Georgia, are sOlidlv arr&yed III
opposition to the measure. Senators Platt Of
Connecticut, and Blair of New Hampshire,
doubt the feasibility Of q general law of this
character, and while not hostile TO the interests
of the soldiers, as III the case Of the first four
named, can hardly be counted upon as IN favor
Of the bill. The chairman, Senator Mitchell,
is absent from the city, owing to the illness Of
his children who have been attacked by diph-
liberia.
Appearances now indicate that the majority
report viii be adverse to the bill. The minority
viii present favorable report, however, so
that the question viii be brought into the
Senate for disposition. There is q very general
desire upon the part of the members OF the
committee at least 10 have the proposition de-
bated and acted upon. Its fate IN the Sanats
is, Of course, problcmatical, but it IS not i'm
probable that it may pass because, on the
Democratic side. Senator Voorhees, is a stauach
supporter of the measure.
Below will be found interviews with several
members Of the committee, which viii serve to
indicate the different shades Of opinion enter
tanned upon the subject.
Senator Platt of Connecticut was asked what
he th0nght Of the bill 10 grant pension of $40
month to soldiers who had lost an arm or
leg in the late war.
He said: "This thing has given mo more
trouble than almost any bill l have had TO do
with since | have been on the Pensions Com
mittee. There are good many difficulties in
connection with it. The trouble is with the
principle. We should not undertake to tinker
at our pension laws and fix them up By piece
meal, but whenever radical change is to be
made, we should go clear through and make
over the ratings so as to keep them uniform
ana not do injustice to any one, IS IS liable to
happen through these fra2mcntary and irrc-u-
lar alterations. IN this case the question Is,
what to DO with the 'equivalents?' It is appa-
rcntly unjust to pass law giving y man $40 g
month who has suffered an amputatiOn, when
to another who is equally disabled and IS now
receiving the same pension we give no increase
at all. Still the men who have lost an arm or
a leg have an organization which IS pushing
their case. They are selfish, OF COURSE and are
trying to keep the equivalents out, so as not
to load down the bill. Then, again, by general
law to give SO q month to every man who has
lost limb VIII IN the end give dissatisfaction,
because it viii make an increase OF - in some
cases and in others only $40. # we take in the
equivalents the bill would entail to the Gov
ernment q cost Of about $G,0UOOO0. Without
| the equivalents it would be about $2,0O0O00.
! The pension question requires more study and
discrimination than will be devoted to il, and
Il great deal is involved in it. We are not only
passing laws for this year, but for the future.
| We may see n time when it Will be more diiI-
cult to meet the demand upon the Treasury for
pensions than now We ought to pay the SOL
diers who suffered disability of various kinds
IN the war Just as much rs the Government
can stand without embarrassment. 1t Is not
the question Of paying to a man who has lost
an arm or leg the equivalent to him for such
deprivation, because no money consideration
can make good such damage. But We have to
consider simply what is fairly within the means
of the Government when we take the pension
list as a whole, and every law passed must be
considered with reference 10 its bearing upon
| the entire subject"
Senator Chilcott, of Colorado, was asked for
his views upon the so pension bill and he said
that he was in favor of it. There was great
danger, he knew, Of the law being extended be-
yOnd the limit intended when passed. lie
thought that sufficient safeguards should be
provided to keep it within bounds and not let
it run into general $40 pension to everybody.
Still he was III favor Of the bill 10 give this
amount TO soldiers who had lost a. arm or Il leg.
Senators Jackson, Slater, Barrow and Cana
den, all expressed themselves as opposed to the
bill, 0stansibly upon the ground that the Gov
ernment could otatord to pass any more great,
sweeping pension laws, and also that the mca-
sure would cause dissatisfaction and work in-
justice to pensioners on account of the different
rates Of increase allowed.
Senator Blair, Q member Of the Pensions
Committee, was asked what he thought about
the bill proposing to give $40 per month TO
each soldier who had lost en- arm or Q leg He
said he did not care to express a very decided
opinion upon the matter now, because it was
pending before his committee. He said he
doubted the feasibility to make so great an in
crease as the bill in question proposed at once.
and doubted whether IL was TO the interests of
the soldiers. There was q great howl in the
country and the press about the enormous
peusun-roll and ii was declared to be burden.
In his opinion it was not burdensOme, although
large, and no one felt inConyonienced by the
payment Of taxes which supplied the money
for paying pensioners. It came out of the lux
uries which were drunk and smoked, and out
OF India shawls, so that it was q voluntary con-
tribution practically on the part of those who
supplied it. There was chance, however that
the Democrats might come into power, and
then they would undoubtedly attempt to make
capital by attacking the pension list, which WAS
characterized in many quarters as eEtrGva-
CANT. Ii, then, there should be such law
loss OF an arm or leg 10 all alike, this would
be one of the first things to be cut down, and
in the end the soldiers would be left with less
than they have now in all probability. Person
ally he was rather in favor Of granting an in
crease for certain disabilities IN preference to
the sweeping advance proposed.
Senator Van Wyc1 was asked what he thought
of the bill to give forty dollars to soldiers who
had lost an arm or a leg in the war aud he said:
% will so far enough to bring ii into the Sem
ate at any rate. / do not know what is best 10
! do about it. 1t is difficult question, and one
that will be hard to settle satisfactorily 10 the
/ pcn5iOner and with justice to the Government.
| The trouble IS with the system of rating; it
should be overhauled. I think we ought to
! have = new one Now, if we should pass the
| bill giving forty dollars to every man who had
| lost an arm CT q leg, some who are now getting
$50 would then have an increase of but 81;
! while there are others who would come into
/ the $40 list who are now getting only IS; and
men who had lost n leg at the hip joint would
| grumble because he received no more than an
| other who had lost his below the knee. Then,
| again there would be men who had lost their
| arms above the shoulder and another at the
wrist, and one would say that his disability
was greater than that of the other. Now, what
arc we going 10 do about cases OF this kind ? I5
is impossible 10 pass general law like the one
proposed which will give satisfaction to every
body? There are other disabilities that are far
greater than the loss of either an arm or leg.
Suppose a man becomes paraly2ed through in-
jury received in the army and IS utterly help
less? Suppose 4 soldier is suffering with con-
ic dow Eg-- from, ztb1,,a