Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1884-09-18

fore he can procure pension. But in the
Mexican pension bill, as amended by the
Senate, you can file your application under
it; you can go on and get your pension and
draw it for years; and if after that you find
evidence to sustain your old application,
which was filed early enough to give you ar
rears, or to which arrears will be granted in
the future, you can then relinquish your pen
sion under this law and accept your arrears
with your pension under the first application,
deducting from your arrears or your pension
under the present law what you have drawn
under this bill. l will show you in the War
ner bill where he uses the word FINAL"
In the first section of the Warner bill YOU
will find these words: "WEick election skaH
be final" Not so under this bill. Nothing
in this is final" against the soldier. He can
draw his pension under one law and then re-
linquish it and draw under the other, which
ever is most beneficial to him. And yet the
gentleman asserts here in your presence
that the same provision as to the election re-
quired to be made, under his bill, in which
the claimant is required to give up his ar
rears, &c, is contained in the Senate amend
ments to the Mexican pension bill. This 1
deRy, and in further proof of what assert,
l shall not offer empty statements, but will
read in your hearing the opinion of Judge
w WulNh LOlO III III ~
scribing the differences between the Warner
bill and the Mexican pension bill, he says:
Another point of difference between the
Warner bill and the Senate amendments to
the Mexican pension bill is worthy of notice,
in which the Warner bill discriminates
against the invalid soldier by providing that
claimants who now have applications pend
ing for pensions, under existing laws, may, by
declaration filed in the Pension office, elect
to waive their claims for arrears and prose-
cute a claim under the Warner bill and it is
expressly provided that such "eLectioD shall
be final" whereas, in the Senate amend
ments the claimants are given the benefit OF
such election, but the same shall not be final,
though they may complete their claims under
the Senate amendments and obtain future
pensions, and if at any time thereafter they
should be able to obtain the evidence to COM
plete their claims for arrears they may do SO,
not being prohibited by such election, as they
expressly are under the provisions of the
Warner bill"
This is the plain statement of Judge
Walker. will also read what Commissioner
Dudley saws in regard to the difference be-
tween these two bills:
"The eighth section of the Mexican pension
bill, as it passed the Senate, provides as fol-
flows: (See accompanying billy These are
the sections which relate to invalid pensions.
That passed by the Senate is broader in its
application than the first section of the War
ner bill in this, that the latter confines pen
sions to those who by reason of any wound,
injury or disease, which there is ''bro6a6le
canse to believe originated in said service
and line of duty, and not the result of his
own misconduct or bad habits, or other
known cause occurring since said service, is
now disabled, SC, and provides that any per-
son who has filed or may hereafter file an
application for pension under previous acts
or any act emitting him to arrears, may by
declaration over his own signature, Sc, elect
to prosecute his said claim under this act,
which election shall be fsal, while the eighth
section of the Senate bill (Mexican pension
bill, as amended by the Senate) provides
that any person now disabled, without refer
ence to such disability having been incurred
in the service and line of duty provided such
disability is not the result of claimants own
careessness, or disreputable conduct or
vicious habits) shall be entitled to receive
pension, &c.
"The salient points of difference thus far, it
is seen are that while the Warner bill re-
quires probable cause to be shown that the
disability had its origin in the service and in
line of duty, the Senate bill provides that
pensions shall be given to the soldier who
has rendered faithful service and is now suf-
fering present disability, without regard to
the fact of its origin in the service and line of
duty; provided only that the same shall not
be due to his own gross carelessness, disrep-
utable conduct or vicious habits; but it also
provides that such soldier, to be entitled to
the benefits of the act, must be dependent
upon his own labor for support, a provision
of which the Warner bill takes no account
IlrYyL- 4
noted between the two bills, is that the high
est rate of pensions to be allowed under the
Senate bill for total incapacity to perform
any manual labor is fixed at $24 per month,
and is made divisable upon that basis for any
less degree, while the Warner bill does not
fix the rate of pension, leaving that to be
governed by existing laws. (Under existing
laws total disability of private is rated at
$S per monthly
"The next principal difference between
these sections is that under the Senate bill,
the claimant is at liberty to elect at any time
to take under either the general laws, grant
ing him arrears or disability pension, or, if
having elected to take under this act he shall
afterwards procure the necessary evidence to
enttle him under the general laws, he may
also elect to take, while the Warner bill al
lows him but one election and makes that
final"
l have shown by the highest authority
that General Warmers bill proposed to do
great injustice to the soldier, and that his
claim that one of the obnoxious features had
been engrafted on the Senate bill Il mean, of
course, the Mexican pension bill, as amended
by the Senate) is not true. l refer to the
claim that he makes, that the soldier would
be prejudiced by his election to proceed
under this law. There must be an election |
in all cases where a claimant receives pen
sion, when he has another application for a |
pension on file but under Warmers bill the /
election is final; under the other it is not |
final, and cannot in any way prejudice the |
soldier. The very fact that such an outcry |
was raised against this and other features of |
the Warner bill, before the Senate consid- |
cred the Mexican pension bill, shows that |
the Senate would not have committed the |
same wrong.
The second section of the Warner bill re- |
lates to the subject of the twelfth section of ]
the Mexican pension bill, and there is this |
marked difference between the two sections: |
The Warner bill only gives the relief therein |
provided, when the dependent parent has no |
means of support, while the twelfth section of |
our bill gives this relief where the parent has |
no comfortable" means of support mate
rial difference. So long as aged parent, |
whose only son sleeps IN a soldier grave, has |
cup of water and crust of bread, the War
ner bill withholds relief. Not SO with the |
Senate bill.
These are the differences in part, between
General Warmers bill, which he secured the
passage of, and the Mexican pension bill
which he opposed. His bill had in it these
obstacles, while it aided no new class of
pensioners, and failed to furnish the relief
needed. The Mexican pension bill provided
for the aged and helpless Mexican soldiers,
for the dependent Union soldiers, fer the in
valid, imbecile, blind and idiotic dependents
of the dead soldier, for the aged and helpless
parents, whose only son gave his life to his
country, increased the pensions of widows
and orphans from IS to $I2 per month, dis
pensed with unreasonable proofs, and SIM
plified the methods of obtaining pensions.
This is the bill that General Warner opposed,
and now bases his opposition on mere quib
bles which might be raised against any bill.
The ground he always gave in Congress is
and it is written on the pages of the Record
that he is in favor of granting pensions for
disability, and disability only.
Now, gentlemen, l am sorry to say any
thing further of an unpleasant character,