Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1884-09-18
SPEECH
HON. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR,
OF OHIO,
In THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
81 TURDA7, TUL7- S, 1884.
OF OHIO.

The House having under consideration the
Senate amendments to the bill III. r. 5000
granting pensions to the soldiers and sailors
of the Mexican war, and for other purposes
Mr.. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR said:
Mr.. SPEAKER: The letter which has Just
been read by the Clerk at the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky Mr.. BLAcKBURN]
charges that the Senate amendments to the
Mexican pension bill, now under considera-
ton, subject the survivors of the Mexican
war to humiliation and disgrace And re-
gret to add that this opinion is generally en-
tertained by the other side of this House,
and it seems to be foregope conclusion that
no bill in the interest of the Union soldier
shall become a law in this Congress.
1t is not true that these amendments dis
criminate against the Mexican soldier This
bill favors the Mexican soldier in two i'm
portant respects. In the first place, it pro-
vides that all the survivors of tie Mexican
war shall be pensioned when they become 81
years of age, without reference 10 disability
or dependency. In the second place, it gives
pension to every Mexican soldier before he
arrives at this age if he is either dependent
or disabled; while the Senate amendments
only provide that Union soldiers shall re-
ceive pension when they establish the e1-
istence of their dependency and disability
The language in reference to the Mexican
soldier is, disability or dependency" while
the language in relation to the Union soldier
is, disability and dependency" The exist
ence of disability or of dependency, the
one or the other, entities Mexican soldier
or his widow to a pension, while it requires
the existence of both to entitle Union SOL
dier or his widow to q pension; and at the
age Of 62 all Mexican soldiers are pensiGred,
while no such provision is made for Union
soldiers at any age.
And yet l regard the bill as amended by
the Senate a fair one, taking it altogether.
1t pensions greater proportion of the Mex
ican soldiers than it does of the Union sol
diers, but the maximum pension OF the FORM
er is only IS per month, while the maximum
pension of Union soldier in cases of to-
tai disability is $24 per month. Age, de-
pendency, or disability without any further
showing entities the Mexican soldier to $8
per month. There is no rating in the pro-
visions which relate to the Mexican soldier,
while the Union soldier who shows the exist
ence of some pensionable disability, and also
shows that he is dependent upon his own Ia
Dor for support, receives a pension in pro-
portion to the extent of his disability bas-
ing a total disability at S24 month and
making less degree of disability divisible
on this basis.
1t is little singular, Mr.. Speaker, that
gentlemen on the other side differ so widely
as to their grounds of objection TO this bill
as it is now amended. Some OF them object
because it discriminates against the Mexican
soldier, while some others object because it
discriminates against the Union soldier. OBJ
4L L., ,,l f,t,I ,Ia
less In fact they are a mere pretense. Ii
any member of this House is friend of the
Mexican soldier, and honestly believes
that he deserves some additional recognition
on the part of the Government, will he OBJ
ject to this bill because he can not, in the
same bill and at the same time, get more?
When the Government passed a law granting
a land warrant to every Mexican soldier,
was it opposed because two land warrants
were not granted at the same time, or because
a section Of land was not granted instead of
a quarter-section?
Will friend of the Union soldier oppose
this measure, which is so full of aid to the
soldiers and widows and orphans made help
less and dependent by the late war; because
it is claimed that the same bill is little
more favorable to the survivors of war that
was waged thirty-seven years ago? This is
nonsense. 1t is too much like the boy who
insisted that he had the smallest piece of
bread and butter, no matter which one was
given him. If the Mexican soldiers deserve
more than this, let it be granted next time.
And if the Union soldiers deserve more. and
they certainly do, let steps be taken in the
future to this end. 1t il impossible to do
every thing at once, and we should not with
hold part now because we can not get all
that we desire, especially as the granting of
this part will not in any way prevent addi-
tional legislation in the future.
Mr. Speaker, do not think there has been
any measure before the Forth-eighth Con-
gress more important than the one now under
consideration. l had occasion to discuss the
imperfections of our pension laws and the
injustice which is being done to our soldiers
when the pension appropriation bill was un-
der consideration, and hoped at that time
to secure to that bill amendments similar to
the amendments made by the Senate to this
bill, but was dissuaded from making any eff
fort to do so by the statement then made TO
the House that the Committee on PAYMENT
OF Pensions, Bounty and Back PAY were
about ready to report carefully prepared
bill which would correct the defects then
pointed out.
n piii was reported from this committee
soon thereafter by General WARNER, its
chairman, but for some strange reason it was
passed under suspension of the rules. when
no amendments could be made and when all
discussion was limited to thirty minutes,
1t contained only one provision in the inter
est of the soldier, which was the provision
that dispensed with proof of prior soundness
while it contained some Objectionable feat,
ures that prevented its favorable cons;der,-
tion In the Senate. 1 say this because !, ha.