The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-04

ures of bill introduced by himself on the first
billday of this session, and the bill reported
from the committee on pensions, and the sugges-
tiens of the convention of the Mexican soldiers
recently held in this city. Tt was confined ex
clusivey to those who had served sixty days in
the Mexican war, or who had actually served
with the army and navy, or had participated in
any battle in that war, and the widows of such
soldiers who had married before their discharge.
He had not embraced the soldiers of the Indian
saltation with the friends of soldiers
in all these wars, it was concluded it was better
to separate them and let the claims of soldiers
Of each war stand ON their respective merits, and
not confuse and enpbarrass them by embracing
them all in the same measure.
Mr. Browne, Of Indiana, opposed the bill, be
cause it would put the pension rolls all
who actually appeared on the same muster-roll
Of the army of the United States in the war with
Mexico. 1t would put on the rolls men
who never saw a living or dead Mexican,
and never heard the discharge of gun unless
it were fired by accident 1t put on the rolls
those who did not need a pension. He was will
ing to give pension to every man who actually
served in Mexico, or who participated in any
battle IN the Mexican war, without regard to the
time of service, and to put on the rolls every
man who was ia the muster roll for sixty days,
who could show he was in such pecuniafy condi-
ton as to need the assistance Of the government.
How did the gentleman manage TO forget the
two millions who served IN other wars. They
happened to think of the Creek war. of the Black
hawk war and the Seminole war. Why did they
happen 10 think of the wars prosecuted by the
States to capture the runaway negroes! Why did
they remember it was brought on by the States
by violation of the treaties between the United
States and savage tribes and then forget these
other mem Was it because it was thirty seven
years since the Mexican war! 1t was eighteen years
since the close Of the war of the rebellion, and
certainly the men who carried the flag Of the
nation to victory during the three years OF the
rebellion were as much entitled for that service
to pension as the men who appeared on the
muster-rolls in the war with Mexico Out of
1000 men who went to the Mexican waf, $4,000
went from slaveholding States, and this bill was
brought in because the rebel soldiery could be
put on no other pension roll That was the real
object of the bill He did not object to that,
but he wanted a chance to amend the bill so as
to do justice to the soldiers of the war of the
rebellion
Mr. Townshend, replying to Browne, said he
was endeavoring to knife this bill by indirect
means which were not fair square. The Re
publican party held control of both branches of
the last Congress, and the executive department,
and the gentleman himself was then chairman Of
the committee on invalid pensions, and yet
neithers himself nor his party had made any
attempt to place these soldiers OH the pension
roll. Mr.. Townshend further said he intro
dueed this bill to test the question whether the
Mexican soldiers had sufficient merit in their
claims to stand alone; that, whenever a bill
was presented to pension all soldiers in the late
war, it would be found that they had merit
enough in their claims, and would find friends
enough in Congress to secure the reward Of a
pension; that the Legislature of Indiana had
shown more generosity and patriotom for the
Mexican soldiers than their representatives on
this floor The Legislature of Hi
nois and twenty-five other States have
done the same. Now, l stand here and
am ready to obey the instructions of my State,
whilst you Mr.. Browne) sgnalize your disobedi-
ence to the command of your State. The time
has arrived to reward the old veterans. Ii 1t is
not done soon. they will not need this reward.
After some further debate, the rules were sus-
pended and the bill passed-yeas, 227: nays. 46.
The following is the negative vote: Messrs.
Arnot, Bayne, Bingham, Bisbee, Boutele,
Brewer of New York, Brewer of New Jersey,
Browne of Indiana, Brown of Pennsylvania,
Holton, James, Kean, Kelley Lawrence, Long,
Lyman, Mckinley, Willard, Miller of Pennsyl-
vania Morse, ONeill of Pennsylvania Parker,
Phelps, Poland. Ranney, Ray of New York,
Reed, Rockwell, Russell, Skinner of New York,
Smith Steele Stewart of Vermont, Stone, Stru-
BILE Taylor of Ohio, Wadsworth, Wait, Warner
of Ohio, and Whiting-46.
Mr., Cox, of New York, moved that the House
adjourn his purpose being to prevent Mr. Con
verse from making a motion to suspend the
rules and consider the bill increasing the duty
wool.
Mr. Beach called for the yeas and nays, which
were not ordered, and the vote by tellers re-
suited, 104 to So, in favor of adjournment.
Mr.. Mckinley moved to reconsider the vote by
which the House refused to order the yeas and
nays; and Mr. Holman moved to table that mo-
ton. This was agreed to, 14S to 126 so the
House stood adjourned This cannot be con-
sidered test vote on Mr. Converses PROPOSE
burn and Hurd voted against adjournment.