The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1884-09-09

! speech; and i leave 1t to you to Sa,
whether 1t was deliberate misrepre
sentation of the facts as shown by tn,
official records of the House. / sa,
either deliberate Misrepresentation o
ignorance of what the records contain
and shameless disregard of the truth
Gentleman, have one minute more
see, and wished to explain the objec
Taylor objects, and want him to say
what 1t is he objects to. / want him tC
tel you whether the Senate amend
ment which he is in favor of does moi
contain the same provisions 1t does.
Turning to Mr.. Taylor
Mr.. Taylor:--I don't say that
Gen. Wa'ner:-Oh, but 1t does. He
objects, gentlemen, to 1t In the House
In my bill, but he Is in favor of it when
II Comes in the formIof a Senate amend.
ment. In regard to this Senate bin,
could bring testimony to show that
called the attention Of the chairman OF
the Senate committee to 1t. and said to
him that IL he would amend 1t would
agree to 1t ~
(Here time was called).
CONCLUDING REPLY OF GENERAL WARNER.
General Warner said: / shall leave
the discussion of matters foreign TO this
debate for some other time.
Now, the Objectionable features in the
bill which the House passed, and which
the gentleman complains Of, is precisely
the same provision as is contained in the
Senate amendment which the gentleman
favors. Here is what Commissioner
Dudley recommended on the subject
1T occurs to me that radical cure for
the difficulties and a response TO what
believe to be widespread sentiment
among the people, would be the passage
Of law which would provide that when
a soldier has given elk months honest
field service to his country and bears an
honorable discharge from the service and
is now disabled by physical disability
for the performance Of manual labor,
and from earning his subsistence in that
way, his disease or disability being such
as can be shown not to Lave originated
in his own vice or excess, pension
should be granted him. I'VE reduce
the service to three months to
make it conform to the rule in the regu.
lar service
81 should deem it unwise, however, %
the commissioner says, 'sthat pension
obtained in this way should carry arrears.
The pension should he pension in
futuro."
] asked him lsee page IL Of Report.
"Would you not give claimant whose
claim is now pending, the benefit OF that,
provided il carried arrears with it?
"Commissoner-I don t think l should
/ think would let the man elect which
law he would claim under; / would put
him on the same plane with all others
II he cannot establish his case SO as to
take under the existing law, lethimta
under the other law a apension in futuro.
So you see we put the provision
you complain of in the bill on the
recommendation OF Commissioner
Dudley.
The Commissioner said to the commit.
tee that he could settle 1000 claims i'm
mediately with such modification oil
the law. | have Mr.. Dudley's letter to
Mr.. Greenleaf, which was read ins the
House when the bill was under consider
alton. This is the letter:
DEPARTMENT. OF THE INTERIOR
PENSION OFFICE,
WAsaINGToN, ID. G., April q, 1884.
MY DEAR SIR: In response to your re-
quest that should examine House bill 65s5
reported April II by The chairman OF your
committee. and to state whether in my judg
ment the provisions OF that bill are practE
cable and susceptible Of such administration
as will tend 10 obviate some OF the difficul.
ties experienced In the administration OF ex
isting laws, by which those who have rem
dered efficient and ariuous service to the
government In the field, and who are now
disabled and unable to make the necessary
proof 10 connect the same with the service
and as regards claims of dependent parents
aud the rule of evidence contained Ia the
third section of tne bill, have the honor Il
say that In my Judgment the bill Is a mos
while not going to tile extent with regard Il
invalid pensions which think warranted
by public opinion and justice 10 claimants
yet believe II Is Just IN its provisions anl
susceptible ofsuch administration as VIII
Wor Justice 10 many worthy claimants nov
excluded.
As I stated In my conference with the com
mittee on the 10th Of February. think ther,
rejoice that this bill has been introduced
| and trust that IL Will meet with favorab.t
consideration.
Very respectfully,
5 W. w. DUDLEY, COmnl
Hon. h =. GREEsLEAF, CQmtnittee ON Pen
si0ns, Bounty and Rack Pay, House O
Representatives.
Mr.. Whiting, Republican member o
the committee, said in the debate in th,
lIoyse: "We have considered this bill
word by word and line by line will
Commissioner Dudley, and he approves
OF II and believes it 80 far safe and rea
sonable that every member should sup
port it," When that bill passed, tn
Republican papers denounced me and tn,
Democratic party for what they called
new onslaught on the treasury
but I thought it right AMI stooC
by it. II there was any occasion
for amendments. why did not the Senat
amend that hills fthey had, 1t woul'
now be a law. And yet the gentleman
claims that opposed all the Senat
amendments. Now say that he has n
authority for saying to yon, or saying il
his printed speech, that / opposed an.
| OF the amendment except the fourteel
| day amendments, or that l was not il
accord with my committee, or that tn
committee was not in accord with me
Republicans and all, for they were. Tn
notifications in the bill as originall
drawn were mainly suggested by Com
missioner Dudley, the last session whicl
was held at his office, and the bill wa
afterward called up, and passed under
spspension Of the rules, because of tn
importance Of getting through the Hous
some measure that would help the sci
| tlement of claims now ON file. The olhe
part-the sections contained in the bi
reported to the House by Mr.. Greenles
related to the increase OF pensions ant
went to the calendar for consideration
IT, .o.o.k of tha ooofarapoa xp;th Al