National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-01-21

-, -
widows from s. TO $40 per month. lie said
the bill had the unanimous support Of the
committee. A careful estimate showed that
the additional annual cost would not exceed
S5,000,000. The committee is not favor of
every wild proposition Of pension legislation
offered, but he did not think there would be
any opposition TO the fair measure now pre-
sented.
Mr.. Browne, Of Indiana, warmly favored
the bill, and desired to offer no amendment
to II which might cndanger its passage.
But he had prepared an amendment repeal
ing the limitation clause of the arrears OF
pension act, which he hoped gentlemen
would be willing to vote for.
Mr.. Grosyenor, Of Ohio, while heartily in
favor of Mr.. Brownies proposition, au-
nounced HIS intention OF voting against IL
for fear that It might impede the passage of
the bill.
Mr. Bragg, Of Wisconsin, opposed Mr.
Brownies proposition. His reason might
be stated thus, that no soldier who suffered
from disability sufficient to entitle him to a
pension at the hands Of the government
failed to know II for twenty years after the
stirred up by q claim agent in the
city Of Washington. lie was also
opposed to the pending bill, not that
he did not recognize the fact that there
was a class Of widows that should be en-
titled to a greater pension than they now
drew, but he opposed the bill for two rea-
sons. His first reason was that the whole
system Of pension legislation ought to be
rearranged and law enacted to make that
system more harmonious and less incon-
gruous. The inequalities which existed in
the present were a shame and a disgrace to
the country. His next objection was that
the bill applied TO all widows. IL should,
in his opinion, extend only TO those cases
where the woman was married to the man
wher he received the disability, aud not to
young girls who married an old soldier
took care of him for the two or three last
years Of his life, and then went on the rolls
as his widow.
Mr. Mills did not object to the payment
of pensions, but argued in favor of the i'm
position OF an income tax 20 compel the
wealth Of the country to beara part Of
the tax caused by pensions. Mr.. Hender-
son, of Iowa, followed with very eloquent
speech in favor Of the measure. lie IS UNI
doubtedly one Of the finest orators IN the
House, and his remarks were listened to
with the closest attention lie was fol-
lowed by Mr.. Wolford, who was cut short
in the middle of his speech owing to the
expiration Of the morning hour.
At this point Mr.. Morrison moved for an
adjournment, but his motion was voted
down and the House went into committee
of the whole with Mr.. Wellborn In the chair,
the purpose being to continue the discus
sion on the pension bill 1t turned out,
however, that the first bIll on the calendar
was the Senate bill for the purchase Of the
old produce exchange building in New
York. Mr.. Symes, OF Colorado, took the
floor, by virtue Of the chairman's recognition,
and at once marked himself as bit Of wag
by stating that the bill in question was the
precise bill he most ardently desired to talk
about, and at once launched out in red.
hot speech on the silver question. lie has
a good sonorous voice, AMI made a good
speech, but advanced novery novel thoughts
on the subject the Senate has worn SO
threadbare. When be got through the
House was brought back to the subject
under immediate consideration, being the
produce exchange bill, by Mr. Bragg, Of
Wisconsin, who briefly explained the object
OF the measure. AS the bill came from thu
Senate 1t appropriated S450,000 for the pur
chase and for alterations. The House com
mittee had made the appropriations more
specific, and had amended the bill by appro
priating S250,0O0 for the purchase, and 800,
| COO for alterations.
Mr.. Townshend, of ILL., thought that the
| bill should be carefully considered, in or
der that 1t might be found whether the
sum appropriated was not more than Tho
property was worth. lie recalled the SALE
of the old postofllce in New York, and as
serted that, while the government obtained
only S650,000 for II, 1t was worth over 81,
100000.
Mr.. Hewitt, of New York, said the gen
tleman from Illinois had made some state
ments which he mr. Hewitt) felt called
upon to deny. The old postofllce site II
New York had been abandoned when thu
new office was occupied. 1t was free from
taxation, and the government was holdin!
property in the city on which II was collect
Ing rents, and on which the city could lev
no tax. The property had not been wanted
for any purpose, and 1t was sold at publ
auction. 1t had not been valued at NOR
than 100000, and that was the limit flxet
by the bill. 1t had brought S630,000, ant
the site would not bring more than that to
day.
The committee amendment was agreed
to and the bill reported to the House.
Mr.. Adams, Of New York, moved to re
commit the bill, with instructions, to tn
military committee to ascertain and repor
upon the value OF the property, stating tina
number of the New York delegation
knew nothing about the question.
The motion was lost-yeas ZIG, nays 12I
The New York city delegation voted q
follows: Yeas-Messrs Adams and T. }
Campbell; nays-Messrs. Dowdney, Iew
lit, Muller, Pulitzer, and Viele.
At the conclusion of the roll call the me
ton was carried but enough member
changed their votes before the announce
ment to defeat the motion.
| The bill was then passed as amended.
The House then, at 4:30, Adjourned.
| --