The National tribune., 1886-03-18
TIE 49TH CONGRESS,
More Interesting Debate on the Sub
ject of Pensions.
LARGE INpTvTDuAL PENSIONS.

| last week on bill to increase the pension of
Ellen NJ. Mitchell, widow of Maj. William G.
Mitchell, Assistant Adutant- General, United
| States Army, Brevet-COlOnel and Brigadier-
General, from $25 to $50 per month. Mr.. Bing-
ham pa, advocating the passage of the bill,
said:
Mr. Speaker, this officer, Maj. Mitchell, having
carried on the 18th day of April 1861 the first flag
that passed through the city of Baltimore borne by
| Pennsylvania troops, remained in the service
throughout all the war, and until his death, about
year since, upon the staff of Ma. Gen. Hancock.
Throughout the entire war honor, distinction and
commission were offered to him. but to every offer
of higher commission he said, No, my field of
usefulness and my place is on the staff of my Com
| manding General; and while higher commands
and great distinction could have been won by him
| he steadily refused higher commission and
manned in this position from the beginning of the
to its end participating in 2i battles and de-
cnng every distinction or promotion because he
| felt that his services were more valuable in the
confidential relation he held TO Gen Hancock than
they could be i'll any other rank which the National
| Government could give him.
Having served myself upon the staff of that dis
| tinguished officer, Hancock from the commence
ment to the end of the war / can make to this
House the unqualified declaration that | never in
the field of action braver more brilliant
soldier, and never iii the councils of General
more wisdom and ability displayed than by Gen.
Mitchell will conclude by reminding the House
of the fact that higher honor, higher position was
Frequently within Gen. MitchclI's grasp but upon
every occasion he stated My desire is to remain
upon the staff of Gen. Hancock where / feel my
services will be more valuable to my country.
He also submitted letter written by Gen.
Hancock strongly urging the measure as an act
| of justice.
Mr.. Matsor Ind.), Chairman of the Com
mittee on Invalid Pensions, opposed the bill,
on the ground of discrimination against thou
sands of Other. equally deserving widows. He
| said:
The Committee on Invalid Pensions has adhered
to the rule that the pensions of officers and their
widows ought not TO be increased except so far as
concerns the widows of General officers. That is n
rule not established by this Congress, but estab-
| Eshed long ago; and we have yielded reluctantly
to that, because many pensions of widows of
General officers have been increased that have
been unable to refuse the later applications of that
| kind without saving to these widows Your hus-
bands not worthy the other General
officers whose widows have had their pensions in
creased" For that reason we have yielded to the
precedent but we have stood right there and have
refused to go any farther; and in deciding this
question il should be remembered that whenever
you establish precedent of this kind you open the
gate in all similar If this widow is to have
$50 month, there are tens of thousands of widows
| who ought TO have the same pension.
| Now, am not going to discuss the question
whether the widow of any General officer ought to
have $50 month not; for neither nor any one
in this Congress is responsible for that. The allow
ance of $50 n month in such cases was begun
| great many years ago But whenever you start
to pension st $50 q month the widows of those
below that grade you open very wide door. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania hes said there
| some precedents they are very scarce
Mr.. Bingham:
|
| Mr. Matson:
Not more than three or four and il is time that
this Congress should stop at the line have been
| attempting to draw. Why, sir, at one of our Fri
! day night meetings recently the gentleman from
| Missouri Mr.. WarnerI in very eloquent and
| brilliant speech. asked That the pension of private
soldiers widow be increased TO S2i per month. 1t
was difficult thing TO resist that appeal because
this private soldier had received the thanks of Con-
gress for very conspicuous act of galantry. But
| when the members then present came to consider
! widows O homes
and their wives and sacrificed their lives for their
| country were receiving only IS month, it was de-
termincd, think almost unanimously. thatit would
| be wrong to select this widow who had married
since the war and give her S24 "A month.
| Thus great injustice must always be done when
ever you attempt TO select one among large num-
Der Of very deserving people and that shall
receive more than tke rest. Though every word
! that the gentleman from Pennsylvania Mr.. Bing-
ham has said in relation TO Gen. Mitchell is true,
| nobody questions that we have been obliged to
| sand here and ask this House to help us stop at
| the point where Congress has heretofore said
should stop. Why, sir, the precedents are almost
unanimous for the refusal of this application there
are only two or three precedents the other side,
not more than half dozen, apprehend, alto
! geher.
| There two three in the last Congress. /
| remember very well, and so does my friend from
Pennsylvania perhaps, how those bills passed.
| itIsa question merely OF favortisn that iSa there
| Is of IT. 1t is question offavoritsn. know, and
| so does the gentleman from Pennsylvania, of many
other gallant soldiers whose widows more
| needy than the one whose claim he urges to-day
with so much ability They to remain At Sl7
and S25 per month, and yet he wishes to have her
pension increased to $50 per month 1t is not right
The proper thing Is TO do justice to all nearly
| we can, and not select one out of q large number
and say she shall receive higher pension than all
| the rest.
Mr.. Johnston (Ind.) said, speaking in oposi-
| tiOn to the bill
Let US concede, for the sake of argument that all
! he has claimed is true, and yet Gen Mitchell did
| nothing more than his simple duty. The widow in
her letter says she has three That may be
| true, but there thousands of other widows in
the country who have three sons whose husbands
fell gaantly fighting upon the field of battle for
their country. and assume the sons of this widow
and this officer more deserving than the sons
of other widows and gallant officers who lost their
| lives in the
Because this man vas in the Regular Army am
opposed to selecting out the case OF his widow and
paying her pension much larger than is pro-
yided for under the law for similar cases, so she
| may live and support her sons in elegance while
the of private soldiers must make their way by
the sweat of their brow and get their education and
| support their widowed mothers as best they may.
The principle is wrong in every way An officer of
! the Regular Army who receives good pay should
III time Of peace lay up competency for his widow
| and children who survive him. If he should fail
to do it is not right for Congress to step in and
provide pension so much greater than Is allowed
by law III similar cases, so she and her sons may
live in better style than the widows of officers of
the same rank whose husbands have done their
| duty as faithfully and galiantly.
| Mr.. Thomas (IH):
Mr.. Speaker for one have no special objection
to the passage of anv bill which proposes TO do ius.
tce TO the widow of soldier who has fallen in the
line of duty. The Government cannot do less than
| grant reasonable pension to the widows and
phan children of ts fallen soldiers No Govern
meut earth has been more liberal in the way of
| granting pensions than this Government to the
widows and orphans of its fallen brave. Under the
| law now the beneficiary OF this bull draws S25 a
| month, which is the amount of pension allowed TO
the widow of an officer of the grade of Gen. Mitchell
IL Is no more than enough, but find no fault with
the law which grants that amount OF pension.
But am opposed to the passage of this bill for
the reason given well by the gentleman from
| Indiana OH this as by the gentleman from Indiana
on the other side of the House. An officer holds
his position IN the Army of his own free will accept
| ing the emolumens attached to- during life which
| the law provides. There is nothing to- force or
compel him TO retain that place, but he does il vol
| unfairly, and the Government pays him according
to his rank while lie lives. When he dies what is
| he? Simply dead soldier. The private soldier
the subaltern officer rwhO goes upon the field and
does his whole duty does just as much rs this officer
| whole duty. can any true soldier do less; and
soldier is entitled to credit for doing his duty
| nor should he be compensated or his widow be COM
pensated II he leaves one, over the widows and
| phaus or other soldiers who did then whole duty.
Mr.. Speaker, take the case of q man who belonged
| to my own command and fell shot through the
brain at the battle OF Franklin; as brave and gallant
| a soldier ever marched to battle beneath the
| starry banner; man who stood In the front line,
and with his brain penetrated by ball fell dead
| nay feet. lie iefb widow and five children, all
! small, the Youngest babe III arms. That widow
wept the PROSTATE form of the gallant soldier
the help the stay aid the hope of herself and chill
| drcn and to-day she is drawing "a pension of s. a
month for the support o herself and these five little
dead officer. Mr. Speaker, death levels all ranks
| They both lie wrnpued their martial