The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1886-06-26
PENSIONS.
Mr.. Reeds Remarks In Opposition
to the Proposed New Rules.


der consideration, to amend the same so as to pro
vide by taxation or otherwise for the payment
tneaeot put no such amendment Isl snail ne IN IN 9Iael
by set apart Tor the sole purpose OF paying sucl
increased pensions.
Mr.. Morrison supported the rule in brief
speech, after which Mr.. Reed spoke as fol
lows:
have listened, Mr.. Speaker, with some in
terest to hear a statement of the reasons
which governed the majority of the commit
tee in this proposed change OF the rules OF
the House. / admit the gravity of these
questions connected with pensions have
no desire to diminish or avoid that; but
am surprised to see the action which is pro-
proposed upon the other side; Ii there be
anything in the logic which has been pre-
sented here in favor of this proposition, it
must equally apply to all other subjects Of
appropriation as well as pensions; yet this
rule proposes to contine the amendment to
pensions alone.
Now, what is the real object-or. rather,
for am not willing to go into question OF
motives, what will be the practical effect OF
this action? Surely the consideration OF the
question of pensions ought to be separate
from any other, and every member OF the
House ought to have an opportunity to ex-
press his views upon the pension question
practical man in this House who does not
know that this rule, proposed to be made ap-
plicable to pensions alone, will, If adopted,
be employed to fasten upon every pension
bill some method of taxation, which Will
prove obnoxious to many men who might be
desirous after careful consideration, OF vot-
ing for that particular pension bill.
This method of embarrassing legislation IS
proposed only as to pension bills. why THIS
invidious distinction? For what purpose is
it attempted to saddle bills connected with
pensionfng soldiers with the possibility Of
legislation put on solely for the purpose OF
defeating the bills themselves?
The gentleman from Illinois has alluded to
a debate in which the question OF deficiency
or possible deficiency was raised. Whether
he is correct in his statement of figures or
my colleague on the committee, the gentle
man from New York (Mr. Hiscock), cannot
undertake to say. But this do know, that
long before the actual limit for necessary ex-
penSes of the government is reached there is
large amount appropriated for the sinking
fund, and we know that the situation is
quite liable to be such that we shall not be
able to continue the payment OF the pnblic
debt except by putting it out OF existence at
very great premium. And that may hap
pen to us shortly.
We also know another fact: This country
is wonderfully recuperative as to its income,
and we, all of us, who look about can see the
signs of a coming prosperity which, like the
one of few years ago, may MT our income,
as such prosperity has lifted it before, a hun
dred millions.
| do not feel, so far as the future is con-
cerned, there is very grave danger tnat we
shall exceed our income. at least l see no
such crisis which demands of us that we
should invidiously single out peculiar class
of legislation and give opportunity to impair
it by tacking on legislation which is oDnox,
iouS to those who are in favor OF the subject
of the appropriation.
l have tried, Mr.. Speaker, to state this mat
ter as fairly and as candidly as | know how,
o11d or OraQ 7 q m mt willing tn enter nD0n
such an invidious course as is proposed by
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Morrison)
Subsequently, again speaking on the same
question, Mr.. Reed said:
Mr.. Speaker, I desire above all things that
this question should be considered on its
merits. / am opposed to it not only as a
proposition in regard to pensions, but In re-
gard to any legislation in this House. 1t Is
contrary to the principle of sound legislation
as practiced in this country for these many
years.
1t has always been the custom for the
House eff Representatives to make its appro-
priations and then to lay its taxes to pay the
bills it has incurred. And this course of
procedure is founded upon wise, sound,
and salutary principle, and that is that the
majority which votes to expend money may
be a majority ehangeabie as to individuals
when YOU come to raise it. 1t takes ma
jority to do both, but thence majorities may
be composed of different men. The ques-
tion of expenditure being once settled, the
House then turns itself to the question of
ways and means That is sound legislation.
Now, is there any reason why we should
deyiate from this sound principle upon which
all right action is founded? charge here
and now that this is only one of the ex-
amples of the indirection which long years
of seryitude have caused to be habit in the
Democratic party. Having been for long
years in the minority, they have got fashion
of indirection, and they can not drop it now
when they are in the majority and in power.
You yourselves know, every one OF you, that
the majority that would vote for pension
bill might be composed of different persons
particular tax bill. You therefore single out
pension legislation and saddle it with this
disadvantage, for which you can give no JUS
tifcation if your purposes and Intentions are
honest.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Mckinley,
in that brilliant five minutes with he devot-
ed to your sitauation, has exposed and laid
bare the entire hollowness of it. Ii you be-
lieve that this country needs more revenues,
why did the leader of the House demand a
do not believe it, why did you bring in this
rule? Take either position you like, and
you stand condemned before intelligent peo-
pie.
Now, sir, have one other word of reply to
the chairman of the Committee on Invalid
Pensions. Internationally, no doubt he has
confused this matter by undertaking to rep
resent to this House that this expenditure,
which pensions may produce, has got to be
immediate. He has rolled up before you the
$3.50 900, 900, which Mr.. Commissioner Black.
in his last revised estimates, says that ar
rears of pensions will cost, and presented ID i
to this House as if it was an annual expendl-
ture that must be met at once. And he
knows that this same veracious authority,
whose virtues have caused this House to
ring, declares that if the bill were passed he
could only liquidate $50,000,000 per annum
Where then is the honesty of such q state
ment?
1t is an a par with the honesty of this prop
osition. They rush forward with enc enormous nous
anxiety to pay. pensions, and saddle them
with tariff discussion! Good heavens what
legislation on earth in the way of appropria-
tions could stand a tariff discussion? Why
this House by majority OF ~, In Demo
cratic House of 40 majority, has expressed its
that although the bill was stillborn, never
theless tley absolutely refused the ORATOR
ical ceremony of burial Laughter and ap-
plause on the Republican side.l Yet thl;
thing comes from a Democratic party thai
met together in Chicogo and an
nouneed platform of principles accompa-
MED by statement of facts as veracious as
its principles were sound. Applause on the
Republican side.
Why, that Democratic assembly, contain
lllS ttll bll6 MloOUll IuGl0 Ndo III Whet0 Noss
called Democracy" announced that we had
a surplus of $100, 600 900 torn from a suffer
ing people. Naughter)
And yet today we are told that pensions,
which presumably are deserved, because il
is presumed the House will pass wise bills,
even if it has forty Democratic majority-ii
is presumption of law if not of fact
Qaughter) and yet we are told that not 8
single one of these shall pass unless an In
ternal revenue or tariff taxation bill is al
lowed to overwhelm the House into that
sleep which follows such efforts at oratory
as would instantly burst forth.
All! But the Democratic party have
pledged the internal revenue to pensions
There is another instance of their methods
of indirection. Why the internal revenue
Because they do not want it repealed; be-
cause they wish to fasten the patriotic SEN
timent of this country upon the internal rev
enue taxes in order that they may run riot in
the tariff schedules: and yet after all thelI
careful preparation, after all their indiree-
tion there seems to be not much running
riot in the tariff schedules But If we can
not unite the Democratic party on that plat
form, let us see if we can unite them upon
a proposition to hamper pension Legislation
and involve it with other subjects with
which it has no necessary connection zap
plause.)
)Here the hammer fell)
Remarkable Character.