Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1886-07-08

habit OF squandering the peoples
money and depriving honest pension
ers of their due by carelessly bestow-
ing the pension fund on unworthy and
dishonest adventures.
In Mondays veto messages the Pres
ident points out the general reckless
ness of Congress in legisIating on pen
sion bills in these words:
A large proportion of these bills have
never been submitted to majority of either
branch of Congress, but are the results of
nominal sessions held for the express pur-
pose of their consideration and attended by
a small minority of the members of the re-
spective houses of the legislative branch of
government. Thus, in considering these bills,
have not felt that was aided by the de-
liberate judgment of the Congress; and
when have deemed it my duty to disapprove
many of the bills presented / have hardly
regarded my action as dissent from the
conclusions of the peoples representatives.
During the present session of Congress 493
special pension bills have been submitted to
me, and am advised that Ill more have re-
ceived the favorable action CT both houses of
Congress and will be presented within day
or two, making oyer 600 of these bills which
have been passed up to this time during the
present session, nearly three times the num-
Der passed at any entire session since the
year 1861.
Three times the number passed at
any session since 1861! 1t is well that
the country has President with the
courage and the honesty to stop this
| flood of reckless extravaganza. And
this is what he says of one of the re-
suits of this pernicious stream of legis-
lation:
| Heedlessness and the disregard of the
principle which underlies the granting OF
pensions is unfair to the! wounded, crippled
soldier who is honored in the just recognition
| of his government. Such man should never
find himself side by side on the pension roll
with those who have been tempted to at
tribute the natural ills to which humanity is
heir to service in the army.
The special bills which were vetoed
amply illustrate the character of much
of the private pension legislation which
finds its way through Congress. One
man who applied in 1880 received a
pension of $50 in June, 1881. He was
dissatisfied and wanted the pension to
run from the date of his discharge from
the army. But the law forbade this be-
cause he had not filed his application
i'm time, and Congress proposed to re.
move the limitation. The exception
thus made would have given this man
a present of $4,000. In another case
Congress proposed to give pension to
the widow of Commodore Marchand.
There was no evidence that the off.
GERS death was caused by his service
in the navy, but Congress granted
what the Pension Office refused. This
was a characteristic case, and the veto
ought to put a stop to the practice OF
paying out money to the widows OF
officers on the pretense of giving pen
sions, when it is thoroughly we'll under
stood that the payment is simply a
benefaction. Another bill granted a
pension to the widow of soldier who
never in his lifetime pretended to be
afflicted with the disease mentioned in
the bill. Another bill granted pen
sion to a per son to whom the Pension
Office has already granted pension
| NJ v ,Gtur