The News-Herald. [volume] (Hillsboro, Highland Co., Ohio) 1886-1973, 1888-09-13

OF pension certificates has occurred.
The first statute referred to by the gen.
tleman from New Hampshire CMR. Nc.
KINNEY, and also by the gentleman
from Indiana [MR. MATsoN], is the act
approved March 10, 1886, granting an
INCREASE OF PENSIONS TO WIDOWS,
minors and dependents.
do not know how many gentlemen
introduced bills in that Congress for
that purpose in the House. know, for
one, / did; know IL went to the PEN
sions Committee and bill was reported
back; know also that It passed this
House, and by what vote did it pass the
House / find, by reference to the
Record that 1t was passed under sus.
pension OF the rules on the 1st of Febru-
ary, 1887. find that upon the vote so
Democrats voted for the bill and GO
Democrats voted against the bill, and as
two-thirds were required under the
rules to pass 1t, by the Democratic vote
alone 1t would have been defeated. /
find that 1lS Republicans voted for the
bill and find that not one single Re-
publican voted againstit lApplause.]
The Republican party in this House
passed that law, and 1t could not have
been passed at the time it was passed
except by the Republican vote. Sixty
six Democrats voting against the widows
bill would have defeated it, II it had de-
pended upon the Democratic vote, by a
very considerable majority. I there
fore claim that credit Tor the "widows'
increase pension bill, ,"a and OF the l02 ,56S
certificates issued under it, is due to the
Republican party of this side OF the
House, because 1t would have been de-
feated by the vote of the sixty-six gen.
tlemen on the other side of the House.
Now what are the facts in regard to
the next act to which the gentleman re-
fers; an act for which he claims the
credit for the Democrats; the act APP
proved August 4, 1886, increasing the
pension Of
| MEN WHO HAVE LOST AN ARM OR LEG,
Sometimes called the amputation bill.
introduced bill of that kind in the
Forty.eighth Congress, in pursuance OF
the petition of the Grand Army Of the
Republic, and introduced it again in
the Forty. ninth Congress. / do not
know what other gentlemen introduced
similar bills, but do know that the gen.
tleman from Iowa Mr.. HENDERSON, did
1t was not my particular number that
was reported back.
I think it was Mr.. Matson's or Mr.
Henderson's bill that was reported back
and that came before the House. What
was the voter (That is House bill 2056
first session of the Forty-ninth Congress.
1t passed the House of Representatives
without division; it went to the Senate
and was there amended and the rates
increased. It came back to the House
On June %, 1886, for the first time,
asked consideration of that bill BY
unanimous consent. Mr.. Morrison, o.
Illinois, objected, and it was not ther
considered, but later on, August, 2. 1856
Colonel Matson, as Chairman OF the
Committee, moved, under suspension O
rules, to take up the bill and pass it, ant
it was taken up and passed by the fol
lowing vote: Yeas l66, Noes 81, divided
as follows: Democrats voting for The
! bill 75, Democrats voting against tn,
bill 81; Republicans voting for the bill
81, Republicans voting against the bill
, not one. [Applause.] And 80 it wa
passed by Republican votes. Had /
been left to the Democratic vote unde
) the suspension of the rules, the bill
would have been defeated by NOR
than %.
Under thatbill there have been issued
additional certificates to the number O
l0,O02, and claim this issue of certifi
Gates to the credit of the Republicans OF
this side of the House.
What is the next bill to which tn,
gentleman refers and claims credit fo
the Democratic side? 1t is what il
called
THE MEXICAN PENSION BILL.
Well, now, perhaps neither side car
claim any very great credit for the pas
sage of that bill, but l desire to stat,
the true history Of the Mexican pension
bill. 1t provided that any man who hat
ever had his name on the army roll O
the Mexican war for single day during
the years l845, 1S46, 1S47 or 1S4S, ever
If he had not been within a Thousand
miles of Mexico, should have a pension
for life at So q month without any limi
tation OF service, disability, age, depend
ence, or anything else.
That bill in that form came befor,
this House, and 1t passed the House IL
that form by a vote as follows: Demo
cratsfor the bill, 1885,; Democrats agains
the bill, 12. Republicans for the bill
49,; Republicans against the bill, Sc.
majority Of Ill Democrats for the bill
and majority of 90 Republicans agains
1t. That bill went to the Senate, ant
! the Senate struck out everything afte
, the 'enacting clause and put decen
bill in its place.
That bin came back here-not the bill
, that went from this House, but the Sen
ate bill-and it passed the House by
, vote OF 247 yeas to nays, the nays be
ing three Democrats and two Republi
cans. The vote was nou.partis3n, and
therefore, say that neither side car
claim the exclusive credit.
But claim that the Mexican pension
bill, as it became law, was strictly /.
Senate bill, was Republican measure
and was altogether different in character
from the Democratic measure tha,
originally passed the House. Under
that Law there had been issued 2l, ,704
additional certificates up to the time
when the Commissioner made this re
port. That gives, under these three acts
133,364 ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATES
Out of the 1885, 900 additional certificates
which the gentleman claims should he