The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1888-03-22


that, because it was merit to
have suffered in the cause of the country,
it was an equal merit to have suffered In
the cause Uf the confederacy. That is
precisely what the bill is. The PROPOSE.
ton is that in dealing with class of per-
sons, we shall say that the fact that men
have rendered services to the whole
country shall not weigh in the scales
against the fact that other men have
served in the army of the col federacy
end have been there wouaded or incurred
disease.
Senators Hampton, Riddleberger and
George expressed their appreciation of
the kindly feeling which had prompted
the introduction of the bill, out dis
claimed all desire on the part of ex-cun-
federates for its passage
Senator Henderson did not think it
discourteous to the senator from New
Ham pshire that the senate should refuse
a second reading involving such strange
and startling proposition. He believed
that before the senate could enter on such
legislation it would be necessary to repeal,
by action of congress and of state legis-
latures, the fourteenth amendment to the
constitution, which declared that Eeither
the United States nor any state should
assume or pay any debt or obligation of
the confederate states, but that all such,
under the law, shall be held void. He
submitted that the bill was direct viola
ton of the spirit, if not of the letter, of
the constitutional amendment.
Senator Daniel said no public question
cou be belittled by question of
ha haf ha oksa
was the propriety of the consideration of
the bill. If it had gone to committee in
due course without vote or comment, no
one would have felt that there was any
| thing improper in it, but since the ques-
ton had been made upon it, that ques-
| tion had to be met, and he trusted that
no ex-confederate in the senate would
dodge that question, although doubtless
his emotion might incline him to do so.
II he (Daniel) could, with propriety, de-
cline to vote on the question, he would do
80, because in his judgment it did not
become a confederate soldier to ask the
United States government for
any peculiar right or privilege. The
con federate soldier had boldly thrown
down the .gauatlet of war, and, when ne
came out of the W r., he had contempt for
but two classes of men engaged In it.
FirSt, those who made apologies; and,
second, taose who demanded them. All
that the confederate soldier asked from
the United Stat; was that he shOu d
stand equal before its laws, and should
have falr opportunity to work out his
own salvation. He would venture to say
there was not town or hamlet, from the
Potomac to the Rio Grande, where a Goa
federate soldier could be seen in rags or
tatteIs, Or begging his bread in vhe streets
| There was not palace or hut where tbs
conft derate soldier was not always wei
me and an honored guest. There wa;
no danger of any honorable anC
true man, however, humble ht
might be, or however small his fortune
diving on the oadside-because no goot
Samaritan would come by to lend him
helpinu hand. Al that the ex. cOnfeder
ates asked was not special privileges, bu
to be respected in their rights of Ameri
can citizenship which they had assumeC
knowingly and Intentionally and Yhicl
they intended to abide by (GOd helpjng
them), in such nauner that no maj
could Justly lift against them the finger o
scorn, or apply to them an insulting
epithet.
Senator Hawley expressed himself al
personally grateful to the senator from
Virginia (DanieD for his manly anC
statesmanhke speech. There had beer
nothing so disagreeable in connection
with the bill as its introduction BY
the senator from New Hampshire, and /
the bill had been referred to a committet
without notice he should not have cared
about the question being raised, pre-,
ferring to wait for the report of the COM
mittee. But the point had been made
and there was no proposition i'll the bill
which could not be Just as well understood
and acted on now as if there were Ions
re port from the committee upon 1t. H
thought that the bill was fundamentally
mistake. He not only disclaimed an!
feeling of hatred toward those who hat
been confederates, but he would not d.
ANYTHING to bar their progress, or tt
disoualify or dishonor them. The gener
GUS and manly confederate soldie
knew as we'll as any other that the issu
had been Joined before the greatest tri
bunal of the world On question involv
ing the very foundations of republican
poyernment; that it had been fought GU
"a great armies of brave men alone coult
fight; that somebody won; that som
fundamental theory of the constitution
won, and that the result had proved tina
it was wicked war that had been re
corded by the surrender at AppomattoX
But should he, therefore, act ungenerousl,
toward any person on the other side
Goi forbid. Should he ty to ba
his progress? Not at all. Shoul'
he object to meeting hin
in the senate chamber as hi
peer? BY no means. Did ne objec
because the fellow citizens of confeder
, ate soldier love him because of his gal
lantry! No. Did any man think less
the state OF South Carolina for send'nl
to the senate two of her gallant confed
: crate generals? Not at all. On the con
trary he should be ashamed of sout
Carolina if she did not remember sue
men in the days of her restoration A