The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-03-31
MITES FOR THE WIDOWS.
THE HOUSE PASSES THE BLAIR
LOGAN PENSION BILLS.

Mr.. Cochran, of New York, Raises a
Hypothetical Possibility that is De-
cidedly FarsFetched - Objection to
the Measures that they Set Bad
Precedent.
WASHINGTON, March 30-In the House
to-day the Speaker stated that under the
special order the pending business was con-
sideration Of the House bill granting pen
sion Of 50 GOO per annum to Mary S. Logan
and the Senate bill increasing to $4,000 a
year the pension of Appolin A. Blair,
widow of Gen. Frank Blair. Discussion of
these bills occupied the remainder
of the days session At its con-
clusion the Logan bill was passed
by vote of 154 yeas to 95 nays, and the
Blair bin was passed by a vote of 14S yeas
to 81 nays. The House then, at 4;15 o'clock,
took recess till 7:30 o'clock, the evening
session to be devoted to private pension
bills.
DEMOCRACY THE SOLDIERS FRIEND.
In the course of the debate Mr.. Tarsney,
of Michigan, said he could demonstrate to
the House and country that the Democrats
had quite as much interest i'll the general
welfare of the ex-soldiers of the late
war as the Republicans had. In order to
do this he quoted statistics showing the
number of members of the Democratic
party who entered the Federal army in the
various States. The Democratic admins
tration had treated the ex-soldiers more
fairly and literally than any administration
since the close of the war. The Forty
ninth Congress had passed more private
pension bills than had any other Congress.
CLEvELAND's vEToEs.
Mr.. Laird, of Nebraska-How many did
your President vetoa
Mr.. Tarsney-More than any of yonr
Presidents ever did and thank God he did
so, because it has demonstrated to
mistake -' was as made when Grover
Cleveland was called TO the Executive
chair. Applause on Democratic side.] 1t
demonstrates the fact that the country has
at the helm man so careful, prudent and
| criticising, that he examines bills for him
self, approves those that are just and
proper, and disapproves those that are not.
TIME TO CALL HALT.
Mr.. Tarsney contended that the Hancock
pension bill could not be cited as a prece-
dent for the bill granting pension to Mrs.
| Logan. Gen. Hancock was a soldier when
| he died. Gen. Logan was not. 1t was
about time to call a halt when Congress was
asked to pay pension to the widow of a
| United States Senator.
Mr.. Taulbee, of Kentucky, opposed the
bills as being class legislation and as dis
eliminating against the widows of general
officers who were killed during the war.
Mr.. Cannon, of Illinois, said that he
would vote for both bills, not only on ac-
count of the distinguished services of the
deceased, but on the broader ground of
sound public policy.
CITIZEN SOLDIERS.
This country relied not only on the regu-
lar army, but on its citizen soldiery, and
while the names of Thomas and Hancock
and Shields and Farragut stood out as
names which all Americans were proud of,
along with them and equal with them stood
the names of Logan and of Blair.
A DEBT OF GRATITUDE.
Mr.. Springer said that the services of
such men as Gems. Logan and Blair were
| beyond the measurement of dollars and
cents. The people owed to them and their
wives and children a debt of gratitude
which could never be discharged.
SHOWING PARTIALLY.
Mr.. Hatch, of Missouri, said there were
widows of other brave and gallant officers
who received a pension of only $50 month,
and ne saw no reason why the widows of
Gems. Logan and Blair should be taken out
of that class and their pensions raised when
the average income of the people of Mis-
souri, who would pay portion of it was
less than half that sum.
Mr.. Matson, of Indiana, said that the pas
sage of these bills meant the establishment
of an aristocratic class in this country. If
they should become laws it would not be
one year until all the widows of general
officers would ask to be pensoned at the
same sum. Therefore he was opposed to
them, because he knew that the pensions
would not go round at that sum.
The gentlemen who voted for these bills
voted in direct violation of the principle of
equal rights to all.
| COCHRAN ON A SIDE TRACK.
Mr.. Cochran, of New York, said that
when the gentleman reflected upon the pc
culiar character of the services rendered by
the leaders of the Union army during
the late war they were confronted
by a historical record that was not pre-
sented by the pages of the worlds history.
1t was not conflict to repel an invasion,
but brethren were called to arrs against
brethren. Suppose those who followed the
Confederate flag had triumphed, who could
tell what would have been the fate of the
General officers of the Unions Who could
tell how passion, famed by years of resist
ance, might have doomed them TO outlawry
to exclusion from political privileges.
| MIR. Oates Qnterruptlng)-What warrant
has the gentleman for these statements9
ALL IN HIS IMAGINATION.
Mr.. Cochran replied that he was only as
suming a hypothetical case-placing before
the House what might be the outcome Of
any civil strife. He was far from saying
that the gentlemen who sat here, and who
had borne arms in the Confederate service,
or that the Confederacy itself,
would ever actually have done what
he had portrayed as a possible result Of any
civil war. He had merely been referring
to the risk that every soldier took If Con-
gress established rule that the widows of
men like Gems. Logan and Blair were not
to be considered wards of the nation, it
would discourage display Of patriotic devo-
tion f an occasion should again arise when
the country needed brave soldiders, skillful
officers and undoubted patriots. [Applausel
The debate then closed and the vote was
| taken