Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-03-31
private pension bills than had any other

ttfatcS the iact tnAJ Ihe country Its ~
the helm a man so careful, prudent, aad
criticising that he examines bills f0y him
sclf approves those that are Just ond
proper, and disapproves those that are
not"
Mr.. Tarsncy contonded that the Han
( cock pension.hill could not be cited as n
precedent for the bill granting pension
/ TO Mrs. Logan. Hancock was soldier
when he died Logan was not. 10 WIS
about time 10 call a halt when Congress
/ was asked to pay pension to tho widow
! Of a United States senator
Mr.. Taulbce, of Kentucky, opposed
the bills rs being class legislation and as
discriminating against widows OF general
officers who were killed during the war.
+ MIR. Cannon. Of Illinois, said that he
would vote for both bills, not only on
account of the distinguished services OF
the deceased but on the broader ground
Of sound public policy This country
relied not on the regular army. but on
the citizen soldicry. and while the names
a. Thomas and Hancock, Shields and
TaraMt. stood ont as names which all
Americans were proud OF, along with
them and equal with them stood the
names OF Logan anl OF Blair. He took
pride in voting for these bills, so that he
could say to the youth Of the land that
they should try and achieve the same
grandeur that these men achieved.
Mr.. Clardy, of Missouri, said that he
would checriully vote for the bill grant
iug pension - Mrs. Logan, n well as
for the hill increasing the pension of
Mrs. Blair. If there was no precedent
for them let Congress set precedent,
which might perhaps be invoked in
other years 10y other Congresses in be
half Of the widows of other Logans and
othor Blairs, if unfortunately our coun-
try should again become involved IN
war.
Mr.. Springer said that the services Of
such men rs Logan and BLAIR were be
voud the measurement OF dollars and
cents The people owed 10 them and To
their wives and children debt Of graft
tI3o which could never be discharged.
The pending bills but in a feeble way
offered the nations tribute to the memo
~ Of departed heroes.
Ncs,rs. Henderson Of Illinois 0n1
Mcdonald OF Minnesota briefly favor
"a tho bill
A'r. Laird, Of Nebraska, said that he
vcull as soon think Of deserving Lo-
CAMS CAUSE here to-day rs he would
Lave thought Of descrting Logan's cause
upon the field Of battle.
Mr.. Enioe, of Tennessee, announced
himself Is opposed to a character OF
legislation which proposed to establish
class distinction. and Mr., Walker, Of
Missouri, opposed the measure on the
same ground.
Mr. Wilson. Of Minnesota, opposed
tie bills rs unAmerican and unjust TO
other pensioners,
Nr. Hatch, Of Missouri. said there
were widows Of other brave and gallant
officers who received pensions of only
$50 q month, and he saw no reason why
the widows of Logan and Blair should
Doe taken ont of ihot class and their pen
eials raised when the average income Of
the people of Missouri who would pay a
portion of it was less than half that
.In.
Nr. Matson, of Indiana, said that the
J
dIato establishment of an aristOcratlc
class in this country. II they should
become laws il would not be one
wear t.ll all the widows OF general
officers would ask 10 be peusi0ned at the
same sum. Therefore he WAS opposed
o. them because he knew that pensions
would not geo round at that sum. Attic
rate Of e., 600 year 10 widows Of
general officer, the money would not 20
round, lmtlcsS as it was supposed to be
nr some gentlemen. What reason was
there .or giving these good women more
.nru the widows of Candy and Meade
and PHIL Kearuy and Stanard? The
gentlemen vino voted for these bills
voted iu direct violation OF the principle
OF equal rights.
Mr. Cochran, Of New York, sailthattre
opponent, Of tine two pending measures
i4d conceded generously and furly Che
distinguished serviccso OF Generals Logan
and Blair. But one objection had been
urged. and flat was that legislation OF
TINS character was legislation IN favor Of
class Ii there was a foundation for
thi. objection Le conceded that 1T would
bcdecisivc of the fate OF these measures.
But it seemed to him &C. he fallacy that
was seli-eyldent. When the
gentlemen reflected upon the peculiar
character of the services rendered by
the leaders Of the Union army during
tie late rebellion, they were con-
foatcl by a historical record that
Nas not presented by the pages
of the worlds history which was
devoted TO recording the experiences OF
Other nations. That WAS not conflict
t1 repci invasion. It was not a hattlc-cry
calling men tOaTms 20 resist the INVASION
OF O. foreign foe, bat brethren were called
90 arms a1aius. brethren II was a civil
strife where men who went INTO the field
uo. ONLY pcr.lcd their lives and health,
but pledged upon the result OF the CON
test their whole future prospects. Sup
pose those who followed the Confederate
lag had triumphcd, who could tell what
would have been the fate Of the grand
officers ~ the Union Who could tell
how passion, famed by years Of resist
aucc, might have doomed them to out
lawry-to exclusion from political prlyl-
iegeo?
Mr.. Oates lnterrupunG) what war
rant has the gentleman for these state
mCnts?
Mr. Cochran replied that he was only
Assuming O Hypothetical case, placing
before the House what might be the out
come of any civil strife. He was far
from saying that gentlemen who sat
here aud who had borne arms IN the
Confederate service, or that the Confei-
cracv itself would ever actually have
done what he had portrayed as q posi-
bic result of any civil war. lie had
merely been referring TO the risk which
every soldier took. If Congress estab-
Ished rule that widows Of men like
Logan and Blair were not TO be consld-
cred wards Of the nation it would dis
courage a display of patriotic devotion
if an occasion should again arise when
the country needed brave soldiers, skill
iul officers, and undoubted patriots.
APPLAUSE
The debate then closed and the vote
was taken.
The following Democrats voted IN IA
vor of the .OQan pension bill this after