The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1888-04-19
OUR CORRESPONDENTS.
Replies to Questions on Variety OF Interesting
Subjects.

Subjects.
ITO Corrsspondsnts-Write questions on a sep
arate sheet of paper, give full name and address,
and mark it Correspondents Column" Noatten-
ton viii be paid to communications that are not
accompanied with fun name and address of writer.
Our readers arc requested 10 lncose a stamp for
reply 10 their inquiries. Postal cards will be
replied 10 by mail only. Replies by mail will ordi-
n8rily be made within week, and If in this col
unu within three weeks.I
P s., L. Seur Centre Hinn.-Under date of April
3, 1884, THE NATIONAL TRIBUaE said in this column,
in reply to a correspondent: The reply Of TIN, De-
troit Post and Tribune 10 your inquiry whether
President Grant did or did not veto the equaiza-
ton of bounty bill, wherein said paper states that
much censure has been heaped on President
Grant for vetoiDg the bill, for killing it by
pocketinR it, but matter of fact, he never had
chance to do ether and that the bill was killed
by a parliamentary rule through the misappre-
hension Of Senators TO the effect of their votes
and that il Is only coniecturc' whether the
President would have vetoed it had it come legally
before him are not matters offact at all Had the
paper you quoted continued its researches two
pages further in volume 3, part 3, Congressional
Record 1873 it might have ascertained the fact that
the bill passed both the House and the Senate was
engrossed and signed by the Speaker of the House
and lie President of the Senate and page 22Os of
said Record are the words This bill wasnot APPROX
ed by the President Now Tor the fuctS: President
Grant Was at the Capitol when the bill passed and
zoe sac Il handed to him for his signature, which
would have made II a law, lie refused to sign it,
and thus the bill met its death. President Grant
had at that time in his pocket his written veto of
the bill the grounds stated in our issue of the
10TH MI me veto was gwen out TO the press ana
published. The full text OF the veto appeared in
one of our early issues. The question raised as to
whether the Senate, by negieeting to formally nc
cept the report OF the Committee on Conference
eopardized the legality of the bill is a matter of
conjecture, and was never decided in any event
that did not prevent the President from signing
! the bill. That excuse was never made by him or
his friends and although Grant did not actually de-
liver his veto message 10 Congress (such action be-
ing unnecessary as under the Constitution he could
/ and did defeat the bill by Withholding his sigma
ture therefrom), he cannot deny the facts that lie
| had veto prepared, and TO all intents and pur-
! poses the bill stands vetoed. The censure ,
that has been heaped upon President Grant for this
| action must remain He committed most grieY-
| Gus error, and it cannot be undone by the Detroit
! Post and Tribune by any other paper The
! above was published four years ago, and THE Ma
TIoNAL TRIBUNE to-day stands by the statement
| above quoted as matters of iaotand history Presi-
dent Grants action was, OF course, based upon the
report Of his Secretary OF the Freasury,-Bristow,
| who reported against the measure on the ground
that the financial condition of the country at that
time did not admit of such extraordinary drain
| upon the Treasury as would take place in the
event of the bill becoming law.
! u. r., Bueldh, Ter.-What is the highest rate of
pension paid Il private soldier for varicose veins ?
! AnslCer II may be $50 That rate would be paid if
the pensioner required the regular aid and attend
ance of another person. But II his disability were
! such as 20 render him wholly unable for manual
| labor he might receive s30 Or if his disability
| were equivalent to the loss of a hand or foot he
| might receive S24 or any sum under $l8 accord
ing TO the degree of disability established by the
Examining Surgeon.
W. F. VhiIepood Mich.-I draw pension as
Second Lieutenant but had commission First
but had command of company when wounded
Sept l, 1854 Was mustered out as Second Lieu
tenant My attorney writes me he had mo muster
ed out as First Lieutenant under act of June 9