National Republican., 1888-03-26
What Senator inrolIs Did Saw.


InlToR NATIONAL REPUBLICAN,: What
did SEM tor Ingalls, say in his recent speech
on the pension bill that imputed disloyalty
to Gen. 1IancockY heard the speech, aud
! have read II. as reported IN the Record,
many times, and can find nothing in II
| hat can he tortured into such charge.
| What did he sayY quote from the Recr'si,
March Z, pages 1866:
There never Is an occasion when an attempt
| Is made to pass a pension bill for the SUR
| viying soldiers of the Union armies that every
| Democrat does not put on his spectacles, go
| say, 1T H. gong TO cost too much" The south
| does not like the Union soldiers. The Demo.
cratic party does not like them they never
war should have died away, and upon every
conceivable occasion when we attempt to
enlarge the pension system or liberalize its
provisions, senators rise here one after the
| other and pecvishly complain that it is going
| 10 cost too much.
senator Morgan: will say that the Demo.
cratic party liked Gen Hancock very well
Senator ingalls,, They did under compul.
| sion. They thought they could fool the north.
.n crn people by voting for a Union soldier, but
they did not We understand very well what
| the voting for Gen. Hancock meant. IL was
| ilist the same as voting for Horace Greeley.
You have been engaged in Illicit intercourse
T,, W. Sil te degraded elements Of the north for
| The Democratic party attempting to deude
he north by nominating and voting for Horace
Gre,ly 10 show that they Were reconstructed,
that they would fain mi tleir bellies with the
husks that the swine did eat, ana they could
not; and then the Senator from Alabama rises
and assures us with Il Slffusion of patriotic
Mr, President, we understand why
they voted for Hancock. We know
why Hancock was, nominated, We
know why that other ally Of the confederacy
cd Nyh m bnI
gust declared that the war was failure after
ht had been trying for two years to make II so
gether too diaphanous.
This is what Senator Ingalls, said. Is
there IN impuiation IN his language against
General llancock's loyaltyp Not In the re-
motcst sense lie calls him Union soldier,
end speaks of him in the same sense pre-
cisely and to enforce the same thought as in
his reference 10 Horace Greeley. Does he
charge Greeley with dsloyaty? Both of
these men We're loyal during the war. After
Tie war was over-after the confederacy In
0pen-armed rebellion was thing of the
past, botll OF these men, who had done all
they could to save the Union, accepted the
nomination for President at the hands of the
Democratic party. VIII any one have the
hardihood to say that either Hancock or
Greeley would have accepted such nomi-
nation In 1864, upon platform and by a
called for an ignOminious surrender to
rebels IN arms?
The men who made that platform and the
men who conferred the Democratic nomina-
tiOn for President in 1864 were allies Of the
confederacy in arms They were denounced
rs such at the time by every loyal man in
The north. These allies embraced cooper
heads" Of every shade and degree from
Nallandingham down to the meanest
Knight of the Golden Circle. These were
the allies, and the mau who accepted the
nomination for President in 1864 upon their
cOwaidly platform was "that other ally.n
When Hancock and Greeley were nomi-
mated there was no contedcmcy. The con
tederates had been reconstructed They
were loyal They said they laid down their
aims In good faith and now loved the Union.
How could Hancock aud Greeley be charged
with being allies of something that had no
eXistenccy
II was 10 he expected that the men who
oppose every measure proposed for the ell
largement or liberalization of the pension
system should try To tnd something IN SEN
ator lngalls's speech to lessen lis sting and
turn lis edge away from them, hut why
some intelligent Republicans should lend
them aid and comfort in giving to that
musteltul defense Of the Union soldiers a
false construction is more than can under
s'alu' UNION SOLDIER.