The Iola register., 1890-05-09
FUNSTON ON PENSIONS.
Our Representative Favors o Straight Ser
vice Pension, but will Take Half
Loaf Rather Than no Bread.

Our Representative Favors O Straight Ser.
vice Pension, but will Take Half
Loaf Rather Than no Bread.
We find in the Congressional Record
the following report of the speech
made by Mr.. Funston In the House of
Representatives, in explanation of his
vote on the Morrill, pension bill:
Mr.. SPEAKER: I desire a few
moments only for the purpose of ex-
planning my vote more than for the
discussion of the merits of this bill.
1t is doubtless we'll known to the
members on this side of the House
that have favored and worked most
earnestly for a per diem service pen-
sion bill. And now that am about
to support a measure having none Of
the per diem features i'm it, think it
Is due myself that should give some
reasons for supporting this measure.
Mr.. Speaker, if had my way in this
matter there would be before the
House at this moment per diem SER
vice pension bill, having none of the
restrictions as to age, and granting to
each man a pension in accordance
with the length of time of his service.
I can see no other principle on which
Justice can be meted out to all, and
every man satisfied. The man who
served his country four years certainly
ought to, have a larger pension than
the man who served it only ninety
days. This proposition seems SO rea-
sonable to me that I can not see how
any man on this floor can dispute it.
1t Is certainly self-evident and there
fore needs no argument.
Now, as to restricting the beneficiar-
les to those who have reached or shall
reach the age of sixty-two, I can see
no reason for this, unless it be that
the committee hope that before many
of the old soldiers have reached the
age of sixty-two most will have gone
where thep need no pensions.
I am aware it Is urged that heal
thy man does not need help until he
has reached the age of sixty-two. This
is possibly true of those who are
engaged in business other than manual
labor. The lawyer or the doctor is
doubtless at his best at or near sixty
two, and so also with the banker or
teacher and those who bold clerkships.
But it should be borne in mind that
there are comparatively few old sol
diers who are lawyers or bankers or
teachers. They had no time to study
law or banking, or to make teachers
of themselves. The days they might
have spent in qualifying themselves
for such places were spent on the
march and on the tented field, so that
to-day the great body of old soldiers
are laborers on farms, in workshops,
and engaged In various other vocations
which require hard manual labor.
Will any man upon this floor assert
that the common laborer who has
toiled all his life with pick-ax and
shovel and plow is at his best at six
ty-two? Certainly no one cares so lit
tie for his reputation for good sense as
to make any such assertion. PhysiolO-
gists tell us that the human muscles
begin to shrink and lose their elastic
ity at the age of forty. AT the age Of
forty-five so little account Is the man
for the performance of hard labor in
the way of long marches and the
fatigue of the camp that the Govern
ment exempts him from draft. And
vet this bill virtually says he is able
to toll and sweat and earn his bread
by the hardest knocks until he has
reached the age of sixty-two. So much,
Mr.. Speaker, against the bill.
I have only said this much to justify
myself in the efforts I have made for
bill which believed was better than
this one. Upon the whole, however,
this is not q bad bill. The most we
can say against it is that it is defec-
NOT ,rr, foP nran m
in the right direction, The committee
has already admitted this much by
their consent to reduce the age to
sixty instead of sixty-two. If it were
safe to offer other amendments, which
would improve the bill, I feel quite
sure that the majority on this side Of
the House would be In favor of so
doing.
There are two good reasons, how
ever, why further amendments than
the one reducing the age to sixty can
not be made: First, because the Re
publicans of this House from all parts
of the county have harmonized, or
rather, 1 should say, compromised on
this bill; second, because any amend
ment Of o material character, save the
one agreed upon, would be changing
the character of the bill, and, like
changing front in the presence of the
enemy would be almost certain defeat.
Gentlemen on the other side have Of
fered amendments which seem HARM
less in themselves, and doubtless when
the previous question is ordered they
will move to recommit, with instruc-
tons to the committee to bring in q
Der diem service pension bill. We all
understand what such movements
mean. They mean delay and con-
fusion and perhaps absolute defeat of
general pension legislation.
Why these amendments now TO Re-
publican measures if it is not to de-
eeive the country and make believe
that the Democrats of this House are
in favor Of a per diem service pension
bill, and the Republicans opposed to
i it or to load down the bill and defeat
lit? If that is the real sentiment of
that side of the House why did they
not pass or offer TO pass a per diem
pension bill in the Fiftieth Congress
when they had not only large major