News and citizen. [volume] (Morrisville, Vt. ;) 1881-current, 1891-07-02
A Strong Pension Argument.

Col. J. W. H. Reisinger, editor o
the Meadville (Pa.) Gazette, himsel
a gallant soldier from start to finish
during the war, presents the pension
question to his readers in a recent
article which he has headed "Whc
Owns the Corn?" He says:
A number of men once upon a time
went into the woods to make a settle
ment. They took up a large farm,
cleared it off and prepared to plant it
with corn. About this time the In
dians appeared in the vicinity and it
became dangerous to work in the
field. The settlers divided their force.
One-half of them took their guns,
went into the woods surrounding the
clearing and patrolled, while the
other half planted, hOed, gathered
and husked the corn. Now can there
be any question as to who owned
that corn? 1t may be said, with
some show of fairness, that the men
who kept off the Indians owned a
larger share than those who took the
safer place in the corn-field, but GER
tainly they don't own any less.
The above may or may not have
occurred, but the following did GER
tainly occur, as many living witness
es can attest: The United States
Government was threatened with de-
structiOn by something far worse
than Indians. A million and upwards
of the citizens took their guns and
went out into the woods and kept
n line between the Northern States
and the hOrdes of rebels who threat
ened the destruction of the Govern
ment, and of the lives and property
Of its people. They pushed the line
South as far as possible and finally
compelled the enemies of the govern
ment to disband.
In the meantime the people who
stayed at home planted, hOed and
gathered in corn. They built rail
roads and manufacturing establish
ments. They put up fine houses,
and dressed themselves in purple and
fine linen, and Jared sumptuously
every day and Sundays. They be-
came bloated bOndholders, and the
Government was filled to overfiOwing
with what they were enabled to
gather together by the fact that the
soldiers were in the woods watching
the Indians. Now, who owns the
corn?
1t has been decided by Congress
time and again that the fellows who
stayed in safe place and worked the
cOrn-field own the entire crop, and
that, when the other fellows ask any
of it, the granting of it is a matter ot
public charity, something like bunk
at the pOOr-hOuse or a cold bite at
the kitchen door. In that war some
men loaned the Government money,
while others loaned their services,
and many loaned their lives and
never got them back. Wives loaned
their husbands, fathers and mothers
their children, sisters their brothers
and girls their sweethearts, and,
though three hundred thousand of
them were never brought back, there
has been little attempt to make the
loss up and no "act to strengthen
the public credit" by putting their
claim on a gold basis.
The question of pensions is simply
a question of the division of the corn
and, when any party arrives to that
pitch of patriotism or good sense
which shall prompt them to Il prom
ise of a fair division of the corn,
the half-milliOn survivors of the men
who watched the Indians are going
to vote with that party. There is
another point in the programme
which ought to be looked after. The
various acts to strengthen the pub
lie credit and to pay the interest on
certain claims in gold may or may
not be right, but they comport badly
with the absolute reputation of the
soldiers pension claim if he has not
presented it within a certain time.
A Government which pays the hold
ers ofits bonds more than agreed to
pay. and absolutely pleads the stat
ute of limitation against thesoldier :
claims, may well fear to have its acts
tested on the imaginary apothecary
scales held by the Goddess of Justice.
Let the corn be fairly divided. 1t
may be patriotic to scatter flowers
on a soldier 5 grave once "a year, but
q little -four put into the mouths
of his wife and children once month
would be a more political variety OF
patriotism.