The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1892-12-21


Mr.. Baker: I am not informed Of any
other state having received donation OF
this kind. But right wrongs no man. We
contend that this bill is right in principle;
that the laws of humanity impose upon US
the imperative duty of providing for this
GLASS Of persons. These soldiers came in
there and settled at the close of the war. To
day, probably one-tbird of the population
Of Kansas are old soldiers, or very nearly
that proportion.
Mr. Outhwsite: Is there any reason why
the state of Kansas should be preferred in
this matter over other states? The state of
Ohio has a soldiers home similar to this
sustained by the state; it is also the fact
that several other states have homes of this
kind; and none of these states have re-
Ceived any donation from the general gov
would like the gentleman to state any
reason within his knowledge why the state
of Kansas should be preferred IN this matter
over other states, beyond the simple fact
chat this military reservation happens to be
situated in Kansas.
Mr.. Turner: AS l understand, these old
soldiers who are to be the inmates of this
home have already received their share Of
the public lands.
Mr.. Pickler: The lands will revert to the
government as soon as they are no longer
needed for these soldiers.
A member: How soon?
Mr.. Pickler: This generation will finish
up the matter.
Several members: Oh, no.
Mr.. Andrew: This donation is for the
benefit, not only of the soldiers themselves,
but of "their dependent parents, widows
or orphans"
Mr.. Coombs: Not only the soldiers, but
their decendsnts get the benefit of this do
nation.
Mr.. Baker: wish to remark that our
condition is q little different from that Of
most Of the older states. At the close of
the war many of the men who had served in
the union army went out and built up new
homes in the west. Hundreds of that class
Of men. as have before stated, are TO- day
with their families, dispossessed of their
homes. l have been informed that at this
time, in the city of Fort Hays, there are
four soldiers families that are being sup
ported at public expense, the soldiers them
selves being in the government home at
LeaVenworth.
Under the system here proposed We desire
TO provide that the family of the soldier
may not be separated from the father or
husband; and we want to accomplish this
object at the least possible expense. We do
not ask dollar at the hands of the general
government; but we do claim that the laws
Of humanity demand that the men who
have spent the best years of their lives in
the defense of their country shall be thus
provided in their old age, so far as may be
possible with justice to the taxpayers of the
country and with as little expense as possible
TO the government and the people.
Mr.. Coombs: Each one of these families
will receive 1900 acres?
Mr.. Baker: It would not give 10 acres to
each soldiers family who are without homes
to-day.
Mr.. Baker: The land can be leased in
tracts Of forty to eighty acres for five years
Rt time. It is estimated that this measure
will save to the taxpayers of the state not
less than $4,000 per annum. We do not
ask to impose any expense upon the gov
eminent of the United States; we DO not
ask dollar from the public treasury. We
simply ask for the use of this tract of land,
and that the revenue received from it may
be used for the support of this cottage
home, thereby relieving the taxpayers Of