The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1893-04-06
PENSION -HATERS.
Some Views Expressed by Comrades
in All Parts Of The Country.

the act of June 81, 1890, n 100-days soldier can
get more pension than an old soldier who serv-
ed three years, and for disability contracted
since he came ont of the service. l served
until the close of the war. Iapplied for pen
sion in 1879 and had to prove up all my fam
iy record, and where and when and under
what circumstances contracted my disability;
when and where received gun shot wounds,
etc: which / did. Then four neigbbor made
affidavit that they had known me prior to the
war They allowed me 81 per month. / then
applied for an increase, was examined before
tho board in Peoria, and rejected. ! again
made application. and was ordered before the
same board at Peoria, composed of the same
identical physicians aud received an increase
of s. per month. / had also put in for an ad-
ditional disability, neuralgia of stomach con-
tracted at Crab Orchard. KY, October, 1862,
which ] proved, and was rejected. l received
notice from Com missioner Raum last Summer.
This was all under the old law / did not make
application until short time ago-probably
month ago, and have not received any order to
be examined since / was examined in Peoria,
about one year ago. But. Notwithstanding, l
received notice from Commissioner Raum,
dated Feb. 90, that my claim was rejected.
What bothers me is. How can claim DO reject
ed without an examination? Now, / think
there is something wrong about my claim.
know of men drawing pensions ranging all the
way from 90 W oSV bhdt WcI0 uut WIZ VII bbo
rations the Government issued to them, and
] can prove that stood up and took my medi-
cine and was right with the boys from begin.
ming to end.
John McGrail. 81 Lippit street, Providence,
r. j., says: There seems to be great deal Of
talk about pensions. First, what is pension
Webster says: Specifically, stated allowance
to person in consideration of past servces.'
1t is very evident that ifa person has rendered
a service, the person is entitled to a compensa.
ton for that service. Now, let US look at the
situation of the old soldiers engaged in our late
civil strife. The Government promised the
soldiers certain amount per month. For con-
venience we will call it SIS per month. BY a
manipulation of the aw-making power, the
soldier was compelled to accept for his services
what the Government would not receive back
for the same as it paid out. By this there was
discount on the soldiers wages. At one time,
while the soldier was receiving Sl3 per month
on its face. he was really receiving only about
$3.50 per month. This was difference witbouta
distinction, so far as the soldier was concerned.
The bondholder saw and knew Of this distinc-
ton at the time, for, without doubt, the bond
holder was the agent Of making the difference
and distinction. else why should the soldiers be
compelled to accept the deprecated (purposely)
greenback while the bondholder was to have
gold? The bondholder tby law was to have
his interest in gold, and later on. his principal
in the same, by law dictated by himself to the
Congress of the United States. We refer now to
the reditstrengtheninaa act of 1862 Now, the
proposition we wish to make in this article is
this, and We think it ought to settle the pension
question for all timc. TheGovernment prom
ised to pay soldiers we will say, $13 per month.
By the putting the except" on the back of the
money it paid them with the old soldiers did
not receive but about 81. so to $3.50 per month.
I, to A. tt.,v 70
ise. Now, this is our proposition: Let the
Government ascertain the difference between
what it promised to pay them and what it
actually paid them at the close of their service.
Compute the interest on this difference from
the close of the war to the present time, and pay
it to each old soldier or his sheirs in ono lump,
and the "old soldier" will receive enough to
carry him comfortably to his grave. But"
says some minimizing person, "the Govern
ment hasn't got money enough to do this" Is
that SO? Neither did the Government have
enough to pay them what little it did until it
created the crippled (except) greenback and
Ipartially) paid them. If the Government had
the right and power to create crippled money
Except on its back aud partially pay them, it
certainly must have the right and power to
create a full fedged money in time of peace
and pay its defenders in full. We do not mean
to say that the Government could not have
created full fedged money and paid the old
soldiers; but we assert it did not 1t gave the
advantage to the bondbolder. 1t put the short
end of the yoke onto the gunholder."
A. Van CIeef, Scranton, Pa, writes: Hav-
ing just read your interesting article, No
Burden to the Taxpayer am reminded that
some time ago l wrote to our Congressman in
similar vein, but what wrote was not SO well
written clearly expressed. When got to the
end of your article, thought it ended little
abruptly. For the money paid pensioners, as
you say, goes into general trade. Now. suppose
that pension payments were suddenly abolished
or greatly reduced, what then7 Pensioners
fmany of them could not be prompt with their
rent or store bills; the house owners and NOR
chants could not pay promptly their usual bills;
merchants and manufacturers would find col
lections slow and their business curtailed; the
wholesalers would become alarmed and per-
sistent in collecting; notes in banks would be-
come troublesome and burdensome to the re-
taller. equally 30 to the wholesaler. The coun-
try banks would take alarm, and begin to
hedge by calling in loans and refusing dis
counts. The city banks would necessarily
follow suit, and there would inevitably follow
q panic, financial cyclone such as strikes
terror into the breasts OF business men, espe-
cially that overwhelmingly large debtor class.
1t takes but little to precipitate panic when
the times are ripe for it, and the continuous
withdrawal from circulation of from $l2, 000,0
to 500 000, 900 quarterly could not be accom-
plished without causing more or less financial
disturbance and distress Those who contem
plate disrupting the present pension status. If
there are many such, would do we'll to bear this
in mind"
G. w. Wilson, Corporal, Co. G, 25th Mass,
Worcester, Mass, says: I" see by your issue of
March % that C0mrad Charles o. Stone, of Co.
B. Sd Me-, and Co. E. 21st Me-. says that he has
a son whom no has every reason to believe is
suffering from disease transmi tied to him from
the same diseases which he contracted during
the war.
Now. have not the least doubt Of this, for
] have son whom have every reason to be-
lieve ia suffering from rheumatism in . very
aggravated form, and sm positive that it is
inherited from me, for he never has been in any
way ex posed so that he could contract 1t himself.
He has been monthly visitor to tho Massa-
chusetts General Hospital for nearly two years,
and although nearly Is years old has been un-
able to attend school for three years. And yet
tho pension haters say that We are not entitled
to any consideration from the Government.
Perhaps some of these croakers would be
willing to stand in my shoes and see their
youngest boy grow up cripple from disease
his father contracted while giving the best
years of his opening life in defense of the best
flag the sun ever shone upon. There may
Should like to hear"
The 3Oth NY.
EDITOR NATIONAL TRIBUNE Please give a
Ghort history nf tho 9ltI, N Y-(aAAC WENT