The National tribune., 1896-01-16

In the House, that body went into Com
| mittee of the Whole for consideration of the
| Pension appropriation bill. w. A. Stone, OF
| Pennsylvania, in charge of the bill, explained
| its provisions Mr.. Graf. of Illinois, offered
| the amend mont abandoned by the committee
| iuhbiting the suspension of pensions for fraHd
until the fraud had been proved in United
| States court, and Mr.. Bartlett, Of New York,
! opposed the proposed extension of the de-
pendent act Of 1890 by the removal of the
| inhibition of widows pensions until they had
! proved their dependence upon their daily labor
for support. He estimated that the proposed
| extension would add $4,000 names to the pen.
| sion rolls.
In explaining the provisions of the Pension
! Bill. Mr. Stone said il carried $l41. 325, $40, a
| reduction of $5S,75 from the estimates. The
amendments to existing law attached to the
bill provided that pensions granted under tho
act of 1890 should date from the first applica-
| tion, no matter how many times they bad been
| rejected or dismissed for defect or informality
| in the application, and repealed the provision
Of the act of 1890, requiring widow 10 prove
| that she was dependent for her support OH her
daily labor Instead, by the terms of the
amendment, she must prove that her net in
come does not exceed $500 per year.
In Offering his amendment, Mr.. Graft con-
tended that a pension was not gratuity, and
Congress should quiet the anxiety in the minds
of 900 900 old soldiers by making their PEN
sions vested rights.
Dir. Bartlett gave notice that he would raise
point of order against Mr.. Crafts amend
ment. and also tho amendment in the bill re-
pea.ing the provision of the act of 1890, rela-
tive to widows pensions. With reference 10
the Graft amendment he believed it would be
nnwise to strip the Pension Commissioner of
Executive power, and clog the machinery of
United States Courts with matters that prop
erly should be left to the Commissioners dis
| erection.
| Mr.. Bartlett announced himself as q sup
| porter of pensions for deserving soldiers who
| were wounded or contracted disease in the line
| of duty. But. without questioning the justice
| OF the dependent act of 1890, lie declared his
| unalternable opposition TO n further extension
| OF that act, such as was proposed in the pend
| ing bill.
In reply to a question from Mr.. Johnson, Of
| Indiana, he expressed the opinion that the
sentiment i'll New York among the Democrats
] and the better class Of Republicans was OPP
| posed to an extension OF the pension roll
aud the further looting Of the Treasury"
Mr.. Bartlett called attention to the fact that
| the debate on the dependent act in both Houses
showed that it was specifically stated that the
test Of the widows right to obtain pension
| under the act should be her dependence on
her labor for support. He predicted that the
adoption of tho amendment would add the
names of at least $4,000 widows to the rolls.
Mr.. Bingham Of Pennsylvania, challenged
Mr.. Bartletts estimate Of tho number OF widows
who would be benefited by the amendment in
the bill. Tho testimony of Commissioner
Lochren, he said, showed that but 1000 widows
claims had heen abandoned.
Mr.. Bartlett admitted the number of bcneG-
Charles was conjectural, but said his estimate
came from those best informed on pension
statistics. Mr.. Willis, of Delaware in an elo-
quent speech of five minutes, declared that it
was right that every safeguard should be thrown
about the soldiers pension. There was, he said,
a patriotism of policy, a patriotism of duty, and
patriotism of sentiment. All were needed in
doing justice to the soldier, who, he argued, was
entitled to salvage for saving the Union.