The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1896-04-30
Tn the House general debate on the Pickle,

In the House, general debate on the Picker
pension bill continued, Messrs. Bartlett
On. Y, d. ami Miles md, d. speaking in
opposition to the measure, and Messrs. Gros-
venor and Kerr (Ohio, r. in favor of it.
Mr.. Bartlett IN. ". Mr.. Chairman deem
it to be my duty TO make few remarks on
this general pension bill, in view of the fact that
| was made for two or three days tho target of
viliication and abuse during the considera-
ton of the pension appropriation bill in the
early part of this session. By the rules of our
House, according to our standing rules, every
Friday evening is devoted to the consideration
of measures in violation of the existing law
that is, to bills for the relief of deserters and
to private pension bills, in contrayention of
the provisions CT existing statutes / do not
believe in special legislation. If you wish to
provide pensions for the widows of officers pass
n general pension bill. If you wish TO provide
for a certain class of cases, provide for that
class by general statute; but do not by rule
devote one evening in week to the consdera-
ton of bills which practically violate the laws
upon our statute books.
/ believe in giving full, fair. and adequate
pensions to the men who were disabled or
wounded in the Union service in the limo of
duty and to the widows Of such men. / be-
lieve that they cannot be too fully paid. More
over, am willing that the act of 1890 shall re-
main it stands upon our statute book. But,
genlleHGl, zen YOU JueT6 10 u SouLIuleHG Ill
this country, there is a feeling among the in
teIligent people, among the very masses
throughout the United States against the fur
Their enlargement OF the pension laws against
the enlargement of the dependent pension act
of June q, 1890.
What is it that you propose to do? Not to
extend the operations of the dependent PEN
lion act of June 81, 1880. to the deserving not
extend the scope and operation of that act
to those who would fairly come within itsex-
tsting provisions. But it is proposed here de-
iiheratcly, i'll the year 1896, 81 years after the
close of the war, to impose upon the people an
added burden OF five or six millions per an
mum in order to pay. what? To pay largess. to
pay bounty to the men who were base enough,
after having fought under another flag, to be-
come mercenaries under the flag of the United
States. i respect. / admire every man who
fought only under the Union flag. | respect
every man who fought only under the Confed-
crate flag. But / have no respect have no
admiration, l have only contempt for the men
who, having fought under one flag, were base
aud cowardly enough, either from fear or for
purposes of gain, to seek refuge under the op-
posite banner2 and believe that that feeling
is entertained by many gentlemen onthe other
side of the aisle.
The third section is Objectionable because it
assumes that our efficient Commissioner of
Pensions, Gen. Loehren, who L believe is fair
honest, and able administrator Of his office and
further, that his chief, che Assistant Secretary
of the Interior, Mr. Reynolds, and the Secre-
tary of tho Interior himself, Mr.. Hoke Smith |
that each aud every one of them has imprOp-
erly administered the existing pension laws. |
1t assumes that all the cases going back to a |
somewhat arbitrary date. Jan. z, 1898, should be |
reOponed that they must be reopened and by |
that assumption we virtually hold that the |
cases already decided have been dishonesty |
aud unfairly decided. Now, without some |
reason, Mr.. Chairman, without some argument,
without some clear evidence | do not believe |
it fair to attack the administration of any De- |
partment of this Governments.