The National tribune., 1900-05-17
The PENSION DEBATE.


\ that such an amendment would not be falr
to the soldiers who live in the section of the
| gentleman from Kentucky, nor in the
section of the country that L come from.
Mr.. Burleson. How many rejected
claimants will this amendment affect?
Mr. briggs. On page of the report
submitted by the gentleman from Illinois
| Mr.. Craft, which report was read before
the committee and received the assent of
the entire committee, Just as it has been
handed in here, find that under the act Of
1880 there have been 1873 rejected cases
| TheSecaSeS would not come under this act
| because they have been turned down. The
! gentleman will notice that in the wording
of the act it says it does notinclude pending
! cases. 1t is very clear about that. These
cases rejected would not come in here.
| want to say another thing, that under
this act there is absolutely no chance what
ever for any arrearages-that is, any
extensive arrearages. There has been
some complaint made in the daily press
/ that a bill of this character would provide
for the granting of arrearages. | Will
leave it to the gentleman from Illinois
! tNir. Graft if it is not true that under this
bill there will be no arrearages?
| Mr.. Graft. Practically none.
MIR. briggs. OF course in pending cases
l cOncede there may be some.
| Mr.. Maddox. One other point in regard
to the man who had been in the Confederate
army and afterwards served In the Union
army. They hold that he is not pension
able at all, no matter how long he served in
the Union army.
| Mr.. briggs. Yes.
Mr.. Maddox. Why do you not include
| them in this bill?
Mr.. briggs. | would like to say to the
gentleman from Georgia that there are
several. features of this bill that do not go
far enough in the line of pension legisla-
ton; but | am satisfied that it is good as
far as it goes. 1t is bill that the com
/ :,
| because of the rulings of the Pension Com
missioner.
Mr.. Maddox. / know men who served
a short time in the Confederate army and
| then served in the Union army and are
suffering from wounds they received, but
| they can not draw a pension.
| Mr.. briggs. We have had several
cases of that kind. l will say that under
the special act we have granted at this
session of Congress a pension to such
| applicants.
| / will say, in addition to that, that the
Senator from North Carolina appeared be-
fore our committee in behalf of bill that
passed the Senate, and that bill has not
been taken up for consideration before our
committee. Judge Gibson, of Tennessee,
has bill along these lines, and am salts
| fed that legislation of some character
will be passed, if not at this session, then at
the next session, which will cover such
| cases.
| Mr.. Maddox. One question more, if
the gentleman will allow me.
| MIR. briggs. Certainly.
| Mr.. Maddox. To what extent will this
bill relieve us of special legislation?
| Mr.. briggs. That is difficult question
to answer. 1have minute here that am
satisfied that if this bill is passed, instead
Of having 1900 or $1,000 cases referred
have less than 1000, certainly not more
than 5000. The trouble has been that the
Medical Referee has been the absolute inter
prefer as to what the act of June 81, 1890,
means, and this bill proposes that Con-
greSs itself Shall be the interpreter of the
| act OF June 81, 1890, and in order to do that
we put in two additional amendments in
| the bill. We say if a widow has $3.50 or
| less, she shall be placed on the pension
roll. The Interpretation has been that if
| the widow has S96 year she can have no
| pension under the act Of June 27, 1890, and
that Is one reason why We have so many
bills referred to our committee in behalf OF
widows.
Another source Of trouble is that dis
abilities have not been properly aggregated
Case after case has been brought before
our committee in which the disabilities
aggregated 20, 80, 40, or 45 dollars month,
yet the Department has ruled that the
| applicant is not entitled to Il pension under
the act of 1880. Hence the necessity for
special bills in such cases. If :he two
W WHICH nave referred 20
| through as part of this bill there will be
no question at all that the Pension Bureau
will be forced to interpret the act of 1890 as
Congress intended it.
MIR. Gaines. Does this bill make any
provision for the pensioning of Confederate
soldiers who served in the Cuban or Phil
ippine wars or their sons?
Mr.. Dnggs. No, sir; no provision is
made for anything except the amendment
of the act of 1890.
Mr.. Gaines. The gentleman is aware
that there is provision of law which pro-
hibits even soldiers of the Mexican war
from receiving pensions if they have also
served in the Confederate army, while the
| latter who served in the Cuban war are not
| pensionable, as / am told.
Mr.. briggs. | understand that: and /
| tried to answer that suggestion in my
answer to the question of the gentleman
| from Georgia.
Mr.. Gaines. l want this matter made
perfectly clear, because the gentleman from
ONO lAr. Grosvenorl, when / brought up
this matter here ashort time ago, said that
the provision to which referred would be
wiped out by statute. We have had one
4; wipe" without anything being done in that
| direction. Now, here is another proposition
on the same subject; and | am trying to
accomplish some amendment of the law
whlch VIII remove the present bar in such
| cases.
Mr.. briggs. This bill will not do that
The bill of the gentleman from Tennessee
Mr.. Gibsonl, and which has been adyo-
Gated by Senator Pritchard, will accomplish
the object.
Mr.. Norton. II there be one subject
that ought to be dispassionately discussed
upon this floor it is the question of the
rights of the men who defended this Goyern-
ment in the time of its peril 1t has been
hard TO do this, Mr.. Speaker. / do not
want to lnveigh against Congress, the
Departments, or the President Nor do /
want 10 lnyeigh against any individual.
II L possibly can avoid it. On this side OF
the House want To say to my Southern
brothers that for their generous support of
this measure L thank them from the bottom
Of my heart. Gentlemen upon the other
side OF the House, | say to you the power
TO do, 10 act, lies in your hands. The
remedy IS yours; and if you do not give il in
its full mete and measure, then the fauIt
lies at the door Of this Congress and upon
you, and not at the door of others that
may come hereafter.
| will vote for This bill, but saw il is
naught but the fusk without the corn, the
chail without the wheat 1t does not do
full justice. II is not extravagant; il is not
even liberal; it is unjust; but il opens lust
little wider the door Of fairness, and gives
little glimpse within TO a few who have
been debarred Of rights, rights TO which
they are entitled under the law as il stands
but deprived OF byunfair and unjust rulings
! obleGt 70 tins being called the Grand
Il