The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1902-01-14

w Of representatives spent the day
in general discussion Of the pen
sion appropriation bill, the first of the
annual budgets. The debate took
wide range.
Mr.. Grosvenor Of Ohio and Mr. Hep
burn OF Iowa denounced a report pre-
sented 10 the last G. A. r. encampment
crlt1cising the course Of themselves and
other members of congress on the vet
eran preference bill" which was &c
feated at the last session.
They explained that their opposition
20 the bill was due TO the incorporation
IL the bill Of 2 clause which had not
been endorsed by the G. A R., placing
veterans Of the Spanish war in the
preferential clause.
Mr.. Rixey Of Virginia caused some
thing Of q Stir on the Democratic side
by advancing a proposition to open the
doors OF national soldiers homes to ex-
confederate veterans and TO furnish
federal aid to state confederate homes.
Mr.. Richardson Of Alabama was the
only Democrat who Joined Mr.. Rixey
in support of the proposal, while Mr.
Lamb Of Virginia, Mr.. Bartlett of
Georgia and others opposed the sug-
gestiOn. Mr.. RiXey declared that he
proposed to continue to advocate the
passage of the bill he had introduced,
whether it proved popular or not.
Denounces Pension Sharks.
Mr.. Gaines of Tennessee got the floor
and talked for some time about the re-
suit Of his observations in the Philip
pines on his recent trip to the archi-
pelago.
Mr.. Bell of Colorado denounced the
practices Of the pension sharks" He
declared that they were impOrtuning
soldiers in the Spanish war and those
who had since served in the Philip
pines to apply for pensions.
He said that in some cases soldiers
who were thoroughly examined at the
time Of their discharge and found to
be perfectly sound, yielded to these i'm
portunities and applied for pensions
within a month after their discharge.
He male a strong plea for justice TO
the soldiers. not only of the rebellion
but Of the Spanish war, contending
that to secure Justice for deserving vet
Grams pensions to the unworthy should
be opposed. ---.--
As against the soldier in the civil
war who had not applied for a pension
until recent years he thought the pres
ent commissioner was too strict. but
in the matter of ferreting out fraud he
thought Commissioner Evans had been
uneXcelled by any of his predecessors.
The estimates for the payment of
pensions decreased from $144,00OOOO 20
S13S50O.OO0. Mr.. Richardson of Tennes-
see asked why the amount for pensions
decreased S5.50O0OO while the number OF
pensioners was said to be larger.
High Tide Has Been Reached.
Mr.. Barney explained that this was
accounted for by the fact that the ar
rearages were decreasing and the
of large pensions of from $50
TO SO month was also decreasing. In |
reply to another question, he stated
that the commissioner of pensions be- |
lieved that the high tide of pension
payment had been reached and the |
amount required would probably re- |
main stationary for some years.
Mr.. GTOsVenOr Of Ohio assailed the |
report of a committee from the @. a |
r. made to the Grand Army encamp-
ment at Cleveland last summer. The
report placed at the door of certain |
members Of the house and senate, |
among them himself, the failure to |
pass what was known as the prefer |
ence" pension bill. Mr. GrOsvenor |
the report as unjust, |
unfair and UntrUthfUl."
Mr.. GrosvenOr also said that during |
his long service in the house he had al /
ways supported cordially every general |
and special bill for the benefit of his !
comrades in arms. /
The objection to the bill. he said. was |
that it contained provision which |
DIV fr,.al
soldier Of the rebellion to 100000 men |
who enlisted in the Spanish American |
war. He did not think the provision |
just and explained why he could not |
support it in the shape in which it ap-
peared before the house.
Mr.. Talbert Of South Carolina deliv- /
cred a general speech on the subject |
Of pensions, to show the growing ex- |
travagance and fraud of the present |
system. He thought the practice of |
passing special pension bills should be /
abandoned
Veterans Of the Spanish War.
Mr.. Hepburn of Iowa again brought /
up the report made to the G. y R. en- /
i'm criticism of members Of |
congress who voted against the vet |
aran preference" bill He said he had 1
that the bill as endorsed by the q. ~ |
II. and as originally introduced did not !
contain the provision giving preference /
10 veterans of the Spanish war.
Some of the veterans of the Spanish |
war, he said, were as much entitled to |
be in the preferential class as the vet /
Grams Of the civil way, but the vast /
majority of the 10000 Spanish volun- /
-eers had not heard q hostile gun fired /
and ne was unwilling that they should \
be placed in a preferential class from /
which the civil service would be re-
,ruited for the next twenty-five years. /
NJ Bromwcl Of Ohio. who was on .
he committee which reported the vet
srar preference" bill. explained that !
he pill as introduced, did not contain
he provision relative to the Spanish /
var veterans. Against the protest of /
! minority Of the committee. the pro-
.ision was inserted and the bill then
anne before the house under suspen-
,ion of the rules. no opportunity being
given for amendment. He expressed 4
he hope that the bill would be rein
reduced and passed.
Nj. Rixey Of Virginia submitted an
lrgumeat in favor Of bill introduced
" him today to admit confederate vet
,rans TO n tiOnal soldiers homes and
o extend the same national aid 80
,tate confederate homes IN the south
IS was extended to the state Union
homes. Mr.. Rixey said that a some
What similar bill introduced by him in
he last congress had provoked consid-
.rable hostility and criticism in the
south and in the north. but he believed
!