Richmond planet., 1908-06-06
CONTINUED FROM LAST WEEK.

a. -
There are other important differ
ences. among them the following;
The bin offered by the Senator
from Missouri does not authorize the
correction of the records OF the men
who are to be reenlisted That is ne
cessary TO enable them TO have their
rights to pensions. and other rights.
HIS bill IS silent on that point.
The bill offered by myself provides
as follows:
The record showing
their discharge without honor shall
be. and hereby is, annulled, set a
side, and held for naught.
This bill further provides;
That In any case where the regu-
lar term of enlistment which the
soldier was serving at the time when
discharged without honor has in the
meanwhile expired, his record shall
be, and hereby is corrected so as TO
show an honorable discharge at the
time OF the expiration OF such enlist
ment
This bill further provides:
That in case any of the noncom-
missioned officers or enlisted men be-
longing TO said companies and dis
charged without honor shall have
died since they were so discharged
and before the passage OF this act, but
who shall have testified under oath
or made affidavit before their death,
that they did not participate I'm said
lrnnyyI-
edge with reference thereto. their
respective records shall be, and here
by are, corrected in accordance with
the provisions of this act, etc.
There are a number OF cases TO
which this provision would be appli-
cabIe-a number of cases as to which
the law would fail in its purpose IL
IL did not contain some such provis-
ion.
All these provisions as to the cor
rection of the records OF these men
are absolutely necessary IL we pro-
pose to meet all the cases that will
arise and treat them as equity and
justice require.
These bills differ in another re-
spect. The order OF the President
discharging them without honor for
ever debarred them from reenlist-
ing in either the Army or the Navy
of the United States.
The bill introduced by the Sena-
tor from Missouri does not remove
the bar against reenlisting in the
Navy OF the United States, while my
bill does explicitly remove that bar.
The Importance of this is not in
the fact that these soldiers may want
to reenlist in the Navy and find them
selves debarred therefrom, but in the
fact that so long as any part of said
order of dismissal stands against
them they are at least pro tanto in
disgrace and deprived of rights to
which they are entitled.
Another difference is in the fact
that the bill of the Senator from Mis-
souri, does not restore to the noncom-
missioned officers who may reenlist
the rank they held, which my bill
does. Failure to do this would be a
denial of justice.
Still other differences might be
pointed out, but those mentioned are
sufficient for present purposes.
The main difference is the first in
dicated. That shows that these bills
are based on radically different the
ories.
The bill introduced by myself re-
quires every man who seeks reenlist-
ment to purge himself by making
oath as to his innocence of every
crime connected with the shooting
affray; not only that he did not par
ticipate in the shooting, but that he
has no knowledge with respect there
to and that he has not withheld any
knowledge from anybody.
1haCn rnnnfrar.. n~afu
which these men can comply, and
under all the circumstances the test
is suficicnt and all that should be
asked.
It is now more than eighteen
months since this shooting occurred.
1t is almost year and a half since