160 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



Mr. Bayard : "I am taking the text of the 

 law and discussing it. I do not propose to 

 argue this case upon the question of personal 

 merit. I would be second to none in a fair 

 and generous acknowledgment of all that is 

 due to the eminent individual named in this 

 bill. He needs from me no praise. He has it 

 to-day in abundance unquestioned, and, I doubt 

 not, thoroughly deserved. But I do deny the 

 justice or the wise policy of invading the well- 

 established rules of the service, and bringing 

 from civil life any individual, however distin- 

 guished, at the cost of many other members of 

 the military service, who, in obscurity from the 

 public observation but not the less in faithful 

 and dutiful endeavor of their duty, are perform- 

 ing and have performed well and steadily their 

 duty during all the time the proposed recipient' 

 of this special favor has been enjoying other 

 honors and profits, and the ease and emolu- 

 ments of civil life, and leisurely and luxurious 

 amusement." 



Mr. Brown, of Georgia : " It has been the 

 usage of all great nations which have had great 

 wars to render distinguished honors to the he- 

 roes of those wars. The judgment of mankind 

 has approved it. Whether you call it hero- 

 worship or whatever you may call it, the peo- 

 ple of all civilized nations and of all savage 

 nations do it. I do not profess to be entirely 

 free from that principle which is sometimes 

 called hero-worship. I do admire and enter- 

 tain the very highest respect for the man who 

 has shown himself a hero in war, because he 

 exhibits high qualities that are worthy to be 

 admired. 



"If we Confederates had succeeded in the 

 late civil war and it had been my fortune to- 

 day to have stood in a Confederate Congress, 

 that government having been established, and 

 if the question had come before that Congress 

 whether we should place Robert E. Lee or 

 Joseph E. Johnston upon the retired list, bad 

 they occupied just the position that General 

 Grant occupies to-day, I should not have hesi- 

 tated one moment to vote that distinction to 

 either with the attendant emoluments. Why? 

 Because they were grand leaders; they were 

 brave and magnanimous; they were powerful 

 on the field ; they were heroes, and because I 

 should have held that they had rendered dis- 

 tinguished services to their country. In that 

 case the bounds of the Confederacy would have 

 been the boundary of my country, and they 

 would have been the heroes of my country. 

 The Confederates failed, however, and instead 

 of the supposed case, I stand to-day as one of 

 the representatives of a State in this Union in 

 the Congress of the United States, and we hav- 

 ing failed, and the Union having been restored, 

 and we having returned to our allegiance to 

 that Union, as I stand to-day, the heroes on 

 the Union side become the heroes of my coun- 

 try, and it is my duty here to vote the same 

 tribute and the same honor to them that I 

 would ha\e voted, in the case supposed, to Lee 



or Johnston, had the Confederacy been estab- 

 lished. 



" Therefore, I shall vote in this case for the 

 pending measure. Last year I voted against a 

 resolution to place General Grant upon the 

 army roll because, as I understood it then, it 

 was very doubtful, if the measure had passed, 

 whether he might not have been assigned to 

 active duty, and whether there might not have 

 arisen conflicts between him and the present 

 General of the Army as to who should hold 

 that position. General Grant having retired 

 and gone into politics for the time, and having 

 been honored by the people of the United 

 States with two elections to the presidency, I 

 would not vote to place him back upon the 

 army list where he could return to active 

 command and interfere with the present Gen- 

 eral of the Army ; I think it would be unjust 

 to do it. But this proposition comes distinctly 

 before us in the shape of placing him on the 

 retired list. In other words, it is asked by his 

 friends that we do him the honor to put him 

 back on the list of the army, where he so 

 much distinguished himself and where he ren- 

 dered such important service, and retire him 

 with the common honors and the common pay 

 that an officer of his rank thus retired receives. 

 That meets my cordial assent. I believe it is 

 proper to do it." 



Mr. Call, of Florida: "Mr. President, this 

 bill proposes an acknowledgment for distin- 

 guished public services rendered by an eminent 

 citizen. The only two questions that are legiti- 

 mate to the consideration of the bill are as to 

 the character of the services and as to the form 

 in which the public acknowledgment shall be 

 made. Ordinarily these two divisions would 

 comprehend the entire consideration of the 

 subject, but there are circumstances outside of 

 the subject of the bill which relate to the Sen- 

 ate as it is now constituted, which will influ- 

 ence my action, and which, I think, may very 

 properly influence the action of other Senators 

 here. 



"We are here in part Senators from the States 

 formerly engaged in resistance to the national 

 authority, and in the larger part Senators from 

 the States that maintained the national author- 

 ity. The bill proposes a recognition of the 

 military services of the leader of the armies 

 that sustained the national authority, and it is 

 proposed in this body by the Senators from 

 those States that adhered to that authority. 

 It is submitted to us, now restored to our con- 

 stitutional relations to the Union, whether we 

 shall say that they who maintained the author- 

 ity of the Union shall now bestow upon the 

 distinguished general of their armies such pub- 

 lic reward and such recognition as to them and 

 their people shall seem meet and proper. 



" Sir, I maintain that, if there is no consti- 

 tutional objection to the measure, if there is 

 no important ground of public policy to re- 

 quire it, it would be ungracious, as well as un- 

 wise, in ua to sit in disapproval and rebuke 



