248 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. (INOEEASE OF PENSIONS.) 



be of opinion that he ought not to be re- 

 stored. 



" So thinking, Mr. President, I believe that 

 if Abraham Lincoln sat in this seat to-day and 

 could read the testimony which has come from 

 the reports of Longstreet and of Lee, chang- 

 ing, as it seems to me, so materially the mili- 

 tary situation of that day, the vote of Abra- 

 ham Lincoln, with his kind heart, with his 

 sound sense, and his fearless independence in 

 doing right, would be cast as I mean to cast 

 my own." 



The bill was passed by the following vote: 



YEAS Barrow, Beck, Brown, Butler, Call, Cam- 

 den, Cameron of Pennsylvania, Cockrell, Coke, Da- 

 vis of West Virginia, Farley, Garland, George, Gor- 

 man, Groome, Hampton, Hoar, Jackson, Jonas, Jones 

 of Florida, Lamar, Maxey, -Morgan, Pen dleton, Pugh, 

 Ransom, Saulsbury, Sewcll, Slater, Vance, Vest,Voor- 

 hees, Walker 33. 



NATS Aldrich, Anthony, Blair, Cameron of Wis- 

 consin, Chilcott, Conger, Davis of Illinois, Dawes, 

 Edmunds, Frye, Hale, Harrison. Hawley, Hill, In- 

 galls, Kellogg, Logan, McDill, McMillan, Miller of 

 California, Miller of New York, Morrill, Platt, Plumb, 

 Kollins, Sawyer, Windorn 27. 



ABSENT Allison, Bayard, Fair, Ferry, Grover, Har- 

 ris, Johnston, Jones of Nevada, Laphain, McPher- 

 son, Mahone, Mitchell, Saunders, Sherman, Van 

 Wyck, Williams 16. 



The preamble was then adopted by a sepa- 

 rate vote. It was as follows : 



Whereas, The board of Army officers convened by 

 the President of the United States by special orders 

 numbered 78 ; headquarters of the Army, April 12, 



1878, to examine into and report upon the case of Fitz- 

 John Porter, late a major-general of the United States 

 volunteers and a brevet brigadier-general and colonel 

 of the Army, having, by their report of March 19, 



1879, stated that, in their opinion, "justice requires at 

 his [the President's] hands such action as may be ne- 

 cessary to annul and set aside the findings and sen- 

 tence of the court-martial in the case of Maj.-Gen. 

 Fitz-John Porter, and to restore him to the position 

 of which that sentence deprived him, such restora- 

 tion to take effect from the date of dismissal from the 

 service" ; and 



Whereas, The President, on the 4th day of May, 

 1882, remitted so much of the sentence of said court- 

 martial remaining unexecuted as " forever disquali- 

 fied the said Fitz-John Porter from holding any office 

 of trust or profit under the Government of the United 

 States " : Therefore, that justice may be done the said 

 Fitz-John Porter, and to carry into eifect the recom- 

 mendation of said board. 



The consideration of the measure was ob- 

 jected to in the House, Jan. 17th, and so it 

 failed. 



Increase of Pensions. The House bill increas- 

 ing the rate of pensions of soldiers that have 

 lost an arm or a leg in the service was taken 

 up in the Senate Feb. 26th. It was as fol- 

 lows: 



Beit enacted, etc,, That from and after the passage 

 of this act all persons on the pension-roll, and all 

 persons hereafter granted a pension, who, while in 

 the military or naval service of the United States, and 

 in the line of duty, shall have lost one arm, one hand, 

 one leg, or one foot, or shall have suffered disability 

 equal thereto, shall be entitled to a pension of $40 per 

 month. 



It was discussed at some length, and vari- 

 ous amendments were proposed and defeated, 



among them one for pensioning veterans of the 

 Mexican and Indian wars up to 1856. In dis- 

 cussing this question, Mr. Hoar, of Massachu- 

 setts, said: 



" I hope the Senator will not insist on em- 

 barrassing this question with that which re- 

 lates to a wholly different war. I am in favor 

 of pensioning every surviving veteran of the 

 Mexican War on precisely the same terms, or 

 on better terms, than were allowed to veterans 

 of the Revolution, at the same distance of time 

 from the close of that war, or on the same 

 terms, or better terms, than were allowed to 

 veterans of the War of 1812, at the same dis- 

 tance of time from the close of that war, or on 

 the same terms that are allowed to veterans of 

 our late war ; but I am not in favor of putting 

 upon the pension-roll of this country surviving 

 veterans of the Mexican War whose disabilities 

 have not been removed, and who contemptu- 

 ously refuse to have their disabilities removed. 

 I have no desire to say anything which will ex- 

 cite angry debate or unpleasant recollections, 

 but the Senate know very well what 1 refer to 

 when I make this observation ; and, if it be- 

 comes necessary, it is a subject which I shall 

 discuss with great plainness. 



" This proposition would put upon the pen- 

 sion-roll persons who contemptuously refuse 

 the amnesty of the Government. It would put 

 upon the pension-roll also men who are rich, 

 hale, strong, in active and robust middle life, 

 when that never has been done by this Gov- 

 ernment in regard to the veterans of any oth- 

 er war. The veteran of the Revolution was 

 obliged to prove, for nearly forty years after 

 that war closed, his need, and to accompany 

 his proof with a schedule of his real and per- 

 sonal property. I should not for one be dis- 

 posed to make such a requisition in regard to 

 any living survivng veteran. The veteran of 

 the War of 1812 was not put upon the pension- 

 roll without regard to his need until the young- 

 est surviving veteran of that war had reached 

 the age of seventy-eight years and most of them 

 had reached the age of over eighty-four years, 

 so that age itself was a disability. The de- 

 pendent father, the dependent mother, of the 

 soldier of our late war for the Union is obliged 

 to prove that dependence and need in order to 

 obtain a pension ; and the veteran himself, 

 though twenty years have elapsed, does not 

 receive a pension except in case of a disability. 

 Why should the survivors of the Mexican War 

 and of the Indian wars be singled out from 

 every other class of soldiers, and have a bounty 

 extended to them which we have not extended 

 to anybody else ? 



" I wish to call attention to the fact that the 

 Senate, as I believe, has been ready, this side 

 of the chamber has been ready (of course those 

 soldiers are upon the pension-rolls under the 

 general pension law), to extend to the veterans 

 of the Mexican and Indian wars a liberal poli- 

 cy, which will enable all those who are in need 

 and who are under no existing disability to re- 



