Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

as required by this act. They shall receive such compensation for their services as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, not exceeding ten dollars per day for each commissioner.

Mr. MAYNARD. It seems to me that in forming this commission one member of the commission should be an Army officer, for reasons that I suppose will be obvious to every

one.

Mr. GARFIELD. I think that is a good suggestion.

Mr. MAYNARD. I would suggest that the commission should consist of two persons, who are not citizens of the State of New York, and that there should be associated with them an Army officer of a grade not lower than colonel, to be detailed by the Secretary of War.

Mr. KETCHAM. This bill is very similar to acts heretofore passed in relation to the States of Missouri and West Virginia. It makes no appropriation of money, but simply appoints a commission to examine the war claims of the State of New York.

Mr. SPALDING. I think the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARD] had better waive his point. The bill is very well guarded, indeed.

Mr. MAYNARD. It is very obvious that an Army officer would bring to bear upon the question information that other persons would not possess.

Mr. SPALDING. The report is to be made to Congress.

Mr. MAYNARD. The Army officer would have the greater part of the information possessed by the commission; and then, so far as my acquaintance with the Army goes, their education has made them fair men, honest toward the Government and toward the citizen. I should much prefer to see the commission organized in this way.

Mr. GARFIELD. I move there be added one officer of the Army on the retired list, so as not to take any out of active service, not below the grade of colonel.

Mr. MAYNARD. I accept that; but I should think two were enough.

Mr. GARFIELD. Let it be, then, one of whom shall be an officer of the Army on the retired list.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I do not wish to see this bill pass without knowing there is some necessity for it. The gentleman from New York, who has it in charge, says it costs nothing.

Mr. KETCHAM. It authorizes the appointment of a commission to examine what claims there are of New York and to report the results of their examination.

Mr. SCOFIELD. While the gentleman says it costs nothing, it is to appoint a commission to go into New York to see whether they can find some one to make a claim against the Government.

Mr. KETCHAM rose.

Mr. SCOFIELD. Let me finish my sentence. It is an inquisition for claims, as I understand it. We are not satisfied with the claims sent on from the State of New York. We are afraid some one in that State has something against the Government which has not been paid. This is to hunt him up and to get him to send We appoint a commission to wander through that State to advertise for military claims against the Government. When they have found out all they can they are to report the amount they think we owe them.

it on.

Mr. KELSEY. I ask whether such a bill as this was not passed to settle the claims of Pennsylvania to the extent of $700,000?

Mr. KETCHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCOFIELD. The gentleman asks me a question, and my friend answers it. The gentleman who asks it is mistaken, and the gentleman who answers it is equally mistaken. No such bill was ever passed for Pennsylvania. No such sum was paid to Pennsylvania. No such demand or claim was presented. At the time the rebel army entered into Pennsylvania in 1863, the States of Pennsylvania, New York,

and adjoining States were called upon for a volunteer force to repel it by the President of the United States, assigning the quota to each State. The President telegraphed and the Secretary of War telegraphed to the Governor of Pennsylvania to raise those troops, and to pay them from the fund of Pennsylvania, and they would repay it as soon as they could ascertain the amount. A bill was passed to pay that amount. They paid the troops from New York and West Virginia at the time. They were paid directly by the War Department. The troops from Pennsylvania having been paid on the telegram of the President and Secretary of War, it needed a bill to authorize the United States to refund the money loaned. The loan had been made from the banks of Philadelphia.

Mr. SPALDING. What was the amount? Mr. SCOFIELD. About seven hundred thousand dollars, as the gentleman from New York has stated. The gentleman asks whether it was an honest claim? It was not a claim of the State of Pennsylvania. The Governor had a telegram from the President and Secretary of War to raise the troops, and the banks of Philadelphia advanced the money. They said they would pay it as soon as they obtained the necessary appropriation.

Mr. MAYNARD. There seems to be a play upon terms. It is denied it was a claim.

Mr. SCOFIELD. It was a debt contracted by the United States and not a claim, and an appropriation was needed to pay it.

Mr. CULLOM. I ask whether there is not a law upon the statute-book for the settlement of these claims? There is such a statute for the settlement of such claims growing out of the war.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I know we have such a law, but that does not compel any one to bring in their claims. Here we are going to send out a commission to wander over the State of New York to see whether they cannot find some one who has a forgotten claim.

Mr. KECTHAM. My friend misunderstands the object of this bill.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I rise to a point of order. When the gentleman gets through his hour, or the length of time he chooses to occupy, if there should not happen to be a quorum present, I desire to know whether I cannot get a chance to say something more. I want the gentleman to know that he need not be so rough to me. He should allow me a little courtesy, because I may be able to take some advantage of his discourtesy if a quorum should not be present when the bill comes to be acted upon.

Mr. SPALDING. I desire to know if the Committee on Military Affairs recommend this bill.

Mr. KETCHAM. They do, unanimously.

Mr. CULLOM. I wish to inquire whether the object of this bill is not to allow the Government of the United States to settle the claims that the State of New York presents to the Government on account of war expenses. Mr. KETCHAM. Certainly.

Mr. CULLOM. There is a law already on the statute-book expressly covering this very case, and under the law as it now stands various States have been settling their war claims from year to year. The State of Illinois is now doing it.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I think there is a misunderstanding on the part of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOFIELD] in regard to this bill. If my recollection is not at fault, we have provided for an examination of the claims of almost every State is this way, so that this involves precedents which have been pursued in other States. And the claim of the State of Pennsylvania although it took the form of a money demand, for money paid out by that State, was based upon precisely the same services rendered by that State that this claim presents. I remember in the case of Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa, similar bills were passed.

Mr. CULLOM. Does the gentleman say that the State of Illinois had a special bill passed for the settlement of these claims?

The

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I do say so. appropriation in the bill that passed in 1862 had become exhausted and there was new legislation.

Mr. CULLOM. I undertake to say that the State of Illinois to-day has its agent here for the purpose of settling the claims of the State against the General Government on account of war expenses.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. That is another class of claims entirely. It is a class of claims where money was expended by the State of Illinois for the equipment and transportation of troops who were mustered into the service of the United States.

Mr. CULLOM. What claim is this of New York?

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I do not know what is included in it, but I suppose the same class as was included in the Pennsylvania billfor State troops not actually mustered into the service of the United States.

Mr. GARFIELD. Several States of the Union having claims against the General Government for moneys advanced for Army expenses and war expenses of various sorts which the State authorities believed the General Government ought to assume, have heretofore acted precisely in the way the State of New York now proposes to act, namely, to ask a commission to be appointed to examine these claims and report precisely in accordance with the custom that has been followed hitherto in reference to at least five States. This bill has been drawn with care. It provides that not a dollar should be paid except the expenses of the commission; that the commission shall have no power to settle the claims, but that it shall simply examine all the testimony on file, all the records in the case, and make a full report to Congress of what is good and what is bad-not that Congress is to be bound by the report of the commissioners, but for the purpose of laying the facts before Congress for its ultimate action. I do not know any possible ground upon which this request_can be refused, unless we agree that what we have done in several precisely similar cases is wrong. Mr. SCOFIELD. Can the gentleman name the States?

Mr. GARFIELD. I name the State of Missouri; I name the State of Iowa; I name the State of Illinois; I name my own State; and I name the State of Massachusetts.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I know the gentleman names one State that never had any such roving commission.

Mr. CULLOM. And so he does another. Mr. SCOFIELD. Pennsylvania never had any such bill or anything like it, or any such commission.

Mr. GARFIELD. Perhaps their work was not done on the same system that this bill proposes, but that I myself have assisted the gentleman, since I have been a member of this Congress, in paying out of the public Treasury three quarters of a million of claims of the State of Pennsylvania arising out of the war I very well remember.

Mr. SCOFIELD. The gentleman has never assisted us in paying one dime to the State of Pennsylvania. The War Department had contracted a debt to the banks of our State by telegraph, and an appropriation was made to pay it. The claims were all audited by the Second Auditor. I have the act before me. Now, I would like to ask the gentleman before I sit down how the Committee on Military Affairs happened to find out that there were probably some persons in the State of New York who had claims against the General Government? What evidence had they before

them?

Mr. GARFIELD. The gentleman will allow me to say that the committee of the last Congress of the United States bad papers and a memorial from the State of New York before

them, and drafted the bill which is now before this House and had it ready to be acted on, but the Congress expired before the committee could get the bill before the House. A bill based on the same memorial and the same papers came before the committee of the present Congress and was revised. We cut out several sections which we thought gave too large powers and restricted the operations of the commission, allowing them to settle nothing, but only to examine and report. We have reported the bill to the House in that form, and I cannot consent that the whole evening session shall be consumed in its consideration.

Mr. CULLOM. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a single question?

Mr. GARFIELD. I will.

Mr. CULLOM. Why should not this bill be a general law covering all the States? If there is any special reason why a bill of this sort should pass at all why should not all the States of the Union be included in it, and thus save the trouble of passing special acts in favor of each State?

Mr. GARFIELD. In the first place, I suppose that not all the States of the Union have claims of this kind. Some of the great States, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and some others along the border, made advances to the Government. The State of Ohio advanced $3,000,000 in money. I happened to be a member of the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, and was one of those who voted for making that advance to the General Government when it was found with a bankrupt treasury at the beginning of the war.

Mr. SCOFIELD. What is this for?

Mr. GARFIELD. It is for miscellaneous claims, for advances made by the State, and claims of a nondescript sort that have been reported to the Department, and finally a memorial to cover the whole subject was sent to Congress, and the committee have answered that memorial by reporting this bill. I now yield for a moment to my colleague, [Mr. WELKER.]

Mr. WELKER. I wish to say one word in regard to the claims of Ohio. My colleague is mistaken when he says that a commission was created to hear all applications on behalf of Ohio for advances made during the war. It is true that a commission was appointed to investigate into the expenses of the calling out of our squirrel-hunters by the Governor at the time when Morgan made his raid into Ohio and Indiana. But all the other claims of Ohio were settled by the Department at Washington, and not through the instrumentality of a commission, as proposed by this bill.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I desire to ask the gentleman from Ohio whether any claims of Ohio were settled by the Department excepting those that came within the regulations of the Army arising out of the expenses connected with troops mustered into the service? Mr. WELKER. In reply to the gentleman I would say that every claim Ohio presented at the Department was settled there. I know that a great many claims might have been originated in Ohio, and I have no doubt that if a commission had been sent to Ohio to hunt up parties who may have had claims for damages a great many claims might have been got up.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I desire to ask the gentleman why all the claims of Ohio for the payment of the expenses connected with the calling out of the squirrel-hunters at the time of Morgan's raid were not paid at the Department?

Mr. WELKER. Because there were no laws or regulations that would reach that class of troops-"squirrel-hunters," as they were termed.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I submit that the gentleman has answered the very question in this case; that the "squirrel-hunter" claims of the State of Ohio did not come within the regulations of the Army.

of the claims coming from New York? I understand these claims to be for money advanced during the whole progress of the war.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I understand that a part of this claim-I do not know whether all of it or not-grows out of the claims of the State of New York for expenses incurred in raising militia during the period of the invasion of Lee in Pennsylvania. Those troops were irregularly raised; they were not mustered into the service of the United States; they did not become United States troops; their accounts cannot be settled at the Department under existing regulations. Therefore this commission is asked, as I understand.

Mr. GARFIELD. I now call the previous question on the bill.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time.

The question was upon the passage of the bill.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I call for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. GARFIELD. I do not desire to have the session broken up because of the absence of a quorum. I do not know whether there is a quorum in the Hall or not.

The SPEAKER. The Chair doubts whether a quorum is now present or not.

Mr. GARFIELD. Then I would ask my colleague on the committee [Mr. KETCHAM] to allow this bill to be laid aside informally, so that we can proceed with other business of the committee.

Mr. SCOFIELD. I object to that.

The SPEAKER. Objection being made, the only way the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] can reach his object is to move to reconsider the vote ordering the main question, and have the bill recommitted to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. GARFIELD. Then I move to reconsider the vote by which the main question was ordered.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to.

Mr. GARFIELD. I withdraw the call for the previous question, and move that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Military

Affairs.

[blocks in formation]

So the bill was recommitted.

DISABLED OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS.

Mr. GARFIELD moved that the Committee on Military Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of the concurrent resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Kansas instructing the Senators and requesting the Representatves from the State of Kansas to use their influence to procure the enactment of a law by which officers and soldiers wounded or disabled in the late war shall be entitled to pensions from date of discharge or resignation, the same as if they had made application at that time, and that the same be referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. The motion was agreed to.

RETIRED OFFICERS OF THE ARMY. Mr. GARFIELD, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported back, with a recommendation that the same do pass, House bill No. 1378, to declare the meaning of the several acts in relation to retired officers of the Army.

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time.

The first section of the bill, which was read, Mr. WELKER. Is not that the character || provides that any officer of the Army who has

been or who may hereafter be retired from active service under existing laws, and whose disability shall have been occasioned by sickness, injuries, or wounds incurred or received in the line of his duty as a commissioned officer in the volunteer service of the United States at any time since the 19th day of April, 1861, and previous to his appointment as an officer of the regular Army, shall receive, in the application of said laws, the same pay and allowances, and enjoy the same rights, privileges, and benefits of all kinds whatsoever as he would be entitled to receive and enjoy if such sickness, wound, injury, or other disability had been incurred or received while in the regular Army.

The second section provides that the Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed to revoke and declare null and void all orders of the War Department heretofore issued which are not in accordance with the provisions of the preceding section.

The third section provides that so much of section twenty-five of an act entitled "An act providing for the better organization of the military establishment," approved August 3, 1861, and so much of section twelve of an act entitled "An act to define the pay and emoluments of certain officers of the Army, and for other purposes," approved July 17, 1862, as authorizes the assignment by the President of any officer of the Army who has been retired under the provisions of said acts, or any other acts, to any appropriate duty, is hereby rescinded; and hereafter retired officers of the Army, except in time of war, shall not be assigned to any duty other than at the Military Academy, at certain colleges and universities, as provided in section twenty-six of the act entitled "An act to increase and fix the military peace establishment of the United States," approved July 28, 1866.

Mr. GARFIELD. I will explain briefly the provisions of this bill. There are but three sections, and it will take but a few minutes to explain them. There is now this difficulty under the law in regard to the retirement of officers: that such officers who have received wounds or have been otherwise disabled while in the volunteer service and afterward have been transferred to the regular service are not permitted by the retiring board to be retired upon the same terms as though they had received their wounds while in the regular Army. This is a manifest injustice which the bill now before us is designed to correct. In the second section of the bill it is proposed that officers who have been thus unjustly retired shall be restored. The third section is designed to prevent the abuse which is now growing up of officers getting themselves retired and then put into easy places on duty with restoration of their full pay. Those are the three points which the bill is designed to cover. I hope that it will be passed.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the first section of this bill, if I understand it and the gentleman's explanation of it, will open a door to the retirement of all the officers now in the Veteran Reserve corps.

Mr. GARFIELD. The gentleman will remember that there is now a provision of law, that not more than seven per cent. of the officers of the Army shall be on the retired list at any one time. That restriction will obviate the difficulty which the gentleman apprehends.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I am opposed to continuing a Veteran Reserve corps in the Army for the purpose of getting up a retired list. It seems to me that that would be a very expensive way of carrying on the military department of this Government.

I desire to say further, that if I understand correctly the last section of the bill, it provides that an officer who is retired shall not be detailed for duty except in time of war, or upon service in the Military Academy. Now, I do not see any good reason why an officer who has been placed on the retired list should not have an

opportunity occasionally to perform, if he is able to do so, some duty. I do not see why he should not have an opportunity to be ordered to duty, if he desires it, and to receive full pay. A good many of the retired officers of the Army are now on duty. Under the existing law the Secretary of War has authority to detail for active duty an officer who has been retired, and such officer, while performing this duty, receives the full pay of his rank instead of the half pay to which a retired officer is entitled. I would like the gentleman to give us some explanation on this point.

Mr. GARFIELD. The bill which I propose to offer to the House immediately after this shall have been disposed of proposes to make a very large reduction in the roster of the Army; and that bill provides that those who be may dropped from active duty in consequence of such reduction of the Army may be assigned by the Secretary of War to special duty, receiving full pay while so engaged. If officers retired in consequence of inability to perform duty are allowed to be put on duty we simply open the door to the continuance and increase of an evil which already exists to a consid erable extent. Officers get up claims for retirement, make a persuasive array of their aches and pains, and thus secure positions on the retired list, and then, perhaps, after two or three months' relief, they obtain, through political or personal influence, an assignment to some pleasant duty, and thus again enjoy the full pay which they received before being retired, with the additional advantage of being in a comfortable place instead of in the field. I have before me a record from the Adjutant General's office showing the number of persons who, under the present laws, have been retired, and are now upon the retired list. The list shows an exceedingly large number. It shows one hundred and forty-two officers upon the retired list four major generals, seven brigadier generals, twenty-eight colonels, thirteen lieutenant colonels, twenty-nine majors, thirty-four captains, sixteen first lieutenants, four second lieutenants, two military storekeepers, and five chaplains; and of the entire number, seventy-seven are now on duty, more than one half on the retired list, and so far as I know, they are upon the most comfortable duty in the whole range of the Army service. Officers upon the retired list receive pay at the following rates: major general, $247 per month; brigadier general, $195; colonel, $177; lieutenant colonel, $158; major, $139; captain, $114; first lieutenant, $101; second lieutenant, $95; military storekeeper, $127; and chaplain, $114.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Does the gentleman state their full pay?

Mr. GARFIELD. This is their pay and allowances while unemployed, which is about half the pay of an officer on the active list. When employed they have full pay as if they were not retired. It is said that officers who received only a scratch in the Army, enough to make them a little lame, men in full and robust health, young men, men in the prime of life, good for forty years yet, are on the retired list. They can go to Europe and elsewhere, and through political influence by and by be put upon light duty at full pay. They can go into business and practice their profession while not on duty.

Now, sir, I wish to call attention to two extracts from the Army and Navy Journal. They will show the working of the present law for retiring officers in two cases where officers have been retired by the retiring board.

The Clerk read as follows:

"A board of examination having found Brevet Major William G. Edgerton, captain twenty-ninth United States infantry, 'incapacitated for active service, and that said incapacity is not the result of long and faithful service, of wounds or injury received in the line of duty, sickness, or exposure therein, or any other incident of service, but results from dipsomania," produced by his own willful intemperance in the use of alcoholic drinks,' the President directs that, in accordance with section seventeen of the act of Congress, approved August

3, 1861, he be wholly retired from the service with one year's pay and allowances, and that his name be henceforward omitted from the Army Register.

"A board of examination having found Brevet Colonel W. M. Kilgour, captain forty-first United States infantry, incapacitated for active service, and that said incapacity is the result of a gunshot wound received at the battle of Perryville, Kentucky, October 8, 1862, and that said incapacity existed before he was commissioned in the Army, July 28, 1866,' the President directs that in accordance with section seventeen of the act of Congress approved August 3, 1861, he be wholly retired from the service with one year's pay and allowances, and that his name be henceforward omitted from the Army Register."

Mr. GARFIELD. In the first case the totally incapacitated, not in consequence of officer having been found by the retiring board meritorious and long service, but of long continued dissipation, having become a confirmed "dipso-maniac," having had the delirium tremens, he was, by the operation of the law, dropped from the rolls of the Army, with one year's pay and allowances. That was according to the law; but here was another who was found to be totally incapacitated in consequence of a wound received while an officer of volunteers, at the battle of Perryville, at that time not in the regular Army, but in the volunteer service, but transferred to the regular Army some months subsequent, but in which he served faithfully until his wounds grew worse this man, incapacitated by his wounds, was retired upon the same terms as the "dipsoyear's pay and allowances, whereas if he had maniac"-dropped from the rolls with one been in the regular Army when he received the shot he would have been retired on half pay

for life. Such a decision makes a wound in battle no more meritorious in a volunteer than delirium tremens in a regular. Precisely that kind of decision is being made perpetually by the board of retirement, notwithstanding it has again and again been declared in the law that in all matters of pay, emolument, and allowances, there shall be no distinction whatever between a volunteer and a regular officer. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. As a matter cognate to this discussion I wish to call the attention of the chairman of the committee to the language of the first section, which requires that a wound should be "incurred or received in the line of his duty as a commissioned officer in the volunteer service" in order that he may be retired as an officer in the regular Army. Now, if that remains in, if a private soldier got a wound in the course of his duty and became incapacitated from it, he cannot be retired as an officer.

Mr. GARFIELD. The committee have simply followed the law as it now stands. We action; but if the House chooses to amend did not design to enlarge the scope of its that provision I shall have no objection.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I hope it will be so amended.

Mr. GARFIELD. Make the amendment. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move to strike out the words "as a commissioned officer," so as to allow a private who was incapacitated while a private and for gallantry and courage has been made an officer, to be retired.

Mr. PAINE. I suggest an amendment, which will probably accomplish the same object and be less objectionable, to strike out the word "commissioned" and add the words, 66 or enlisted man."

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. That will be just the same thing. It will then read " as an officer or enlisted man." That will accom

plish the purpose exactly.

Mr. GÂRFIELD. I will personally accept the amendment. I cannot do it on behalf of the committee, but I presume they will have no objection.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GARFIELD. I will yield for a question to my colleague.

Mr. MUNGEN. I observe that the first clause of the first section reads:

That any officer of the Army who has been or who

may hereafter be retired from active service under existing laws, and whose disability shall have been occasioned by sickness, injuries, or wounds incurred or received in the line of his duty as a commissioned officer in the volunteer service of the United States at any time since the 19th day of April, 1861, and previous to his appointment as an officer of the regular Ariny, &c.

Now, I have a friend who is on the retired list, General Walker, of Ohio, who was a captain in the twelfth regulars, and held a commission as such before he was appointed colonel of the thirty-first Ohio_volunteers. At the battle of Chickamauga, I believe, he was sesince to do even office business as a lawyer. verely injured by a shell, and has been unable

Now, does not this bill cut off that officer from any benefit whatever?

Mr. GARFIELD. He was in the regular Army at the time he was disabled.

Mr. MUNGEN. Does not this bill prohibit him from the benefits of the bill?

Mr. GARFIELD. Not at all. Those officers of the regular Army, who were also officers of volunteers when they received their disabilities, can now by law be placed on the retired list. I know the officer to whom the gentleman refers. I entirely concur with what he says, and will do anything in my power to assist his friend.

Mr. MUNGEN. If the bill does not interfere with that case and other similar cases I have nothing further to say.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Will the gentleman yield to me two minutes?

Mr. GARFIELD. I will.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I desire to say that it seems to me this is a very expensive method of protecting a wounded and disabled officer. If he is wounded in the service and is fortunate

enough to get an appointment in the Army the next day he is retired on half pay, as a captain, if he is appointed captain. He is retired, say, on $150 a month. Another man wounded equally badly by his side, but not so fortunate as to get an appointment in the Army, is retired on a pension of twenty dollars a month. It seems to me either that we ought not to open the door to enlarge the retired list of the Army, or else that we ought to raise the pensions of our officers to the retired pay of the rank that they hold. There is a manifest impropriety and injustice in this thing. A man is killed outright and leaves a large family. His widow gets a pension of twenty, twenty-five, or thirty dollars a month, which is the highest she can get, even if her husband was a major general. A man who was wounded subsequently and appointed a major general is next day retired on $200 a month. Now, that is not fair; it is not just. I suppose my two minutes have expired. I am opposed to opening the door to enlarging the retired list of the Army. If a man has worn himself out in the service and grown old, then I am willing to retire him and let him go down gently to his grave.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. GARFIELD. I desire to say, in response to my friend from Illinois, that if we were now proposing new legislation on the subject his argument would be entirely germane, and perhaps I might agree with him. But we do not in this bill enlarge the law at all, except to abolish the distinction between volunteers and the officers of the regular Army. That is all; and the second section provides that in cases of such injustice as the one that I had read at the desk, the action of the board shall bo reversed, and such persons shall be retired in accordance with the provisions of this law. Now, I hope that is an answer to the gentleman, because I would not be willing at this time to enlarge the scope of the law on that subject. But I refer the gentleman again to the fact that but seven per cent. of the officers of the Army can under the existing law be retired. I ask the previous question.

Mr. LOGAN. I would like the gentleman to yield to me for a moment.

Mr. GARFIELD. I will do so.

Mr. LOGAN. I have not, I confess, examined this bill as carefully as I perhaps should have done, but I would like to know of the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs whether, under the present law, it is not at the option of the Secretary of War to retire seven per cent. of the officers of the Army without their being wounded?

Mr. GARFIELD. I will answer the gentleman that that is not the law. An officer who has been in the service forty-five years he may retire at his option, but those persons who are sick or disabled he may order before a board, and on the recommendation of that board he may retire them. Other persons voluntarily, at their own request, may be allowed to go before a board. There are now three ways by which an officer may be retired by law, first by the order of the President when the officer has been forty-five years in the service, and then in the two ways I have mentioned.

Mr. LOGAN. Of course that answers satisfactorily in reference to that question; but it seems to me that, as stated by my colleague, [Mr. FARNSWORTH,] unless there is some restriction placed on this section, it is rather an expensive manner or mode of pensioning a great many men who are now in the Army. I would suggest to the chairman for his consideration whether it would not be better to amend this section so as to provide that no officer shall be retired from the service of the United States unless by his own consent or who may be competent to perform duty. I desire to see this bill pass because I wish to see a change effected that will place men who have not heretofore been in the regular Army upon the same footing as those who have been in the regular Army. But there are a great many officers in the Army now who do not desire retirement, but under the manipulations that might be brought to bear by boards, injustice might be done them, such as we know has been done and as the very paragraph which has been read at the desk shows is done. Hence I desire to see the law changed and perfected in that particular. I do not desire to see men driven from the service and placed on the pension-roll against their will in order merely to make places for sombody else. There are a great many meritorious men now in the Army who have received wounds, and perhaps would not be as well qualified for severe service as men of perfect health. Yet they are well qualified to perform many of the duties that are incumbent upon commissioned officers in the Army. Now, if these men may be retired, under this bill, by the mere edict of the Secretary of War or by the report of a commission they may be made to give place to others who may desire to have their places. Hence I suggest that this section be amended by providing that no officer shall be retired against his will who is competent to perform services in the Army.

Mr. GARFIELD. I would not object to that if it was not the law now, except as to officers over forty-five years of age.

Mr. LOGAN. I think it better to amend the first section of this bill by adding to it:

Provided, That no officer shall be retired against his will who may be competent to perform service in the Army.

Mr. GARFIELD. Very well; I will allow the amendment to be offered.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. GARFIELD moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

Mr. WILSON, of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled

bills of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same:

An act (S. No. 238) granting a pension to Carrie E. Burdett ;

An act (S. No. 282) granting a pension to Annie E. Dixon;

An act (S. No. 291) granting a pension to Ann Kelly, widow of Bernard Kelly;

An act (S. No. 292) granting a pension to Maria Raftery;

An act (S. No. 321) for the relief of Mrs. Mary Gaither, widow of Wiley Gaither, deceased;

An act (S. No. 332) granting a pension to John W. Harris ;

An act (S. No. 333) for the relief of Julia M. Molin;

An act (S. No. 342) granting a pension to Thomas Stewart;

An act (S. No. 359) granting a pension to Louisa Fitch, widow of E. P. Fitch, deceased; An act (S. No. 381) granting a pension to Edward Hamel, minor child of Edward Hamel, deceased;

An act (S. No. 427) for the relief of the widow and children of John W. Janeson, deceased;

An act (S. No. 434) for the relief of Elizabeth Barker, widow of Alexander Barker, deceased;

An act (S. No. 454) for the relief of Samuel N. Miller;

An act (S. No. 466) for the relief of Sylvester Nugent;

An act (S. No. 494) granting a pension_to Elizabeth Steepleton, widow of Harrison W. Steepleton, deceased; and

An act (S. No. 498) granting a pension to Anna M. Howard.

MILITARY PEACE ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. GARFIELD, from the Committee on Military Affairs, reported back House bill No. 1377, to reduce and fix the military peace establishment.

The question was upon ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time.

Mr. GARFIELD. I am instructed by the Committee on Military Affairs to offer some amendments to this bill; and first I will move to amend the eighth section.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Will that preclude amendments to previous sections of this bill? The SPEAKER. It will not; but the Chair would suggest that unless the amendments of the committee are such as will give rise to debate they better be acted upon first and incorporated in the bill.

Mr. PAINE. I know that some members of the House propose to offer amendments to this bill, which will, if adopted, be substitutes for, or come in conflict with, the amendments to be proposed by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] on behalf of the Committee on Military Affairs. Therefore I think it would be much better to have this bill read by sections for amendment, and the committee's amendments can then be offered.

The SPEAKER. Then the gentleman from Ohio better report back this bill with these amendments incorporated in the text of the bill, so that they may be open to amendment like other portions of the text.

Mr. GARFIELD. I will ask that the amendments be read.

The amendments were read as follows: Add to the seventh section the following: Provided further, That if, in the opinion of the Secretary of War, it is necessary for the continuance of garrisons at important forts and arsenals, and the protection of our Indian frontiers, to retain all or any portion of the artillery and cavalry force authorized to be mustered out of service or relieved on half pay by this act, it shall be lawful for him to do so until the further action of Congress.

Amend the eighth section by adding to it the following:

And provided, That not more than one third of the officers of each grade in the regiments known as the Veteran Reserve corps, nor more than one third of the officers belonging to the regiments of colored troops, shall be placed on the list of officers to be relieved from duty under the provisions of this section; but upon application of any officer whose rank would

retain him in active service the Secretary of War may place such officer upon the list in lieu of the officer oldest in commission of the same grade who would otherwise be placed on said list under the provisions of this act.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I rise to a question of order. I desire to inquire whether the gentleman from Ohio presents this last amendment as coming from the Committee ou Military Affairs?

Mr. GARFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. it considered by the committee?

When was

Mr. GARFIELD. If my colleague insists on his point of order, I will say that all the amendments I am now offering, save one, were considered and acted on by the committee, and as to that one I have obtained from all the members of the committee with whom I have had an opportunity to consult consent to report it. It has happened unfortunately that I have had no opportunity to consult with the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. It happens, also, that the gentleman has not consulted a quorum of the committee.

Mr. GARFIELD. I trust that the explanation I have made will be a sufficient apology to the gentleman; if not, I will withdraw the amendment.

The SPEAKER. If the gentleman from Indiana makes the point of order that this amendment has not been agreed on by the committee, and if the gentleman from Ohio states that it has not been, then the amend ment must be withdrawn.

Mr. GARFIELD. I have obtained the consent of every member of the committee whom I have been able to see; but as I understand my colleague on the committee to insist upon his point of order, I withdraw the amendment. I will not ask the reading of further amendments which I was about to present. In order to facilitate and hasten the consideration of the bill, I will waive any general remarks on my part, and will ask that the bill be considered in the House section by section, as in Committee of the Whole, under the five-minute rule.

The SPEAKER. That course will be adopted if there be no objection. There was no objection.

The first section was read as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the office of General of the Army shall be continued until a vacancy shall occur in the same. and no longer; and on the occurrence of a vacancy all laws and parts of laws creating or regulating said office shall cease and determine.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I move to amend by striking out all of this section after the enacting clause. I am in favor of the reduction of the Army; yet I am also in favor of preserving the harmony of its organization. I do not see why we should not continue the office of general as well as that of major; and particularly is it unadvisable to discontinue this office while we have so many distinguished soldiers who have rendered eminent service to the country during the late rebellion. Besides, there are laws imposing duties upon the General of the Army; and this section contains no provision imposing those duties upon any other officer. I am in favor of preserving the present organization of the Army. I desire this section stricken out, so that if there should be, by any soon-coming event, a vacancy in the office of General of the Army, the Lieutenant General may succeed to the position, some other worthy officer taking the place of the present Lieutenant General. I therefore hope this section, unless there be some good reason for preserving it, will be stricken out.

Mr. GARFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the reason for introducing this section was, first and chiefly, to reduce the Army, to make that reduction effective and possible, and at the same time to save as far as possible the rights, honor. and dignity of every officer in the Army. If they had begun at the bottom and reduced it only among the lower officers they would be

justly chargeable with unfairness; but they have reduced it throughout.

There is another consideration. The offices of General and Lieutenant General of the Army were never known in this country, except in two instances, before. The office was created for General Washington. The office of Lieutenant General was subsequently revived for General Scott. In both instances they were personal, and intended as personal decorations for citizens of the United States who had performed great and distinguished services for the country. For precisely similar reasons they were recently revived to decorate two eminent citizens who have rendered great and distinguished services to the nation, and it is thought the same custom should prevail henceforward, and when the offices are vacated by the persons for whom they were intended, they should cease and determine, leaving the whole subject to the action of Congress when it may see fit to revive the offices for similar services to the country. There is still another consideration which had great weight with the committee. We did not feel it safe to allow the present Executive to fill the vacancy as he might choose to fill it. Who knows the person he might select as the successor of either of the two great captains who now fill the offices? This was of great and We paramount weight with the committee. did not think it safe or proper to leave such a power with the present President of the United States. We therefore thought it best to follow the custom which has prevailed hitherto, and leave the office to cease and determine with its present holder. I trust we shall have the hearty approval of the House for this legislation.

Mr. LOGAN. I move to insert after the last word "and the duties thereof shall devolve upon the officer next in rank."

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. That will not effect the result. It will still provide that all laws or parts of laws regulating said office shall cease and determine.

Mr. LOGAN. I move, then, to strike out or regulating;" so it will then read, with the words added which I have indicated, as follows:

The office of the General of the Army shall be continued until a vacancy shall occur in the same, and no longer; and on the occurrence of a vacancy all laws and parts of laws creating said office shall cease and determine, and the duties thereof shall devolve upon the officer next in rank.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON. I desire to amend the section, and it will necessitate the striking out of the amendment just adopted. I move to insert the word "dis" before "continued," and to strike out so it will read:

The office of General of the Army shall be discontinued, and all laws or parts of laws creating or regulating said office shall cease and determine.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I should not have proposed this amendment or any amendment to this bill but for the remarks made by the distinguished chairman of the committee. He has announced to this House and the country it is the object of the committee to reduce the Army and to reduce the expense of the military establishment, but he has carefully avoided in this bill the turning out of a single soul who wears shoulder-straps. In consequence of this fact I doubt the sincerity of it. I wish to test the sincerity of the committee, and I shall continue to test it all through this bill, providing in the next section for the abolition of the office of Lieutenant General, and in the following section reducing the major gen erals to four, and in the subsequent section the number of brigadier generals to eight. If the committee is in earnest, if it is their sincere desire to reduce the military force and save the Treasury of the country and the tax-payer, what is to prevent this reduction at the present time?

What great service is the General of the Army rendering to this country at the present time? When he was acting as Secretary of Warad interim the country went on as smoothly as it is going to-day, when he is traveling with

his family on leave. The General of the Army issued not a single order by virtue of his office as such for three or four months, and yet the country was safe.

What is the Lieutenant General of the Army doing by virtue of his office? Not one thing that could not be done as well without the office. Now, as to the General and the Lieutenant General of the Army, I certainly have no attack to make upon those distinguished individuals. But I do attack the offices that were created to reward them for the distinguished services they have rendered to the country. They should have been paid in some other way, not by giving them these offices, which, if gentlemen crawl on their bellies before the men who achieve such positions, will in the end, as I remarked, destroy the liberties of the country.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. GARFIELD. I rise to oppose the amendment, and ask for a vote.

The amendment of Mr. JOHNSON was disagreed to.

The question recurred on the amendment of Mr. WILSON, of Illinois, to strike out all of the first section except the enacting clause; and it was disagreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the office of Lieutenant General of the Army shall be continued until a vacancy shall occur in the same, and no longer; and on the occurrence of such vacancy, all laws and parts of laws creating or regulating said office shall cease and determine.

Mr. ALLISON. The same amendment that was made to the first section should apply to this. Strike out the words "" or regulating" and add at the end and the duties thereof shall devolve on the officer next in rank." The amendment was agreed to.

[ocr errors]

Mr. JOHNSON. I propose an amendment to this section for the same reason that I proposed it to the other section. I move to add the syllable "dis" before "continued;" to strike out all thereafter down to and including the word " vacancy;" and to insert before the word "all" the word "and ;" and to strike out the words just added at the end of the section; so that it will read:

That the office of Lieutenant General of the Army shall be discontinued, and all laws and parts of laws creating said office shall cease and determine.

That will legislate the Lieutenant General out of office immediately, and let him enjoy his rural comfort with General Grant on his farm. The amendment was disagreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That no brevet appointment of General or Lieutenant General shall be made after the passage of this act.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move to strike out the words "of General or Lieutenant General," so that it will read, "that no brevet appointment shall be made after the passage of this act." Brevet appointments are for meritorious services in battle or in great emergencies during war. They do not belong to a peace establishment of an army. They are now so thick that the only distinction is that a man has never had a brevet.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Mr. PIKE. I suggest another amendment"for services in war.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Oh, no. Mr. GARFIELD. I suggest in opposition to the amendment-though I do not very much oppose it, but quite agree in the general with what the gentleman has said--that in the bill in relation to the rules and articles of War which passed the Senate last night, and which we hope to be able to pass before this session ends, it is provided that no brevet shall be conferred except in time of war and for one year thereafter, and then only in consequence of special meritorious services during the war. It seemed to the committee that it would be wiser to make that standing provision, which

would cover them both in peace and in war, and would be better than to say absolutely that there shall be no brevets.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. When that comes in it will repeal this, and it will be all right.

Mr. PIKE. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the words "except in time of war." I understand the rule to be now at the War Department that brevet appointments in worthy cases are given so that the brevet rank may run as high as the actual rank in the field; that is, where an officer was a brigadier general and was subsequently ap pointed a major or captain in the regular Army he may have a brevet as high as brigadier general. It is a satisfactory recognition of very many worthy officers now in the Army.

Mr. LOGAN. Many of them have not smelled gunpowder.

Mr. PIKE. Many of them have. I know of one case in which I applied the other day, a very worthy case, and I know of several other instances. And it seems to me very ungracious for us to refuse such a very simple recognition as this of the value of services rendered dur

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Mr. PIKE. I do not like the word "important." I suggest the words "distinguished and meritorious."

Mr. GARFIELD. I have no objection to that modification.

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I would like to know if the service rendered by the person to whom the gentleman from Maine referred was not important?"

66

Mr. PIKE. It was. He is now a colonel in the regular Army, and he could not have got that position unless he had rendered important services.

Mr. GARFIELD's amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

The Clerk then read the fourth section, as follows:

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That no vacancies shall hereafter be filled in the office of major general until the number of major generals shall be less than four, and thereafter there shall be but four major generals.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move to strike out all after the enacting words of that section, and to insert in lieu thereof what I send to the Clerk's desk.

The Clerk read as follows:

There shall hereafter be but three major gencrals, and the officers who shall retain their positions as such shall be designated by the General of the Army without regard to seniority, and all others shall bo mustered out of service within sixty days after the passage of this act.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. The reason, Mr. Speaker, why I offer that amendment is this: before the war we had but one major general in the United States Army; that was Major General Scott, by brevet Lieutenant General; then we had General Wool, who was brevet major general; and between the two they governed an army of seventeen thousand men, and governed it very tolerably well. Then came the war, and now we have a General, a Lieutenant General, and five major generals, and we have seven general headquarters in

« PoprzedniaDalej »