Page images
PDF
EPUB

very recently before the war, marriages were authorized under certain circumstances between colored persons. I think that throughout all the rest of the southern States a ceremony of marriage between colored persons was never legalized, although in most cases a ceremony of some kind was performed. Generally a colored man read the service of some of the churches, and the parties stood up and assented to it as formally, perhaps, as they would have done if the person had been a legal officer. My own impression is that this proviso should remain as I have modified it.

Mr. GRIMES. I am not going to propose any amendment; I wanted merely to call the attention of the committee and of the Senate to the points that occurred to me, and another one I will suggest. The amendment proposed by the Committee on Pensions provides that the widow or heirs of a colored soldier who had cohabited with his wife two years preceding the enlistment shall be entitled to a pension. We all know that these colored people were not enlisted until the lapse of two years after the commencement of the rebellion, and in many instances not till after the lapse of three years. During those three years they had left their former masters, and had left their wives with them in many instances, had come North or had come to the District of Columbia, running away and leaving behind them their families, not cohabiting with their wives. Under the law as it is proposed to be enacted, would not the wives of those persons be excluded. from deriving a pension, and is it the design of the committee to thus exclude them?

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I did not, when I replied to the gentleman before, advert to the fact that striking this proviso from my amendment would in fact strike it out from the old law. I began by remarking that if this was stricken out the other should be stricken out. I have no objection to striking out the proviso entirely.

Mr. GRIMES. I am not proposing any amendment; I am not familiar enough with the subject to undertake to do that. I am only calling the attention of the Senator and his associates to these points, so that they may be guarded against.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I will make no objection to striking out that proviso. I will accept it as an amendment to my amendment, if I am at liberty to do so.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator can modify his amendment.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I strike out the proviso.

Mr. JOHNSON. How does it read as modified?

The Secretary read it, as follows:

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That the fourteenth section of an act entitled "An act supplementary to an act entitled 'An act to grant pensions,' approved July 14, 1862," approved July 4, 1864, be, and the same is hereby, repealed, and that the widows and children of colored soldiers and sailors who have been or may be hereafter killed, or who have died or may hereafter die of wounds received in battle, or of disease contracted in the military or naval service of the United States, and in the line of duty, shall be entitled to receive the pensions provided by law, without other evidence of marriage than proof, satisfactory to the Commissioner of Pensions, that the parties had habitually recognized each other as man and wife, and lived together as such for a definite period, not less than two years next preceding the enlistment of the man; and the children born of any marriage so proved shall be deemed and taken to be the children of the soldier or sailor party thereto.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I desire the attention of the chairman of the committee. That will really not accomplish his object at all. It is "two years next preceding the enlistment." I am sure that a large proportion of the inen of the colored regiments that I organized had been separated from their wives for two years before the enlistment. They had fled from Missouri and Arkansas into Kansas, and there enlisted, leaving their wives in Missouri and Arkansas. Now, I suggest that in the phrase "two years next preceding the enlistment of the man" the words "next preceding the enlistment" be stricken out, so that proof of two years' cohabitation, without reference to the

separated from their wives for more than two years-had, in fact, been driven away from their homes.

time of the enlistment, will draw the pension.
I speak of it in reference to the regiments I
organized, and it holds good of the regiments
organized in the District of Columbia and in M. LANE, of Indiana. That does not affect
the, free States, everywhere; the soldiers, the the question of cohabitation, unless they have
men, fled from their families and enlisted, leav- || adopted another wife since. Temporary ab-
ing their families in servitude. I move to amend sence, for any time, however long, would not
the amendment by striking out the words "next affect the question of cohabitation, it seems to
preceding the enlistment of the man;" so as me, but the wife would still be the wife. Even
to read:
if the husband were away for five years, proof
of cohabitation having been made, that rela-
tion would be presumed to continue, unless
there was a divorce.

That the parties had habitually recognized each
other as man and wife, and lived together as such for
a definite period, not less than two years.

Mr. JOHNSON. In many of these cases in point, they not being conscious of any impropriety or immorality in it, they had a good many wives, and if the proof of marriage is made to depend upon the fact of cohabitation, if they should die there might be half a dozen wives claiming pensions. It is more especially true of those who were driven away from their homes, some of them one, two, or three years before the rebellion. I venture to say that in all such cases (if they contracted marriage in that form) they contracted matrimony where they went, and if the last marriage contracted in that way is to exclude the former great injustice might be done to the former wife. In some of the States they were permitted to marry, and I dare say in very many instances the wives that they left were wives that became such by a legal contract of marriage; that is, a contract made in pursuance of law. The Supreme Court have decided that it is not necessary that there should be any ecclesiastical ceremony about it; that all that is needed is an agreement to marry followed by cohabitation. That is marriage. But that would not be the case where the laws prohibited their marriage, as was the case in some of the States.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. Could we not reach the object by fixing some date, say the 4th of July, 1861, and require proof of cohabitation for two years previous to that? I am indebted to the Senator from Iowa for this suggestion. I think the pension should go to the wife who was such at the time the rebellion commenced.

Mr. POMEROY. I submit that the widows of those who have taken wives since the rebellion commenced have just as good claims as the widows of those who had wives before.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. This matter was up at the last session of Congress, and was finally arranged by a committee of conference. I believe there were three committees of conference before an agreement was arrived at, and the words now in the statute were proposed by Senator Foot, of Vermont, after the most careful consideration, as furnishing the best rule which we could possibly agree upon, and that was two years' cohabitation preceding the enlistment. I believe that rule embraces more meritorious cases than any other, and I think it is the safest rule. If we say that proof shall be required of two years' cohabitation before the rebellion commenced it will not provide for many cases where colored soldiers, who had no wives before the rebellion, married after the commencement of the rebellion. I think the words used by Senator Foot were best, and they are the words of this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON. What is to become of the wives of those who married after enlistment? Mr. LANE, of Indiana. They are not provided for here.

Mr. JOHNSON. Ought they not to be? Mr. LANE, of Indiana. They are provided for, I suppose, under the general provision relative to those residing in States where marriages were legalized. If the man is living he gets the pension himself; but if he is dead, his minor children and widow get the pension, upon proof of marriage, where they lived in a State in which marriage among colored people was legalized.

Mr. LANE, of Kansas. I am confident the chairman of the committee would not express that opinion with the knowledge that I have; for I assure him that two thirds of the members of the regiments I organized had been

Mr. GUTHRIE. As I understand this amendment it does not say which wife is to have the pension. Now, as a matter of fact, we who live in communities where there are many negroes know that very often they have two or three wives, and we also know that a great many of them having wives have left home and taken other wives afterwards. There is nothing in this amendment to designate, in such cases, which wife shall have the pension.

Mr. GRIMES. It seems to me that it will be well to put in some definite time, say the 4th of July, 1861, at the place where the Senator from Kansas proposes to strike out these words. The chairman of the Committee on Pensions says that in that case a great deal of trouble might be occasioned, because a good many soldiers have married wives since then. That may be true; but in all such cases there can be record evidence of the marriage produced. We are only intending, now, to cover the cases of parties who were not authorized to be married and could not be married under the laws of the States where they lived prior to the rebellion. If we provide here that proof of cohabitation for two years prior to the 4th of July, 1861, shall be required, then it seems to me we obviate the objection made by the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Kentucky as to which wife we pay, if there he more than one, and we avoid all the troubles which are involved in that suggestion.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. Of course it will be seen by every Senator that the subject itself is one of difficulty, and what seems to be neces sary in the case is to establish some reasonable rule by which the Commissioner of Pensions may be directed. It strikes me that the section which I propose by way of amendment, and the language of the amendment as I have modified it, provides as good a rule as can be established. If you say "previous to the rebellion," or previous to any date in the past, you leave the interval between that date and the enlistment of the soldier when he may have gone off, and almost criminally abandoned, so far as humanity is concerned, his wife and children. I do not know that any cases of difficulty have arisen under this particular part of the existing law, as yet, but if there have, or if any such shall hereafter arise, and the rule works hard in any particular case, it will be competent for Congress to give special relief. If those cases seem to be numerous, or sufficiently numerous to justify it, no doubt then some amendment will be introduced into the pension laws, on the strength of the experience thus gained, which will meet the cases. The best reflection I am able to give the subject is that the rule as it stands in the amendment I offer is the most reasonable we can adopt under the peculiar circumstances presented to us.

Mr. DAVIS. I would suggest to the honorable gentleman from West Virginia that probably this language would answer: "that the first living wife should have the benefit of the pension."

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I think it would hardly be safe to admit the fact that there is

more than one wife in these cases.

Mr. DAVIS. We know there are with ne groes. They sometimes have three or four at the same time, and they change them very rapidly sometimes, too. I think that the woman who is the first wife of the negro is the proper recipient of this bounty. He may change his wife half a dozen times, as many of them do;

still I think the first wife ought to receive the pension, and I think the gentleman ought to adopt a rule to give it to the first wife.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. Perhaps the wives changed their husbands as often as husbands changed the wives. [Laughter.]

Mr. DAVIS. That would not change the rule in relation to the pension that is to be given to the widows of deceased soldiers.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I will say, in reply to the Senator from Kentucky, that if there are two women claiming to be the wife of the sol dier the matter will have to be adjudged of by the Commissioner of Pensions; and if any questions or difficulties arise in relation to this matter the Commissioner of Pensions must settle them, if the law will permit him to settle them. If not, and there is no case for relief, it will come, as we have daily cases coming here, for the special action of Congress. As I have suggested, a year or two's experience will determine whether this law as it stands is proper. If not, the very experience got at the Pension Office will enable us to introduce a suitable amendment. I retain the impression that the provision as it stands in the old section and in the amendment is better suited to the case than any that has been suggested.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not think the amendment as it stands is exactly as it ought to be on account of the fact that it would require proof of cohabitation down to the very period of enlistment, and I think we, most of us, understand the fact to be that many persons were separated from their wives for a considerable period before they enlisted; and at the same time I am not entirely satisfied with the amendment to the amendment which is offered, for the reason that in many cases it will allow proof of marriage upon mere presumption when other proof is attainable. If this amendment is not agreed to, so that I can have an opportunity, I shall then propose to amend the original amendment by striking out the words in the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth lines, "that the parties had habitually recog nized each other as man and wife, and lived together as such for a definite period, not less than two years next preceding the enlistment of the man," and insert in lieu of them the words, "which in civil actions would raise the presumption of the marriage of white persons;" so that the clause will read:

Shall be entitled to receive the pensions provided by law without other evidence of marriage than proof, satisfactory to the Commissioner of Pensions, which in civil actions would raise the presumption of the marriage of white persons.

Of course the law as to white persons is perfectly well understood in civil actions; that length and degree of cohabitation which under the circumstances satisfies a reasonable man that the relation really existed, whether the proof comes down to the very point of time at which the inquiry is instituted, or whether it shows the relation to have existed at some previous period. There is a well-settled rule of law in civil actions, which prevails in all the States I believe, substantially alike; and it appears to me that such a provision would cover all the cases and would not be open to any objection which occurs to me. If, therefore, the pending amendment to the amendment should not be agreed to, I should then offer the one which I have named.

necessary under the act of 1864, that it should remain as it is.

Mr. HARRIS.

What is the act of 1864? Mr. HENDERSON. The provision to which I allude is contained in the fourteenth section of the act of July 4, 1864, to be found on page 401 of the Acts of 1863-64, in these words:

"That the widows and children of colored soldiers who have been or who may be hereafter killed, or who have died or may hereafter die of wounds received in battle, or who have died or may hereafter die of disease contracted in the military service of the United States, and in the line of duty, shall be entitled to receive the pensions now provided by law without other proof of marriage than that the parties had habitually recognized each other as man and wife, and lived together as such for a definite period next preceding the soldier's enlistment not less than two years, to be shown by the affidavits of credible witnesses."

I have not found any complaint in regard to this provision requiring proof of cohabitation for two years next preceding the time of enlistment, and we had a large number of negroes in the service from our State. The only complaint I have heard in that State is that there is no act enabling bounty and back pay to be drawn upon the same terms. The Second Auditor here requires the best proof of marriage in order to enable the payment of back pay and bounty, because he says, and perhaps correctly, that the change of the law in regard to pensions allowing proof of cohabitation to be received without a certificate of marriage does not authorize him to change it in regard to bounty and back pay.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. Allow me to suggest to the Senator that the Senate has already passed a bill introduced by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] on the subject of bounty and back pay, and that is what drew my attention to the subject in relation to pensions. I furnished to him the amendment which I had drawn, at his request, and he said he would take it to the committee of the House. I presume, therefore, the matter of bounty and back pay is under consideration in the other House.

Mr. HENDERSON. Knowing the difficulty on this subject, at an early period of the session I offered a resolution instructing the Committee on Military Affairs to inquire into it. I should like to amend this provision so as to include claims for bounty and back pay, because the same proof that is good in the one case ought to be good in the other.

Mr. President, I will state that not as much difficulty can arise in this matter, according to my knowledge of the subject, as Senators seem to think. I know that it is sometimes the case that negroes have a plurality of wives, or that they cohabit with a plurality, but I believe they regard, as white people do, some particular one as the wife. I do not see the difficulties to spring from this provision that Senators seem to fear. I have heard of no difficulty in all the adjudications of this question. I have heard of no contradictory claims. I have heard of no two women claiming to be the wife of the same negro, although we had a large number of negro soldiers from my State. I believe the claims are very satisfactorily adjusted here; and it is as well known in communities where the negroes live which is the wife, and who has been regarded as the wife for the last six, eight, or ten years, as it is perhaps in the case of white people.

I think no difficulty will arise from the adoption of the amendment as it is.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. POMEROY in the Chair.) The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. LANE] to the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia, [Mr. VAN WINKLE.]

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. HENDERSON. I hope the Senator who has charge of this bill will not object to include in this provision claims for bounty and back pay. I move to amend the amendment by inserting after the word "pension" in the eleventh line the words "bounty and back pay.

[ocr errors]

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I must object to the introduction of those words, not because it is not very proper that bounty and back pay should be awarded on the same proof as pensions, but because it is introducing matter foreign to the subject of pensions. There are a series of laws in reference to bounty and back pay, and another series of laws in reference to pensions. Our laws are certainly confused enough without voluntarily introducing any more confusion into them.

Another reason for objecting to this amendment is the fact, to which I have already adverted, that the Senator from Massachusetts, who is not now present, did propose an amendment to a military bill, where it was appropriate and pertinent, in reference to this very subject of bounties and back pay; and that amendment was adopted by the Senate and sent to the House of Representatives. I have already stated that it was that action which called my attention to the necessity of something similar in reference to pensions. I stated, however, to that Senator an objection I had to that amendment as it was passed. I did not see it until after it had been passed by the Senate; I was not present at the moment of its passage. He requested me to give him a copy of what I had prepared in relation to pensions, and said he would take it to the committee of the other House and have it inserted there, in relation to bounties and back pay. As the matter has been brought to the consideration of Congress, and will probably be provided for, though in some slightly dif ferent form, in a bill yet pending in the other House, I think we should not attempt to insert it here.

Mr. HENDERSON. I am always averse to interfering with bills of this character, coming from committees; but I regret very much that the Senator from West Virginia makes objection to this amendment, because it is nothing but right that it should be adopted. It allows no back pay or bounty which is not already pro vided by law. The only change that it makes is the change that I indicated a few moments ago. The pension is now allowed upon proof of cohabitation, without a certificate of marriage; but the Second Auditor refuses absolutely to allow back pay on the same testimony. For instance, a great many colored soldiers who went from my State have fallen in the southern States. The widow or children can get the pension; but no matter how much may have been due to that soldier as back pay, they cannot get it unless evidence of marriage is furnished that cannot be furnished, namely, a certificate of marriage; because there was no law author

It was at first required by the Second Auditor that record evidence of the marriage should be filed; that is, that a certificate should be filed. It is well known that in the slave Statesizing such certificates in our State in those no such certificate was ever authorized in regard to colored persons. It was only authorized in the case of white person. The distinctive word "white" ran through all our laws. That evidence of the marriage could not be furnished, but my impression is that there is no incon

Mr. HENDERSON. I hope no change will be made in the provisions of this amendment. It is precisely the law of July 4, 1864. It makes no change in that law on this subject, and I have heard no complaint in our State, where we had a large number of negro troops, in regard to that law. If the change suggested by the Senator from Vermont be made, in all probability a different construction will be given to the provision by the Second Auditor from that which he has given to the present law of 1864, and much confusion would inevitablyvenience from the rule now provided. I desire result from the change. I have heard no complaint whatever in our State in regard to the law, and I should regret very much to see a change made. I think it is much better, now that we have become accustomed to the proof

to vindicate the negroes from the charge of practical Mormonism brought against them, for I do not believe the evil exists to one half of the extent implied by the argument of the Senator from Kentucky and other Senators.

cases. Hence it is that the back pay is lost to the widow and children where the colored soldier has fallen in battle. So it is with the bounty. If you put in this amendment the words "bounty and back pay," they will not be paid, unless in cases where they are due under the law. This amendment will not allow the soldier's wife or heirs to draw bounty or back pay unless in cases where it is allowed by law, and where the widow or children cannot draw it now for the simple reason that they cannot produce the evidence of marriage that the Second Auditor requires,

This has produced a great deal of complaint. I have been written to again and again this winter by these colored people and their agents in my State, and I called the matter to the attention of the Military Committee some time ago by a resolution requesting them to report a bill upon that subject. I really do not know whether it has been done, and I regret very much that the Senator from West Virginia objects to this amendment. He says himself that the provision is perfectly proper and just, and should be passed, and he objects to it simply because to put it on this bill will produce confusion in the law. He says that this is strictly a pension bill, and that if we put on it a provision in regard to back pay and bounty it will produce confusion.

almost entirely. Now that matter is under consideration by another committee. We passed that here, and they may perhaps to-day pass it in the other House, and then we shall have two rules on the ubject. I think it is better not to introduce these words here, because they are under consideration in a bill that has passed this body and gone to the other House, and which, if they amend it, must come back here; and if that amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts prevails, it is for the very purpose for which the gentleman wishes to introduce this amendment. I think the House will certainly strike out what I thought were objectionable words in that provision as it passed here. I will say that proof was required that something in the nature of a marriage It ought to be remembered that before the ceremony had taken place. I suggested to the Second Auditor go all these claims for pension,Senator from Massachusetts that that was a back pay, and bounty; and this is the proper place exactly for the amendment, because by this bill his attention will be called to the point in regard to pensions, and when he finds that the law on the subject of pensions requires him to take the same evidence in regard to bounty and back pay he will at once do so. This is the proper place, and it produces no confusion to insert it here. The Second Auditor is familiar with the administration of these laws, and when he comes to find this amendment he of course will apply it to claims for bounty and back pay in the same way as to pensions. There is a crying evil on this subject. The widows and children of these soldiers are entitled to bounty and back pay just as much as they are to pensions, and they ought to have them. It is nothing but just to the families of colored soldiers that they should be enabled to receive the bounty and back pay due as well as the pension.

I hope the Senator will withdraw his objection to my proposition. I think it can produce no confusion. I know his very great care about laws. He does not like to mingle inappropriate and unfit things together. I know how particular he is in regard to the language of his bills. I know how careful he is; but I cannot perceive that any confusion is likely to arise, and inasmuch as this provision has been carefully prepared by him, and the amendment I propose can very easily and simply be inserted so as to insure perfect and entire justice to the negroes in his State and in mine and in other border States where so many of them served, I think this is the proper place, and I hope he will withdraw his objection. It cannot produce any confusion, because all these claims go to the same officer, the Second Auditor. They are adjudicated and audited by him, and they cannot be paid except upon his certificate.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I am reluctant to make objection to a matter of this kind, which really would not hurt the bill that I have charge of, except so far as it is introducing a matter foreign to it. The objection may seem captious; but that is not my purpose. I think the gentleman is mistaken in saying there is no provision now on the subject, because I recollect distinctly that during the first session I was here, in 1863-64, an amendment was offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WILSON,] and it appeared to me not to meet the case. I then went to him in his seat and suggested to him the fact that something in the nature of a marriage took place between these people, and he modified his amendment, and I presume it passed, although I cannot find it here on the moment.

Mr. HENDERSON. It did not. It never passed.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. He again offered at this session an amendment to a military bill intended to cover it. He introduced into it some provisions which I thought would tend to prevent his object being accomplished, and I took to him this language of Senator Foot in the amendment of the pension bill of last year, and also a paper I had drawn up for a modification of it in reference to pensions. He had one provision in his amendment, I know, that I thought would tend to defeat his object

thing which took place, when it did occur, in
the presence of very few persons, and it might
be very difficult of proof in that way; but as
these persons had become scattered and were
living together, the fact was a matter of public
notoriety and could be easily proved.

I would not be captious, and if it was merely
on account of the first objection I made, that
this amendment makes the bill incongruous,
I should not insist on the objection. But I
think the gentleman's object can be accom-
plished in another way, and we may as well
be relieved from it on this pension bill.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. EDMUNDS. A little while ago I suggested that I should offer a particular amendment which was named. On consultation with the members of the Pension Committee, I am disposed not to offer the amendment which I spoke of; but I do propose to amend the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia in the eighth and ninth lines by striking out the words "in battle." That part of the section now confines the right to pensions to the widows and children of those who have died or who may hereafter die of wounds received in battle or of disease contracted, &c. The term "battle," in my opinion, is not broad enough to cover many cases of death and of injury which are really received in the military service; and if the words be stricken out, then it will authorize pensions wherever they met their death in the line of their duty in the service of the United States.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I accept that amendment. The language which the gentleman proposes to correct is the language of the original section, but the whole series of pension laws are as his amendment would make it. I therefore accept the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The modification will be made. The question is now on the amendment as amended.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. Mr. VAN WINKLE. I offer, on behalf of the Committee on Pensions, another amend. men to the bill, to be inserted as a new section after section three:

And be it further enacted, That every pledge, mortgage, sale, assignment, or transfer of any right, claim, or interest in any way granted or arising by or under the laws of the United States relating to pensions, shall be void and of no effect; and no sum of money due or to become due to any pensioner under the laws aforesaid shall be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, whether the same remains with the Pension Office, or any officer or agent thereof, or is in course of transmission to the pensioner entitled thereto, but shall inure wholly to the benefit of such pensioner.

I will state to the Senate that this matter was brought to the attention of the committee by a letter from a gentleman holding a high position in one of the eastern cities who stated that money on its way to a pensioner had been attached in transitu, and the municipal court of that city had upheld it. I was under the impression that the laws forbade that; and I looked over the whole series of laws, and I found two clauses which resembled the first part of this amendment, but both of them referred to the pensions granted by those acts.

I have therefore adopted, I believe, with a very slight variation, if any-I do not know of any-in the first part of this amendment the provisions of the former laws, making them apply to all pensions, and I have added a clause at the close to meet precisely such a case as was brought to the notice of the committee, that of a seizure under attachment or trustee process of money that was in transitu from a pension agent to the pensioner. I trust there will be no objection to this amendment. Mr. JOHNSON. Is that provision found in the general pension laws?

Mr. VAN WINKLE. It is found in two laws, one, I think, regulating the pensions of the war of 1812, and one regulating the pensions of the Mexican war; both have language prohibiting "any pledge, mortgage, sale, assignment, or transfer of any right, claim, or interest in any way granted by this act."

That is in both, and consequently there is no such law, as everybody supposed there was, referring to pensions granted since 1861. Mr. JOHNSON. Does this amendmentembrace all pensions?

Mr. VAN WINKLE. Yes, sir. Mr. JOHNSON. It is not confined to pensions under this act.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. It embraces all pensions, and is so intended.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I have another amendment to offer to that of the committee, to come in as a new section after section three:

And be it further enacted, That no claim agent or other person shall hereafter charge or receive more than fifty cents for preparing the papers necessary to enable a pensioner to receive a semi-annual payment of his pension; nor shall any pension agent charge or receive more than twenty-five cents for administering an oath to a pensioner, under a penalty of five dollars in each case.

This matter has been brought to the notice of the committee by a pension agent in one of the largest eastern cities. He states that per sons are charging for the service of filling a very short blank and administering an oath from one to two dollars. I believe that most of the States in taxing affidavits have remitted the costs in cases where the affidavits are for the purpose of obtaining pensions. It is certainly wrong that persons should be allowed to charge these exorbitant prices.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I have another amendment, and I believe it is the last. It is a new section, to come in as section' ten:

And be it further enacted, That section four of an act entitled "An act to grant pensions," approved July 14, 1862, is hereby so amended that the provisions thereof shall apply to and include the orphan brother or brothers, as well as sister or sisters, under sixteen years of age, of a deceased officer or other person named in section one of the above entitled act, who were dependent upon him for support, in whole or in part, subject to the same limitations and restrictions.

This amendment came to us from the House committee, who had intended to insert it in the bill originally, but accidentally omitted to do

So.

The section of the act of 1862 to which it refers provides that where a soldier dying has left or may leave an orphan sister or sisters under sixteen years of age, the pension shall go to such sister or sisters. It is palpable that many may have left an orphan brother or brothers under that age, who are as equally helpless as the sisters. It seems only fair that the section should be extended to those infant brothers, as well as to infant sisters.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were con⚫ curred in.

It was ordered that the amendments be engrossed and the bill read the third time. The bill was read the third time and passed.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. I move, now, to take up the bill (S. No. 239) for the classification and graduation of invalid pensions.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. I move the indefinite postponement of this bill, the same

subject-matter having been disposed of in the bill we have just passed.

The motion was agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House of Representatives had passed, without amendment, the following bills:

A bill (S. No. 132) to prevent and punish kidnaping; and

A bill (S. No. 316) to establish a post route from West Alburg, Vermont, to Champlain, in the State of New York, and for other purposes.

The message further announced that the House of Representatives had passed a bill (H. R. No. 596) to authorize the use of the metric system of weights and measures, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

CORDELIA MURRAY.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. I move to take up House bill No. 216.

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (H. R. No. 216) for the relief of Cordelia Murray was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides for the payment to Cordelia Murray, widow of George W. Murray, of the pension granted to George W. Murray, by an act of Congress approved December 20, 1864, entitled "An act for the relief of George W. Murray.'

Mr. VAN WINKLE. This bill was before the Senate on the last day that the Committee on Pensions had for such business, and it was then suggested that the language was a little obscure. I have examined the original act, and I find that it does not disclose what the pension shall be except by description. I move now to amend this bill by inserting after the word"Murray," in the fifth line, the words "a pension equal in amount to."

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended; the amendment was concurred in.

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. The bill was read the third time and passed.

JOHN HOFFMAN.

On motion of Mr. LANE, of Indiana, the bill (H. R. No. 265) granting a pension to John Hoffman, of Madison county, in the State of New York, was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides for placing the name of John Hoffman, of Madison county, New York, on the pension-roll, at the rate of eight dollars per month, to continue during his natural life.

The bill was reported to the Senate, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

BETSEY NASI.

On motion of Mr. LANE, of Indiana, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 445) for the relief of the legal representatives of Betsey Nash. It proposes to extend the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1857, for the relief of Betsey Nash, to her legal representatives, and to provide for paying the amount appropriated by that act to them; but the sum paid is not to exceed the amount due Betsey Nash at the time of her death.

The bill was reported to the Senate, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

ANNA G. GASTON.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I move now to take up Senate bill No. 261.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 261) for the relief of Mrs. Anna G. Gaston. It is a direction to the Secretary of the Interior to place upon the pension-roll the name of Mrs. Anna G. Gaston, of the city of Washington, widow of Albert G. Gaston, deceased, late

lieutenant in the sixteenth regiment of Virginia volunteers, from the date of the discharge of her husland from the military service of the United States, on account of disability arising from disease contracted in the service, until the date of his death, namely, from the 5th day of May, 1863, to the 7th day of February, 1865, and to cause to be paid to Mrs. Gaston a pension at the rate of seventeen dollars per month for that time, without prejudice to the pension heretofore allowed her by the Commissioner of Pensions.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

JAMES FOSTER.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. I move to proceed to the consideration of the House bill No. 463, for the relief of James Foster.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill. The Secretary of the Interior is directed by the bill to place the name of James Foster, late of the United States ship Germantown, on the pension-roll, and pay him the sum of six dollars per month.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. I move the indefinite postponement of that bill on account of an adverse report. We thought the case was not sufficiently proved.

The motion was agreed to.

JOHN GORDON.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. I move to take up the bill (H. R. No. 464) for the relief of John Gordon.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill. By its provisions the Secretary of the Interior will be directed to place the name of John Gordon, late of company G, ninth United States infantry, upon the pensionrolls at the rate of eight dollars per month, to continue during his natural life.

Mr. GRIMES. Let us hear the report. The Secretary read the report made by the Committee on Invalid Pensions of the House of Representatives, from which it appears that John Gordon enlisted at Saco, Maine, on the 21st of March, 1847, under Captain Woodman, and was placed in company G, Captain Lyman Bissell, ninth United States infantry, in which he continued to serve until his return from Mexico. He was discharged at Newport, Rhode Island, in the summer of 1848. While in the service and in the line of duty, in the fall of 1847, at the city of Mexico, he commenced to have attacks of fever and ague, which continued, and in the spring following a fever and ague sore broke out on his left hand. This continued until after his discharge, the summer following, and unfitted him for military duty. After his discharge the sore healed up but left the end of the finger contracted, bent, and stiffened, one of the fingers being bent flat to the hand. His hand is in consequence useless, and he is unable to gain a livelihood by manual labor. Application was made at the Pension Bureau for a pension, but was rejected by the Commissioner of Pensions because he says it is not sufficiently proven that the fever and ague sore was in consequence of the intermittent fever. This evidence cannot be obtained on account of the death of the regimental surgeon who attended his sore was so caused. The assistant surgeon him. Captain Lyman Bissell has testified that of the regiment was not with the regiment and could know nothing concerning the case. The committee deem this case a just one, and therefore report a bill for his relief.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment.

Mr. GRIMES. Am I right that this disability occurred in the Mexican war?

Mr. LANE. of Indiana. Yes, sir. Mr. GRIMES. The Senator from Indiana is from a fever and ague country and has lived there a long time; and I should like to know

whether his experience and observation satisfy him that the fever and ague is in the habit of producing such results as are mentioned in this report.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. This is a report from the House of Representatives. The facts are all reported to us. The evidence of his captain is that this sore upon the hand which caused the total disability of the hand was caused by the fever and ague. The reason why the surgeon did not testify is because he is dead, and the assistant surgeon was not with the regiment at the time; but his captain swears that the sore was the result of fever and ague and that the hand was totally disabled. I do not know what particular quality of the disease it is that makes the sore break out on the hand; but I have heard of fever sores. We took the report of the committee of the House, and supposed that that was sufficient to authorize the reporting of this bill. The matter was investigated before our committee, and it was thought very probable that the whole injury resulted from that fever.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. I will say to the Senator from Iowa that I have been hearing of ague sores all my life, although I never lived much in an ague country. We do not have any in West Virginia, but before I moved there they used to have the ague in that country, and ague sores were a very common result of that dis

ease.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I beg to inquire of the Senator whether it grew out of his services in the Army.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. The intermittent fever, the fever and ague, occurred while he was in the Army and in the service. This was a consequence of that disease. The committee were well satisfied of that fact from an examination of the particular evidence supplied.

Mr. GRIMES. Who supplied this evidence? Some surgeon, as I understand, in the State of Maine.

Mr. VAN WINKLE. It is furnished by his captain; and I believe the rules of the Pension Office are that where the certificate of the surgeon cannot be procured, owing to his death or any other circumstances, the certificate of the commanding officer is the next best proof.

Mr. GRIMES. I have lived for thirty years right on the bank of the Mississippi river, and we have ague there, and I have had a good deal of observation of that disease, and I confess I never heard of such a case as this before. I never heard of such a fever sore as the one mentioned here. I have heard of fever sores breaking out on the lips in little blotches, and I have heard of white fever swellings, but I have never heard of such a disease as this

appearing from the ague and exposure in the Army. I move that the bill be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. I hope the Senator from Iowa will modify his motion so as to let it go over until to-morrow.

Mr. GRIMES. Very well; or recommit it. Mr. LANE, of Indiana. I move, then, that this bill be recommitted to the Committee on Pensions.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. POMEROY in the chair.) The Senator from Iowa withdraws his motion, and the Senator from Indiana moves that the bill be recommitted to the Committée on Pensions.

The motion was agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY. On motion of Mr. HENDERSON, it was Ordered, That when the Senate adjourn it be to meet on Monday next.

SPENCER KELLOGG.

On motion of Mr. LANE, of Indiana, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 260) granting a pension to Spencer Kellogg. The Secretary of the Interior will be directed by this bill to place the name of Spencer Kellogg, of Oswego county, New York, on the roll of invalid pensions, and to pay or cause to be paid

to his legally appointed guardian the sum of twenty dollars per month, until Spencer Kellogg shall have attained the age of sixteen years. The act is to take effect on the 6th day of September, 1865.

Mr. GRIMES. Let us hear the report read. The Secretary read the report made by the Committee on Invalid Pensions to the House of Representatives. It appears that Spencer Kellogg, the father of Spencer Kellogg, the ward of Orville C. Brown, was fourth master of the United States gunboat Oswego, and was captured by the enemy while in the discharge of his duty on or about August 15, 1862, and executed in the city of Richmond, Virginia, on the 25th of September, 1863, by the rebels, charged with being a spy. The muster and pay rolls of the gunboat were lost. Congress by a joint resolution approved June 30, 1864, directed the name of Mary Kellogg, widow of Spencer Kellogg and mother of the ward of Orville C. Brown, to be placed upon the pension-roll with the pension incident to the rank of her late husband. She died on the 6th of September, 1865, leaving a son, the only child of Spencer Kellogg, to wit, Spencer Kellogg, the ward of Orville C. Brown, now about three years of age. The committee, believing the relief asked for by the petitioner just and right, report a bill for his relief.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

ANNA E. WARD.

On motion of Mr. LANE, of Indiana, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 459) for the relief of Anna E. Ward. It provides for placing the name of Anna E. Ward, of the city of Washington, District of Columbia, widow of the late Joseph D. Ward, second Kentucky volunteers, on the list of pensioners, and for paying to her the sum of eight dollars per month during her widowhood, and in the event of her marriage or death, then to the minor children of Joseph D. Ward, subject to the limitations and restrictions of the pensions laws.

The Committee on Pensions reported the bill with an amendment, to insert in the eighth line after the words "eight dollars per month" the words "to commence from and after the passage of this act, and to continue."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GRIMES. Let the report be read. The Secretary read the report made by the Committee on Invalid Pensions in the House of Representatives. It appears that Joseph D. Ward, late a surgeon in company H, second Kentucky volunteers, was, on the 22d of February, 1847, at the battle of Buena Vista, in Mexico, and, while in the discharge of his duties, received three grape or canister shot wounds, one in his breast, another fracturing the bones of his right arm so as to render amputation necessary, and a third ball injured his left arm so seriously as to deprive him almost entirely of its use; that by reason of these wounds he was totally disabled; and, on the 4th of February, 1865, died, leaving the petitioner, a widow with two children, girls, one eleven and the other three years of age, and the aged and invalid mother of her deceased husband dependent upon her for support. The committee deem the case a just one, and therefore report a bill for her relief.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in and ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time. It was read the third time and passed.

CORNELIUS CROWLEY.

On motion of Mr. LANE, of Indiana, the bill (S. No. 275) for the relief of Cornelius Crowley, was read a second time and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to direct the Secretary of the Interior to place the name of Cornelius Crowley, late a private in company F, third regiment United States infantry, on the pension-roll, at the rate

of eight dollars per month, to continue during his natural life.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

CHRISTINA ELDER.

On motion of Mr. VAN WINKLE, the Sen

ate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 345) for the relief of Christina Elder. It proposes to direct the Commissioner of Pensions to pay to Christina Elder, of the city of New York, the pension to which Jessie Elder was entitled at the time of her death, as the mother of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander B. Elder, tenth regiment New York volunteers, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved July 14, 1862.

The Committee on Pensions proposed to amend the bill by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting the following:

That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby directed to pay to Christina Elder, of the city of New York, the arrears of pension to which Jessie Elder, mother of the said Christina Elder and of Alexander B. Elder, late lieutenant colonel of the tenth regiment of New York volunteers, would have been entitled had the certificate of W. T. Otto, acting Secretary of the Interior, countersigned by Joseph H. Barrett, Commissioner of Pensions, and bearing date on the 25th day of November, in the year 1865, in favor of the said Jessie Elder been granted in her life-time.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CONNESS. Is there a report in that case? If there is, I should like to have it read.

The Secretary read the following report, submitted by Mr. VAN WINKLE, from the Committee on Pensions, on the 25th of April:

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred House bill No. 345, entitled "An act for the relief of Christina Elder," respectfully report:

That the said Christina Elder is the sister of Alexander B. Elder, deceased, late lieutenant colonel of the tenth regiment of New York volunteers, and the daughter of Jessie Elder, also deceased, in whose favor, as the mother of the said Alexander B. Elder, a certificate was granted by the then acting Secretary of the Interior to the effect that, under the provisions of the pension act of 1862, she was entitled to receive pay at the rate of thirty dollars per month, commencing on the 31st day of October, 1861, and continuing during her widowhood. The said certificate bears date on the 25th day of November, 1865; but it appears that the said Jessie Elder died on the 31st day of October, in the same year, twenty-five days previous, in consequence of which no part of the pension therein mentioned could be legally, or ever was, paid to the said Jessie Elder or her representatives.

It further appears that, from the time of the death of the said Alexander B. Elder until that of the said Jessie Elder, which occurred in her eightieth year, her daughter, the said Christina Elder, by the labor of her hands, supported and provided for her infirm and helpless mother, at an expense quite equal to what the latter would have been entitled to receive by virtue of the said certificate had it been granted in her life-time.

Under these circumstances the committee recommend that the arrears of pension which would have been payable to the said Jessie Elder had the said certificate been granted twenty-five days earlier be paid to the said Christina Elder, and for this purpose herewith report an amendment of the bill referred to them as above, and recommend that the same be adopted, and the bill so amended passed.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in and ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time. It was read the third time and passed.

MARTHA J. WILLEY.

On motion of Mr. VAN WINKLE, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 494) for the relief of Martha J. Willey. It proposes to direct the Secretary of the Interior to place the name of Martha J. Willey, widow of George W. Willey, late a corporal in company F, seventh regiment New Hampshire volunteers, on the pension-rolls, at the rate of eight dollars per month, the pension to commence on the 18th of April, 1865, and to continue during her widowhood; and in the event of her marriage or death, then to the minor children of George W. Willey, subject to the limitations and restrictions of the pension laws. Mr. GRIMES. Let us hear the report in

that case read.

The Secretary read the report made by the Committee on Invalid Pensions of the House

of Representatives. The petitioner, who is the widow of George W. Willey, corporal in com pany F, seventh regiment New Hampshire vol unteers, alleges in her petition that her late husband was under the command of Colonel Abbott in the late war to suppress the southern rebellion; that he enlisted at Dover, New Hamp.

shire, on or about the 29th of November, 1861, and served faithfully as a soldier in that com until his death on the 18th of April, 1865. pany It is further alleged that he was a reenlisted veteran, and enlisted in the field at Fernandina, Florida, on the 29th of February, 1864. The Government gave as a gratuity thirty days' furtaken sick with congestion of the lungs before lough to those who reenlisted. Willey was the termination of his furlough, and died at Dover, New Hampshire, on the 18th of April, 1865. The committee find the facts fully sus tained by the proof, and report a bill for the relief of the petitioner.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

MRS. REBECCA IRWIN.

On motion of Mr. VAN WINKLE, the bill (S. No. 291) granting a pension to Mrs. Rebecca Irwin, was read a second time and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to direct the Secretary of the Interior to place the name of Mrs. Rebecca Irwin, widow of Archibald Irwin, late a private in battery C, first Rhode Island light artillery, on the pensionroll, at the rate of eight dollars per month, to continue during her widowhood.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

RETURN OF A BILL.

Mr. MORRILL. With the permission of the Senator from West Virginia, I should like to offer a resolution requesting the return of a bill, which was passed under a misapprehension, from the House of Representatives. It will take no time.

Resolved, That the Secretary be directed to request the House of Representatives to return to the Senate the bill of the Senate No. 305, to amend an act entitled "An act concerning notaries public for the Distriot of Columbia," approved April 8, 1864.

The report in that case was for the indefinite postponement of the bill, but by some mistake or other it has been passed.

The resolution was considered, by unanimous consent, and agreed to.

MRS. JOANNA WINANS.

On motion of Mr. VAN WINKLE, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. No. 493) granting a pension to Mrs. Joanna Winans. Its purpose is to require the Secretary of the Interior to place the name of Mrs. Joanna Winans, mother of George W. Winans, late an acting assistant paymaster in the United States Navy, on the roll of naval pensioners, at the rate of twenty dollars per month, to continue during her widowhood.

The Committee on Pensions reported the bill with an amendment, in line eight, after the word "widowhood," to insert, "the said pension to be paid out of the naval pension fund."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GRIMES. I ask for the reading of the report in this case.

The Secretary read the report of the Committee on Invalid Pensions in the House of Representatives. It appears that George W. Winans, the son of the petitioner, was an acting assistant paymaster in the United States Navy. On the 23d of May, 1864, he received a leave of absence for one week from Fleet Captain A. K. Pennock. At Mound City, on the day of the expiration of his leave of absence, and when going on board the steamer Black Hawk, and before he had formally reported, he was accidentally drowned. The proof is very conclusive that the petitioner was at the time of the death of her son, and still is, a widow

« PreviousContinue »