Democratic Sentinel, Volume 10, Number 34, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 September 1886 — Cleveland and the Private Pension Bills. [ARTICLE]

Cleveland and the Private Pension Bills.

Colonel C. C- Matson, Chairman of the House Pension Committee, and by the wa> , himself a battle«scarred veteran of the wey delivered a masterly speech at Spencer, Ind., on Saturday, Sept. 4th, in support President Cleveland’s vetoes of nr’*' vate pension bill , Mr Matson, said ; M uch has been said and more has been Written against our President on account of his vetoes of certain nilvate pension bills. No Republican convention this year has neglected this field which has seemed to them to be one fruitful of political capital in this campaign. The Republican orc ans have made an indiscrimina’e attack upon the Executive because ho dared to raise an objection to a pri - ate bill granting a pension. Let us look at t is subject dispassionate iv and calmly' for a moment. Let us see whether the facts warrant the conclusion that the President is unfriendly to the soldiers’into rest, even in the slightest degree.

I know how jealous you arc of all your rights, my comrades of the war for the Union; I know how generous you ar® to tho»e who sincerely desire to see that equal and exact justice is meted out to those who have gallantly defended their country in the hour of extreme peril. Let us be fair, then, in trie consideration of this question, and let us try to arrive at a correct conclusion. No measure of general legislation has been vetoed. The vetoes were of private bills only. Is it unfair to ask which of these vatoes is complained of? Or will our Republican friends? say that the Presh> dent, clothed «ith the constitutional duty of approving or disapprovng each and every b II that passes Congress, ought not, inrelation to a pri-> vatt> bill, inquire into its merits, but should, as a matter of course, approve it? This has been the practice heretofore. The»c have been no veto of any private pension bill previous to this Administration, and my experience in that class of legislation war ra_ts me in assert ng that the bills of that class received no considerati m from the Executive, nor th.it they be come laws with or without the signa ture of the Executi e, as a matter of course. But this has been a new era in legislative and administrative history. This is a Pretident who feels a responsibility of every measure of le« gislation; wno gives the utmost attention to all the details of his great effice; who has been indefatigable in the dischaige of his duties, and who has shown upon repeated occasions that he has the courage of his con viction on all subjets. 4 very much larger number of Dills granting private pensions than had been passed in a single session before was presented him for nis signature. He reviewed them all as carefully as his time would permit. He said it was h s duty, under the constitution, either to approve or disapprove, and whe-i he found one that he could not in his conscience, give is approval give his approval to, he had the courage and honesty to say so.

A LARGE SHARE OF THE VETOES was ma de upon some technical ground such as that the beneficiary named in the bill had died, or had b en pensioned under the law, or that there was some mistake in the description of the person, or in the name, or some like mistake. Some were vetoed because upon the facts stated the President thought the beneficiary named in the bill should not be pensioned, and here, in a few cases, there may have been a difference of opinion between me and him, just, perhaps, as there was in the committ e, when that bill wus considered, a difference between me and some Republican members of the committee upon the merits of the case. And, indeed, my countrymen,'in all sincerity and earnestness I say to you that that is all there is in this question which our Republican friends attempt to magnify into a great national crime Ii Is a mere difference of judgment as to a private claim between two peiBons upon a proven statement of facts. I did not sustain him in all his vetoes. Some vetoes were .such that they did not meet the approval of my conscience, and I did not hesitate to eay so before the douse and before the country. But lat once made up my mind upon this question as soon as it was apparent that it vas to be made a political issue, that so far as I was concerned I should give the objections of the President at least a respectful consideration, and that I would not make an issue with an hoaest and fai hful Executive ups on the question as to whether John Hmith should have a pension, unless the facta were such as to compel it. I had seen enough of tha man to satisfy me that he was thoroughly

honest and sincere; that he was one of the ablest of the great men that had filled that high station, and I felt tnat the hope of the country for its future prosperity and happiness lay largely on the success of is administration (and I did no hesitate to say, by way of repelling the fiery charge ♦hat was made suddenly and unexpectedly b) Mr., Bayne, of Pennsylvania, upon the President, that the Democratic party would support him , in '■' er.y case when he was right upon ‘ this question. Now let us be honest at least witn each other. Wtun and in what cases has the President done wrong in his vetoes. If our Republican oppon ents complain they must specify the cases and the reasons for their complaint, or they must stand upon the proposition that it is wrong to veto a bill, no matter how bad and how un» just. Can they say that this President of ours is unfriendly to the interest? of our ex-soldiers? Let us see what has happened duiing his Administration, and let us prove by the acts of this Democratic Administra ion whether it is friendly or unfriendly ;o the soldiers’ interest. First of all, I call your atteniion to the un isputed and undisputable fact that more pension claims have been allowed at the Pension Office since the incoming of this Administration than were ever allowed in the same length of time in the history of the Government. During the year preceding May 31,1885. 94,705 certificates were issued by the office; and in the next year ending May 31, 1886.102,280 certificates were issued. Here is a stubborn fact of work done for you,my fellow-soldiers, by this Administration that proves its disposition to reward you aud your interests.

What else has been done under this Democratic /- dministration and by this Democratic President that the Republicans would have you beiieve were antagonistic to your rights and interests? You remember how they told you that if the Democrats obtained control of the executive departments that your pensions would be endangered and many of them stopped. Has this prediction come true? Upon the contrary, our great and good President has signed more private pension bills during the last session of Congress than were ever signed by any of bis predecessors during a whole term of office. More than that he promp Jy signed the bill increasing the pensions of the widows and dependent parents to sl2 per month. This was a grerf measure of relief. I assert to you, in no spirit of boasting, that I was its author and finisher. It carried light and joy to more than 120.000 humble homes in all parts of this great lan 1. It added to the annual value of the pension roll over $6,000,000, and for his approval of this measure they are unwillingjjto give him any credit. One month ago to-day he cheerfully, as I know, placed his signature to a bill that Increased the pensions of those who had lost their legs or arms in the defence of their country—a most liberal measure to a class so manifestly deserving of the favor of the Government

And now I am going to read you a letter written by the President which I saw him write with his own hand, and which was not intended to be published, and which. I suppose, when he wrote it he haa no thought it would ever reach the public eye, but which I recently, just before leaving Washington, got his express permission to use, and I think when you hear it you will agree with me that it lays down a rule of action for the Pension Office whicn is as liberal as the most exacting could ask, and demonstrates that he is the friend of honest pensioner and claimants, and is ready to aid them in the enforcement of their rights. The letter relates to a bill th it ho had vetoed, and which, upon new facts, Mr. Willis, of Kentucky, the member from the Louisville District, and I had an interview with the President suggested that upon our statements he thought the claim ought to be further investigated in the Pension Office, and this letter was written by him to General Black, and I have no doubt the claim has been or will be allowed, with the arrears due, as it was filed In J 879. But let me read yoa the letter, and to it I ask your careful attention: ..Executive Mansion, ) Washington, July 8, 1886. { Hon. J. O* Biack, Commissioner of Pensions: Dear Sib: On or about the 19th day of last month I transmitted to the House of Representative* a message giving reasons for my disapproval ot a bill granting a pension to Carter W. Tiller, as t*»e dependent father of George W. Tiller. “My veto was based upon the nendependence of the claimant upon the deceased soldier, though the fact ot bis son’s desertion was mentioned in

a way which quite plainly led to the inference taat it was of itself sufficient reason for the rejection of the bill; Representations are |made to me and papers and statements furnished for the purpose of eoaviucing me that I erroniously determined both questions which the case involved. “Of couise I want to do exact justice to these applicants for pensions, and my idea of justice in this consideration invo! -..'s the exercise of the utmost liberality and the determining of doubt in favor of the soldier and those claiming under him. “Fully convinced t at you are governed by the same considerations, and as you have the best means available for a thorough examination of these matters, 1 have determined to ask you to review this case, not only up on the papers now upon file in your office, but with the aid of any additional ' videncejor imormation within your reach and act upon it. If you feel constrained to affirm the action of your predecessor in office, will you please furnish me with the reasons which lead you to an adverse conclu sion upon the application? Yours very truly. “Grovbb Cleveland.”

Who, in authority, cr out of office, his ever asked or suggested a more liberal, generous rule «.f action as to pension claims than is plainly laid down in this manly letter of an honest and conscientious Executive?— Ana with all these facls before him who can have the hardihood to sav thnt-Grovei Cleveland and his Administration is nor the friend of he soldi r who has an honest claim for pensions. During this campaign an 1 while this Administration is in power no armv of special examiners will invade this State as it did two yearago and undertake to terrorize the claimants for pensions and the pensioners by vile threats of rejection and a suspension of those pensions if they refuse to vote the Republican ticket, and no Board of Pension Surgeons will be organized to serve the purpose of any caudinate, as wt.s done in our Congressional District in 1884, as 1 showed upon the floor of the House by the records of the Pension Office and the cones ondence found on file there. These offices and all others will be administered by the rule laid down by the President, as dusts for the benefit of the whole people, and the Administration and it friends will appeal to you in this campaign, my fellow soldiers, alone upon the record it has made in the in the interests of the ex-Union soldier, and the prompt and honest adjudication of all their claims against the Government.