Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 35, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 September 1892 — TRUTH IS TRIUMPHANT. [ARTICLE]

TRUTH IS TRIUMPHANT.

CLEVELAND’S PENSION RECORD IS CLEAN. V.toc. of HUls Not So Numerous Reported—l® Hany Cases Beneficial to Pensioners— ln Others, Fraud Was Defeated. American Tribune's Misstatements. Hot-headed Bepublieau editors, and the editors of so-called soldiers’ papers, have been very fond of ussalllng Mr. Cleveland upon his pension record. None can deny that more pensions were granted by the Cleveland administration than by any other before in power, or than will have been granted by Mr. Harrison at the close of his term. This is ignored. But Mr. Cleveland’s vetoes of special pension bills have furnished frequent and long texts for his assailants—notably the American Tribune. An old soldier, of Columbia City, Ind., Isaiah B. McDonald, challenged the statement made by the Tribune that Mr. Cleveland had vetoed 524 special bills, and in the next issuo the Tribune was obliged to admit that the exact number of such voters was 254. But in the very next issue, and in subsequent ones, the old falsehood was reiterated. Mr. McDonald then procured a statement from the clerk of the Pensipn Committee of the House of Representatives at Washington, who made ex« haustive search Of the records, and compiled a most interesting array of facts. Here is the letter: Washington, D. c., Aug. 3,1892. CoL I. B. McDonald, Columbia City, Ind.: Dear Friend.—Your favor of the mb ult., inclosing an artiole written by you to the Amerioan Tribune, published at Indianapolis, and the lengthy phlilppio of the editor In reply theretoTnas been reoeived. Your article Incorporating the numbor of speolal pension bills signed by the soveral Presidents from Linooln to Harrison, and the number of special acts vetoed by Grover Cleveland during his term as President, wero, as you say, furnished to you by me, and as the editor of the Tribune has denied the truthfulness of the figures, I cheerfully oomply with your request to verify the same. The number of speolal pension bills signed by the several Presidents from Lincoln to Harrison is substantially correct, as an examination of the records shows, and the statement of the editor of the Tribune is misleading; purposely so, I think, for the reason that he gets his information from a speech delivered by Mr. McKinley in August. 1888, instead of from the record whioh closed on the Ith of Maroh, 1889. The record of speolal bills approved by the Presidents named is as follows: Lincoln 14 Johnson 431 Grant 53G Hayes 324 Garfield and Arthur 706 Cleveland .1,825 Harrison (approximately) 1,400 From the time Mr. McKinley s speech was made until the close of Mr. Cleveland's administration Congress had been in session nearly five months, and during that time nearly six hundred private pension bills had been passed and signed, making tho total signed by Mr. Cleveland during his four years exaotly 1,825, as I stated in my letter to you, and as yon stated it In your letter to the Tribune. At present I have no means at hand by which I can say exactly how many special bills President Harrison has signed, but the number I gave you is approximately correct—about fourteen hundred, or about four hundred and twenty-five fewer than were signed by Mr. Cleveland. The number of speolal pension bills vetoed, I believe, I gave yon as 299. I received the information from a clerk In the department, and supposed It was oorreot. Since you called my attention to It and as I see by the Tribune article and from various other Republican papers that the number is given all the way from 254, 41G, GGB to 800. I have taken the trouble to make a critical examination of the official record and find tho number to be as follows: Vetoes. Forty-ninth Congress, first session 100 Forty-ninth Congress, second session 22 Fiftieth Congress, fiTSt session 103 Fiftieth Congress, second session 26

Total 251 You can say, therefore, without the fear of successful contradiction, that the number of special pension bills vetoed by Mr. Cleveland during nls term as President Is exactly two hundred and fifty-one. The error In the Increased number given you was on account of vetoes of other measures than pension bills being Incorporated In the total, such as the vetoes of trumped-up war and other claims against the government, bills for the removal of charges of desertion, bills for public buildings, etc., amounting in all to about fifty. A careful examination of the reasons given by Mr. Cleveland for these vetoes will convince any unprejudiced mind that they wore just and right) In every Instance under the laws, not only to the parties conoemed but to Uncle Sam, who has to pay the bills, as well. Let me give you just one Instance—and there were many very similar. In his message vetoing the special bill passed for the relief of Bachel A, Pierpont, Feb. 27, 1887, Mr. Cleveland said: “At the time the bill was Introduced and passed an application for pension on behalf of the beneficiary named was pending in the Pen l sion Office. This application was filed in December, 1879. Within the last few days, and on the 17th day of February, 1887, a pension was granted upon the said application and a certificate issued at precisely the same rate whioh the bill herewith returned authorizes. But the pension under the general laws dates from the time of filing the application in 1879, while under a speolal act it would date only from the time of its passage. In the interest of the beneficiary and for her advantage, the speolal bill is therefore disapproved." By vetoing this bill Mr. Cleveland saved this widow a pension of 112 a month for eight years, or a total of $1,152. Were it necessary I could give you dozens of other cases substantially in the same linf£ In the editorial in the Amerioan Tri»)une in reply to yonr article I find the following: "During Grover Cleveland’s term, Gen. John C. Black was Commissioner of Pensions, and, Col. Matson, of Indiana, Chairman of the CQpkmlttee on Invalid Pensions In the House, and both men were earnest friends of the soldiers, especially If it could bo shown that the applicant was a Democrat, and Congress passed a large number of bills, principally for widows, but they were for such contemptibly small sums as sl, $2 and $4 per month, and yet Grover Cleveland vetoed 254 bills of that class, principally to widows who had suddenly been called upon to support a family of fatherless children.” The foregoing extract is absolutely false and without any foundation whatsoever in fact. The Pension Bureau under Gen. Black was conducted solely in the interests of the soldiers, aod it canngt be shown in a single Instance during his administration where political preference had anything to do with the allowance of a claim. As you may remember, I was one of the; clerks of the Invalid Pension Committee of the House during the Fiftieth Congress, which embraced the last two years of Mr. Cleveland’s administration. My duties were then, as now, to examine the papers in the Pension Bureau and other evidence in rejected claims upon which bills for special acts were based, gnd to write reports on the same. In the discharge of these duties I necessarily became fafmiliSr with everything connected with spsclaA legislation and bad personal knowledge of] nearly every case reported, and all the vetoes presented daring that session, and I bell eve my statements ought to haye as much we lght as those of the editor of the Tribune, w ho evidently knows nothing about what he is talking, or else he knowingly and deliberatel r states what he knows to be false. Bills for speolal pensions are not introduced into Congress until all remedies under the general pension laws and the very llberallretfdatlons of the several Commissioners of Pension r have been exhausted, and the oase bka been rejected for wont of proof to sustain title claim, or has been found to be entirely without merit. Every opportunity is given those claimants to show that they are entitled to a pension, and in fully nine cases out of ten there is too merit In them. When they have exhausted their remedy In the pension bnreati they seek the member of Cbngress in t leir district and ask him to introduce a sp icial bill for his or her relief. The member in order to make himself solid with his constitui nts, prepares a bill and "fires it into Congress ' without knowing anything whatever as to its nerlts or otherwise, as the case may be. The papers in the Pension Bnrean are then sent for an examination of the veto of the Comml; sioner of Pensions (for a rejection is simply a veto, and Baum Is vetoing hundreds of dai ns every day) is entered upon, a report rr ade, and through sympathy or the lnfluei ce of “a friend at court," the action of the rareau is set) aside, the worse is made 3 appear the better, a favorable report is made and adopted, and the case, very often without any evidence to substantiate it, rfoes on the calendar for the consideration of] the House. Without a quorum It has no trouble in getting through both branches of Congress, and is sent to the President for his consideration. Mr. Cleveland was honest enough and courageous enough under his oath 0 I office to carefully examine every one of t iese cases, and where he found that they w are wholly without merit, and that poor old lefenseless Uncle Sam was being robbed of aoney that ought to go to the deserving, he die not hesl- , tate to return the bill without his pproval. And it is a remarkable fact, whicl has probably not occurred to the editor of f e Tribune that neither branch of Congress, luring Mr. Clevelarfd's entire term, made an es >rt to pas* a single one of these 281 vetoed bll * over the President’s objections. Why? Th< r knew the

President «u right and that all these bills were without merit. The statement of the Tribune that these hills were "principally for widows, but they were for such contemptibly small sums as it, fa and ** per month,' is a falsehood out, of whole oloth and was .made simply to belittle Mr. Cleveland. Since the war ho special pension bill for widows. or for anyone else for that matter, has ever passed carrying such "contemptible" amounts as the Tribune states. These bills for widows are all for sl2 per month, except In cases arising under the law of June 27, 1890, which usually calls for $8 per month. The Tribune further says: “During the first two years of President Harrison’s term, Congress was Republican and passed all of the meritorious pension bills that the oommtttee had time to consider. "During the first years of Mr. Cleveland's administration the House was Democratic and the records show that more pension bills, originating in the House, were passed and became laws than during any four years of Republican administration slnoe the close of the war." During the present session of Congress the number of special bills Introduced has fallen off more than one-holt as compared with the Fiftieth and Fifty-first Congresses. This Is accounted for by the passage of the dependent pension bill of 1890, providing for the pensioning of all those whose present disabilities are such as to render them unable to earn a living by manual labor. The Tribune attempts to show that on account of Mr. Harrison’s great love for the soldier there have been Issued during his administration a larger number of certificates than were Issued under Mr. Cleveland. This Is easily aocounted for by the passage of the act of June 27, 1890, authorising the pensioning of those who afe at present unable to earn a living, but are unable to trace their disabilities to army servloe. From Juno 27, 1890, to Juno 30,1891 (the report for 1899 is not out yet), of this class of claims there were filed In the pension bureau 243,680 invalid olalms and 78,270 widows'—a total of 321,95 a There Wore also tiled during this year 353,582 applications under said act where pensions had already been allowed or applied for, making In all about' 676,532 applications filed under said act the first year after It went Into force. So to compare the number of certificates Issued under tho general law and the provisions of this aot with the number of oertltteatos Issued before Its passage would beextremoly unfair. But this letter is alroady too long, and I have not time nor is it necessary to continue it farther. There are a great many other statements In the Tribune s artiolo which are entirely unworthy of any consideration whatever, and especially from an old soldier like you, who fought bravely and courageously during the war, while the writer who criticises you was a feather-bed soldier faring sumptuously every day a safe distance In the rear as the private secretary of Indiana’s great war governor. I have no patience with these alleged soldier papers. All of them, ns far as my knowledge extends, are simply Republican campaign documents, and the Democratic Boldier who puts his trust In any of them Is sure to plaee himself in tho hands of the Philistines. Wishing you plenty, hoalth, poaoe and prosperity, and that we may both live to oelobrate a glorious Democratic victory this fall, I am sincerely yours, Daniel McDonald.