Indiana Palladium, Volume 2, Number 28, Lawrenceburg, Dearborn County, 22 July 1826 — Page 1

Si

EQUALITY OF RIG FITS IS NATURE'S PLAN AND FOLLOWING NATURE IS THE MARCH OF MAN. Barlow, Volume II. LAWRENCEBURGH, INDIANA; SATURDAY, JULY 22, 1826. Number 23.

PHLVTED J1JVD PUBLISHED BY J. SPEWCE1, TK V. CULLEY, W co. 0,1 every Saturday Morning.

7,V COJVGRESS U. S. II. of Representatives, Feb. 10, 1826. CASE OFPEXELOPE DEMVEY. The bill for the relief of Penelope Denney, which had, at the motion of Mr. Mallary, of Vermont, been laid on the table; having, on motion of the same gentlemen, been again taken up for consideration Mr. Cambreleng, of New York, moved to amend the hill, by striking out thej words 4iout of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,'' and substi tuting in lieu thereof, kiout of the Navy Pension Fund." Mr. Cam3Ri.lekg observed, in support of this amendment, that, as the subject had already been presented to the notice of the House at the former session. he would not, at his time detain the House larther than to say, that the per son lor whoso benefit this bill had been introduced, was a venerable, helpless, and destitute woman, whose son had been killed in battle by the pirates while lie was engage J in the naval service of the country; tie was her only son and he had long supported her b) dividing with this aged parent the pay he received as quarter-gunner: all she asks is, that this pittance may be continued for five years; in the expectation that, as she is now very old anil infirm, she may, be released from her dependence on human compassion. The object of the amendment is to change the source from which this pension is proposed to be paid, from the Treasury of the United States, to the Pension Fund a fund derived wholly from ttie naval exploits, of our brave heroes, and to -which Denney, the son of the petioner, had largely contributed bv his service in the war against the Pirates (a war which brought into this fund upwards of 50,000.) The pittance asked is only 3 a month; and should it continue to be paid during the whole period of ;ive years, it will fall very short of what her son had individually been the means of contributing. The bill would have passed long since, but hitherto its advocates had been divided on the question, whether it ought to be paid out of the Treasury or out of the Naval Fund. He had ascertained that, since the last report on this subject, three years ago, the amount of that fund had been .augmented by a difference of 5100,000; in support of which statement, Mr. C. adverted to the documents, extracts from which he icad in his place. He concluded by expressing an earnest hope, that gentlemen would not vet resist a bill, which had such strong claims upon the H mse. M r. Little, of Md., objected to the amendmenr. He thought it would be a violation of the public faith to take this pension out of the Navy Pension Fund; which had been pledged by the act of 1800, for the relief of the wives and children of those who died in battle, or who were disabled bv their services in v. ar. If this pension was to be granted! at all, (and he did not oppose the measure,) it ought to be taken from the Treasui v. Mr. Wickuffe, of Kentucky, did not profess to be well acquainted with the nature of the Navy Penson Fund and rose for the purpose of inquiring from the gentleman from Mary land, (air. Lit-

tle) whether the public faith was notldeccased ; and if it can ies, the next step,

pledged by the law creating that tund,: if it should ever prove insufficient for its objects, the deficiency should be made up out of tile funds in the Treasury: for, if ibat were the case, it appeared to him to.be of little moment, whether this pension were paid from the one source or the other. The fund, it appeared, was now ample, and should this pension even have the eifect, in the end, to render it deficient, the deficit would ultimately be made up from the moneys of the United States. Mr. Littlc making no reply, Mr. Camcrelexg answered that such was the fact; the public faith was so pledged: but there was ne reason for charging the pension at this time on the Treasury; because the Navy Fund was abundant. If everv departure from the pension act of 1800, was a violation of the public laith,then the public taith had been violated by every peusion given since the last war; because these pen sions extended to widows and children but the law of 1800 made no mention ofl children. Mr. Littli: called for the reading of

1 9th section of the law of 1800; and it

was read accordingly The question was then put on the amendmcnt of Mr. Cambrelenc, and carried in the affirmative; Ayes 69; Noes 40. Mr. Williams, of N. C. then said, that even in its amended form, he could not vote for this bill. His objection to it wns now the same as he had stated il to be, on a former occasion. He objected to the principle, which was in fact, little other than would warrant the granting of a pension to every man in the United Stales. The public faith was pledged, as had been correctly stated, to make good every deficiency in the Navy Pension Fund; and the principle of the bill went to ensure such a deficiency. He thought Congress had carried the pensioning business far enough already: if this bill passes, can any gentleman tell to what length it may not be carried? Suppose theoccurrence of ano ther war; thousands ot cases, like the present, may grow out of it: and if you provide for one case, you are bound in justice to provide for all; and thus the nation will be overwhelmed with claims that may not be resisted, and which will drain the Treasury. Mr. Wood, of New York, was in favor of the bill. In reply to the objection of Mr. Little, in respect to a violation of public faith, he went into a history of the several acts creating this fund, and afterwards granting pensions from it. The act of 1800, provided, that, where our vessels ot war should capture a prize of superior force, the whole value ot the prize should be divided among the captors; but when they should capture a vessel of inferior force, one-halt only of its value should be divided among the captors, and the other hall' should go to the creating ol a fund for the relief ot the widows of the slain: T' was denominated "the Navv Pensiua Fund." It was intended to encourage, by rewarding the Naval enterprize of our st amen. But did that act debar the Government from rewarding it in any other manner? By the act of 1813, five years half pay of any seaman, who fell in battle, was granted to his widow, and in case he left no widow, then to his children. Did this act interfere with the previous law of 1800? "Was it in any violation of the pledged faith of the Nation? Certainly not. And yet it was as much so as the present act would be a violation of it. The first law extended the provision to the widow; the second act said. in case there was no widow, it should go to the children. This bill, in a case where there is neither wife nor child, ives it to an aged and helpless mother. The principle is precisely the same. It is directed to the same feelings, in the breast of the dying tar. A sailor, who. having neither wife nor children, had long shared his wages with a feeble dependent widow ed mother, would feel, in the parting moment, as great an anx iety for her fate, as those who had helpless wives or children, could in their He was as much opposed to pensioning, on a wide extended scale, as the gentleman irom i. v. out ne appre .1 l XT 1 I - J I hended no such consequences as that gentleman seemed to do, from the granting of this pension, in circumstances so peculiar. Mr. McCoy said, the gentleman from; N. York was in error; the law of 1 8 1 3j

being in strict conformitv with that ofithut chance or change can know, will'

1800, which provided for seamen andiseparate the maternal feelings from the 1 . i I I I j ! I I I I I . li

marines, and tor their widows and cnil-i dren: bat the present bill extends much! farther; it goes to the mothers of the' will probahiy oe to pension their lathers ; then, he supposed, their uncles; next,

their aunts; and so on to cousin, and tojly son, and only child, slain in the serall their kin. It was not to the amountlvice of this nation, may ask for support now granted that he had any objection;! from that People for whom the one

but it was to the principle. Once admit it, and there was no stopping. He thought the pensioning system had gone far enough. We are a young government, and our pension list is already of considerable magnitude. He felt for Penelope Denney. he believed, as much as any of the gentlemen who are in favor of the bill ; but if we give to her because she is poor, we must Follow up the principle, and our iavy Pension r und would soon be swallowed up, and if we extend our bounty to all that may be termed hard cases, even the Treasury will be insufficient to meet the demand. Mr. Bartlett rose to correct what he considered to be a mistaken impression of the gentleman from Virginia, who had just taken his seat. That gentleman seems to think that this bill will open the door to a vast number of other cases; but it does not appear so to me. (said Mr. B.) He says if we are to pen-

sion every one whose case is hard, an

are to provide for all poor persons in any wav connected with our sailors, the Na vy Pension Fund will soon fail. Very true, sir; but this case does not turn on any such principle, or necessarih involve such consequences. This is the case not of merely a poor woman: it is the . i case ot the sole relative ot a brave sea man, who fell in the battle his aged mother and whose only support was the half of his pay, which, for a number ol years, he had devoted to her mainten ance. When this gallant tar was about to depart on the expedition in which he glo riously fell, he w ent to the Navy ofiice. and left directions, that, during his ab sence, one half the pay tnat should become due to him, should be regularly paid to her. And the bill does no more than continue to her the slender stipend which she would have received had her only son not fallen in the defence of his country. Under such circumstances, he could see no danger of extending the pensioning principle, beyond resonable points. Certainly if the object of the pension law was to encourage enterprize and reward braverv, this bill falls strictly within its aim. It does not embrace all poor or distressed persons but of those only whose entire support depended on a life which has been sacrificed in our defence. He would go ali lengths in guarding the bill by such provisions as the gentleman might think needful, but its principle was certainly just and proper. Mr. McCoy replied, that e gentleman from New Hamp-hire had mistaken wiiat he had said: lie never supposed it was seriously intended that Congress ml vV should pension ali poor persons: but their poverty was the ground on which the pension system w as founded. B the genth man's own shewn g, he. vv-uld not have voted for this bill, if Mrs. Lennc) had been rich; then it must be because she is poor that he i ia f:vcrofit. That a man should support ids mother when she was helpless, was nothing so very uncommon. This was the duty of even man. Mr. Stevenson, of Pennsylvania, said the bill before the House proposed to grant a pension of about one hundred dollars annually to the widowed mother of a gunner, w ho, whilst in the service of the United States, w as killed in an action with Pirates, and in the very hour ot the victory over them. It was admitted, that if this man had left a wife or child, they would, under trie laws, have been entitled to a pension to the amount proposed by this bill to be granted to the mother of tin: slain; but it was objected, that a pension ought not to be granted in the ascending line, as this would widen the extent of claims. It was staled, too, that the allection of a sufferer for wife or child, and the reci procity of that feeling, so near and dear are those ties, is the reason for crantina

them a pension, and to them alone ; andjon him lor support-,: But would this

firs.jyet sir, said Mr. S. you have heard ofi principle bcyccect ? Why do you Den-j wives that have, been unfaithful, youlgrant niili'arypTVsioiis ? It is for this

wives tha have bean 1 of children that have been ungrateful; but did you ever know a mothers love to be withheld from her otf-

pring? Sir, the feelings of a matcrnaljcure the means of subsistence. The Gov

heart endure forever. They twine around their progeny from lisping infancy! to the latest moment of existence. No, misfortune, no degradation, no crime, ! innocent oemg sue lulled in the cradle or nursed at her breast. If then, the feelings or obligations of atfection and service are to be respected or rewarded, surely this widowed wile ot a uevolutionry officer, this hercved mother of an onfought and the other died. But, I am told of the danger of the precedent of granting a pension in the ascending line. Sir, we cannot go far back the insatiate grave still weeps its generations to the earth. But, if precedent is dangerous, their is nothing portentious in this, compared with a recent one, when half a million in money and in land were lavished on an ared visitant; enabling him, from the bounty of the State, to enrich all his connexions in the ascending and descending line. I do not say whether this was right or wrong. 1 speak of the precedent ; but I must remark, that the person thus liberally provided for, was only wounded in your service; whereas, the only olfspring of this widowed wife of a Revolutionary officer, was killed in your recent battles. ' Sir, it is true, the petition of Penelope Denney is presented iu a still small

d-voice. The aired, humble mother of a

gunner in your Navy, approaches you; a timid, bereft, and sorrow ing supplicant. No national pageants annouce her arpreach dazzling the senses and captivating the judgment. The tongue of the son, who should have commended her to your care, is mute. He died in the!

conflict, to secure vour citizens and vourishe resides. She is an inhabitant of the

commerce. Could he have reminded you, in his parting hour, that the being to whom he had directed half his pay to be given, whilst he lived, was near and dear to him; could he have requested vou to respect his memory, by supporting his humble parent; the prayer would have been granted. And are there no tongues to plead the cause of thi? aged mother? Are there no hearts to feel for her ? Yes, Mr. Speaker, there arc tongues that can and will plead more forcibly than mine. There are hearts that will feel as kindly and there are those w ho will award to Penelope Donncv. a decrec, that will sooth her age, and cheer her with the evidence of a Nation's sympathy. Sir, grant this pension, and you inspire confidence and fidelity in your seamen. The blood of Denney was shed to secure safety to vour llag. His in trepidity may have eventuate d in sav ing millions in national expenditure, and from piratical capture. He died, at least, in active battle, to suppress the most cruel system of piracy known to ;he history of nations. I respect the motives of those gentlemen who resist this claim. I am aware they stand for their country, and fear to depart from cold principles of policy. But, Sir, the giow of national feeling and gratitude may be extinguished, and with it the incentive to the statesman's devotion, and the soldier's ardor, by too rigid an enforcement of the precepts of chilling reason. Mr. Wortiiingto:', of Maryland, said, it had not been his intention to trespass again on the patience of the House, but, from the course the debate had taken, he was impelled, by a paramount sense of duty, to submit some further views on V the subject, lie was convinced, by no thing he had heard, that the bill now under consideration, ought to pass; but, on the contrary, he was fortified in the conviction, that it would be dangerous ant! inexpedient to give it sanction. Sir, said he, instead of guarding the portals Tof your Treasury with Cerbcrcan vigi lance, you are about to throw them open to every person who knocks for admittance. If you once establish the precedent that the mother of a seaman or soldier who is killed in our naval or military service is entitled to the same paternal care of the Government, that he would have been had he survived his wounds, vou at once hold yourselves bound to the same extent in favor of any other rela tives who may have been dependent upreason, a soldier or seaman is disabled in the service of the State, and in consequence of this disability is enabled to proernment. in that case, to prevent him

from perishing, makes provision for Jjh,ihis helpless mother. How many such support. This is, or ought to be, the ba-cases are likely to be presented to us?

sis ot all pensions, except, perhaps as it regards the warriors of the Revolution with them I would be more liberal. But sir, instead of granting a pension to a disabled seaman, we are about to allow the the mother of one who was killed in battle, the same that would have been allowed to him had he survived. Instead of granting a military pension, the one contemplated by the bill is a nondescript, one sui generis-, being neither civil nor military, but if cither, it resembles more a civil than a military grant, and if you pass it, may be the entering wedge to the granting of civil pensions. Sir, it is already contended by some of our Newspaper Editors, that our Ex-presidents ought to be pensioned for lite, and I should not be surprised, if this bill should pass, to see, by and by, our pension list so swelled, as not only to embrace the pensions just alluded to, but also, the Ex-Vice Presidents, Ex-Heads of Departments, and as in England, all our Ex-Ambassadors. Looking to these consequences, will the People of this country countenance the support of the present proceeding? Will they sutler themselves, or posterity to be weighed down by taxes, upon the principle of this bill? Sir, cases of this character goon gradually and imperceptibly, and, before we are aware of it, fasten upon us like an mcubus oppressing all our efforts. They

appeal strongly to our sensibility and arc' calculated to bring into action the most sublimated feelings of the human heart. Hence the danger of being led aw ay by cases of this description. Put policy j the cold and unfeeling dictates of policy ought alone to be ourguide. Sir, I know

not Penelope Denney, but I know where grand and magnificent city of New York. Will that city of the ocean sutfer this tM lady to languish in want and misery? Credat J udeus Apella I cannot believe it for a moment. Mr, Storrs observed, that, as the bill hud been reported by the Committee oa Naval alfairs, it might be considered as incumbent on him, from the relation he sustained to that Committee, to state the views under which they reported it to the House. Those gentlemen who con sidered this as a question alfecting tho Treasury were certainly mistaken in the apprehension of the cae, We are not asked to put our hand into the Treasury ; arid as to a violation of any pledge, a litile examination of the matter would shew that this also was a mistaken idea All prizes taken by public ve&sels of the United States, belonged, in the first instance, to the Government. With a view to encourage the valor and enterprize of those engaged in our Naval service, the. Government gives a certain pro ortioii of these prizes to the captors. The remainder it reserves for other purposes, and determines that it shall constitute a separate fund, which, from its application, is ordinarily denominated the Navy Pension Fund. It is manifest--therefore, that the lund out of which this pension is proposed to be paid, has not been raised by taxes, but has been earned by the seamen themselves, bj their own volor and blood. ThoC therefore, who are against the bill, are in fact against the Pension Fund: for it is to grant such pensions that the fund ia provided. Congress are, in fact, only trustees for the better distribution of that which the Navy has earned by its own valor. We have distributed it in the first place, to the widows and childern. of those who were killed in the public service. Rut why? On what principle? Because their widows and their children were, during their life time, dependent for their support on those who have been slain. We give them a pittance to preserve them from want, and continue that pittance five)ears. Now is it not obvious, that where there is no wife or children, but that another near relative was complete!) dependent on the dc- ( eased for support, the giving a pension to that relative is no violation of the law, but is iii strict accordance with it? Denney had no dependent but his mother, and the granting her a perlfeion does not extend the principle at alh When gentlemen talk of precedent, they must remember that precedent relates solely to principle. One case is a precedent for an another, only when the same principle is involved, and only for that reason. Now this case is precisely w ithin the principle of the act already passed, and therefore can be productive of no evil as a precedent. But this is not all. Here is a poor sailor actually engaged, when he died, in supporting Are they so extremely common as to justify alarm ? Do gentlemen apprehend that the Treasury is to be exhausted when we ask nothing out of the Treasury? For i.lm?c!f he would give the pension if it vie only for the sake of the example. It is the case of a sailor, of a common sailor; not of an officer, who comes off with all the glory and with much of the prize money to boot; but of a sailor, one of those who do the business; whopcrfom the fighting by which the glory of the Nation is enhanced and its glory secured, and who, when he di ed, was in the actual performance of a deed of filial piety as well as of devoted patriotism. He confessed that the case w as one which took a strong hold upon his feelings from all he had learned of it, he did not doubt that the feelings of Denney were chivahic. Now rupposo that when this noble tar was stepping on board the vessel to go on this his last cruise, a person had stepped up to him and said "Jack you are going on a cruise in which you may fall; and remember if you are killed, Congress will refuse to continue any support to your old mo ther." I have no doubt that, for thg honor of this House Denney would have knocked him down. Mr. Forsyth, of Georgia, called fof the reading of the act of 1814, passed for the benefit of Mary Cheever. And it w as read at the Clerk's table