Rensselaer Republican, Volume 20, Number 6, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 October 1887 — HIS PENSION RECORD. [ARTICLE]

HIS PENSION RECORD.

Pacta and Figures Showing What ; Lies Have Beau Told in Cleveland's Interest. Special to the Indianapolis Journal. GBTTYBMURt;, Pa., Sept. 27.—The following *• letter IrOvi Mr. Edward McPherson to Senator Allison will be Lead with interest by all classes of readers, and especially by the ex soldiers of the Union: Gbttysbi’rg, Pa., Sept. 19, 1887. Hon. Win. B. Allison, Dubuque, Iowa: *My Dear Sir—The “statement” to which you ask my attention, respecting “President Cleveland’s official record on Union soldiers,’’copied fbom the National View, a Washington (D. C.) weekly paper, bears the marks of preparation lor a purpose. That purpose is to show that the Cleveland administration is more entitled to the respect and eonfidence of the Union soldiery of the country than the administration of either Grant, or Hayes, or Arthur. It seeks to make theimpression'that Cleveland has been more liberal and more just to the soldiers than either of hiß predecessors. And it claims, in terms, that Cleveland has approved seventyseven more private pension bills than Grant and Hayes combined, and 127 more than Arthur. The “statemer t” is false both in its assertions and its suggestions. First —As to its assertions: The pension story of the Forty-ninth Congress is this: Pension bills passed in the two sessions 949 Bills approved by Cleveland 66* Bills vetoed by Cleveland 12k Bills become laws by laps* of time withouCClevelaud's approval ~. 156 "* Bills ‘-pocketed” by C1eve1and.....™...... 1 Total 949 Of the bills passed, 747 were in the first session of that Congress and 202 in the second session. Of the bills vetoed, 101 were in the first session and twenty-three in the second. Of the bills become laws without the President’s signature, 154 were in the first session and two in the second. The “pocketed” bill was in the first session. I make up this table from the Congressional Record, the United States Statutes and other data, and believe the figures to be exactly correct. The truth, therefore, is that President (Cleveland “approved” shout '.wn thirda of the bills passed, vetoed over oneeighth, and “dodged” as to the remainder. %- . . Second—As to the suggestions of the statement: Its purpose is to contrast the Grant,Hayes and Arthur pension records with Cleveland’s to the advantage of the latter. Now what are the facts about t l -ose administrations? Of the 44)3 pension bills passed under the Grant administration, Grand vetoed eight. Twd, because the claimant*’ names were then on the pension roll. Another, because the clause in the act about the minor children of the soldier had no meaning. Three were vetoed because the names of the claimants were borne on the army rolls as deserters. Another, because the name of the pensioner was not correctly given. And the last, because the soldier’s was not correctly stated. He signed 485. This is Grant’s record on pension vetoes. What is Hayes’s and Arthur’s record? Under Hayes, 306 private pension bills were passed. He approved them all. Under Arthur, 736 private pension Hills were passed by Congress. He approved them all. Clevdand’s approvals were but„o6B out of 949 passed, and are thus 120 less than Grant’s and Hayes’s combined,and sixty-eight less than Arthur’s, out, of atotal 0f!53 greater than the former, and 313 greater than the latter. The contrast is what might have been expected-in advance cf investigaactually engaged in the suppression of the rebellion, and were in full personal sympathy withrthe armies of the Union. Cleveland’s record as President is not otij.of harmony with his passiveness as Acitisen during the struggle. It is true, as claimedf Cleveland,signed the widows’ increase bill, and the crippled soldiers’, increase hill. It is also true that he signed the Mexican war pension bill, which awards a service pension as distinguished from a disability pension to the soldiers of that war. But it is also true, that within ten days thereafter he vetoed the bill which proposed application of substantially the same principle to the soldiers of the army of the Union. His friends have the floor to align that extraordinary discrimination against, the Union soldiery with this extraordinary pretension of friendship for them. It is a part of the samepfrogram to claim, also, that at this date there are more Union soldiers in the government service than at any previous period. This ought to be true, considering that the laws inherited by this administration from its predecessors distinctly direct that preference shall always be given,- othfer things being equal, to the honorably discharged Union soldiers. If it be not true, this administration must have steadily viSfitfed this law. But in view of the prdved misstatements touching pension bills, amLof whatisJtnownj:oncerning the methods adopted in filling those places of appointmenta to which to apply, and as to which, therefore, there Was held to be no limit to the

discretion to tbo appointing power, I am warranted in saying Cnat until this last claim is clearly proved by published lists of and appointments made it mast suffer from the discredit thrown upon its twin. Undoubtedly the Pension Office is doing a great deal of work- Congress intended that it should, when the additional agents and clerks liberally given that office to meet the new and increasing demands upon it, left the chief without excuse for delays. Had the Commissioner of Pensions been less vigorous in administration, he would have been simply derelict in duty. But that fact does not hide from the public the other fact that while he has been granting many pensions to Union soldiers, and widely advertising it, hie own immediate chief ana indeed the whole administration have been engaged, with out advertising it, in “in making an average” by providing comfortable and responsible Department positions for large numbers of representative Ku-klux of 1875 ’7* This has certain elements of fitness in it. An adminiatratiofa which was made by the Ku-klux a possibility in our politics could hardly be expected to be indifferent to the aspirations of the agents who chiefly brought it into being. In this respect, also, there is a contrast between Grant and Cleveland. Grant did release from the penitentiary near the close of their terms of imprisonment some of the Ku-klux leaders who professed repentance and promised obedience to law. But he did not invite them to share with him the administration of -the government. That crowning act of indifference to malignant crimes against citizenship was reserved for an administration which contains' within its circles of department chiefs not one man with the reputation of having autively helped his country in its hour of peril, and when now, ludicrously enough, seeks to pose as the special friend of the men who snatched it from the brink of which, in zeal far slavery, the Democratic party - had hurritd it. I am, very respectfully. Your-obedient servant, ■ I Edward MePaKRSON.