H. or R.] Revolutionary Pensions. [APRIL 3, 1 amongst his acquaintance, who had made or saved a c fortable estate, will, no doubt, agree with general c vation. There was something in the elevated and à terested sentimentsand feelings the timesof the revol inspired, which left this class of men illy qualified and inclined to scramble with the money-loving generat which succeeded, and Providence may have designe in mercy to them and us, that they should remain po that they might remain pure-both as examples and i in face of our own doings. "They'd want but little here below, amendment might entail on all who seek the benefit of this act. For each applicant must, as the case may be, (unless he can at first prove that he is and always has been absolutely poor,) render his account of all he has, and all in his latter days he has had, and show how and why, and to whom, he has disposed of it, and the manner and form in which he has done it, and must disclose the condition of his family and misfortunes as connected with it, and swear to it, and his neighbors with him, and their credibility also proved, and all presented as full and free from informality and suspicion as a suspected bankrupt's But, however this may seem to us, the number of t disclosures; and when a court of record has found the who are rich in possessions, is at any rate but small. facts, the department must again examine, compare, and growing smaller every hour, and we may now emp! pass upon them; and as the papers, quarterly or monthly,cally say of them, with all they can now possess orrced as the case may be, pass and repass from this place, and through the several ordeals of oaths, courts, clerks, and departments, for amendment and renewal, the petitioner, with ever so just a right in itself, is subjected to all that loss of time and trouble, and to all those hopes, anxieties, and disappointments which render the best rights invaluable, and are so especially irksome and perplexing to solicitous and declining old age. I should think, from the observations of some gentlemen, that these difficulties did not happen to applicants from their region, and that all was easy and matter of course, especially after the finding of the court. In those cases which I have had knowledge of, these embarrassments have been, more or less, strikingly exemplified. I have known an aged and worn out veteran, who had been all his life proverbially honest and poor, whom all the vicinity had known to be so, and had sworn to it in all the forms and expressions they could devise, and who, because he had cast upon him some time in his latter days, in right of his wife, (as poor and decrepit as he,) a life-estate in a poor half acre of land, with a poor house thereon, an emblem of poverty itself, and had worn out the greater part of it in such morsels, that he could not at once distinctly retrace it, was obliged to go through these processes again and again, till at the time he attained to perfect acceptance, the value and exertion of himself and neighbors must far exceed, at his advanced age, the whole boon sought to be given. The aged, broken down soldier, sir, has a peculiar affection for his interest in this claim, as connected with his youth, his honor, and the misfortunes of his life, and it enlists his whole soul and system in its sympathies. I have often felt a kind of involuntary dread to have charge or knowledge of these applications, lest I should become the more a witness of the agitation, despondency, and grief so often connected with them. I have not made these observations, sir, by way of complaint particularly, nor am I about to say that these rules. as grievously as they apply, are more rigid and scrupulous than necessary to prevent fraud and imposition, (though I have sometimes felt some thing like it;) but this adds the more substantial weight to the difficulty, that these embarrassments cannot be dispensed with, or muchalleviated, so long as any limitation as to property exists. I think, sir, I may in truth add one observation more under this head; and that is, that the actual expense and troubleto the Government, in addition to that of the applicant, in time of clerks and departments, offices, and stationery, to go through this process with every applicant, (as must be the case if the system continues,) will exceed all that can be saved by the amendment. Sir, I have looked with rather a peculiar feeling a kind of revolutionary reserve fund, appearing on books of the treasury, very intimately connected wi the lingering rights and claims we are considering; which, though in rather an anomalous condition for app priation, I have often thought ought not to be who without remembrance, by the present generation, in t general account with the days of the revolution: es cially while preparing to square off the whole dett call national, and to balance our accounts with each oth and all men. I allude to the unclaimed dividends int treasury, mostly fragments of the revolutionary fund debt, liquidated and registered, and originally virt appropriated to the losses and sufferings of that ep yet, unclaimed, forgotten, and lost to the original propt tors, through the misfortunes and dispersions of the cords, and families and friends, which followed in a tra from the exigencies of the war, the whole lives and fis tunes of many of the achievers of our independe Some six or seven years since, this fund amounted to be tween two and three hundred thousand dollars, and my now, probably, with interest and additions, equal all t savings contemplated by any exceptions or limitations Most of this, probably, will never be called for, and virtually relinquished to the discretion of the nation, wit this silent but significant memento, in the fact itself.ofe severity of their individual sufferings, and of the genera distress from whence it arose. And what use so congenia to the feelings, honor, and duty of the people of this country, and to the fondest wishes, if we could consul: them, of those who earned and owned it, as to give cotinuance and credit to the kindred claims of their fellows and mingle its influence in discharge of remaining arrears arising from the same source, relics of the same comm nity of privation, suffering, and loss. But it seems to be imagined here that there are cer tain feelings of distant admiration, veneration, and sense bility, about this subject, which, though commendable i themselves, may lead us astray. These feelings were, doubt, implanted in our natures for the very purp quickening our sense of justice, and keeping alive in o affections the rights of others, amidst the forgetfulness of time, the pressures of life, and grovelling passions which are about us. These feelings, whatever shape they may assume, have their bearing directly on the justice and in justice supposed to be seen and felt, and, in all their quaintance with the thoughts, words, or deeds of me Gentlemen need not, at this time, give themselves much scale of affairs; and from hence is derived the life, and are ever busy in comparing their right or wrong in the anxiety about the amount which would be required for strength, and vigor of all our honest and virtuous prin those who would be excluded by any reasonable limita- ples. Our admiration at the times, and of the men whe tion. The number above need is very small. The name deeds, and the very thoughts and intents of the heart were of General Wade Hampton has been mentioned as an in- wonders, makes us feel any injustice towards them stance, or example, as proof of their wealth; but he should sensibly: and the sanctity and savor of antiquity, whist be rather named as an exception, an extreme case, a won-time and age has thrown around them, gives an air der amongst them. The remark of my colleague, [Mr. sacrilege to their wrongs; but the original injustice lies at ELLSWORTH,] that he could not then fix his mind upon one the bottom of the emotion. PRIL 3, 1832.] Revolutionary Pensions. [H. OF R. And there is something in the prospect of the parting the blank in his amendment with the sum of $301. He our that is approaching, which besets the mind of man would then, in effect, not exclude from your pension roll these subjects. These remnants of the revolution seem more than one in ten. But if he should insert $1,000 as ready, in the eyes of the people, to have arrived on con- the amount an individual might possess, and receive the crated ground, just ready to depart for the world of benefit of this bill, he would not, he verily believed, exirits; and the thoughts are brought home to the original clude from the list more than one in fifteen. He could pressions, to inquire if all things are finished. Here, not doubt that the facts which he had stated, in relation to at any time, the native attributes of the soul are set the effect of the acts of 1820 and 1823, would have an inee to act for themselves, and human nature in its feel- fluence upon the decision of this question, now pending gs comes nearest to the divine precept of doing to others before the committee. Let it not be said that none but we would be done by, and of loving even our enemies; the poor applied for pensions under the act of 1818. The nd though, under the load of cares, and bickerings, and fact is otherwise. There were, under that act, more than ressures of life, they may be suppressed for a while, thirty thousand applications; and the history of the times ere the true issues of our natures burst forth unheeded, shows that many, possessed of good estates, not only apke pure fountains, from beneath their incumbent mass plied, but were admitted to the benefits of the act of 1818. rocks and rubbish. I think, sir, we need fear nothing And, sir, he was perfectly correct in his statement in reamanly or unchristian in these feelings; and what we err lation to what would be the effect of filling the blank with rough them, the present age and posterity will rejoice $1,000. Under the late Secretary of War, (General Porthe opportunity of excusing. ter,) a rule of proceeding was adopted, that those who Mr. HUBBARD remarked that he supposed the ques- had no more property than an amount which, at ten per on now pending before the committee was upon the mo- cent. interest, would produce ninety-six dollars, should be on of the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. H. EVERETT,] regarded as coming within the provisions of the pension hom he did not see in his place, to amend the amend- acts. This sum would be $960; and, under the operation ent proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. of this rule for a very short period, one hundred and fiftyRAIG.] If his friend from Vermont were now in his four persons made application to the department, and lace, he would request him to withdraw his amendment. nearly one hundred of those applications had been decidAs he should be willing to meet the proposition of the ed before favorably. The message of the President in entleman from Virginia at once, and should his motion to December, 1829, refers to this rule of General Porter, mend be rejected, as he trusted it would, he should pro-and that he considered it necessary to suspend its operaose a distinct section to the bill, embracing the very tion, as no adequate appropriations had been made to meet mendment submitted by the gentleman from Vermont. the additional expenditure. It was rescinded in March, While he was up, he would make a very few remarks 1829, a very short time after its adoption; and had that pon the proposition of the gentleman from Virginia. It rule of practice been continued, he very little doubted ould hardly be expected of him, by the committee, that that experience would have proved that such a portion of e should occupy much of their time on this point, as he the one thousand two hundred and eighty-nine who had ad, on a former occasion, very fully discussed the prin- beef excluded, were in truth possessed of less than iple involved in the proposition of the gentleman from $960 of property; and that, should the blank now be irginia. He had, on that occasion, endeavored to show filled with $1,000, he verily believed that it would be hat any limitations in the amount of property would be found that not more than one in fifteen would be thereby nequal and unjust. He had attempted to show the cha- excluded from the benefit of this bill, which would be a acter of the claims of the surviving soldiers of the revo- saving very inconsiderable in amount. Should the amendution; and that these annuities, secured to them by the ment of the gentleman from Virginia be adopted, all the ension laws, were in satisfaction of fair and honest claims vexation, all the evils which have been so well alluded to gainst this Government. That the pension act of 1813 by the gentleman from Connecticut, who had just taken as, in reality, based on service; that the present bill only his seat, would be realized. He did hope the gentleman xtends the provisions of that act, as by reasons of rigid from Virginia would withdraw his motion to amend; if not, onstruction its benefits were too limited and too confined he hoped that it would be negatived by a vote of this n their operation. He would not now repeat the argu- committee. nents he then had the honor of submitting to the commitee; he presumed that it would not be necessary. But e would take occasion now to state that, from an official ocument, which he had procured from the Pension Office, here were on the list of revolutionary pensioners in March, 820, over sixteen thousand. In May, 1820, the act was assed requiring the schedules of property to be returned o the Secretary of War; and under that act, and under he act of 1823, it appears from a report made to us in anuary, 1831, that one hundred and twenty-eight had een stricken from the roll, on account of the amount of heir property; that one in ten were excluded from the enefits of the pension system under the acts of 1820 and 825, notwithstanding the severe rules of practice observd at the department as to the maximum of property any ndividual could possess, and be entitled to the benefits of he pension system. It is known that the maximum was hen fixed at $300, and yet, out of more than sixteen housand, only two hundred and eighty-nine were dropped rom the roll, on the ground of having in possession a greater amount of property than three hundred dollars. He could not believe that, if the gentleman from Virginia had been apprised of this circumstance, he would ave ever submitted his amendment. The remedy is inconsiderable, even if the gentleman would propose to fill Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, observed, that as the amendment of Mr. EVERETT went to abolish all property limitation, there was no need of withdrawing Mr. CRAIG'S, because, should Mr. EVERETT's be adopted, Mr. C.'s would be superseded of course. Mr. CRAIG said he was desirous, before the question was taken, to add a few words to those he had already submitted, in support of the amendment offered by him on a former day. The amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. EVERETT,] does not change the question, said M. C. The inquiry still is, as it was upon the amendment before the amendment thereto was offered, whether it be proper or not to pension, indiscriminately, the wealthy and the poor, who were soldiers in the war of the revolution. I yet adhere to the opinion that neither justice nor policy requires us to include the rich of that distinguished class of citizens in the pension system. Nothing I have heard has at all shaken my confidence in this opinion. I regard the pension system as a system of bounties; and, as such, it is perfectly within our control, and should be so regulated as to limit its benefits to the needy soldier. I I do not propose to apply niggardly limits to the system. do not propose that none shall receive pensions but those who are in the most abject poverty. On the contrary, I am disposed to be liberal. With this view, I have purposely left the amendment blank, as to the minimum of property, (the owner of an amount beyond which shall not be entitled to a pension,) that it might be filled with such a sum as the good sense of this committee would approve. What that sum may be, is to be ascertained hereafter, if my amendment succeed. My own present opinion is, that all who are worth more than $600 ought to be excluded from the benefits of the system. At present, as the law of 1818 is construed at the War Department, none are entitled to pensions who are worth more than $300. | I am willing, then, to advance one hundred per cent. in favor of the old soldier of the revolution. Indeed, my respect for the opinions of the majority of this House may induce me to go a great deal further. This, however, is a subject I reserve for reflection, when a motion shall be made to fill the blank. Mr. Chairman, I propose now to consider some of the most prominent objections urged against the amendment. Most of those gentlemen who maintain that the benefits of the pension system should be indiscriminately extended to all the surviving soldiers of the revolution, insist that we owe them, not a bounty, but a debt. Although, when I firstheard this argument, I did not think gentlemen serious in urging it, it has been repeated so often, and by so many, in the committee, that I can no longer doubt that gentlemen are in earnest. Is it then a debt which we owe them? If it be a debt, we must take it, subject to its legal incidents and consequences. Are gentlemen prepared for this? Are gentlemen prepared to admit that we yet owe a debt, equal, probably, to one-half of the whole expenses of the revolutionary war? And, if we admit that, because the soldier of the revolution was paid off in depreciated continental money, we still owe him for his services, can we avoid the conclusion? If the payments made during the revolution in continental money are to be regarded as no payments, and we are entitled to no credits on account of the funding system, we have been sadly mistaken in congratulating ourselves upon the speedy extinguishment of our national debt. The principle, if established, that we owe a debt to the soldier of the revolution, because of the miserable trash (as it has been called) in which he was paid, will make us equally the debtor of all who received this sort of trash in payment from the Government. The whole commissariat of the revolution will come in with a claim for all the supplies furnished during that war. Every man, who furnished a barrel of flour, a hundred pounds of beef or pork, a barrel of whiskey, a bushel of potatoes, or a dozen chickens, and was paid off in the same sort of currency, has a valid claim upon your treasury. But the mischievous effects of this doctrine do not stop here. It is one of the incidents of a debt, that it survives to the legal representative of the deceased payer. You have gained nothing, therefore, by the many deaths that have happened among those who participated in the common sacrifices of the revolution. The debt survives, not diminished, but enlarged by interest. Sir, the position that we owe this debt, must be true or it must be false. If it be true, common honesty requires us to pay it to all to whom it is due; and we are bound equally to pay to the legal representative, or the heir of the deceased soldier of the revolution, as to the soldier who is now living. Are gentlemen,.then, unwilling to verify their faith in this argument, by providing pensions for the heirs of all deceased soldiers of the revolution, and for all, and the heirs of all, who suffered by the depreciation of the currency of that day? The truth is, continental money was the medium of exchange of that day, and the loss occasioned by its depreciation was but a common sacrifice in the cause of liberty and independence, in which all, the farmer as well as the soldier, participated; and, while I truly admit the high [APRIL 3, 1882. claims of the soldier of this glorious war to his country gratitude, I deny that there is any thing due to him in the character of a debt. Gratitude dictates the propriety of extending relief to those who are in want; while justice to the other poor classes of society requires that we should withhold this needless bounty from him who is above want. It has been said that the soldiers of the revolution are rapidly dying off, and that we ought, therefore, as the charge will not long hang upon us, to pension all, with. out regard to their property. Sir, the fact that they are all old, and are consequently dying off rapidly, does not in the slightest degree, change the principle. If it be righ in principle to pension one rich man, it is right, the r cumstances being the same, to pension ten thousand, any other number; and if wrong to pension ten thousand it will be wrong to pension one. The difference consists not in principle, but in the effect upon the treasury, and upon those whose contributions replenish it. The argu ment that they are old and rapidly dying off, has two edges. While it soothes our apprehensions, that, by previding pensions for all, we will not take upon ourselves an intolerable burden, it goes very clearly to show that no very great stock of provision is necessary to enable the oli soldier to complete the voyage of life. Do you mean to pension the heir of the deceased soldier? If you do not, why will you give pensions to those who have already more than they can enjoy? Will a bounty to such have any other effect than to enable the beneficiary to leave a larger residuum of his estate to his heir? We feel interested in providing for the comfort of the old soldier-his real comforts; not in securing him against imaginary wants; not in supplying all that his avarice may happen to crave; for, be it remembered that the old soldier, in common with the rest of us, carries the infirmity of human nature about him, and it is one, you will agree, that is rarely mitigated by age. I am not disposed to give a pension to the soldier of the revolution, merely that death may break his avaricious grasp upon that which he could not enjoy. I am for giving freely, up to the full amount of rational enjoyment; beyond this point, I am unwilling to go. Again: It is said there are but few of the soldiers of the revolution remaining upon the stage of action, and that we may venture, with safety, to pension them all; that this bill will make no material addition to the pension roll. Whether the bill will make many or few additions, is not the question. The question is, is it right to pension s rich man? Is it right to exact taxes from a poor man, that you may give it, in the form of a bounty, to a rich man' That there may be few such objects of your mistaken be neficence, does not excuse the principle. But by what data do gentlemen arrive at the information that there will be few additions to the pension roll under this bill, if it passes into a law? They have read over many calculations which, I am inclined to think,will prove totally fallacious. The additions, under the provisions of the bill, cannot but be very considerable. There is scarcely a man of seventy years of age, now in the United States, who was in this country during the revolutionary war, who did not participate more or less in it; and almost every such person will, on examination, be found entitled to a pension under this bill. Look at the census of 1830, and you will then beable to make somebetter estimate of the additions to the pension roll. I imagine they will be found to exceed, greatly, those indicated by the calculations which gentlemen have read to the committee. I have not looked into the last census to ascertain how many men there are in cur country of and over seventy years of age, but we all know, from our own observation, that the number is great; and I think I may safely assume that much the larger por tion of them will be entitled to pensions if the bill before us pass. There is another consideration which obtrudes nd all those who, at all times, have been worth more than 960. Do not give too much credit to vague and hasty alculations. [H. OF R. Mr.Chairman, I feel satisfied that thisbillought not to pass, without some such amendment as that I have proposed. The only question of any difficulty which arises in my mind, is, what amount of property, being owned by the soldier, should exclude him from the benefit of this bill? That is a question not now to be discussed. It will properly come up for discussion upon a motion to fill the blank. I think, though, as I have already intimated, that a pension ought not to be allowed to any person who owns property of a greater value than $600. This amount of property, with a clear annual income of ninety-six dollars, I think enough to keep the old soldier in comfort. elf here. With the exception of that class of revolunarysoldiers who served to the end of the war, and have ken pensions under the act of 1828, none have been enled to pensions but such as are needy; consequently, e are without any data upon which to make calculations the probable number of applications for pensions under is bill, because it will let in applications from all, and cause, heretofore, no applications were receivable from y who were worth more than $960, and, for the greatpart of the time, applications were only receivable om those who were worth less than $300. Many who ere, during the time Mr. Porter was Secretary of War, orth more than $960, and did not then apply, have, per. Mr. BURGES said, the argument of the gentleman from aps, been reduced below that amount of property since, Virginia [Mr. CRAIG] assumed that this bill contemplated ad, because they have not sunk to $300, have not yet ap- a mere gratuity. Why is it that the whole nation are anxlied. All these, of course, will come in, under this bill;ious to provide for the surpivors of the revolutionaryarmy? Simply because they were not paid. Is there any such feeling toward those who engaged in the last war, the second war of independence, as it was called? That war excited as strong feelings as the other. People were quite as ready to call all who opposed it tories. Yet, nobody wishes to grant pensions to the surviving soldiers. The reason is, they were paid. This distinction is universally felt. The present bill does not contemplate a gratuity, but the payment of a just debt. The argument is, that because we owe this debt to the soldiers, we also owe for the supplies furnished the army. Whether we owe for them or not, does not pay the debt to the soldiers. But it is not true that we owe for the supplies. They were paid for, agreeably to the contracts made, from time to time, and if a man did not find his contract advantageous, he threw it off. Paper money was at par till March, 1779, and was afterwards current according to a settled scale of depreciation. But Congress had contracted to pay the soldiers in gold and silver. Their pay was not increased on account of the loss on paper money. They could throw up their contract. They were obliged to fight, or be shot, as deserters, if they quitted the service. A friend of mine was present at the execution of a deserter, who stated that he did not violate his agreement till after Congress had violated theirs. What a solemn truth was contained in that remark! But Congress at that time had an excuse; they could not fulfil their agreement for want of means; we are now amply able, and are bound to do it. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. ELLSWORTH] aid it would be invidious to discriminate between the ld soldiers, and that the discrimination would be in favor f the profligate, and against the virtuous. I cannot think, ir, there is any thing of invidiousness in the proposed iscrimination. There is nothing in my heart or undertanding that receives any such impression from it. I do ot think there can be a soldier of the revolution, in good ircumstances, who will look with envy or dissatisfaction pon his poor old companions in arms, because, in consieration of his poverty, his country has given him a penion. No, sir, it cannot be. The heart and the judgment pprove the discrimination. There is more force in the atter part of the gentleman's remark. It is, in some meaure, a discrimination in favor of profligacy, and against irtue. If, however, the remark be entitled to any veight, it goes,not to show that the wealthy soldier should e pensioned; but that the profligate should not. It goes o show that the rich and the profligate should be both exluded, but for very different reasons; the one, because e does not need the pension; the other, because he does not deserve it. But I am not for excluding the proligate soldier. I can find some plausible excuse for his profligacy, which usually consists in too great a love for Ardent spirits, and too great an aversion to industry. Such s the nature of man, that two or three years' service, in Mr. EVERETT, of Vermont, said, I am requested by he character of a soldier, almost always disqualifies him an honorable gentleman from Virginia [Mr. CRAIG] to for the dull pursuits of civil life." I am, therefore, dis- withdraw my amendment. I would cheerfully withdraw posed to look with much more complacency upon pro-it, if I supposed it would prevent a fair expression of the ligacy in the disbanded soldier, than upon profligacy in sense of the House on the proposition submitted by his others, whose habits have not been exposed to the same amendment. But I cannot believe it will have that effect. corruptious influence; and, when to take a glass too much The propositions are now presented to the House as nas his greatest fault, I am willing to regard him as not ked, abstract principles, unembarrassed by extraneous whollydestitute of claim upon the gratitude of his country. circumstances. His proposition is for a property restricI will notice one other argument, urged by the same tion; mine for abolishing such restriction. The question honorable gentleman from Connecticut, [Mr. ELLSWORTH,] is then directly put to the House, restriction or no reand will resign the matter to the good sense of the com- striction? And in thus placing the question, an advantage nittee: The argument was this, that there should be no is conceded to the gentleman. He will now unite the votes imit, as to property, upon the right to receive pensions, of all who are for any restriction whatever, against my because it would produce an inequality in the operation amendment. The amount of property with which the of the law in different parts of the country; the ideas of blank in his amendment shall be filled, is not now in the value of property, and the standards of valuation, va- question; were it filled with any amount, he would find it ying in different parts of the country. A moment's reflec- embarrassed by objections, of some that it was too large, tion will, I think, convince the gentleman that he has and of others that it was too small. The question is now nothing, to the prejudice of the soldier's claim, to appre- presented free from this embarrassment; and if the hend from this cause. It may happen that some who House should be opposed to all restriction, the debatable would not, on account of the gteater value of their proper- question of filling the blank will be avoided, and much ty than the maximum in the bill, be entitled to a pension, time saved. Believing, then, that the question is prewould, nevertheless, get it; but it cannot happen that one sented in a form best calculated to elicit a fair and direct having property beyond the specified value will be ex-expression of the judgment of the House, I cannot concluded from his pension. The old soldier is too great a sent to withdraw the amendment. favorite for this to happen. His property is never over- I did not rise, sir, to address the committee, at this time, valued to keep him out of a pension; but I judge it is on the bill in discussion, but merely to respond to the call sometimes undervalued to let him into it. Upon thewhole, of the gentleman from Virginia. But having the floor, I VOL. VIII-149 will state very briefly some of the grounds on which I submitted the amendment. I will not consume the time of the committee by a general discussion of the bill; for if there is any subject that is well understood in this House, or out of it, it is the meritorious services of the soldiers of the revolution; and if there is any one sentiment in which the people of this country approximate to unanimity, it is the duty of making a suitable provision for the survivors. The mode and measure of that provision are questions now presented for debate. The act of 1828 contains the restriction which is now proposed to be repealed. I consider the proposition before the House as of more importance than any that will probably arise in the progress of this bill. I do not entirely agree with the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. BURGES] as to the principle on which this bill is founded, that of debt for unrequited services. I do not consider this the only, or even the leading principle of the bill; if it were, the bill does not go far enough. We are now abundantly able, we have no excuse for paying our debts by halves. If it is considered only as a debt, two further provisions should be added: it should be extended to the heirs of the deceased soldiers, and the compensation should be proportionate to the entire term of service. Though I fully admit that they have claims on our justice, that we are their debtors, yet there is, sir, an additional principle that comes in aid of this bill, and particularly of the amendment now under consideration; it is the peculiar character of their services, arising from the high motive of patriotism. Who were the soldiers of the revolution-soldiers of the line as well as militia? They were the yeomanry of the country, the possessors of the soil. They were not enlisted at taverns by the beat of drum, but called from their homes by the sound of the cannon of an invading enemy. They were not mercenaries love of country, not money, was the motive; and it was this spirit of patriotism that carried the revolution through. Such an army we shall never have occasion to see in the field again. If, however, the occasion should arise, the effect of this bill will not be without its influence. [APRIL 3, 1832 their country; and at a period of life too late to enabl them to enter the life of business on equal terms with the fellow-citizens; and with feelings, though honorable t our nature, yet which very few can expect to side. Th hoarding principle, sir, is not taught or acquired in a camp. The open-handed liberality of the sailor is more proverbial, or true of him, than of the soldier. I will go with them to the grave. But, sir, were the property restriction proper in 182 when the act in which it was adopted passed, it is entitie to less consideration at this time. Four years has le sened their numbers. The average age of the survives cannot be less than seventy-five; some are between eighty and ninety. Shall men of this age, enfeebled in bocy and mind, be put to render the tedious, vexatious accoun required by the War Department? Age should have some privilege. I have endeavored, sir, to confine my remarks to the amendment under consideration, not wishing to delay the passage of the bill. What we do, should be done speed ly. I am sensible that our votes will be of more valuet the old soldiers than our speeches. I cannot, however forbear expressing a feeling by the careful calculations or the bills of mortality, the life insurance tables, to ascertain how many of the old soldiers were probably alive, hos soon they would probably die. I confess, sir, they came coldly over me. What, sir, when they are daily falling around us, when there is but one signer of the declaration of independence left, shall we be coolly calculating the ultimate progress of death! Do we wish to be relieved of the remnant of this band, as from a burden? My regret sir, is, that their number is so few; and my prayer is for their long life, which, by the amendment I have proposed I would render cheerful and happy. Mr. BOULDIN, of Virginia, said he would not that any who are here or elsewhere should, for a moment, sup pose that he fancied that aught he could say would form any sort of dam to the current with which this bill is running through the House, but I wish, said Mr. B., to enter my protest against this bill, and the system to which it be Though patriotism is not to be purchased or paid for, longs in all its parts. A remark at the close of the speech it is entitled to a reward, which policy as well as grati- of the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. H. EVERETT,] struck tude should induce us to bestow. The principle of ac-me with peculiar force, when it was made. He [Mr. H. tion to which I have referred, was common to all the sol- EVERETT] sneeringly asked who could coldly calculate diers of the revolution. And why, sir, should not all from tables of mortality what are the numbers of those share in our bounty as well as in our gratitude? Ought who will come within the general description of the bill. the few, the very few, who, by extra diligence, or econo- and what sum of money the pensions proposed to be given my, or good fortune, have acquired a competency, to be will amount to." Much, Mr. Chairman, is included in this excluded; and only the idle, the prodigal, and the unfor- question, and, by the votes on this bill, it will probably be tunate be entitled? Shall we reduce, debase, our bounty seen that the persons, as they are variously affected, by to a pauper system? And for the purpose of excluding this calculation of numbers and of money,)will be found to the few who are not objects of charity, shall, sir, the be marked out by geographical lines. Why should those many, who, even on the principle of the proposition of on the one side of this line stop to calculate the amount of the gentleman of Virginia, would be entitled, shall they burden, which, to raise the money, those on the other side be put to the expense, the trouble, the vexation, of com- of the line think will impose a burden somewhere? The plying with the complicated rules established at the War first have ascertained it as a certain fact, which none can Department? deny, but under the influence of entire delusion, that the In addition to the humiliation, the degradation of mak-American system of raising revenue by import duties iming a public declaration in a court of justice of their poverty, (bad enough if concealed,) vouched by an appendent inventory, verified on oath, they are then liable to have all the petty deal between the father and his children published, scanned and disputed inch by inch at the War Department. Grave questions are there entertained, whether the father may not have been too liberal to a daughter on her marriage, or to a son to set him out, or help him on in the world; and these, too, canvassed as questions of fraud. The number who would be excluded by the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, I have said, would not be great. So far as I have known them, few of the soldiers of the revolution are rich. Nor is this surprising. They came out of the service, not enriched by the spoils of the enemy, or the gold or silver of poses no tax at all on the people; but the people on the Yes, Mr. Chairman, those who sent me here can calcu |