« ÎnapoiContinuă »
recently passed away almost in a body. The old landmarks have disappeared rapidly. Herschel V. Johnson, Iliram Warner, Benjamin H. Hill, Alexander H. Stephens and Charles J. Jenkins—five of our strongest Georgians, men of national fame and contemporaries of Joseph E. Brown in the great events of the last two decades—have one by one gone in a brief while. Senator Brown has aided in the funeral obsequies of nearly all of these eminent sons of Georgia. With Mr. Stephens he was closely allied by links of friendly affection, and at his burial Senator Brown delivered a beautiful and feeling eulogy.
Of the older leaders of a quarter of a century ago but two remain, General Robert Toombs and Senator Joseph E. Brown. General Toombs is about to retire from public life. It is announced probably by authority that he is to give up business entirely. Senator Brown is, therefore, the sole active survivor of the grand galaxy of shining historic luminaries that made Georgia so powerful and so famous in the majestic events that preceded, constituted and followed the greatest civil war of human history. He is the connecting link with a momentous past, and yet the most potential representative that the State · now has of the most vigorous and progressive statesmanship of the present. Of the generation of younger men, filling active public life, he is the admitted leader. What
What a position for any man to occupy, illustri- . ous exponent of past, present, and future—type of the highest fame, and public service of all-symbol and link of the three eras in their most valuable public distinction!
It is a strange physical fact as typical of a curious inner philosophy that Senator Brown, who in early and middle life was a very plain person, has become a hand
some old gentleman. He has gained some fulness, which always adds comeliness to a spare person, and his flowing white beard, expansive brow full of intellectuality, pleasant but searching eyes, and kindly expression of countenance make him a notable and attractive individual. He is one of those persons that every one can recall in every-day life, who were regarded as plain men in their young days, who have flowered under the beautifying alchemy of pure, brainful, laborious lives into handsome
Years of clean thought and successful endeavor, of domestic purity and intellectual action, of victorious ordeal mixed with enough of the inevitable chastening of sorrow, chisel the features and face into a certain comely result of these refining processes. An expressive countenance becomes rounded and softer, and a long, beautiful and useful life, by the steady attrition of grace and power, gives an increasing attractiveness to a noted face.
Senator Brown's career from this time onward must be one of increasing lustre and power. In renewed and strengthening health at the solid age of sixty, when English leaders only get fairly into power, his potential statesmanship ripened to highest maturity, backed by large wealth, he may reasonably look forward to political possibilities, if such he wishes, as no Georgian yet has compassed.
SPEECH OF Hon. Joseph E. Brown, OF GEORGIA, IN THE SENATE OF
THE UNITED STATES, JUNE 12, 1880, ON THE Bill To Pension Sol-
TION AND THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES IN TIIE UNION.
Mr. Brown said:
Mr. President: Thiş Government, after too long delay, granted pensions to the soldiers of the war of the Revolution without any qualification as to their wealth or poverty.
We had the war of 1812. A long time passed before there were any pensions granted to the soldiers of that war, but the time did come when the Government judged it was proper, on account of the valuable services rendered by them to their country, to grant pensions to the old and decrepit soldiers of the war of 1812. And I recollect no provision in that act that drew any distinction between him who was in the poor-house or the old soldier who lived in good style and had means to support himself. The pension was not for his poverty, but for the valuable service rendered to his country.
About thirty-four years ago we declared war against Mexico, and the soldiery of this country rallied under the flag of the Government and marched to that foreign soil, and achieved feats of valor the equal of which have scarcely been known on any other fields. They soon overran the country, huinbled the government of Mexico, and dictated terms at its capital; and as the honorable senator from Texas [Mr. Maxey] justly tells uis, we annexed as the result of that conflict of arms an empire of territory and an empire of wealth. The number of men was comparatively small who achieved this grand result. True, we have since pensioned the wounded and those who were disabled in that war. Time has passed along, and many of the old soldiers of the Mexican war, as it has been so well and so eloquently said by the able senator from Indiana (Mr. Voorhees], are becoming decrepit. They are now mostly old men; all except the youth who went in then are now gray-headed, time-worn, little able to work for their support.
My honorable friend, the senator from Kentucky (Mr. Williams), in this state of the case comes forward with his bill to pension those old veterans who were his companions in arms, and the gallant old soldiers of the Indian wars, and we are met here with amendments which seem to us to be intended to defeat this measure. I neither impugn nor question the motives of senators, but I say it seems to us this is the intention; and if the amendinents prevail, that this is to be the effect. The amendment of the senator from Kansas [Mr. Ingalls] is in substance that all the soldiers who lately fought in the war for the preservation of the Union on the Union side are to be now pensioned. Another amendment, offered by the honorable senator from Maine (Mr. Blaine], is, that the soldiers of the Mexican war are only to be pensioned where it is shown that on account of their poverty their necessities require it.
As I have said, that is an unusual amendment because it has not been incorporated in other bills granting pensions to soldiers who have defended the honor and the flag of their country. It is not a proper time now, I insista to pension the Union soldiers indiscriminately, nor do I suppose honorable senators on the other side have any intention of doing so, because the period has not arrived which has brought them to old age, or that has caused them on account of their age or intirmities to be unable to work for an honest living. If it were the purpose of senators to vote to give them pensions indiscriminately now, it would then be the olject of my amendment to postpone the operation of that part of the act till as long a period of time is past after the service was rendered as has already passed in the case of soldiers of the war against Mexico and of the Iudian wars.
I think it cannot be justly asserted that we of the South have been illiberal in voting pensions to Union soldiers who were disabled by the war. But we insist that the cases are not parallel. It is not proper to put the Union soldier on the pension-roll by the side of the old soldier in the war against Mexico. because the length of time has not passed which disables him by age or infirmity from making his own living by his own exertious or bis uwi labor.
Mr. Ingalls. Will it disturb the senator if I ask him a question ? Mr. Brown. No, sir; not at all. Mr. Ingalls. Does he base the right or claim to a pension npon the lapse of time that has intervened siuce the close of the war in which the soldier fought, or upon the necessities of the soldier or his surviving widow? I should like an answer to that question.
Mr. Brown. I will answer the senator's question by asking him one. Does he in pensioning the wounded otlicers of the Union army base it on their necessities, or does he pension the poor and the wealthy who lost limus all alike?
Mr. Ingalls. There is a class of pensions that are given to those who have specific disabilities resulting from gunshot wounds or loss of limbs, aud ivjuries of that description. There is another class of what are called pensious to dependent relatives, where there is no injury to the person receiving the pension, but where necessity and indigence and dependence must be proved. But my question was for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the senator believes that pensions should be granted simply upon the fact of lapse of time since the war closed, or upon the fact that there is a dependence and indigence and a necessitous condition that renders help from the Government desirable.
Mr. Brown. I think the period that has elapsed in case of the soldiers of the war against Mexico is long enough, and that the pensions ought to be granted; and the records will show that neither the senator nor his parıy; nor those on my side, have made any exception in the case of wounded soldiers in the Union army. As we have pensioned all alike without inquiring into their wealth or their poverty, we should pension all alike here without inquiring into their wealth or poverty.
Mr. Ingalls. So we pension all the wounded soldiers and officers of the Mexican war without inquiring into their poverty or their wealth. They all stand on the same platform.
Mr. Brown. Then it follows when the time has come that it is proper to pension the officers and privates who were not wounded, it should be done without any regard to their poverty or wealth.
Mr. Ingalls. Is it a question of time?
Mr. Brown. Yes; time has much to do with it, and when the proper time comes to pension the Union soldier, I care not if he is a millionaire, who was a faithful soldier and acted a gallant part, I would vote to peusiou all alike. All who did the same service should have tle same reward.
Mr. Conkling. Will the senator from Georgia allow me a minute ?
Mr. Coukling. He seems to be discussing this question with candor and fairness,
Mr. Brown. That is my intention.
Mr. Conkling. I believe it; and for his information and my own I beg to submit to him this proposition: I understand the senator to argue that time is the controlling matter, and that had thirty-three years elapsed he would be willing to vote for this amendment in favor of the soldiers of the Union. I think I am right so far.
Now I ask the senator this question, or rather I submit to him in the form of a query this impression of my own: Although the proportion of men of advanced age who served in the Mexican war is of course immeasurably greater now than in the case of men who served in the war for the Union, I think that, speaking positively, speaking of actual numbers, there is a far larger number of men advanced in age who served in the war for the Union than who served in the Mexican war, growing out of the fact that the whole number of enlisted men was :o immensely greater. Forty-five years I believe was the limit of age which subjected men to the draft. Now, without saying that numbers of men volunteered who were beyond that age, the senator will see that a very large number of men who served in the war for the Union must be now upwards of sixty. The war for the Union broke out in 1861-in 1860 in reality, but I will say 1801 ; nineteen years ago. A man who was forty-five years old at that time is now sixty-four years old. Count all these men ; and is there not a much larger number than of men surviving who fought in the Mexican war who are even as old as that ?
I think the honorable senator will be compelled, if he will reflect a moment, to agree with me; and it he does, then I beg to ask bim, assuming the whole force of his argument, why is it that, with laws now exactly equal towarı soldiers of all the wars, we should come in and say that men sixty years old and upward who fought in the Mexican war shall be paid a pension although no injuries were received by them, and that a much larger number of men of equal or greater age shall not be paid a farthing unless they lost Jimb or health? It seems to me that the senator's aryument would lead him to say that as to this much larger number at least of Union soldiers, the equities which he states applied quite as strongly to them.
Mr. Brown. Mr. President
Mr. Blaine. If the senator from Georgia will permit me one word in further continuation of what the senator from New York has said
Mr. Brown. I was just going to observe that when I yielded the floor to the honorable senator from New York [Mr. Conkling] to make an inquiry, I did not expect he would inject a speech into mine. To the senator from Maine I will yield with pleasure.
Mr. Blaine. I only want to inject a further observation, not a speech, and that is in continuation of the suggestion made. I do not believe a war was ever fought, certainly none on this continent, so exclusively by young men as the Mexican war was. It went with a whirl of enthusiasm through the Southwest of this country; the young men everywhere focked to the standard, and I presume that per capita there never was a more irresistible army than marched into Mexico; full of enthusiasın, full of fire, full of youth.