'lhe dependent pension hill wsb theu tak^^en up. Tlie first question was on Plumb's^amendment removing the limitation as to^arrears of pensions, Horry asked if any es^timatc had been made of the cost in remov^^ing the limitation. I'lumb replied the com^^uissioner of pensions est incited it at about^ft7-.UO0.UA^. and the chairman of the house^committee on pensions estimated it at^|fi00,000,080, It would he somewhere about^these figures. Frye regretted the amend^^ment was before the Senate, there wusdan-^ger of overleaping in the matter of pen^^sions. When Cleveland coiamenced to veto^BSMsM bills, not onlv the democratic party^justified what he did, but many busiuesg^men in the republican party, too. He^warned the senators they were imperilling^the interests of the soldiers and creating a^prejudice against pensions. Hawley spoke^in a similar vein. The American na^^tion had certainly not been stingy.^The pension expenditures in the next^m ar would be nearly lUO^OOOtOOO, No na^^tion in the world ever appropriated for its^soldiers a sum compared to that. He^begged the old soldiers to remember that^objection to getting into another war^would be not the cost of carrying it on. but^the consequences of it. and also asked them^to remember that these enormous sums of^money came out of the pockets, very large^^ly, of people ss poor as themselves. He re^^lated an anecdote of Gen. Grant on the hit^^ter's'ast visit to Washington, when in con^^versation on pensions he said: ^If I were^president I would sign any reasonable bill^to relieve the distress of an honest soldier,^or his widow or children, but I would not^vote one dollar to the able-bodied men.^^That last expression, said Hawley. sank in^to my memory, and that is mv plat form. I^don't believe my state wants me to add^iftMI.IUO.OU) to tlie debt of the republic. Af^^ter further discussiou I'lnr.ib's amendment^^as rejected^yeus it. nays4l'i. The bill then^passed^yeas K'l, nays lli.
Thelimine.
