ABUSE OF THE NAVAL PENSION SYSTEM: VAIN ATTEMPT TO CORRECT IT.
The annual bill for these pensions being on its passage, an attempt
was made to correct the abuse introduced by the act of 1837. That
act had done four things:--1. It had carried back the commencement
of invalid naval pensions to the time of receiving the inability,
instead of the time of completing the proof. 2. It extended the
pensions for death to all cases of death, whether incurred in
the line of duty or not. 3. It extended the widows' pensions for
life, when five years had been the law both in the army and the
navy. 4. It pensioned children until twenty-one years of age,
thereby adopting the English pension system. The effects of these
changes were to absorb and bankrupt the navy pension fund--a
meritorious fund created out of the government share of prize
money, relinquished for that purpose;--and to throw the pensions,
the previous as well as the future, upon the public treasury--where
it was never intended they were to be. This act, so novel in its
character--so plundering in its effects--and introducing such
fatal principles into the naval pension system, and which it has
been found so difficult to get rid of--was one of the deplorable
instances of midnight legislation, on the last night of the session;
when, in the absence of many, the haste of all, the sleepiness of
some, and a pervading inattention, an enterprising member can get
almost any thing passed through--and especially as an amendment.
It was at a time like this that this pension act was passed, the
night of March 3d, 1837--its false and deceptive title ("_An act
for the more equitable administration of the Navy Pension Fund_")
being probably as much of it as was heard by the few members who
heard any thing about it; and the word "equitable," so untruly
and deceptiously inserted, probably the only part of it which
lodged on their minds. And in that way was passed an act which
instantly pillaged a sacred fund of one million two hundred thousand
dollars--which has thrown the naval pensioners upon the Treasury,
instead of the old navy pension fund, for their support--which
introduced the English pension system--which was so hard to repeal;
and which has still all its burdens on our finances, and some of its
principles in our laws. It is instructive to learn the history of
such legislation, and to see its power (a power inherent in the very
nature of an abuse, and the greater in proportion to the greatness
of the abuse) to resist correction: and with this view the brief
debate on an ineffectual attempt in the Senate to repeal the act of
this session is here given--Mr. Reuel Williams, of Maine, having the
honor to commence the movement.
"The naval pension appropriation bill being under
consideration, Mr. WILLIAMS offered an amendment, providing for
the repeal of the act of 1837; and went at some length into the
reasons in favor of the adoption of the amendment. He said all
admitted the injurious tendency of the act of 1837, by which
the fund which had been provided by the bravery of our gallant
sailors for the relief of the widows and orphans of those who
had been killed in battle, or had died from wounds which had
been received while in the line of their duty, had been utterly
exhausted; and his amendment went to the repeal of that law."
"Mr. MANGUM hoped the amendment would not be adopted--that the
system would be allowed to remain as it was until the next
session. It was a subject of great complexity, and if this
amendment passed it would be equivalent to the repeal of all the
naval pension acts."
"Mr. WILLIAMS understood the senator from North Carolina as
saying, that if they passed this amendment, and thus repealed
the act of 1837, they repeal all acts which grant a pension for
disability."
"Mr. MANGUM had said, if they repealed the law of '37, they
would cut off every widow and orphan now on the pension list,
and leave none except the seamen, officers, and marines,
entitled to pensions under the act of 1800."
"Mr. WILLIAMS said the senator was entirely mistaken; and read
the law of 1813, which was still in full force, and could not
be affected by the repeal of the law of 1837. The law of 1813
gives a pension to the widows and orphans of all who are killed
in battle, or who die from wounds received in battle; and also
gives pensions to those who are disabled while in the line of
their duty. This law was now in force. The additional provisions
of the law of 1837 were to carry back the pensions to the time
when the disability was incurred, and to extend it to the widows
and children of those who died, no matter from what cause, while
they were in the naval service. Thus, if an officer or seaman
died from intoxication, or even committed suicide, his widow
received a pension for life, and his children received pensions
until they were twenty-one years of age.
"Again: if officers or seamen received a wound which did not
disable them they continued in the service, receiving their full
pay for years. When they thought proper they retired from the
service, and applied for a pension for disability, which, by the
law of 1837, they were authorized to have carried back to the
time the disability was incurred, though they had, during the
whole series of years subsequent to receiving the disability,
and prior to the application for a pension, been receiving
their full pay as officers or seamen. It was to prevent the
continuance of such abuses, that the amendment was offered."
"Mr. WALKER must vote against this amendment, repealing the act
of 1837, because an amendment which had been offered by him and
adopted, provided for certain pensions under this very act, and
which ought, in justice, to be given."
"Mr. WILLIAMS thought differently, as the specific provision in
the amendment of the senator from Mississippi, would except the
cases included in it from the operation of the repealing clause."
"Mr. EVANS opposed the amendment, on the ground that it cut off
all the amendments adopted, and brought back again the law of
1800."
The proposed amendment of Mr. Williams was then put to the vote--and
negatived--only nineteen senators voting for it. The yeas and nays
were:
YEAS--Messrs. Allen, Benton, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Fulton,
King, Linn, McRoberts, Mouton, Nicholson, Pierce, Sevier, Smith
of Connecticut, Sturgeon, Tappan, Williams, Woodbury, Wright,
Young--19.
NAYS--Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Choate,
Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Dixon, Evans, Graham, Huntington,
Kerr, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps, Porter,
Prentiss, Preston, Simmons, Smith of Indiana, Southard,
Tallmadge, Walker, White, Woodbridge--28.
It is remarkable that in this vote upon a palpable and enormous
abuse in the navy, there was not a whig vote among the democracy
for correcting it, nor a democratic vote, except one, among the
negatives. A difference about a navy--on the point of how much, and
of what kind--had always been a point of difference between the two
great political parties of the Union, which, under whatsoever names,
are always the same--each preserving its identity in principles and
policy: but here the two parties divided upon an abuse which no one
could deny, or defend. The excuse was to put it off to another time,
which is the successful way of perpetuating abuses, as there are
always in every public assembly, as in every mass of individuals,
many worthy men whose easy temperaments delight in temporizations;
and who are always willing to put off, temporarily, the repeal of a
bad law, or even to adopt temporarily, the enactment of a doubtful
one. Mr. Williams' proposed amendment was not one of repeal only,
but of enactment also. It repealed the act of 1837, and revived that
of 1832, and corrected some injurious principles interjected into
the naval pension code--especially the ante-dating of pensions,
and the abuse of drawing pay and pension at the same time. This
amendment being rejected, and some minor ones adopted, the question
came up upon one offered by Mr. Walker--providing that all widows
or children of naval officers, seamen, or marines, now deceased,
and entitled to pensions under the act of 1837, should receive
the same until otherwise directed by law; and excluding all cases
from future deaths. Mr. Calhoun proposed to amend this amendment
by striking out the substantive part of Mr. Walker's amendment,
and after providing for those now on the pension-roll under the
act of 1837, confining all future pensioners to the acts of April
23d, 1800--January 24th, 1813--and the second section of the act of
the 3d of March, 1814. In support of his motion Mr. Calhoun spoke
briefly, and pointedly, and unanswerably; but not quite enough so to
save his proposed amendment. It was lost by one vote, and that the
vote of the president _pro tempore_, Mr. Southard. The substance of
Mr. Calhoun's brief speech is thus preserved in the register of the
Congress debates:
"Mr. CALHOUN said that, among the several objections to this,
there was one to which he did hope the Senate would apply the
correction. The amendment not only kept alive the act of 1837,
as to the pensioners now on the list, under that act, but also
kept it alive for all future applications which might be made
under it, until it should be hereafter repealed, if it ever
should be. To this he strongly objected.
"There was one point on which all were agreed, that the act
in question was not only inexpedient, but something much
worse--that it committed something like a fraud upon the pension
fund. It is well known to the Senate that that fund was the
result of prize money pledged to the use of meritorious officers
and sailors who might be disabled in the service of their
country. The whole of this fund, amounting to nearly a million
and a half of dollars, was swept away by this iniquitous act,
that passed on the third of March--the very last day of the
session--introduced and carried through by nobody knows who,
and for which nobody seems responsible. He ventured nothing in
asserting, that if such an act was now under discussion for
the first time, it would not receive a single vote with the
present knowledge which the Senate has of the subject, but, on
the contrary, would be cast from it with universal scorn and
indignation. He went further: it would now be repealed with like
unanimity, were it not that many persons had been placed upon
the list under the act, which was still in force, which was felt
by many to be a sort of a pledge to pay them until the act was
formally repealed. But why should we go further? Why should we
keep it alive to let in those who are not yet put upon the list?
But one answer could be given, and that one stated by the two
senators from Massachusetts, that the act partook of the nature
of a contract between the government and the officers, sailors
and marines, comprehended within its provisions. There might be
some semblance of reason for the few cases which have occurred
since the passage of the act; but not the slightest as far as it
relates to that more numerous class which occurred before its
passage. And yet the amendment keeps the act open for the latter
as well as the former. As strong as this objection is to the
amendment as it stands, there are others not less so.
"It introduces new and extraordinary principles into our pension
list. It gives pensions for life--yes, beyond--to children
for twenty-one years, as well as the widows of the deceased
officer, sailor or marine, who may die while in service. It
makes no distinction between the death of the gallant and brave
in battle, or him who may die quietly in his hammock or his bed
on shore, or even him who commits suicide. Nor does it even
distinguish between those who have served a long or a short
time. The widows and children of all, however short the service,
even for a single day, whatever might be the cause of death, are
entitled, under this fraudulent act, to receive pensions, the
widow for life, and the children for twenty-one years. To let in
this undeserving class, to this unmeasured liberality of public
bounty, this act is to be kept alive for an indefinite length of
time--till the Congress may hereafter choose to repeal it.
"The object of my amendment, said Mr. C., is to correct this
monstrous abuse; and, for this purpose, he proposed so to
modify the amendment of the senator from Mississippi, as to
exclude all who are not now on the pension roll from receiving
pensions under the act of 1837, and also to prevent any one
from being put on the navy pension roll hereafter under any
act, except those of April 23, 1800, January 20, 1813, and
the second section of the act of 30th March, 1814. These
acts limit the pensions to the case of officers, sailors and
marines, being disabled in the line of their duty, and limit the
pensions to their widows and children to five years, even in
those meritorious cases. Mr. C. then sent his amendment to the
chair. It proposed to strike out all after the word 'now,' and
insert, 'the pension roll, under the act of 1837, shall receive
their pension till otherwise decided by law, but no one shall
hereafter be put on the navy pension roll, under the said act,
or any other act, except that of April 23, 1800, and the act
of January 24, 1813, and the second section of the act of 3d
March, 1814.' The question was then taken on the amendment by a
count, and the Chair announced the amendment was lost--ayes 20,
noes 21. Mr. Calhoun inquired if the Chair had voted. The Chair
said he had voted with the majority. Mr. Buchanan then said
he would offer an amendment which he had attempted to get an
opportunity of offering in committee. It was to strike out the
words 'until otherwise directed by law,' and insert the words
'until the close of the next session of Congress,' so as to
limit the operations of the bill to that period. The amendment
was adopted, and the amendments to the bill were ordered to be
engrossed, and the bill ordered to a third reading."
Mr. Pierce having been long a member of the Pension Committee had
seen the abuses to which our pension laws gave rise, and spoke
decidedly against their abuse--and especially in the naval branch of
the service. He said:
"There were cases of officers receiving pay for full disability,
when in command of line-of-battle ships. The law of 1837
gave pay to officers from the time of their disability. He
had been long enough connected with the Pension Committee to
understand something of it. He had now in his drawer more than
fifty letters from officers of the army, neither begging nor
imploring, but demanding to be placed on the same footing with
the navy in regard to pensions. He thought, on his conscience,
that the pension system of this country was the worst on the
face of the earth, and that they could never have either an army
or a navy until there were reforms of more things than pensions.
He pointed to the military academy, appointments to which rested
on the influence that could be brought to bear by both Houses
of Congress. He had looked on that _scientific institution_,
from which no army would ever have a commander while West Point
was in the ascendency; and he would tell why. The principles
on which Frederick the Great and Napoleon acted were those to
make soldiers--where merit was, reward always followed, but
had they not witnessed cases of men of character, courage, and
capacity, asking, from day to day, in vain for the humble rank
of third lieutenant in your army, who would be glad to have such
appointments? I know (said Mr. P.) a man who, at the battle of
the _Withlacoochie_, had he performed the same service under
Napoleon, would have received a _baton_. But in ours what did he
get? Three times did that gallant fellow, with his arm broken
and hanging at his side, charge the Indians, and drive them from
their hammocks, where they were intrenched. The poor sergeant
staid in the service until his time expired, and that was all
he got for his gallantry and disinterestedness. Such instances
of neglect would upset any service, destroy all emulation, and
check all proper pride and ambition in subordinates. If ever
they were to have a good army or navy, they must promote merit
in both branches of service, as every truly great general had
done, and every wise government ought to do."
In the House of Representatives an instructive debate took place,
chiefly between Mr. Adams, and Mr. Francis Thomas, of Maryland, in
which the origin and course of the act was somewhat traced--enough
to find out that it was passed in the Senate upon the faith of a
committee, without any discussion in the body; and in the House by
the previous question, cutting off all debate; and so quietly and
rapidly as to escape the knowledge of the most vigilant members--the
knowledge of Mr. Adams himself, proverbially diligent. In the course
of his remarks he (Mr. Adams) said:
"Upwards of $1,200,000 in the year 1837, constituting that fund,
had been accumulating for a number of years. What had become
of it, if the fund was exhausted? It was wasted--it was gone.
And what was it gone for? Gentlemen would tell the House that
it had gone to pay those pensioners not provided for by the
8th and 9th sections of the act which had been read--the act
of 1800; but to provide for the payment of others, their wives
and children; and their cousins, uncles and aunts, for aught
he knew--provided for by the act of 1837. It was gone. Now, he
wished gentlemen who were so much attached to the _economies_ of
the present administration, to make a little comparison between
the condition of the fund now and its condition in 1837, when
the sum of $1,200,000 had accumulated--from the interest of
which all the pensions designated in the act of 1800 were to
have been paid. In the space of three little years, this fund
of $1,200,000 (carrying an interest of $70,000) was totally
gone--absorbed--not a dollar of it left. Yes: there were some
State stocks, to be sure; about $18,000 or less; but they
were unsaleable; and it was because they were unsaleable that
this appropriation, in part, was wanted. How came this act of
1837 to have passed Congress? Because he saw, from the ground
taken by the chairman of the committee on naval affairs, that
it was Congress that had been guilty of this waste of the
public money; the President had nothing to do with it--the
administration had nothing to do with it. How, he asked, was
this law of 1837 passed? Would the Chairman of the Committee on
Naval Affairs tell the House how it had been passed; by whom it
had been brought in and supported; and in what manner it had
been carried through both Houses of Congress? If he would, we
should then hear whether it came from whigs; or from economists,
retrenchers, and reformers."
Mr. Francis Thomas, now the Chairman of the Committee on Naval
Affairs, in answer to Mr. Adams's inquiry, as to who were the
authors of this act of 1837, stated that
"It had been reported to the Senate by the honorable Mr.
Robinson, of Illinois, and sent to the Committee on Naval
Affairs, of which Mr. Southard was a member, and he had reported
the bill to the Senate, by whom it had been passed without
a division. The Senate bill coming into the House, had been
referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, in the House. Mr. T.
read the names of this committee, among which that of Mr. Wise
was one. The bill had been ordered to its third reading without
a division, and passed by the House without amendment.
"Mr. Wise explained, stating that, though his name appeared on
the naval committee, he was not responsible for the bill. He was
at that time but nominally one of the committee--his attention
was directed elsewhere--he had other fish to fry--and could no
longer attend to the business of that committee [of which he had
previously been an active member], being appointed on another,
which occupied his time and thoughts."
Mr. Adams, while condemning the act of 1837, would not now refuse to
pay the pensioners out of the Treasury. He continued:
"When the act of 1837 was before Congress then was the time to
have inquired whether these persons were fairly entitled to such
a pension--whether Congress was bound to provide for widows and
children, and for relatives in the seventh degree (for aught
he knew). But that was not now the inquiry. He thought that,
by looking at the journals, gentlemen would see that the bill
was passed through under the previous question, or something
of that kind. He was in the House, but he could not say how it
passed. He was not conscious of it; and the discussion must
have been put down in the way in which such things were usually
done in this House--by clapping the previous question upon it.
No questions were asked; and that was the way in which the bill
passed. He did not think he could tell the whole story; but he
thought it very probable that there were those in this House
who could tell if they would, and who could tell what private
interests were provided for in it. He had not been able to look
quite far enough behind the curtain to know these things, but
he knew that the bill was passed in a way quite common since
the reign of reform commenced in squandering away the public
treasure. _That_ he affirmed, and the Chairman of the Committee
on Naval Affairs would not, he thought, undertake to contradict
it. So much for that."
Mr. Adams showed that a further loss had been sustained under this
pension act of 1837, under the conduct of the House itself, at
the previous session, in refusing to consider a message from the
President, and in refusing to introduce a resolution to show the
loss which was about to be sustained. At that time there was a part
of this naval pension fund ($153,000) still on hand, but it was in
stocks, greatly depreciated; and the President sent in a report
from the Secretary of the Navy, that $50,000 was wanted for the
half-yearly payments due the first of July; and, if not appropriated
by Congress, the stocks must be sold for what they would bring. On
this head, he said:
"Towards the close of the last session of Congress, a message
was transmitted by the President, covering a communication from
the Secretary of the Navy, suggesting that an appropriation of
$50,000 was necessary to meet the payment of pensions coming
due on the 1st of July last. The message was sent on the 19th
of June, and there was in it a letter from the Secretary of
the Navy, stating that the sum of $50,000 was required to pay
pensions coming due on the then 1st of July, and that it was
found impracticable to effect a sale of the stocks belonging
to the fund, even at considerable loss, in time to meet the
payment. What did the House do with that message? It had no
time to consider it; and then it was that he had offered his
resolutions. But the House would not receive them--would not
allow them to be read. The time of payment came--and sacrifices
of the stocks were made, which were absolutely indispensable
so long as the House would not make the payment. And that
$50,000 was one of the demonstrations and reductions from
the expenditures of 1840, about which the President and the
Secretary of the Treasury were congratulating themselves and the
country. They called for the $50,000. They told the House that
if that sum was not appropriated, it would be necessary to make
great sacrifices. Yet the House refused to consider the subject
at all.
"He had desired a long time to say this much to the House; and
he said it now, although a little _out_ of order, because he had
never been allowed to say it _in_ order. At the last session
the House would not hear him upon any thing; and it was that
consideration which induced him to offer the resolutions he had
read, and which gave something like a sample of these things. He
offered them after the very message calling for $50,000 for this
very object, had come in. But no, it was not in order, and there
was a gentleman here who cried out "_I object!_" He (Mr. A.) was
not heard by the House, but he had now been heard; and he hoped
that when he should again offer these resolutions, as he wished
to do, they might at least be allowed to go on the journal as
a record, to show that such propositions had been offered.
Those resolutions went utterly and entirely against the system
of purchasing State bonds above par, and selling them fifty or
sixty per cent. below par."
These debates are instructive, as showing in what manner legislation
can be carried on, under the silencing process of the previous
question. Here was a bill, slipped through the House, without the
knowledge of its vigilant members, by which a fund of one million
two hundred thousand dollars was squandered at once, and a charge
of about $100,000 per annum put upon the Treasury to supply the
place of the squandered fund, to continue during the lives of the
pensioners, so far as they were widows or invalids, and until
twenty-one years of age, so far as they were children. And it is
remarkable that no one took notice of the pregnant insinuation of
Mr. Adams, equivalent to an affirmation, that, although he could not
tell the whole story of the passage of the act of 1837, there were
others in the House who could, if they would; and also could tell
what private interests were provided for.
No branch of the public service requires the reforming and
retrenching hand of Congress more than the naval, now costing (ocean
steam mail lines included) above eighteen millions of dollars: to
be precise--$18,586,547, and 41 cents; and exclusive of the coast
survey, about $400,000 more; and exclusive of the naval pensions.
The civil, diplomatic, and miscellaneous branch is frightful, now
amounting to $17,255,929 and 59 cents: and the military, also, now
counting $12,571,496 and 64 cents (not including the pensions).
Both these branches cry aloud for retrenchment and reform; but not
equally with the naval--which stands the least chance to receive
it. The navy, being a maritime establishment, has been considered
a branch of service with which members from the interior were
supposed to have but little acquaintance; and, consequently, but
little right of interference. I have seen many eyes open wide,
when a member from the interior would presume to speak upon it. By
consequence, it has fallen chiefly under the management of members
from the sea-coast--the tide-water districts of the Atlantic coast:
where there is an interest in its growth, and also in its abuses.
Seven navy yards (while Great Britain has but two); the constant
building and equally constant repairing and altering vessels;
their renewed equipment; the enlistment and discharge of crews; the
schools and hospitals; the dry docks and wet docks; the congregation
of officers ashore; and the ample pension list: all these make an
expenditure, perennial and enormous, and always increasing, creates
a powerful interest in favor of every proposition to spend money on
the navy--especially in the north-east, where the bulk of the money
goes; and an interest not confined to the members of Congress from
those districts, but including a powerful lobby force, supplied
with the arguments which deceive many, and the means which seduce
more. While this management remains local, reform and retrenchment
are not to be expected; nor could any member accomplish any thing
without the support and countenance of an administration. Besides
a local interest, potential on the subject, against reform, party
spirit, or policy, opposes the same obstacle. The navy has been, and
still is, to some degree, a party question--one party assuming to
be its guardian and protector; and defending abuses to sustain that
character. So far as this question goes to the _degree_, and _kind_
of a navy--whether fleets to fight battles for the dominion of the
seas, or cruisers to protect commerce--it is a fair question, on
which parties may differ: but as to abuse and extravagance, there
should be no difference. And yet what but abuse--what but headlong,
wilful, and irresponsible extravagance, could carry up our naval
expenditure to 18 millions of dollars, in time of peace, without
a ship of the line afloat! and without vessels enough to perform
current service, without hiring and purchasing!