help them. And the least that this great Government could do is to protect them from want in the sunset of their days, until they shall again meet their loved and lost upon some brighter, more peaceful strand, where war and worry, heartache and loneliness, separation, and the scars of sorrow shall no longer be known forever. I would be in favor of more pensions for the needy, deserving soldier who yet for a little time remains. In line with this conviction, I have introduced a bill into this session of Congress providing that no soldier shall receive a pension of less than $1 per day. Is it not right that out of the great abundance of our material wealth we should amply provide for the needs of those who offered their lives upon the altar of our country that this nation should not perish before the tempest of civil strife that threatened its destruction? I think it is, and believe that this bill, too, ought to pass. War is a fearful thing. I hope that, though we may not live to see it, our children's children shall behold the dawn of the world's peace; that they shall see realized the dream of Kipling when [Applause.] The tumult and the shouting dies, The captains and the kings depart; Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice, An humble and a contrite heart. Lord, God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget! lest we forget! Increase of Pensions of Widows and Minor Children. SPEECH OF HON. JOHN G. McHENRY, OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Monday, February 3, 1908, On the bill (H. R. 15653) to increase the pension of widows, minor children, etc., of deceased soldiers and sailors of the late civil war, the war with Mexico, the various Indian wars, etc., and to grant a pension to certain widows of the deceased soldiers and sailors of the late civil war. Mr. MCHENRY said: Mr. SPEAKER: This bill appeals to the best impulses of the human heart. The first duty of American citizenship is to the family. Saving the flag is grand and our obligations to the heroes who offered, if they did not give, their lives for the preservation of the Government, can never be fully discharged. But there is a higher duty-a greater obligation. It is to preserve the family, which is the fountain of patriotism as well as of virtue. The care during their declining years of the widows of our soldiers is as much the duty of Congress as providing for the wife is the duty of each individual. We can not shift this obligation. We can not satisfy our consciences with the expectation that our successors may have better opportunities to do this. As in the case of another great duty taught by Christian civilization, now is the accepted and the only time. Mr. Speaker, there is probably no community in this broad land which is free from suffering, the result of privations. In every settlement in the State which I have the honor to represent, in part, there are soldiers' widows worn into invalidity by nursing their hero husbands through the valley of death, and without the means to procure the nourishment requisite to restore their health and strength. In my own district I have learned of instances of such destitution and I feel that I would be recreant alike as Representative and citizen if I failed to do whatever I may to mitigate their sufferings. I have in my hand a letter from one of those patient and long-suffering women. She writes It was just six years from the time he had his first stroke until his death, and during that time he never was able to do a stroke of work or earn five cents. During the last three years his mind was almost an entire blank, the last year he was entirely deprived of speech, as helpless as a new-born babe and a thousand times more trouble. l'en can not describe nor can tongue tell what we enduredContinued this good wife and mother Part of the time my son helped me to care for him, and the rest, my daughter and myself had the care of him. He was in such a condition that had I been rolling in money I couldn't have got anyone to care for him. Is it any wonder that this magnificent woman believes that the Government owes her something? The maladies which caused all this suffering were contracted while her husband served in the Army. They were the result of the ex I posures and hardships incident to his Army experience. have been trying to get a pension for that woman, and hope I may yet succeed. But how many thousands there are who suffer to the end of their lives of wretchedness because they have no one to take up their cases, or for the more regrettable reason that, owing to no fault of their own, they are deprived by some provision of the pension laws which excludes them from the beneficence. Probably half the Members of this House can cite similar cases. Another instance of the injustice of the pension laws to the widows of soldiers has come to my notice since my election to this body. In one of the principal towns in the district which I have the honor to represent there resides the widow of a soldier who is deprived of the beneficence of the Government because of an incident in the life of her deceased husband. She is a woman of the highest measure of refinement, as her husband was among the most popular and progressive citizens of the community in which they lived until misfortune overtook him. He enlisted as a private at the beginning of the war and was promoted in regular order until he had attained the rank of captain. At the close of hostilities the regiment to which he was attached was taken to the rendezvous to be mustered out. Every officer above the rank of captain in the regiment had been killed or wounded, and being the senior captain he was entitled to promotion if there was to be a colonel of the regiment at the mustering out. In fact he was the popular choice of his associates for the colonelcy as they indicated. But the authorities took a different view of the matter. They took an officer from another regiment and put him in command of this body of men, which was bitterly resented. In fact, the resentment was so openly expressed that all the officers of the regiment were put under arrest for insubordination and courtmartialed. After this injury had been added to insult, the husband of the widow to whom I refer left the camp and went home without waiting for his formal discharge. He had served four years most faithfully. He had discharged every obligation of a soldier most manfully in every situation during the long period of his hazardous service. But because of this unfortunate outburst of passion, and I think most of us will admit that it was at least partially justified, he was scheduled as a deserter and thus disqualified from participation in the beneficence of the Government. Until, late in life, business misfortunes overtook him, he probably had no regret for his action. But in his old age he came to want, and when his friends applied to the Government, for which he had freely offered his life, for the help to which they believed he was entitled, they discovered that he was ineligible. I am permitted to believe that he suffered no want during the closing days of his life. But I am forced to think that the worry and humiliation which came to him with the knowledge that there was a stain on his otherwise splendid military record hastened the end. If he had realized that the taint would operate to deprive his widow of comforts to which she is justly entitled, his sufferings would have been multiplied. Mr. Speaker, I feel keenly on this subject of pensions and grow impatient when these tales of sorrow come to my ears. Out of the abundance in this land of plenty there ought to be enough to shield the widows of the heroes from the pangs of want. We are contributing with almost profligate liberality to the building of ships and the preparation for future wars. It is only just to say that Congress has been fairly generous in both moral and material rewards to the soldiers of our several wars also, but we have not been quite just to the widows of our soldiers. To my mind there should be no discrimination in the allotment of pensions between the soldier and the widow, and if I had my way the pension of every soldier, which now ends with his death, would be continued to his widow. That is not the present proposition, however. The pending bill provides for a uniform pension of $12 a month for the widows of soldiers of the wars, and it should be passed by the unanimous vote of Congress. It is just and proper. The wives and mothers of the country constitute the moral force which develops patriotism and makes for good citizenship. More than the men, they shape destinies for good, and their comfort, if not competence, should be the first consideration of every man. There are widows of soldiers in this broad land who have laid their strength on the altar of devotion and sacrificed every hope and comfort to lessen the pain and lighten the sorrows of their infirm husbands in the last hours of their lives. Let us, now that we have opportunity and means, provide for the declining years of these faithful women, so that-in the language of Edmund Spenser --- Her angels face, As the great eye of heaven, shined bright, And made a sunshine in the shady place. Increase of Pensions to Soldiers and Their Widows. SPEECH OF HON. JOHN A. M. ADAIR, OF INDIANA, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, On the bill (H. R. 15653) to increase the pension of widows, minor children, etc., of deceased soldiers and sailors of the late civil war, the war with Mexico, the various Indian wars, etc., and to grant a pension to certain widows of the deceased soldiers and sailors of the late civil war. Mr. ADAIR said: Mr. SPEAKER: As the accumulating years have added to the distress of a very large number of the survivors of the civil war and their widows, the consideration of legislation looking to their care and comfort has become a matter of paramount importance. There is no subject before the House that is closer to my heart and in which I feel a greater interest than that of pensions. It therefore gives me much pleasure to use my vote and influence in support of the bill now under consideration which if enacted into law will raise the pensions of 196,443 widows from $8 to $12 per month. It will not only do this, but it will also place on the pension rolls many thousands of widows who heretofore have been excluded on the ground that they had an income of $250 per year. I believe the property limitation on the widows' right to pension is wrong and should have been stricken out years ago. I am sure that gross injustice has been done in all parts of the country by excluding from the bounties of the Government those widows who, for the time being, had a small amount of property, and who were turned away upon the ground that they had a competency, when in fact their income was insufficient in many instances to keep them from want. The only objection I have to this bill is that it does not go as far as I would like it to go. On the first day of the present session I introduced a bill upon this subject, granting to all widows of soldiers of the civil war and war with Mexico a pension of $12 per month. Under the provisions of my bill every widow of a soldier who served in either of the wars mentioned would receive a pension of $12 per month, regardless of the disease with which the soldier died, and also regardless of the date of marriage or amount of income. I labored hard to have this bill reported without amendment, but the Committee on Invalid Pensions decided to report a committee bill containing all the provisions of my bill, except as to date of marriage. While I do not desire to criticise on the floor of the House the action of this committee, yet I do regret that the bill reported will not give relief to widows who married soldiers subsequent to June 27, 1890, as well as those who were married prior to that date. I know of many instances where splendid women married soldiers of the civil war after June 27, 1890, and for ten or fifteen years nursed and cared for them in their declining years and made the closing days of their lives as pleasant and comfortable as possible. Who would say that these widows should not be pensioned? What reason is there for fixing this date? I am certain there are numerous cases where the marriage occurred after this arbitrary date in which the evidence will show greater merit than in many cases where the marriage took place prior to June 27, 1890. While I believe this bill should apply to ali widows of soldiers who were married prior to the passage of this act, yet I realize that it is impossible to amend it at this time, and after having made the best effort within my power to have it so provide, I shall nevertheless gladly vote for it, because it will increase the pensions of nearly 200,000 widows and will place upon the rolls over 20,000 who have heretofore been excluded. While voting for this bill, I want to serve notice at this time on the Members of the House that I shall continue the fight until full justice is done and all widows placed on the rolls who were married prior to the passage of this act. [Applause.] The passage of this bill is not an act of charity, but a payment of a debt we owe to the widows of the gallant soldier dead, whose service made it possible for you and me to enjoy this united country. There is not a citizen in all this broad land who will not rejoice over the fact that the widows have been at least partially provided for. It is not an act of sym pathy, but an act of justice; and a grateful people who remem ber the heroic service, the sufferings, deprivations, sacrifice, and hardships of the Union soldier will heartily indorse our action in thus providing for their widows and orphans. I hope this bill will pass without a dissenting vote and that the Committee on Invalid Pensions will then immediately take up, consider, and report favorably upon another bill I introduced in the House on the first day of the present session, which in substance provides that all soldiers who served in the Mexican and civil war and who hold an honorable discharge shall be pensioned at the rate of $20 per month, and when they reach the age of 70 years $25 per month. This bill, now in the hands of the committee, has the indorsement of over 3,000 Grand Army posts scattered all over the country and is approved by practically everyone who has read its provisions. Who could assign a single reason why this bill should not be enacted into law? It might be urged that it would increase the appropriation for pensions several million dollars. This is true, but the increase would be a drop in the bucket when compared with the total appropriations made by the Government. The Fifty-ninth Congress appropriated over eighteen hundred million dollars, and what a small part of this vast amount would be required to pay the increase of pensions provided for by this bill. I believe, Mr. Speaker, the time to do something for the Union soldier is now and not after he is dead. While I approve of the custom of scattering flowers on the graves of our dead heroes once a year, I would rather scatter a few flowers in the pathway of those who yet live. [Applause.] Those of us who were not old enough to participate in that memorable struggle are under eternal obligations to the survivors of that war for what they did for our country, for liberty, and for humanity. They have already reached an age when disease fastens itself upon them, and many suffer from the burden of old age; and I am sure this generation is not only willing but anxious to contribute liberally to their care and comfort. It, however, is not a contribution, not a donation, not an act of charity, but a partial payment of a debt that should have been liquidated years ago. [Applause.] It required, Mr. Speaker, a great devotion of principle to carry on that war against Americans of our own flesh and blood. The Union soldiers were not called upon to do battle against a foreign foe, but against men of their own blood who were just as brave and just as well organized as themselves. They knew also that they were to battle father against son, brother against brother, and that they were to be the aggressors all along the line, which necessarily meant increased dangers. These conditions were met by the Union soldiers with a devotion and patriotism unexcelled in all the world's great history. And for this great service they were paid the small sum of $13 per month, and paid in a currency that was equal to about 50 per cent of its face value, and at a time, too, when the necessities of life were necessarily high. It was all the Government could afford to pay at that time, but now that we have grown rich and stand to-day at the head of the nations of the earth, let us not forget that it was the Union soldier who laid the foundation of all our greatness, and that his service widened and deepened the current of American patriotism, and not only saved the country from the peril that threatened her existence forty-eight years ago, but infused a spirit into American citizenship that will guide and protect the American Union for centuries to come. [Applause.] The soldiers of the civil war were not granted at the close of the war such pensions as are now allowed the soldiers of the Spanish-American war. Let us look for a moment at some of the specific disabilities. The soldier of the civil war at the close of that war received for the loss of both hands $25 per month. The soldier of the Philippine war receives $100 per month for the same disability. The soldier of the civil war received at the close of that war for the loss of both feet $20 per month. The soldier of the Philippines receives for the same disability $100 per month. The soldier of the war of the rebellion received for the loss of the sight of both eyes $20 per month. The soldier of the war with Spain receives $100 per month. For the loss of sight of one eye, the other eye being affected, the soldier of the war of the rebellion received $25; of the war with Spain, $72 per month. For the loss of one hand and one foot the soldier of the war of the rebellion received $20 per month. The soldier of the war with Spain receives $60 per month. For the loss of an arm at or above the elbow or a leg at or above the knee the soldier of the civil war received $15 per month; the soldier of the war with Spain, $46 per month. For the loss of a leg at the hip joint the soldier of the first war received $15; of the latter, $55 per month. For total disability in one hand or one foot the soldier of the former war received $20; of the latter war, $60 per month. For an incapacity requiring regular aid and attendance the soldier of the war of the rebellion received $25; the soldier of the recent war receives $72. For total deafness the soldier of the war of the rebellion received $13; the soldier of the war in the Philippines receives $40. Now, Mr. Speaker, the soldiers of the civil war received no greater pensions than those I have mentioned until within a very few years. Every Union soldier entered the service with the understanding, and with the agreement on the part of the Government, that if disability occurred to him during the period of his service by reason of such service he should be pensioned. Personally I consider this obligation as sacred as the public debt, and I believe the American people feel that way about it. I am sure you can not find anywhere in the United States anyone who criticises the amount paid in the way of pensions to those who offered their lives on the altar of their country. I have always believed that the private soldier has not received his merited share in the way of pensions and that the commanding officers have received more than their share, when compared with the pensions paid to the private soldiers. I do not mean to criticise the pensions paid to the commanding officers-and so long as I am a Member of the House I shall never cast my vote to lower the pension of any man-but I would like to vote for a bill that would do justice to the private soldier, who was not so well fed, not so well clothed, and not so well sheltered as was the commanding officer, and who stood behind the gun and fought the battles that saved the Union. [Applause.] Now, gentlemen, I want you to vote for the bill now under consideration giving relief to the widows of soldiers, and then join me in bringing about the passage of my bill, No. 3896, now in the hands of the Committee on Invalid Pensions, which will, if enacted into law, give relief to over 600,000 private soldiers and partially pay the debt we owe to the heroes of that war. If you refuse to do this, then do not go home and attempt to mislead and deceive the soldiers of your district by telling them how much you love them and how sorry you are that the Adair bill did not become a law. Speaking for myself, I shall continue to insist on more liberal pensions for the private soldiers, and if you fail to give them relief during this session of Congress, I will be back again next December more determined than ever that justice shall be done them. [Loud applause.] Increase of Pensions of Widows and Minor Children. SPEECH. OF HON. EDMUND H. HINSHAW, OF NEBRASKA, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Monday, February 3, 1908, On the bill (H. R. 15653) to increase the pension of widows, minor children, etc., of deceased soldiers and sailors of the late civil war, the war with Mexico, the various Indian wars, etc., and to grant a pension to certain widows of the deceased soldiers and sailors of the late civil war. Mr. HINSHAW said: Mr. SPEAKER: I am sincerely glad that this measure is to pass the House, and I believe that it will pass the Senate and become a law. I had the pleasure to introduce a bill granting to all widows of the soldiers of the civil war $12 per month. Many other Members have introduced similar bills. The sentiment of the country seemed so much in favor of this meritorious proposition that the Committee on Invalid Pensions has unanimously reported such a measure, and, out of courtesy to the distinguished chairman of that committee [Mr. SULLOWAY], has named the bill for him. This is a custom generally followed in all matters of important legislation. | objection I have to this bill is that it cuts out the widows of soldiers who married since June 27, 1800, unless, of course, the widow can show that the soldier died of injuries or disease incurred in the service. After more than forty years since the close of the war it is now practically impossible to prove that the immediate cause of the soldier's death was the disabilities contracted in the war. So the women who married soldiers after 1890 are practically shut out. There are said to be fifteen or twenty thousand of such widows. They married the soldiers with the understanding, under the existing law, that they could not be pensioned, so there was no other motive for them to marry the soldiers except a sincere wish to take care of them and be to them wives and helpmeets. But now, after seventeen years, it seems to me that justice requires that these women, who have administered to the old age of veterans, should receive the same recognition as those who married earlier. Assurances have been made by the committee in charge of this legislation that such a bill will be brought in before long and probably become a law. I do not doubt that before many months this law will be so amended that all widows of soldiers will be pensioned, irrespective of the date of marriage. While the pension legislation is not as yet in a perfect condition, it must in justice be said that the American Congress has done well by the soldier and his widow. The McCumber Act, passed last February, granted deserved relief to thousands of soldiers, and the Pension Office has been overwhelmed with the work of granting increases under this law. In my opinion the act should be still further extended, and I have introduced a bill to pension all soldiers at 62 years of age at the rate of $15 per month and at the age of 65 years $20 per month. I hope that this bill or one of a similar nature will pass at this session of Congress. It is meritorious and just. The The soldiers of the civil war are fast passing away. pension roll is decreasing. There is no nation that pays to its soldiers and their widows a sum approaching the magnitude of the $15,000,000 annually paid by this Republic. It will, however, be but a few years until every soldier of the civil war will be gone and there will be left but a few of their widows. Out of the boundless resources of our wealthy country the justice and generosity of a free people will adequately provide for the necessities of age and disability and render less hard the declining years of those who sacrificed health, happiness, and life itself for the perpetuity of the nation of States which would have been rent asunder had it not been for their heroic efforts. APPENDIX A. A bill (H. R. 13261) providing for certain pensions to be paid widows of civil and Mexican war soldiers. Be it enacted, etc., That the widow of any person who served ninety days or more in the military or naval service of the United States during the late civil war or sixty days in the war with Mexico and was honorably discharged therefrom, and who was married to said soldier prior to the passage of this act, shall, upon making proof of such facts according to such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may provide, be placed upon the pension roll and be entitled to receive a pension at the rate of $12 per month, and such pension shall commence from the date of filing of the application in the Bureau of Pensions after the passage and approval of this act: Provided, That no person shall receive a pension under any other law at the same time and for the same period that she is receiving a pension under this act. APPENDIX B. A bill (II. R. 10510) to amend an act entitled "An act granting pensions to certain enlisted men, soldiers, and officers who served in the civil war and the war with Mexico." Be it enacted, etc., That the act approved February 6, 1907, entitled "An act granting pensions to certain enlisted men, soldiers, and officers who served in the civil war and the war with Mexico," shall be amended to read as follows: "That any person who served ninety days or more in the military or naval service of the United States during the late civil war or sixty days in the war with Mexico, and who has been honorably discharged therefrom, and who has reached the age of 62 years or over, regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may provide, be placed shall, upon making proof of such facts according to such rules and upon the pension roll and be entitled to receive a pension as follows: This bill makes it unnecessary hereafter for the widow of a In case such person has reached the age of 62 years, $15 per month; civil-war soldier to make any proof concerning her income. 65 years or over, $20 per month; and such pension shall commence from the date of the filing of the application in the Bureau of PenThis feature of the old law was very objectionable and caused sions after the passage and approval of this act: Provided, That penan infinite amount of trouble, as it frequently happened that the sioners who are 62 years of age or over and who are now receiving amount of property which the widow possessed seemed adepension under existing laws or whose claims are pending in the Bureau of Pensions may, by application to the Commissioner of Penquate to produce an income of $250 per annum, and the Pen- sions in such form as he may prescribe, receive the benefits of this sion Office would often so hold, when as a matter of fact, she act; and nothing herein contained shall prevent any pensioner or had no such income. There are few widows of soldiers, I beperson entitled to a pension from prosecuting his claim and receiving à pension under any other general or special act: Provided, That no lieve, who have a large income, and if perchance the widow of person shall receive a pension under any other law at the same time some soldier happens to be rich and not in need of the penor for the same period that he is receiving a pension under the provisions of this act: Provided further, That no person who is now sion it is far better than a seeming injustice should be done receiving or shall hereafter receive a greater pension under any other in one such case than that thousands of deserving widows general or special law than he would be entitled to receive under the should be harassed and bothered and put to expense to get provisions herein shall be pensionable under this act. "SEC. 2. That rank in the service shall not be considered in applicaaffidavits and proofs of the details of their property interests. tions filed hereunder. It is estimated that this law will annually cost the Government "SEC. 3. That no pension attorney, claim agent, or other person shall about twelve or thirteen million dollars in addition to the pay-senting any claim to the Bureau of Pensions or securing any pension be entitled to receive any compensation for services rendered in prements already being made. It is a sum righteously spent. The under this act." Catholic Church Claims Bill. SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM E. TOU VELLE, OF OHIO, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, On the bill (H. R. 16143) making an appropriation to the Roman Cath- Mr. TOU VELLE said: of this finding. All seem to be agreed that the Roman Catholic Church of the Philippines should be paid the sum of $363,030.19, and if a bill had been introduced appropriating that amount, and no more, no objection would have been made to its passage, except possibly to the character of the payees, The question of title has been raised, and it is claimed that the Roman Catholic Church does not hold title to certain parts of the property. There can be no recognition of any church as a connection of the Roman Catholic Church, and the so-called "Independent Catholic Church of the Philippines" can found no claim on any previous connection of its members with the Roman Catholic Church. The only question for us to decide is who owned the property at the time of its use by our troops. This point of vital importance to the argument against the bill has already been decided by the supreme court of the PhilCatholic Church to the property has been sustained. Mr. CHAIRMAN: I have read with some care the bill intro-ippines in several cases, in all of which the rights of the Roman duced by the gentleman from Wisconsin from the Committee on Insular Affairs (H. R. 16143), together with the reports accompanying it (House Report 696, parts 1 and 2), being the majority and the minority reports of the Committee on Insular Affairs upon the merits of the bill. I have also read the hearings had before the Committee on Insular Affairs as printed and laid before the House, and have listened with interest to the discussion which the bill and the reports have engendered before this committee. The evidence also shows that the Independent Catholic Church of the Philippine Islands has never set up a claim to the actual ownership of the property. If this church has no actual ownership and claims none, it is idle for us to make and establish a claim for it. As to the facts of the case there is little difference between those who favor and those who oppose the bill. The facts briefly stated are these: During the entire time of our military occupancy of the Philippine Islands, from the time when the American Army landed until the declaration of peace which ended the SpanishAmerican war, the United States, through its armed forces, took and continued to hold possession of the churches, contiguous parish houses, school buildings, and seminaries of the Philippine Islands, using them under the exigencies of war as hospitals, prisons, and barracks. This occupation extended not only throughout the duration of the war, but also in many cases from a few months to two years after the declaration of peace, and was so thorough during all this time as to exclude the rightful church authorities entirely from the occupancy or use of their property. Many of these churches were fine buildings, costing their owners a large amount of money, and were an honor to the islands and the church authorities who built them. Military occupancy is not always a prudent or careful occupancy. The best disposed soldiery of the world can not occupy a church without injuring it, and the American soldiery, although admittedly among the best disciplined and most careful soldiery of the world, proved to be no exception to the rule. Careful investigation has shown that the churches and other buildings so occupied by our troops were damaged and injured, a thing which all history and the dictates of common sense would lead us to presume to be true. It is a fact that the title to the churches and buildings so occupied by our soldiery, and for which compensation is made in this bill, was in the Roman Catholic Church of the Philippine Islands, and there is no serious dispute over this question. The use of the property by the United States gave rise to a claim for rent, and the negligence of that use gave rise to a claim for damages. Both sets of claims were set up by the Roman Catholic Church of the Philippine Islands, the rightful owners of the property, and presented at Manila in 1905 to a board on church claims, appointed under a special order of the War Department for the sole purpose of investigating them. This board was made up of officers of the United States Army, sat in session six months, and examined all the evidence presented most thoroughly. The total amount claimed by the Roman Catholic Church of the Philippines for use and occupancy of and damages to the buildings was $2,442,963.13; but the board, after a most sifting examination and mature deliberation, awarded the claimants the sum of $363,030.19. This board, in its findings, added a paragraph which shows the present status of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philly pine Islands, and the further fact that the amount so awarded was a poor compensation. The language of the board is: Their The church authorities as at present constituted are our friends and helpers in the establishment and preservation of law and order in these islands and are upholders of the authority of the United States. work here has been made hard by the amount of damage that the church has suffered due to war, and the amount awarded by the board, $363,030.19, will not begin to compensate for the loss so inflicted. amount, however, is justly due from the United States and is most ur gently needed by the church in its work here. This The evidence otherwise conclusively establishes the fact that the title to all the property, for which rent and damages are is now in the Roman Catholic Church of the Philippine Islands, claimed, was at the time it was occupied by our soldiers and and the bill before us, in my opinion, takes the proper legal and moral ground, in appropriating the money to the Archbishop of whose property we occupied. In my opinion the title to the Manila as the representative of the Roman Catholic Church, property was in the Roman Catholic Church at the time of its occupancy by us, and payment for use, occupancy, and damages should be made to the lawful record owners at the time, and not to an independent schismatic body that has arisen since that time. The claim that the treaty of Paris made the United States the legal owner of this property is, to my mind, untenable for this reason: The supreme court of the Philippine the title to the property in controversy, held in express terms Islands in November, 1906, upon a direct issue before it as to that the Spanish Government at the time the treaty of Paris property situated in the Philippine Islands. was signed was not the owner of this property nor of any like The treaty of Paris confirmed all property rights, either in title or possession, which were held under Spanish law, and it devoted to religious purposes was under the exclusive control is not disputed by anyone that all the property in the islands and in the exclusive possession and occupancy of the Roman Catholic Church. The so-called "Independent Catholic Church" had no existence at the date of the treaty of Paris, nor was it organized until after the date covered by the award of the board on church claims. This is the statement of the judge-advocate of that board and the finding of the supreme court of the Philippines, and effectually settles the question of title. In my opinion both the legal and equitable title to the property is in the Roman Catholic Church. church claims in January, 1906, viz, $363,030.19, and the amount The difference between the amount awarded by the board on carried by this bill, $403.030.19, is $10,000, which complicates the argument and demands a separate analysis. The board on church claims made its findings on values as of the date of occupancy, 1898 to 1902, and had the money been paid then, while it only covered a small part of the actual loss sustained, would have been accepted. The actual legal finding was made in January, 1906, and expressly omitted all com pensation for the deterioration of the damaged property from 1902 to 1906. The judge-advocate of the board, Colonel Hull, before the Committee on Insular Affairs, stated that an award of $500,000 in 1906 would have been more equitable to the church. It is clear to my mind, therefore, that not only the award of $363,030.19 should be appropriated at this time for rent and damages, but also a larger amount for deterioration growing out of the lapsed time. The only question is, How much more should be appropriated? In determining this we come to another claim made by the Catholic Church which was excluded by the board on church claims. That board expressly excluded all compensation to the Catholic Church for the spoliation and carrying away of sacred ornaments, images, and vestments, but at the same time and in the same report recommended to the Congress of the United States, in case compensation should be made for these things, that the sum of $40,000 be paid therefor. The bill before us carries compensation for the use, occupancy, and damage to the churches and buildings of the Roman Catholic Church of the As I understand the argument of those who have preceded me favoring the bill, and the argument of the members of the Committee on Insular Affairs, no objection is made to the amount Philippines as ascertained by the board of church claims, to the extent of $363,030.19, and $40,000 for the spoliation and destruction of sacred ornaments, images, and vestment; in all, $403,030.19. The Roman Catholic Church claimed a loss in sacred ornaments, images, and vestments, amounting to $298,222.50, which the board on, church claims did not allow but scaled down to $40,000, which although not included in the award was recommended to Congress as a suitable amount to pay. There is always room in these cases for error and a Congressman can not always have the exact facts before him. This matter, however, has been gone over very carefully by a legally authorized board on church claims and by a committee of this House. All the facts needed for judgment are apparently before us. The findings of all these persons, boards, and committees show an occupancy of the premises by the United States and the consequent damage; they show the legal owner of the property, and show an award of a minimum sum, setting forth, however, that a greater sum would not be exorbitant. This minimum sum was based on a value of the property from 1898 to 1902, and not of a value as of 1906 or of the present time, and expressly excluded payment for lost vestments and ornaments. I am free to say that, in my opinion, the sacred vestments and ornaments are as much the subject for claim as the churches themselves and for want of better evidence am willing to adopt the recommendation of the board on church claims and to pay the Roman Catholic Church of the Philippines $40,000 for this item of loss and for the damages growing out of the deterioration of the property from 1902 to the present time. This added to the award for rent and damages will bring the appropriation up to $403,030.19, the amount claimed by the bill. I shall vote for the bill and hope that it will pass. I believe that every dollar of the money rightfully belongs to the Roman Catholic Church of the Philippines, and I would do injustice to my ideas of right and wrong to oppose its payment. The legal precedents for our action are numerous, and I shall not take the time of this body to enumerate them. The equity and the law unite in favor of the claimants, and as a matter of abstract justice they should be paid the amounts awarded and recommended. In matters of justice and right we should discard party. friendship, and kindred ties and approach their solution blindfolded, being guided solely by the dictates of reason. Justice, as has been said by an able thinker, springs from reason, while all other virtues dwell in the blood. It awards to every man and to every church its own; a law of conduct written large in the very nature of man. Justice is the ligament binding all society together, and its destruction impairs and undermines the moral and social law. Highway Improvement-Good Roads. SPEECH OF HON. ROBERT M. WALLACE, OF ARKANSAS, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Thursday, December 19, 1907. Mr. WALLACE said: I come not to praise Cæsar nor tell of his nor Napoleon's fame as a road builder. History records the facts of building, however, and generations since have profited by their example. But we have the more ancient record of Achish, who said, Whither have ye made a road to-day?" And David said, "Against the south of Judah, and against the south of the Jerahmellites, and against the south of the Kenites." What Congress and the States should do is to make all the roads lead to the centers of population, intelligence, and commerce, and thence against the East and the West and the North and the South of the whole country. But, to dispose of the historic phase of this subject, I may say the nations of Europe have practically united on a common policy. They regard public roads-like post-offices, public buildings, and waterways—as public property. They learned that time, labor, and money could be saved by substituting for the dirt or mud road the macadam and other improved types or grades of road. France spends eighteen to twenty millions annually for the repair of her highways. The European systems are fostered and supported by the head of each national government. Their centuries of experiment in solving the problem establishes the fact that good roads pay-that the system is a success. PRACTICAL QUESTION. 66 In the good old days of Georgia, Colonel Dooley was a unique and picturesque character, and as the story goes was forever challenging, but never fighting duels. Once he met on the field of honor a man afflicted with St. Vitus's dance, which gave his weapon a jerky, unsteady aim. The Colonel promptly planted a forked stick before his antagonist, who indignantly demanded an explanation. Well," retorted the Colonel, "I want you to take a rest, for if you shoot that pistol that way you'll fill me full of holes with one shot." We may trust the virtue of scattering to individuals of the mortar-gun type; but if we would excel in industrial and highway marksmanship, it may be well to level our fieldpiece, take a rest, and send a single charge swift flying to the mark. The good-roads proposition is extremely practical and appeals with directness to the common sense of the people. GOVERNMENT COOPERATION. The proposition embodied in bills before Congress may be termed a system or policy of cooperation between the States and the United States, wherein each State is to raise a good-roads fund and the Federal Government to appropriate a like sum, or apportion to each State an amount to be computed on population or other basis. That the Federal Government at an early period embarked upon a policy of road construction and improvement is matter of history. Prior to 1825 Congress in the exercise of the power of appropriation set apart something like $14,000,000 which was expended by the Government for the improvement of the public highways, the Cumberland road being the most conspicuous example. Since 1825 nothing has been appropriated for public highways, except in the Territories, the District of Columbia, and for military purposes. That constitutional questions were raised and the policy itself dropped into a long sleep are not to be overlooked. But about that time railroad building and other improvements began to attract public attention, and operated, at least indirectly, against the ordinary road enterprise. Some of the States have passed highway laws providing a general road tax on the taxable values of the State, but such laws have been effective in those States where a low rate of taxation would raise a large sum of money. A 1-mill levy in New York would raise more money than a 40-mill levy in Arkansas and other States, and there are more miles that need improvement in the latter than in the former. It is not because of want of interest in the measure that Arkansas has not passed such a law, but because her taxable wealth is not large enough to avoid an enormous rate of taxation in raising a sufficient sum for practical purposes. The right of Congress to appropriate has not been denied. It must be an appropriation pure and simple, without a retention of control afterwards. A bill was introduced in the Senate of the United States in 1904 providing for cooperation as before stated. It provided for a bureau of highways, composed of three commissioners, one from each of the two great political parties and one from the Engineer Corps of the United States Army. It called for an appropriation of $24,000,000, to be distributed among the States and Territories according to population. Under the provisions of that bill the Department of Agriculture, taking the census population of 1900, worked out the amount that would be given to each State under its provision. Arkansas had a population then of only 1,311,564, and her pro The chief objection to this distribution according to population rata as assigned by the Department would have been $421,910. is that it gave the richer States, already provided with good roads, a sum of money out of proportion to that assigned to the poorer States with needs immensely greater. Under that bill, before a State or Territory could receive the benefits of the act it must provide for one-half the cost of construction and secure the necessary right of way. Under such a bill Arkansas would have to raise $210,955, by taxation upon her own wealth or otherwise, which would give her a total of $632.865 annually, which if distributed equally among the counties of the State would give each something more than $8,000 a year. From statistics of the Agricultural Department it has been ascertained that the building of an improved road along modern methods costs from $100 to $400 per mile where sand and clay are used, and from $1,000 to $3,000 per mile for gravel, and from $3,000 to $9,000 per mile for macadamized road, according to the distance the material has to be transported. Eight thousand dollars per annum would build from 20 to 80 miles of clay and sand roads, up to the highest standard of modern ideas, each year; from 2 to 8 miles of gravel road per annum, and from 1 to 3 miles of macadamized road. In thirty years every county in the State, under a bill of this character, |