once fell victims to Democratic hatred of these representatives of the force which saved the Union from destruction. Of these about one-half were soldiers who bore upon their bodies the evidence of their political principles in the shape of wounds.

Their places, with a few others, were filled by eighty-eight soldiers from the army of

treason.

PART III.

The Police of the National CapitalFormerly none but Union Soldiers on Guard-Now, Otherwise.

Section 354 of the Revised Statutes provides that no person, shall serve on the Washington police force who has not served in, and been honorably discharged from, either the Army or the Navy of the United States.

June 9, 1880, in the Senate, pending the bill (S. 1394) to increase the police force of the District of Columbia, the following amendment was reported from the Committee on the District of Columbia.

SEC. 2. That so much of section 354 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to the District of Columbia, as requires that "no person shall be appointed as policeman or watchman who has not served in the Army or Navy of the United States and received an honorable discharge," be, and the same is hereby, repealed.

labelled 'A. Lincoln,'" etc., introduced in the Senate the following resolution:

Whereas, The following provision of law, enacted in 1865, is contained in section 1754 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, to wit:

"Persons honorably discharged from the military and naval service by reason of disability resulting from wounds or sickness incurred in the line of duty shall be preferred for appointments to civil offices, provided they are found to possess the business capacity necessary for the proper discharge of the duties of such offices:

Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs be, and they are hereby, instructed to inquire into, and report to this body.

1st. Whether said section is in full force and effect, or whether it has been in any manner repealed, modified, or rendered nugatory and void;

2d. Whether said section has been faithfully executed in appointments to civil offices under the gov ernment, or whether it has been openly and habitually disregarded and violated;

apply to provost and deputy provost marshals, quartermasters, and subtlers who were not disabled in the military or naval service of the United States, or whether they apply solely to persons who have been honorably discharged from such service by reason of disability arising from wounds or sickness incurred in the line of duty; and,

3d. Whether the terms and meaning of said section

4th. Whether any additional legislation is necessary to cause the provisions of this law to be carried out and enforced by the various departments of this government.

The object which the Senator seemingly had in view was, by manifesting this apparent anxiety for the Union soldier, to at once gain his support, while at the same time throwing doubts upon the sincerity of Repub

behalf.

The proposition had originally passed the House. In the debate which ensued in the Senate, the Republicans resisted the repeal on the ground that the time had not yet come when the Union soldier should be set aside for the Confederate soldier. But Mr. Beck insisted on the repeal, and announced the existing law excluding Confederates as the meanest vengeance towards a political opponent (meaning an ex-Confederate), or the lowest demagogy; and it was practically announced as the future policy of the Democracy, in all matters of appointments, that the Confederates were to have at least an "equal chance.”

PART IV.

The Voorhees Resolution of Inquiry — Its Boomerang Results, showing the Percentage of Democratic Hate for the Union Soldier and Love for the Confed ́erate Soldier-Senator Benjamin Harrison's report.

On the 16th of March, 1882, Senator Voorhees, of Indiana, the gentleman who, in 1860, was reported as having denounced Union soldiers as "Lincoln hirelings," "Lincoln dogs, with collars around their necks,

The resolution was promptly passed and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs; and on July 3, 1882, Senator Benjamin Harrison, from that committee, made a report the substance of which was a veritable boomerang to the Democrats. It is as fol

lows:

The Senate Committee findings.

To the first inquiry embraced in the resolution, the committee reported that the law is in full force, and also expressed the opinion that while section 1754 relates in terms only to disabled soldiers, the spirit of the law has a much wider scope. Section 1755, enacted at the same time, is as follows:

In grateful recognition of the services, sacrifices, and suffering of persons honorably discharged from the military and naval service of the country, by reason of wounds, disease, or the expiration of terms of

enlistment, it is respectfully recommended to bankers, persons engaged in industrial pursuits to give them preference for appointments to remunerative situations and employments.

merchants, manufacturers, mechanics, farmers, and

This section, it will be observed, extends to all soldiers honorably discharged, whether for disability or expiration of their terms of enlistment, and it cannot be supposed that Congress intended to suggest to business men in their private employments a more liberal policy towards the soldiers than it was willing to adopt in the civil service of the country.

Department of Justice.

The Attorney-General responded as follows:

The Secretary of the Treasury reported that

The records show that out of 1,548 appointments and re-appointments from March, 1877, to March, 1882, 803 were persons who either served in the military and naval service, and were honorably discharged therefrom, or were widows or orphans of soldiers and

sailors.

It will be seen that in the Treasury Department nearly 52 per cent of all the appointments made since 1877 had involved a recognition of service rendered in the war by the appointee, or by a dead father or husband. Sixty-three per cent of Union soldiers in the Republican War Department. The Secretary of War reported that the records of the War Department show that

Of the present number of civilian employees in the War Department, 1,038 have been appointed since March 3, 1865, of which number there are 68 females and 15 boys, leaving as male adult appointees, 995. Of this number, 602, or more than 63 per cent, have served in the army or navy, and 137, or more than 22 per cent of those who served in the army or navy, were discharged for disability resulting from wounds or sickness incurred in the line of duty.

This letter from the Secretary of War is more directly responsive to the inquiry than others received, as it gives the per cent of disabled soldiers. The committee also learned by inquiry that of the 68 females reported as employed in the War Department, 23 were widows or orphans of soldiers.

Thirty-four per cent of Union soldiers in the Republican Interior Department.

The following is the response of the Secretary of the Interior:

Since I have held the office of Attorney-General, there has been no instance wherein the provisions of section 1754 of the Revised Statutes have been disregarded or violated.

The applications of persons bearing the description given in that section will be considered by me, and when vacancies are to be filled they will be preferred, required by the law. if they are found upon examination to have the capacity

The letter of the Attorney-General does not give the per cent of ex-soldiers employed in his department, but from a report made to the Senate in October, 1881, it appears that a little more than 25 per cent were of that class.

Thirty-four per cent of Union soldiers in the Republican Navy Department.

The Secretary of the Navy replied that The statute has been duly obeyed, and, so far as I can learn, in full accordance with both its letter and spirit.

I have only to add that this statute, giving honorably discharged soldiers and sailors the preference in civil appointments, commends itself to my heart and judgment, and will be faithfully and fairly observed in this Department while under my control.

This letter does not give the figures which were desired, but by reference to a report of the Navy Department, made to the Senate in December, 1881, it was ascertained by the committee that there were then 208 male employees in that department, of which number 72, or a little more than 344 per cent, had served in the Army or Navy.

Twenty-five per cent of Union soldiers in the Republican State Department - Forty per cent in the diplomatic and consular service. The Secretary of the State responded:

1st. That since the passage of the resolution of the 3d of March, 1865, this Department has directed its

efforts to a careful and faithful observance of the letter

and spirit of that resolution.

The clerks and employees of this Department comprise less than 80, and most of them require special training, which can only be gained by long experience; but even of these, 25 per cent of the number of male clerks are discharged soldiers.

2d. In the diplomatic and consular service not less than 40 per cent of the whole number are honorablydischarged Union soldiers, and of them at least onehalf are discharged for disability.

22 per cent of Confederate soldiers to 14 per cent of Union soldiers employed by the Democratic Secretary of the Senate. The committee then proceed to say:

Your committee feel that the Senate, having as a part of the national legislature helped to place section 1754 on the statute book, is as a body under peculiar obliga. tions to enforce this law in selecting its own officers and employees. An inquiry of the Acting Secretary of the Senate upon this subject was answered by him as

follows:

Then follows a table furnished by the Acting Secretary, on which the committee remarks:

employees of the Secretary's Office served in the Union It will be seen that a little over 14 per cent of the Army or Navy, while something over 22 per cent served in the Confederate army.

Mr. President, when this administration came in, the United States court-house at Indianapolis was filled from top to bottom, with a single exception, with soldiers. The United States marshal was a soldier, now he is not; the United States district attorney was a soldier, now he is not; the collector of customs was a soldier, now he is not; the collector of internal revenue was a soldier, now he is not. There was just one of the larger offiees there that was filled by a civilian, and that is the post-office, and it is still filled by a civilian.

I am sorry that I have not time to go more fully into this matter. I have in my hand the report of the employment committee of the Grand Army of the Republic for the District of Columbia, signed by Jerome B. Burke, who I understand is a Democrat. He is a Democrat, as the Senator from Illinois Mr. LOGAN] tells me, and is now the commander of the Grand Army for this department, the District of Columbia. I want to read an extract or two from that and see what these gentlemen outside of the Departments, who gave their time gratuitously in order to secure to worthy soldiers employment in the Departments here, say about the changes under the new administration. They say:

"While the employment committee of former years were principally engaged in securing employment for applicants, and with fair success, the present committee have, we regret to report, owing to conditions that will be mentioned hereafter, received but little encouragement in proportion to the amount of labor expended in this direction. Indeed, this has been an 'off year' for the class we represent. The gloomy forebodings of Commander Alexander, in his address to the last department encampment, seem to have been realized. But we have the pleasure of knowing, however, that in the few cases where employment was secured much real misery was relieved, and a few homes and firesides made happier.

"By far the greatest amount of our labors for the last year has been expended in seeking the reinstatement of comrades discharged from their positions in the Executive Departments, and in endeavoring to secure the retention in their places of those who had employment.

As far as we can learn there have been seventyeight comrades of the Grand Army of the Republic discharged from Government employ during the last year, also a large number of ex-Union soldiers and sailors who are not affiliated with us, and many of the wards of the Grand Army. Of those comrades who have been discharged or who have been requested to tender their resignations, this committee has been solicited to use its influence in securing a reversal of departmental action in thirty-seven cases, in which we have been successful in ten cases, and this has been effected only by constant and repeated importunity.

46

Knowing that many of our comrades were anxious as to the future, and were fearful that they might lose their places, and thus bring suffering upon themselves and their families by the loss of their monthly stipends, and also knowing that there was an influential element here that was antagonistic to our organization, clamorous for places, and endeavoring to influence those in power to make wholesale discharges, caring nothing for the fact that the boys in blue' had earned a right to hold their places under any administration, and that Congress had enacted laws in their interest, we concluded to address the President upon the subject."

Then follows a statement of the address and the response of the President.

A few weeks elapsed. They say "but in the mean time our comrades in the Departments were being rapidly displaced, and feeling that our appeal had not been as effectual as we had a right to expect, we again concluded to memorialize the President and request his official interposition in their behalf."

Again:

"In the present instance it is known that the discharge of our comrades has not been occasioned by a reduction of the force, nor is it believed to have been caused, except in rare instances, by any supposed inefficiency or personal dereliction, for it is doubtful that those who saved a nation are skulkers, shirks, and bummers in these piping times of peace.' Nor can it be said that the civil-service act was ever intended to

They say further:

"Nor is this the worst feature of the case, bad as it may be. Not satisfied with looking with disfavor upon the boys in blue,' it has sometimes seemed as if the boys in gray' were to be recognized as prodigal sons returning from their wanderings for whom the fatted calf was to be especially devoted. We have seen a comrade whose army record was of the very best, and whose civil-service record was irreproachable, degraded from a high position that he won by meritorious service, and his place filled by one who was in armed rebellion against the Government."

We have had an illustration of that kind even in our own State, as my colleague knows. General John Coburn, one of the best and most patriotic men who went out on the call of the Governor of that State, has been replaced in his office of Associate Justice of Mon. tana by Mr. C. P. Pollard of Carroll County, Indiana, who was a Confederate soldier.

Some months ago the House of Representatives named a special committee to investigate various charges made against Public Printer Benedict in his conduct of the great Government Printing Office at Washington. That committee comprised a majority of Democrats. It recently made its report, and the Republican minority presented its views also. Touching Mr. Benedict's treatment of Union soldiers and their families the Republican members say:

It is but proper to say that the testimony on this point is somewhat conflicting. On the one hand, Capt. W. S. Odell, ex-Vice Commander of the Department of the District of Columbia, Grand Army of the Republic, and Chairman of the Employment Committee of that organization, Capt. Grosvenor, Commander of Burnside Post No. 8 G. A. R., and member of the Employment Committee, Col. J. F. Vinal, ex-commander of Lincoln Post No. 3 G. A. R., and member of the Employment Committee, Capt. Clark P. Crandall, presiding officer of the Veterans' Rights Union, and Dr. Horatio N. Howard, Commander of Farragut Post No. 10 G. A. R., and member of the Employment Committee, all testify, in the strongest possible terms, to repeated and outrageous violations of the law by Benedict, as well as to the falsity of the figures he presented representing the relative number of soldiers employed under the administration of Mr. Rounds and that of himself. In addition to this, many soldiers and soldiers' widows and orphans gave testimony showing discriminations against them, and dis. charges without cause and in violation of the statute. On the other hand, Mr. Benedict testified in his own behalf, indulging in the same recklessness of statement that characterizes his testimony.

The first Grand Army witness who undertook to sustain Benedict was Major J. J. Burke, at the time employed in the Treasury branch of the Govern