The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 77

Jan. 1844.
28th Cong 1st Sess.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
ft
United, States schooner Grampus—Mr. Rathbun.
H. of Reps.
ing the history of the generous bearing of my fel-
low-citizens towards the distressed. The mayor
and his little band were among the first upon the
wreck, relieving the sufferers; contributions of every-
thing that could minister to their relief were scat-
tered with an unsparing hand; one of the best hotels
was opened for their reception at public expense;
and I can give the honorable gentleman who made
this motion the consoling information, that his coun-
trymen who survived the flood and the cold, are
there in safety, the guest of a generous people.
Sir, the city of St. Louis has nobly done her duty
on this trying occasion—let us as nobly do ours.
She has nobly stretched forth her energies to succor
the distressed. Let us tell the Committee of Ways
and Means they must provide the resources to re-
move causes of such cahnities and distress.
REMARKS OF MR. BELSER,
of alabama.
In the House of Representatives, February 3, 1844—
On the bill for the relief of the widows and or-
phans of the officers, seamen, and marines of the
United States schooner Grampus; the question
pending being on the motion of Mr. B. to strike
out that part of tile bill which provides a gratuity
of six months' pay to the said widows and or-
phans, over and above the pay actually due at
the time of the loss of the vessel.
Mr. BELSER observed, that at the time when he
proposed to amend the bill under consideration, he
was aware that it nnglit subject him to the imputa-
tion of a want of humanity, and also of being inimi-
cal to the navy. He believed, however, that Con-
gress had no right to appropriate public money in
the shape of gratuities; and his object was to arrest,
if he could, a system of legislation which he deemed
inexpedient and unconstitutional.
The gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wise,] in the
course of his remarks about the navy, had spoken
in eloquent and forcible language of the bravery,
generosity, and integrity of those connected with
that branch of the government. This had not been
questioned ill any manner; and as an argument in
favor of the bill, he thought it entitled to but little
weight. The same gentleman had also brought
to the notice of the House the corruptions of other
departments, and said that it would be a Hereulean
task to undertake to ferret them out. He knew
nothing of the cases referred to by the gentleman;
but if there existed such abuses, they did not in any
way interfere with the question now under consid-
eiation by the committee.
He differed with the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr.
Schenck,] who contended that, when a man entered
into the naval service, there was an implied con-
tract with the government, that, in case he should
lose his life by the perils of the sea, his widow
and orphans were to receive six months' additional
pay. On the contrary, he insisted that there was
nothing to warrant such a conclusion; and that,
when an individual engaged himself to the govern-
ment as a seaman, he had no right to expect
any other reward than the pay he contracted to re-
ceive. He did not stand on the footing of an under-
writer; he risked every danger, including the acts of
God, and those of the public enemy.
But the gentleman had stated that it was the best
kind of economy to have those who might see fit to
brave winds and currents, to know that, in case
they perished in the adventure, this government
would allow six months' extra pay to those whom
they might leave behind them. If the gentleman be
correct in this view of the case, the same reasoning
would equally apply to persons engaged in any
other branch of the public service, where danger
was to be met. If such a reflection would be mi in-
centive to deeds of noble daring on sea, it would
also beget the same spirit of determination on land.
He did not believe that such would be its effect, ei-
thei on sea or on land. According to his experience
of human nature, he thought that when a man en-
tered the naval or any other public service, death
was the very last thing he considered of. It came
like a thief in the night, and too often found its vic-
tim unprepared. The same gentleman had likewise
spoken of the loss of an arm in the service, and
said that the sufferer was generally remunerated for
it. This was not the case. Pay was not given to
him for the loss of his arm, but as a pension during
life, intended for his personal support, and not as an
inheritance, which ie to descend to his heirs after his
death.
He believed, that the strongest measure of gov-
ernment here, was as much exemption from taxation
as possible, consistent with an economical adminis-
tration of its affairs. One of the most serious objec-
tions to this bill is, that the money to be appropriated
by it springs from taxation; not directly visible to the
people, but indirectly levying contributions on one
class of citizens for the benefit of another. This he
viewed as a species of legalized agrarianism. It was
distributing public property, by the power of Con-
f-ess, and not by the direction of the constitution,
o illustrate the great injustice of bestowing boun-
ties on one portion of the people, whilst others were
oppressed by the severest taxation, he would' call
the attention of the House to the case of a poor and
friendless female, who was lately frozen to death, in
sight of this Capitol, for the want of a blanket to
protect her person from the inclemency of the sea-
son; and which, in consequence of the high price
which the system of protection put on the article,
she was unable to procure. This, he thought, was
a striking commentary on the unfairness of that sys-
tem of taxation which robs the many for the benefit
of the few. His policy was to levy taxes with an
eye directed singly to revenue—to let that, and that
alone, be the purpose of the mind, while placing du-
ties on the imports of the country; and for Congress
to be just before it was generous. This money
which we are now about to give away, is not out-
own—it is the property of the whole people, the
result of toil and labor; and we should be careful
how we part with it.
He desired to know why the surviving relatives of
those who perished in the Grampus had more claim
to the bounty of Congress than the widows and
orphans of those who fell in the Florida campaign,
or who there became-infected with the seeds of dis-
ease, of which they afterwards died? He referred
to the gallant Tennessee and Alabama volunteers,
so many of whom were lost in and by that service.
Were not the relatives of those men entitled to as
much of our sympathy and favor as the surviving
relatives of the officers, seamen, and marries of tiie
Grampus? If this bill was to be passed on the
principles of humanity, did they not as well apply
to those who died m the servicc of their country on
land, as at sea? Has Congress ever made any ap-
propriation to the heiis of"those devoted men who
were massacred while under the command of
Major Dade, and who now silently sleep in the liuid
of the Seminoles?
The delegate from Florida, [Mr. Levy,] when
this bill first came up for discussion, attempted to
get in an appropriation for the widows and orphans
of the officers, seamen, and marines of the Sea Gull,
whose claims, he contended, were as strong as those
which have been provided for in this case. Sup-
pose the gentleman succeeded hereafter; and suppose
other gentlemen were to obtain like gratuities, in
similar instances: where, he would ask, was the
system to end? Who would undertake to fix its
limit' The only check would be the discretion of
Congress. He wished to avoid all unnecessary and
unauthorized disbursements; and he could see no
difference in principle, between the case of those
who were destroyed in the Grampus, and that of a
man who might be killed by the explosion of a
piece of cannon, on a day of public jubilee, while in
the pay of the nation, or of those who might lose
their lives in an icc-boat on the Potomac, while en-
gaged ill conveying the United States mail, under
the authoiity of" the government. He was as char-
itably disposed as any member on that floor; and, in
proportion to his means, as ready privately to con-
tribute to the relief of the indigent; but, while, legis-
lating, there was a stern principle of justice that
governed him, and in obeying which, lie could not
consent to mete out the treasure of the nation for un-
authorized purposes. For one, he would yield to
no sickly sympathy in such a case. He believed
that the action of tins government, in regard to the
distribution of its benefits, should be "like the dews
of heaven, unseen and unfelt, save in the beauty
which they contribute to produce."
REMARKS OF MR. RATHBUN,
of new york.
In the House of Representatives, January 27, 1843.—
In Committee of the Whole, on the bill providing
for the payment to the widows, or to the children,
or to the parents, or to the brothers and sisters of
the officers, seamen, and marines who were in the
service of the United States, and lost in the
schooner Grampus, six months' pay extra.
Mr. RATHBUN lis was opposed, in'prin-
ciple, to the whole bill. He did not believe in
the propriety of adopting a system of bounties and
pensions in cases of this sort. It is said they were
m the public service, and therefore it is the duty of
the government to be liberal, and provide in some
degree for their surviving relatives. He was yet
to learn upon what principle of equity such a claim
could be sustained. They were lost in time of
peace; and the same storm which swept them Aqm
beneath the waters of the deep, carried perhaps
hundreds of others with them. Does not me hand
of death fall as heavily upon the wife, children, pa-
rents, or brothers and sisters of the officers and sea-
men in commercial, as in national vessels? It was
but a few days since announced upon this floor,
that from fifty to one hundred lives had been lost
by an accident which happened to a steamboat on
the Mississippi river. This large number were all
hurried to a common grave in a moment. They
were American citizens. They left widows and
children to mourn their loss. What action of this
House was called for in consequence of this alarm-
ing accident? Did any member propose to bestow
bounties upon those widows and children? .None
at all. No one thought of such a proposition. And
yet where is the difference? They were all hurried
into eternity by inevitable accident, to which all
men are equally liable. They were all alike ill the
pursuit of their own private interest, as well
those employed by the government, as those em-
ployed by individuals. The man who cultivates the
soil, works in the mechanic shop, or navigates the
ocean m the merchant ship, does as much to ad-
vance the prosperity and welfare of lus country, as
he who does any of those things under pay front
the government. Any discrimination in favor of
one class is unjust toward the others. Is it a part
of the contract in the employment, by the gov-
ernment, of men, that if, in time of peace, an indi-
vidual loses his life, or a hundred lose their lives,
by an accident, common to the whole family of man,
their widows and children, or parents, or brothers
and sisters, and theirs only, shall be provided for at
the public expense? Those who engage in the pub-
lic service, like all men, consult their own interest.
They work for pay. The price is known and
agreed upon. That price, to the last farthing, ought
to be paid; but, beyond that sum, he was unwilling
to £;o. He was opposed to the whole system and
policy of pensions for losses or injuries sustained
in time of peace.
lie was also opposed to granting pensions for
any services rendered in actual war, where the per-
son retired from the service uninjured; but if the
husband or parent fell, or was disabled in that ser-
vice, the government could only be just by being
liberal. In such cases, he was prepared to go as far
as any one; but for'a bill like the present he could
not vote.
Mr. Wise ofVirginia, and Mr. Schenck of Ohio,
replied in support of the bill, and Mr. Rathbun re-
joined, as follows:
The gentlemen had imputed to him hostility to the
navy, or that he was economical to a degree of par-
simony. They were entirely mistaken. He was
not, nor had he ever been, hostile to the navy. He
held it in as high esteem as any man. He had as
much respect for the navy as either of those gentle-
men. He was proud of the navy. He never saw
one of our national vessels, with her canvass spread
and her banner flying, without involuntarily lifting
his hat, in token of the high rcspect in which he
held the navy. Nor did he intend to be parsimoni-
ous toward that arm of the public defence. - On all
proper occasions, and where the public good de-
manded, or where justice required it, he was pre-
pared to go with the most liberal. This, in his
opinion, was not such an occasion. This bill was
not, m his opinion, either just or equiiablc. l ie
was not prepaied, in his zeal in support of the
navy, to bestow bounties where they did not belong.
He was aware that opposition to this bill was un-
popular on this floor. Opposition to the navy, or to
anything connected with the navy, was unpopular
here. Those considerations would not prevent him
from proclaiming his opposition, and the reasons
which influenced him in refci ence to this or any
other bill.
The gentleman from Ohio had told the House
that this bill was in conformity with the precedents
for forty years, and that there was no exception in
all that time to this line of precedents. He used
this as an argument in favor of the passage of this
■bill. The practice has been so long established
thnt this House i bound to pursue U. Suclt w w.