Mr. VANWINKLE. I offer, not on behalf of the committee, an amendment which I send to the Chair, to insert as an additional section the following: 1 Abife: That the 14 thsoo tlon of an not entitled " An act supplementaryto an act entitled An acttograntpensions, u provedJuly 14, 1862."approved July 14. 864.be. an the sameis hereby.repealed and that the widows and children ofcolored soldiers and sailors who have been or may be llcrcafter, killed, or who have died or may hereafter die, of Wounds receivedin battle or of disease contracted in the lnilitary or naval service of the U.S and in the line of duty shall beentitled to receivethe pensions provided by law withont other evidence of marriage} on proof satisfactoryto the ComrPension that the parties had habit uall recognized each other as man and wife and live together as such for a definite period. not less than 2 years preceding the enlistment of the mun: and the children born of any marriage so proved shall be deemedand taken to be the children of the soldier or sailor and the party thereto: Provided. however, That if any such soldier or sailor and the woman alleged to be his widow. resided. previougl to the enlistment of the former, in any State in whle the marriage between them might lmvetbeenlegally solemniled, the usual olndence of marriage shall be required. My attention was called to this subject by a proposition introduced by the junior Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. W1isos] the other day in reference to the beauties of colored soldiers. 1 had in fact shown him this amendment, which I believe met his approbation. The necessity for it arises from several considerations. Some change ill the nature of things was required since the original provision on this subject was passed. Perhaps I can more shortly explain it to the Senate by stating wherein this amendment differs from the law that was passed in 1864; and, with the permission of the senate, I will state a little history of that provision. A bill came from the HoRep, I think, containing a provision ill reference to these marriages. There was a 3rd committee of conference on the bill, of which I was a member, and the Senfrom herment who died recently [.hIl. Foor] was the chairman or leading manager on the part of the Senate. There was a great difference of opinion among the managers when they came together. I went into an explanation of the nature of these marriages, and of the way those people lived together. The Senfrom Vermont seized upon the idea and prepared. the section upon which not only that committee unanimously agreed, although it included some of those who were suppose to be inimlcal to these soldiers, but it met the immediate approval of the Senate and the House. I relnpms her it was about midnight when we went into committee. I propose, as one change, to introduce into this act sailors as well as soldiers. I reose, also, to confine the time to the pane of 2 years next preceding the enlistment of the man; and I do that upon this consideration: by the accidents of the war many of these people were driven from their homes, and probably driven into States Where their marriages might have been legally solemnlzed; but, under the circumstances, it was hardl to be expected that their attention would be ca led to it. Again, I think it is very probable, although they have been taken in charge pow by others, and have been free for some time that those marriages have not been solemnized as rapidly, perhaps, as they sholild have been. This is therefore drawn to meet that case, that if they lived previous to the enlistment in on place where the marriage might have been solemnized, then this roof will no t be sufficient. I have also intro need a prowslon that the children born of any marriage so proved shall be deemed and taken to be O children of the soldier and the party thereto. That does not clearly appear in the section drawn up by the Senfrom Vermont, and it may arise in cases where there is no widow or where the wife is dead; so that it would let in the same kind of proof of marriage in the case of the children applyin for a pension to which they would be entitled under the law, as in the case of the widow. It will be observed that the proviso declares: That if any such soldier or sailor and the woman alleged to be his widow resided previpnslyto the enlistment of the former in any State in which the marriage between them might have been lerially solemrmied the usual evidenceof marriage lb 1be seen. I have there introduced the words “ previ Ously to the enlistment, ” which I explained a moment since.