Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not think the amendment as it stands is exactly as it o ht to be on account of the fact that it wont require proof of cohabitation down to the var period of enlistment, and I think we, most O us, understand the fact to be that many persons were separated from their wives for a considerable period before they enlisted; and at the same time I am not entirely satisfied with the amendment to the amendment which is offered, for the reason that in many cases it willallow proof of marriage iipon mere resumption when other proof is attainable. ItPthis amendment is not agreed to, so that I can have an opportunity, I shall then propose to amend the original amendment by striking out the words in the 13 th, 14 th, 15 th, and 16th lines “ that the parties had habitually recognize each other as man and wife, and lived together as such for a definite period, not less than 2 years next preceding the enlistment of the man, ” and insert in lieu of them the words, “ which in civil actions would raise the presumption of the marriage ufwhite persons;" so that the clause will read:shall be entitled to receivethe pensions provided bylaw without other evidenceofmarriagethan proof. Iatisfaictoryjo the ComrPension, which in civil actions would raise the presumptionof the marriage of white persons. Of course the law as to white persons is perfectly well understood in civil actions; that length and degree of cohabitation which under the circumstances satisfies a reasonable man that the relation really existed, whether the proof comes down to the very int of time at which the inquiry is institute, or whether it shows the relation to have existed at some previous period. There is a Well settled rule of law in civil actions, which revoils inall the States I believe, substantiifily alike; and it appears to me that such a provision would cover all the cases and would not be open to any objection which occurs to me. the pendin amendment to the amendment shop (I not e agreed to, I should then offer the one which I have named.