Mr. FARQUHAR. I understand the objeetion of the distinguished Gentfrom Ili nois [Mr. Wasasnnss] to the principle involved in this bill to be, not that the principle is wrong, but simply that it is an innovation upon the practice of this House heretofore. Now, I ask that gentleman if it is not proper for this House, at some piriod oftime, to epartfrom the usages of this House, if those usages have not been strictly in accordance with the principle of justice and right? What is the new principle involved in this bill, presented to the House by the ComInvalidPens? It is, that upon the death of the widow the pension shall continue to her mine r children, not to the children of the de ceased soldier, who are able to protect and take care of themselves, but to the mine r heirs of the deceased soldier, those who have not passed the age of 16 years. Now, I appeal to members of this House to say whether it has not been the pledge of the people of this country to the men who entere the service of the country to put down the late rebellion, that they would not only protect the soldier who was wounded in the discharge of his service, but that the would take care of the orphan children of the soldiers as the apple of the eye, the jewels of the household? and if the precedent has been wrong, it is the duty of Congress to correct it. This principle is right, and I up cal to this House to sustain it. Mr. PERHAM. I wish to say just this: the purpose of the committee was to place this widow and her children in precisely the same condition in which they would have been had the pension been ranted by the Pension bureau; that is all. tis very true that usually in passing acts of this kind we have not given, by the terms of the act, a pension to the mine r children at the death of the mother and the consequence has been that these orphan children have been obliged to come here to congress and obtain a special act for their own finefit. and, so far as I know, Congress has granted their rpyer in ever instance.