Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, since I have had the honor of a seat in this body, no task has been imposed upon me so unpleasant as to oppose an appropriation for the class of soldiers who are to be benblited by this bill; but a sense of public duty compels me to do so. In this I know that I do not agree with the general scutimentof the people of my State, and with the general popular sentiment through out the country; but do it from a sense of responsibility which allows me no doubt or hesitation. T hehonorable Senfrom Indiana, with his impulsive and generous manner, appeals to us to equalize the bounties to soldiers, and to givn them some reward for their sacrifices in eshould do justice to these l pr the cause of their country. Mr. President, we cannot suitably reward the services of our soldiers by money. If we were to pour into their pockets all the money, and give them all the property of our people; if we were to destroy our credit, and roll up mountains of debt, and break down the future prosperity of our country, we could not, in money, compensate for the privations and suffering of our soldiers in this war. It is impossible for us to compen sate them for the Services they have rendered; nor do they seek it. I do not believe that the mass of the soldiers who are to be the recipi ents of this bounty have demanded it of us. I know that in some cases I have received letters from discharged soldiers, who oppose the appropriation of this sum of money; and I have no doubt all Senators have received similar letters. Any attempt to equalize bounties, or to pay the soldiers for their services and sacrifices is utterly futile. All the money of this country, all the credit ofithis country, could not accomplish this result; and every attempt to equalize bounties will only make the inequality more manifest. Wh, sir, there have been soldiers who have serve for one month, and yet who received 4 or 500 dollars as bounty. They entered the service as the war was closing. Could you equalize bounties upon their cases? Some men have received as substitutes $1,000, and probably have been discharged for inability in 3 months. Would you equalize on that basis? Many soldiers who served during 3 years of the war and rendered the most valu able service, far more valuable than any rendered by any other class of our soldiers, re‘en listed and received a bounty of 300 or 400 dollars as recnlisted veterans. They get nothing under your bill. They may have lost their limbs or been disabled for life during theif 2nd enlistment, and urged to do so by the call of patriotism, but they get nothing by your bill. The soldier who enlisted 1st and refused to reenlist again when the country was in the deepest distress, gets the bounty by your bill, while those gallant veterans who re'enlisted and received the bounty you then offered them get nothing at all. That class of men, and there are 168, 507 of them the best soldiers of the Republic who, after having served 3 years, took the bounty that was offered and with their ample experience and their skill and discipline, went again into the service and fought the war through, got nothing by this bill. The bounties proposed by this l bill are only to be granted to those who, having served their 1st enlistment went out of the service, or the 9 months’ men, or the 3 montbs’s men, and those who have heretofore been excluded from yourbounty. I say, therefore, that any attempt by any general legislation to equalize bounties is utterly futile. But, sir, I would be willing to make the attempt did I not see other dilficulties in the way. Before we make this attempt we must remember that if we appropriate this money we must borrow money to pay these bounties. There is now no authority of law for any increase of the public debt. The only law you have passed at tiis session in relation to the public debt expressly provides that the public debt shall not be increased. No authority is given to increase the public debt. You must proposea measure which, in my judgment, will require at least $300,000,000. Upon what basis the Senfrom Massachusetts says it will require only $170,000,000 I cannot compute. I have the papers and documents before me. It is too late to go into the analysis of this computation, but I say it will require not less than $300,000,000. Where is this money to come from? The Senator says it will take 4 years to pay it. Will you dole out this pittance, as you call it, to these soldiers? Why, sir, when the 4 years expire you will have a demand made from these soldiers to equalize the interest upon these bounties; But, sir, the very provisions of this bill require the payment to 0 made within one year, and they will be made promptly. The evidence is easily acces sible, and the yment will be prom made and you havepgaotto meet this sunllflylf yod intend to appropriate it, why not provide for its payment? Are you now prepared to vote an increase of the public det to an amount sufficient to meet this bill? If the Senate adopt this amendment it will become my duty then to propose a measure to raise the means to pay this money. It is utterly idle for us to hold out the promise of bounty to the soldiers without having the money to pay it. It is a delusion; it is a fraud upon them. We must not, and we cannot, do it. Now, we have, during this whole session, gone upon the basis that we would return gradually again to a peace basis; that we would reduce our expenses to the measure of our income; and, in order to relieve the industry of our people, composed in a great measure of returned soldiers, we have thrown off from their shoulders avast burden of taxation. We have taken off at least $100,000,000 of taxes. We propose to do more year by year. We are now reducing daily our receipts. The numerous taxes imposed by us during the war have yielded us a revenue of over $500000,000, but next year they will be far less. Are you prepared to stop now the process of throwing off the burden of taxation? Are you prered to lay on a new tax in order to raise this sum of money, or are you prepared to go to sea again, financially, and borrow money and increase our debt with money at a discount of 3t ree%. in gold 7 These are the questions that must be considered, as well as the patriotic furore by which it IS sought to carry this bill at the heel of the session as an appendix to the appropriation bill. Mr. President, I have here remonstrances from officers of the Government against this bill. I have here a letter from the SecyTreasury stating that he is unable to pay these bounties. I have here a letter, full of instruction, from Mr. Wells, the chairman of the revenue commission, stating his views on the matter of the inadequacy of our tax laws to raise an amount sufficient to pay this sum. I have here an official letter from GenlFry, the Provost Marshal General, showing that the number of persons enlisted into the service of the U.S. during the war was 2, 461,062 of whom 730, 721have received no bounty, an all of whom would be entitled to bounty under the revisions of this bill. Why, sir, the actual ounty paid out by us during the war was $300, 223, 500, and of this 1, 166, 868 men received but the bounty of $100. Their bounty is increased at the rate of 8 dollars and some cents a month, or $100 ayear. No man can sit down and look over these figures and estimate the amount required by this bill at less than $300,000,000. In the amount of bounty that we paid out heretofore, we paid nothing to 760,000 of our soldiers; we only paid bounty to the men who served for 2 and 3 years. I say, then, to sit down and compute the amount required by this bill at less than $300,000,000 is simply idle and illusory; and we must be prepare to raise the money when we propose to pay it. As I said, I have all these documents before me, but it is too late to read them. I have the statement of GenlFry, who compu teathe amount required by this bill at from $300,000,000 to $600,000,000; and here let me say that the PayMGen, the Provost Marshal General, and so far as I know, the SecyWar, and every officer of the Government connected with the service, is opposed to this scheme. Under these circumstances it is my duty to oppose this appropriation. But thereis another ground of objection. Without going into the general merits of the amendment, I submit to Senators this plain proposition: here is a bill which one of your committees is required to report, for what? For the civil service of the Government during the next fiscal year, not to coyer past debts; not to cover old matters, but for the civil service of the Govarnment during the next fiscal year. This bill provides for your lighthouses; it provides for the surveys of the public lands; it provides for the care and custody of your pubic buildings. It is called the civil or miscellaneous appropriation bill. Its passage is absolutel necessary to carry on certain functions of tie Government. Now, what is proposed? The Senfrom Massachusetts comes here with a bill that the ComFinance have never considered and have had no opportunity to consider, and proposes to load this bill upon our should ders so that we shall be compelled to take care of it, and to represent me Senate in regard to a bill providing for at least $300,000,000 at this stage of the session. I ask, is that fair or legitimate legislation? Until recently things of that kind were not done. The ComFinance is opposed to this bill. l believe, unanimously, not that we love the soldiers less than other Senators. I think I have as warm a heart and as kind a feeling for the soldiers who saved our country in this war as my hrnorable friendfrom Indiana, who always appeals to us so stron lyin their behalf. But we have other duties another difficulties to take care of. We have to look at another aspect of the affair; and in the present condition of our finances I say it is not wise to assume this burden; yet it is proposed to put this bill upon the back of the civil appropriation bill at this stage of the session and orcc a controversy with the House upon it. The House passed a bill long ago on this subject that‘will not take more than 1/3rd the sum proposed by the Senate bill. It is framed upon a correct principle; and why? It authorizes a reduction for local bounties. Why should not that be done? You want 40 equalize to the soldiers the bounty paid. Does it make any difference to him whether he has received that bount from his State, his county, his principal, is town, his city, or the nation? Yone whatever. You cannot equalize this among communities or cities. It is a bill for equalizing bounties among soldiers. If a soldier received $1,000 in the city of Boston and entered into the service with that bounty in his pocket, did it not answer his purposejust. as well as if he had received it from the hands of the Government? My own impression always has been during the war that the U.S. should not have granted any bounties except the $100 bounty, which is a substitute for the land grant heretofore given, but allowed the local authorities to make up the bounty. Another thing is to be considered. In dif ierent portions of our common country there is a great difference in the value of money. Thus in the West, $100 to a man in the State of Indiana is worth as much as $200 to a man in the State of Massachusetts. Why? Because the price of food, the price of raiment, the price of the necessaries of life is much less in an agricultural community.