5. Upon proof of these conditions they shall "be placed on the lists of
invalid pensioners of the United States, and be entitled to receive for
such total inability to procure their subsistence by daily labor $12 per
month."
It is not probable that the words last quoted, "such total inability to
procure their subsistence by daily labor," at all qualify the conditions
prescribed in the preceding language of the section. The "total
inability" spoken of must be "such" inability--that is, the inability
already described and constituted by the conditions already detailed in
the previous parts of the section.
It thus becomes important to consider the meaning and the scope of these
last-mentioned conditions.
The mental and physical disability spoken of has a distinct meaning in
the practice of the Pension Bureau and includes every impairment of
bodily or mental strength and vigor. For such disabilities there are now
paid 131 different rates of pension, ranging from $1 to $100 per month.
This disability must not be the result of the applicant's "vicious
habits or gross carelessness." Practically this provision is not
important. The attempt of the Government to escape the payment of a
pension on such a plea would of course in a very large majority of
instances, and regardless of the merits of the case, prove a failure.
There would be that strange but nearly universal willingness to help the
individual as between him and the public Treasury which goes very far to
insure a state of proof in favor of the claimant.
The disability of applicants must be such as to "incapacitate them for
the performance of labor in such a degree as to render them unable to
earn a support."
It will be observed that there is no limitation or definition of the
incapacitating injury or ailment itself. It need only be such a degree
of disability from any cause as renders the claimant unable to earn a
support by labor. It seems to me that the "support" here mentioned as
one which can not be earned is a complete and entire support, with no
diminution on account of the least impairment of physical or mental
condition. If it had been intended to embrace only those who by disease
or injury were totally unable to labor, it would have been very easy to
express that idea, instead of recognizing, as is done, a "degree" of
such inability.
What is a support? Who is to determine whether a man earns it, or has
it, or has it not? Is the Government to enter the homes of claimants for
pension and after an examination of their surroundings and circumstances
settle those questions? Shall the Government say to one man that his
manner of subsistence by his earnings is a support and to another that
the things his earnings furnish are not a support? Any attempt, however
honest, to administer this law in such a manner would necessarily
produce more unfairness and unjust discrimination and give more scope
for partisan partiality, and would result in more perversion of the
Government's benevolent intentions, than the execution of any statute
ought to permit.
If in the effort to carry out the proposed law the degree of disability
as related to earnings be considered for the purpose of discovering if
in any way it curtails the support which the applicant, if entirely
sound, would earn, and to which he is entitled, we enter the broad field
long occupied by the Pension Bureau, and we recognize as the only
difference between the proposed legislation and previous laws passed for
the benefit of the surviving soldiers of the Civil War the incurrence in
one case of disabilities in military service and in the other
disabilities existing, but in no way connected with or resulting from
such service.
It must be borne in mind that in no case is there any grading of this
proposed pension. Under the operation of the rule first suggested, if
there is a lack in any degree, great or small, of the ability to earn
such a support as the Government determines the claimant should have,
and, by the application of the rule secondly suggested, if there is a
reduction in any degree of the support which he might earn if sound, he
is entitled to a pension of $12.
In the latter case, and under the proviso of the proposed bill
permitting persons now receiving pensions to be admitted to the benefits
of the act, I do not see how those now on the pension roll for
disabilities incurred in the service, and which diminish their earning
capacity, can be denied the pension provided in this bill.
Of course none will apply who are now receiving $12 or more per month.
But on the 30th day of June, 1886, there were on the pension rolls
202,621 persons who were receiving fifty-eight different rates of
pension from $1 to $11.75 per month. Of these, 28,142 were receiving $2
per month; 63,116, $4 per month; 37,254, $6 per month, and 50,274, whose
disabilities were rated as total, $8 per month.
As to the meaning of the section of the bill under consideration there
appears to have been quite a difference of opinion among its advocates
in the Congress. The chairman of the Committee on Pensions in the House
of Representatives, who reported the bill, declared that there was in it
no provision for pensioning anyone who has a less disability than a
total inability to labor, and that it was a charity measure. The
chairman of the Committee on Pensions in the Senate, having charge of
the bill in that body, dissented from the construction of the bill
announced in the House of Representatives, and declared that it not only
embraced all soldiers totally disabled, but, in his judgment, all who
are disabled to any considerable extent; and such a construction was
substantially given to the bill by another distinguished Senator, who,
as a former Secretary of the Interior, had imposed upon him the duty of
executing pension laws and determining their intent and meaning.
Another condition required of claimants under this act is that they
shall be "dependent upon their daily labor for support."
This language, which may be said to assume that there exists within the
reach of the persons mentioned "labor," or the ability in some degree to
work, is more aptly used in a statute describing those not wholly
deprived of this ability than in one which deals with those utterly
unable to work.
I am of the opinion that it may fairly be contended that under the
provisions of this section any soldier whose faculties of mind or body
have become impaired by accident, disease, or age, irrespective of his
service in the Army as a cause, and who by his labor only is left
incapable of gaining the fair support he might with unimpaired powers
have provided for himself, and who is not so well endowed with this
world's goods as to live without work, may claim to participate in its
bounty; that it is not required that he should be without property, but
only that labor should be necessary to his support in some degree; nor
is it required that he should be now receiving support from others.
Believing this to be the proper interpretation of the bill, I can not
but remember that the soldiers of our Civil War in their pay and bounty
received such compensation for military service as has never been
received by soldiers before since mankind first went to war; that never
before on behalf of any soldiery have so many and such generous laws
been passed to relieve against the incidents of war; that statutes have
been passed giving them a preference in all public employments; that the
really needy and homeless Union soldiers of the rebellion have been to a
large extent provided for at soldiers' homes, instituted and supported
by the Government, where they are maintained together, free from the
sense of degradation which attaches to the usual support of charity; and
that never before in the history of the country has it been proposed to
render Government aid toward the support of any of its soldiers based
alone upon a military service so recent, and where age and circumstances
appeared so little to demand such aid.
Hitherto such relief has been granted to surviving soldiers few in
number, venerable in age, after a long lapse of time since their
military service, and as a parting benefaction tendered by a grateful
people.
I can not believe that the vast peaceful army of Union soldiers, who,
having contentedly resumed their places in the ordinary avocations of
life, cherish as sacred the memory of patriotic service, or who, having
been disabled by the casualties of war, justly regard the present
pension roll on which appear their names as a roll of honor, desire at
this time and in the present exigency to be confounded with those who
through such a bill as this are willing to be objects of simple charity
and to gain a place upon the pension roll through alleged dependence.
Recent personal observation and experience constrain me to refer to
another result which will inevitably follow the passage of this bill. It
is sad, but nevertheless true, that already in the matter of procuring
pensions there exists a widespread disregard of truth and good faith,
stimulated by those who as agents undertake to establish claims for
pensions heedlessly entered upon by the expectant beneficiary, and
encouraged, or at least not condemned, by those unwilling to obstruct
a neighbor's plans.
In the execution of this proposed law under any interpretation a wide
field of inquiry would be opened for the establishment of facts largely
within the knowledge of the claimants alone, and there can be no doubt
that the race after the pensions offered by this bill would not only
stimulate weakness and pretended incapacity for labor, but put a further
premium on dishonesty and mendacity.
The effect of new invitations to apply for pensions or of new advantages
added to causes for pensions already existing is sometimes startling.
Thus in March, 1879, large arrearages of pensions were allowed to be
added to all claims filed prior to July 1, 1880. For the year from July
1, 1879, to July 1, 1880, there were filed 110,673 claims, though in the
year immediately previous there were but 36,832 filed, and in the year
following but 18,455.
While cost should not be set against a patriotic duty or the recognition
of a right, still when a measure proposed is based upon generosity or
motives of charity it is not amiss to meditate somewhat upon the expense
which it involves. Experience has demonstrated, I believe, that all
estimates concerning the probable future cost of a pension list are
uncertain and unreliable and always fall far below actual realization.
The chairman of the House Committee on Pensions calculates that the
number of pensioners under this bill would be 33,105 and the increased
cost $4,767,120. This is upon the theory that only those who are
entirely unable to work would be its beneficiaries. Such was the
principle of the Revolutionary pension law of 1818, much more clearly
stated, it seems to me, than in this bill. When the law of 1818 was upon
its passage in Congress, the number of pensioners to be benefited
thereby was thought to be 374; but the number of applicants under the
act was 22,297, and the number of pensions actually allowed 20,485,
costing, it is reported, for the first year, $1,847,900, instead of
$40,000, the estimated expense for that period.
A law was passed in 1853 for the benefit of the surviving widows of
Revolutionary soldiers who were married after January 1, 1800. It was
estimated that they numbered 300 at the time of the passage of the act;
but the number of pensions allowed was 3,742, and the amount paid for
such pensions during the first year of the operation of the act was
$180,000, instead of $24,000, as had been estimated.
I have made no search for other illustrations, and the above, being at
hand, are given as tending to show that estimates can not be relied upon
in such cases.
If none should be pensioned under this bill except those utterly unable
to work, I am satisfied that the cost stated in the estimate referred to
would be many times multiplied, and with a constant increase from year
to year; and if those partially unable to earn their support should be
admitted to the privileges of this bill, the probable increase of
expense would be almost appalling.
I think it may be said that at the close of the War of the Rebellion
every Northern State and a great majority of Northern counties and
cities were burdened with taxation on account of the large bounties paid
our soldiers; and the bonded debt thereby created still constitutes
a large item in the account of the tax gatherer against the people.
Federal taxation, no less borne by the people than that directly levied
upon their property, is still maintained at the rate made necessary by
the exigencies of war. If this bill should become a law, with its
tremendous addition to our pension obligation, I am thoroughly convinced
that further efforts to reduce the Federal revenue and restore some part
of it to our people will, and perhaps should, be seriously questioned.
It has constantly been a cause of pride and congratulation to the
American citizen that his country is not put to the charge of
maintaining a large standing army in time of peace. Yet we are now
living under a war tax which has been tolerated in peaceful times to
meet the obligations incurred in war. But for years past, in all parts
of the country, the demand for the reduction of the burdens of taxation
upon our labor and production has increased in volume and urgency.
I am not willing to approve a measure presenting the objections to which
this bill is subject, and which, moreover, will have the effect of
disappointing the expectation of the people and their desire and hope
for relief from war taxation in time of peace.
In my last annual message the following language was used:
Every patriotic heart responds to a tender consideration for those who,
having served their country long and well, are reduced to destitution
and dependence, not as an incident of their service, but with advancing
age or through sickness or misfortune. We are all tempted by the
contemplation of such a condition to supply relief, and are often
impatient of the limitations of public duty. Yielding to no one in the
desire to indulge this feeling of consideration, I can not rid myself
of the conviction that if these ex-soldiers are to be relieved they
and their cause are entitled to the benefit of an enactment under
which relief may be claimed as a right, and that such relief should be
granted under the sanction of law, not in evasion of it; nor should
such worthy objects of care, all equally entitled, be remitted to the
unequal operation of sympathy or the tender mercies of social and
political influence, with their unjust discriminations.
I do not think that the objects, the conditions, and the limitations
thus suggested are contained in the bill under consideration.
I adhere to the sentiments thus heretofore expressed. But the evil
threatened by this bill is, in my opinion, such that, charged with a
great responsibility in behalf of the people, I can not do otherwise
than to bring to the consideration of this measure my best efforts of
thought and judgment and perform my constitutional duty in relation
thereto, regardless of all consequences except such as appear to me
to be related to the best and highest interests of the country.