widows and dependent relatives filed, there have been allowed 335,273. Very few applications based upon service in the Civil war are now presented under the general law. Down to June 27, 1890, the general law system was the only provision for pension allowances, with the exception of the service laws passed on behalf of the old wars.

Though many abuses, extravagancies and incongruities have crept into our present laws, a properly guarded invalid pension system is in conformity with good public policy. Its value has repeatedly been recognized as a means of encouraging enlistments. So long as nations continue to settle their disputes through warfare, public opinion will hold governments to the duty of properly providing for the care of the unfortunate victims of the battle field. Where injuries have been severe, pensions should be liberal. Aid to widows, orphans and dependent relatives merits general approval, when the head of the family has lost his life as a result of his service. A conservative rule, however, would exclude from the benefits of the pension laws the widow who has married the soldier at a period long after the termination of his service.

The act of June 27, 1890, established a system of pensions for the benefit of those who served ninety days or more in the army or navy of the United States during the Civil war and were honorably discharged, and for their widows and minor children. The above requirement is supplemented by certain important conditions not connected with the service. In its operation, this system, unlike that under the general law, is restricted to the particular war concerned.

The soldier who applies for an allowance must have performed the required term of service and must be suffering from some mental or physical disability of a permanent character, not the result of his own vicious habits, which renders him unable to earn a support by manual labor. Rates range from six to twelve dollars per month, proportioned to the degree of disability to earn a support. No requirement is made that the applicant's disability shall have any connection with military service, and the act of May 9, 1900, provides that, in determining inability to earn a support, each and every infirmity shall be duly considered, and the aggregate of the dis

abilities shown be rated. The amount of the pension is determined by the degree to which all these infirmities, whether minor or serious when considered together, render the applicant unable to earn a support by manual labor. Six dollars per month is the rate for any material impairment of such ability. For total, or nearly total inability to perform manual labor the allowance is twelve dollars. Intermediate rates of eight and ten dollars per month have also been established. A degree of disability that would entitle a claimant to the thirty dollar rate under the general law is pensioned under this act at twelve dollars per month.

Some of the disabilities which are ratable under the general law do not constitute a valid claim under the act of 1890, because they do not materially interfere with the performance of manual labor. For instance, deafness of one ear is not pensionable. Though the age of a claimant is not considered in fixing the rate of pension under the general law, it is an important factor under the act of 1890. A claimant who has reached the age of seventy five years is allowed the maximum rate for senility alone, and at least the minimum rate is usually granted to one who has attained the age of sixty five years.

There are 438,114 persons pensioned under this system for disabilities not of service origin. Of these 100,258 receive six dollars a month, 133,327 eight dollars, 37,055 ten dollars, and 151,572 twelve dollars per month through special acts of congress.

The widow of any person who served ninety days or more during the Civil war and was honorably discharged, if without other means of support than her daily labor, is entitled to a pension of eight dollars per month. She is not required to show that her husband's death was the result of his service in the army, but she must have married him prior to June 27, 1890. The act of May 9, 1900, provides that the widow may be pensioned if without other means of support than her daily labor, and an actual net income not exceeding $250 a year. Pensions to widows begin from the date of the application and continue during widowhood. The additional pension of two dollars per month for each of the children of a deceased soldier, under sixteen years of age, is paid to the widow under the same conditions as provided by the general law.

In case the soldier leaves no widow, or her right to a pension is terminated by death or remarriage, the children under sixteen years of age receive the same pension as the widow would receive if living or eligible. Pensions to minor children who become insane, idiotic or permanently helpless are governed by the same rule as under the general law. Children of a marriage which took place subsequent to June 27, 1890, are not entitled to a pension under this act. The act of 1890 also makes additional and more liberal provisions for the pensioning of dependent parents. There are now 145,011 widows, children and dependent relatives pensioned under this system. The following table shows the great predominance upon the roll of pensioners under this law:

Out of 997,735 persons on the pension list of the United States, 583,225, or over 58 per cent, are pensioned under the act of 1890. The war with Spain pensioners, as given in the foregoing table, are included under the general law, but are classified separately by the pension bureau. Up to the end of the fiscal year 1901 there had been 861,076 invalid claims filed under the act of 1890 and 470,850 allowed, and 357,752 widows' claims filed, with 197,872 allowed. There is an almost constant decrease in the number of Civil war claims annually admitted under the general law. Though the rates under the act of 1890 are lower, its terms are less restricted and proof is more easily furnished. Frequently claims are filed under both systems. The pension under the act of 1890 is more easily secured, but if sufficient proof can be advanced to secure the

allowance of a general law claim at a higher rate, the former pension is surrendered.

The act of 1890 is the most extravagant pension law ever enacted and the most vulnerable point in our pension system. In 1887, President Cleveland courageously vetoed a similar law. He also made a record by his vetoes of unworthy special pension acts. The republican national platform of 1888 denounced the hostile spirit shown by President Cleveland in his numerous vetoes of measures for pension relief, and, in the presence of an overflowing treasury, advocated the extension of pension legislation so as to provide against the possibility that any man who honorably wore the federal uniform should become an inmate of an almshouse or dependent upon private charity. The Grand Army of the Republic, at Columbus, Ohio, in September 1888, adopted resolutions asking for service pensions to all who served sixty days or more in the Civil war, at the rate of eight dollars per month, and to all who served a period exceeding eight hundred days, an additional amount of one cent per day for each day's service exceeding that period. In the presidential campaign of 1888 the pension question was in some localities a very important issue. The republican candidate for governor of the doubtful state of Indiana was General A. P. Hovey, president of the service pension association of the United States. Indiana was carried by the republican party.

After the inauguration of the new administration there was a concerted movement throughout the country for a service pension law. The Grand Army of the Republic and the pension attorneys were very active in urging the matter upon the attention of congress. It was the desire of the republican leaders to satisfy this demand without going to the extreme of a simple service pension bill. Consequently, the act of June 27, 1890, was passed.

It was similar to the dependent pension bill vetoed by President Cleveland, except that it provided for the grading of the pension according to the degree of disability. In the house, the advocates of the measure estimated its cost at $25,000,000 per annum, and in the senate, at not to exceed $41,000,000 per annum. The law costs about $25,000,000

annually more than the highest estimate of its supporters.

Under this system, the rich may be pensioned alike with the poor. If the medical examination shows that the claimant is wholly or partially unable to perform manual labor, there is no further inquiry into his ability to support himself. He may be a professional or business man in receipt of a large income, he may be the owner of valuable real estate or securities, but the law takes no cognizance of these facts. If he served ninety days during the Civil war and the medical examiners certify that he is unable to perform manual labor, he will receive his $144 a year.

The claimant may never have been engaged in active service. His ailments or injuries may have no possible connection with life in the army. His property and income may be quite adequate for the support of himself and family. But the law gives him a clear title to a pension, and, if he yields to the solicitations of some fee-seeking attorney, his name will soon be on the pension roll.

A concrete illustration will throw further light upon the operation of the act. Suppose a lawyer to be crossing a crowded thoroughfare in one of our cities. He is struck by an electric car and receives an injury necessitating the amputation of his foot. If he completed three months' service during the Civil war he has a clear title to a pension of twelve dollars a month for life. But what justice is there in the provision of law which grants him the pension? Beyond the temporary interference with his work, his professional income may not be at all diminished. He may even recover heavy damages from the street railway company. For such a man, the law of 1890 is practically an insurance provision against accident or illness which may result in permanent disability.

Why should one class of men in this country be taxed to make provision of this kind for another class of men? The only possible answer is that the latter class served in the Civil war. It is difficult to believe that reasons of sound public policy can be at the basis of such legislation. It is easier to think that in the presence of an overflowing treasury, congress was unable to resist the pressure of pension attorneys and soldier organizations for a distribution of the surplus.