The National tribune., 1884-01-31
ARREARS OF PENSIONS.
The Law and the Fasts-An Exhaustive Opinion
from Senator Ingalls,.

To the Editor NATIONAL TRIBUNE:
The limitation TO the arrears act of January,
1879, was the result of compromise in the
committee which reported the bill Those who
regarded the principle as just insisted that it
shout be recognized Internationally, but
those opposed to the theory, as well as they
who feared its consequences, while admitting
its equity, combined their forces, and the
friends of the measure were compelled, under
protest to agree to the illogical provision limit
ing the payment of pensions from the date Of
discharge to those cases fled before July 1,
1880
The fundamental question IS very simple. Is
q military or naval pension for disability
gift, or is it debt? If it is a gift, then the
donor can bestow it at bis pleasure. If it IS
a debt, then it is due when it is earned.
Civil pensions, and those allowed for service
merely, irrespective of disability, as in the
case of the survivors OF the war of 1872, are
benefactions, and the Government has an I'M
questioned right to fix the date and terms of
payment. But it can no longer be considered
doubtful that pensions for disability. arising
from wounds or diseases received or incurred
in the military or naval service, are obligations
which constitute valid claim upon the Gov
eminent under the original contract of enlist
ment.
This view is sustained By an unbroken line
of presidents in the action Of all martial ma
tons. So that it may be assumed that if a
soldier IS wounded or disabled by disease, the
Government IS pledged 70 give him pension
and if he is slain in battle or dies subsequently
from these causes, to pension his widow and
orphans; or, if he is unmarried, to pension his
other dependent relatives. Upon any other
theory than this the Nation would obtain few
volunteers to undergo the fatigues, privations
and perils of war.
If the Government, then, agreed with every
soldier and sailor at the time Of his enlistment
that if disabled he should be persioned, when
does the right to pension accrue, and when
does ii become due and payable? When does the
soldier earn the pension which the Govern
ment has promised? 1t must be at one Of three
periods: Either, 1st, when the soldier is
actually disabled or, ID, when he applied
for it; or, Sd, whenever the Government gets
ready to pay it. The last was the period pre-
scFibed by statute prior to the act of 1879. 1t
was so nloTstTousiy unjust that no one has ever
had the femerity to defend it. The compilation
of the evidence necessary to establish the claim
was designated as the time when the pension
was to begin The soldier who lost his leg by
cannon shot at Gettysburg, if he postponed
his application till 1873, must have waited till
all the evidence of his injury, that the commits
sion might require, was fled, before his claim
could be acknowledged.
Equally indefensibie is the limitation of the
right to the pension at the time when the
claimant applies Patriotism may deter him;
other Affairs may claim his attention; pride
may prevent him FROM calling on the Govern
ment for the fuIfIlment of its Obligation; af-
fuence or competence may render it unneces-
sary but the right has existed from the incep-
ton of the disability. and the Government
should not be heard to say {" You might have
had this pittancei if you had chosen TO call for it.
but because you did not, it shall be eonfscated.
| The only honest and logical limitation Is
/ that assumed by the arrears Of pensions act
and that IS the date of actual honorable dis
charge.
| 1t has often been claimed by the enemies Of
| the law that this was an innovation. but an
/ examination of the statutes VIII show that ii
has been distinctly recognized in many enact
ments as the just principle upon which pen
sions should be adjusted Iii the acts of July
II, 1862, July l. 1864, June 6. 1856 July p
/ 1868, and the final act of 1873 the obligatio;
of the Government frora the date of disability
is clearly defined, and, until the passage of thu
act of 1879, it was never denied.
The vocifer0us din and uproar Of denuncia
/ ton with which this benefcent statute ha.
been assiiled has no precedence in malign ans
INDIGENOUS ealumny. The motives and the IN
telligence of its supporters have been asperseG
i with every element of detractiOn. 1t is no
alleged that it was unjust TO the defenders o
the Nation, nor in violation of the public faith
but it is asserted that improper methods wer'
employed to secure its passage; that under it:
administration enormous frauds are perpetrat
ed, and that immense sums Of money viii b,
| required to carry il into effect.
The statement has been so often made tina
Congress yielded TO prodigious outside pressure
in the form of petitions prepared and forward
ed from different States, that the history of tn.
| legislation is not without interest and value
The agitation began in 1876. In that year ont
petition Oh the subject, and only one, was pre-
sented to the Senate, and that was from New
York. In 1S76-'77 twenty-five States SEN
ffty-fye petitions to the Senate In the frs
session of the Forty-ffth Congress two peti
tioas were presented to the Senate. In til.
second session of that Congress five States sen
| nine petitions In Inc third session. 1915 %
when the bill was passed, I37 petitions wer,
introduced, making g.aud total in four year
of 2o4 petitions on the subject of arrests 0
pensions which were presented to the Senate
An investigation of the archives of the Hous
would undoubtedly show asnlilar state of facts
This is Ike FalstafE's men in baekram,
That frauds hare been praetieed is not m
probable But this is not valid arguinen
either against the justice or the wisdom of th
law We are not asked 10 abolish the Post
olice Department because there have beef
Star Route fraeds, nor TO repeal the tariff be
cau.e tl.yrs are snasglers. The per ceat 0
fraad at the Pension Office has been grossly
exae scsatgl, aad IS LOW reduced to m:ni
nam.
In view Of swift punishment that has fol
lowed offenders, few r,l,l.is are likely 10 re pr
pesratcd hereafter.
II he act of January Is. 1872. was correct i
principle, t.len tae limitation imposed by t.
NJ. Of March j 1S19 sssnuld be removed. AIT