The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-27

after to pin anyyfaithfW whatever on Mr..
Dingley's estimates. AS an estimator
he is dismal failure.
WHY THIS DETERMINATIONS.
The decision Of Assistant Secretary
Davis, Of the interior department, in
the case Of thetl applfcation Of Mary
Ann. widow Of Daniel Spetz, once a
member of a Pennsylvania regiment,
for a widows pension, calls attention
to singular discrimination in the de-
pendent pension act Of 1890 The appli-
cation is denied because it is not shown
that the provision made in the ex-sol-
dier's will is not equivalent to the rat
ing Of IS a month allowed widows in
that act. and that, therefore, the pre-
sumption is that she has "other means
Of support than her daily labor" The
act Of 1890 grants a pension Of So a
month to the widow Of any deceased
officer or enlisted man who Is
without other means Of support than
AASA oSAAiJ AoOOi' IL BIC IDS 0uCll lila l
Is commensurate to So a month";" she
can have no pension under this ruling.
The decision Is warranted by the let
ter of the law, but the question rises
why this discrimination between the
widow and the soldier?
1t was not originally so intended
yYhan ho
proposed. The purpose Of the act was
to provide support for destitute soldiers
whom disease had incapacitated for the
performance Of daily labor. AS report
ed by Senator Davis in March, 1890,
the bill added to that incapacity the
provision additional land who are de-
pendent upon their daily labor or the
contributions of others not legally
bound thereto for their support" Two
conditions were essential to relief. men
tai or physical incapacity for labor,
without regard to its nature, and lack
Of other means Of support than daily
labor. So strongly did the justice Of
the bill thus appeal to the senate that
it passed with but twelve opposing
votes. The opposition to 1t was mainly
based on apprehension that it's spirit
and letter would be avoided and the
modest estimate Of the increase of the
roll through 1t, made by Senator Davis.
would prove fallacious.
In the house there were several sub
stitutes proposed. and one was adopted
pensioning at So month all soldiers
suffering from mental or physical dis
ABILITY which was equivalent to the
grade established by the pension office
for that rating. In conference the house
substitute was dropped and the senate
bill accepted with the very material
modification Of the omission of the re-
qu1rement that the applicants should
"be dependent upon their labor or on
the contributions Of others not legally
bound thereto, for their support" It
merely required that they be ''incapac-
itated from the performance Of manual
labor" But the provision as to the
widow remained unchanged, and she
must show that she has mo other
means of support"
Under the act as passed, and its lib
eral construction, men who have album
dant means Of support, but who can
show that they cannot perform IMAM
ual labor" because Of mental or ply
steal disability, are the recipients Of
this dependent" bounty, but their
widows cannot get continuance of the
pension if they have "other means of
support" equivalent to an income of So
month. The reason for this discrim
nation is not readily comprehended. If
q soldier is entitled to2a dependent pen
sion regardless of his1"other means of
support" why should not his widow
also be? Was it that the soldier had a
vote and the widow none? And why
was the eminently proper provision of
dependence UPON daily labor for sup
port, the one thing that justified the
act, dropped out between the house
and the senate?