Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1904-10-13
THAT PENSION ORDER.
osns.it.tioa Cannot Re osscursa
\ without National Peril.

OO00t100t1O0 CANNOT BS O0OS0E30
without National Peril.
The Parker Constitutional club OF
New York has issued Il report in which
It is maintained that the executive
pension order of March Is is unconsti-
tutional. The order thus challenged
directs that in the adjudication of pen
sion claims it shall be considered us an
evidential fact. If the contrary does
not appear and If all other legal re-
Quirements are complied With, that
when Il claimant has passed the age
of siNty-two years he is disabled one
half in ability to perform manual labor
and is entitled to be rated at So u
month. The ratings rise With other
age limitations until the applicant has
reached seventy. After that age he is
to receive $1o per month.
The report does not question the pro-
priety Of pension laws of the country.
1t assails the executive pension order
of March Is as an unconstitutional as
sumption of powers ccntided solely to
congress. 1t urges that the order Is to
oil intents and purposes IN amend
ment to the pension laws. is in essence
executive legislation. Similar provi-
sion was made for the veterans of the
Mexican war in 1887 by an act of con-
gress providing that every officer or
enlisted man participating in said war
who had reached siNty-two years of
age Or who was subject to any dis
ability recognized by the pension laws
should be entitled to pension. The
age limit qualifying the veterans Of
the Mexican war was thus established
by legislation, n safe precedent, action
which carefully preserved the distinc-
tons between executive. legislative and
judicial functions.
Secretary Hitchcock in defending the
order declared that it merely lays down
as a convenient rule of decision and a
rebuttal presumption Of fact that one
who is siXty-two years Of age is par-
tally disabled from earning living
with his hands. In other words, the
effect Of the order is to cast upon the
government the burden Of proving that
the petitioner, If over sixty-tWo years
Of age, is not disabled. To the lay
mind not conversant with the ,niceties
Of legal distinction the challenged or
der looks very much like IN amend
ment to the pension laws whose effect
will he to pension all veterans who
have reached the designated age limit
Practically it is legislation under the
guise Of ruling on question Of evi-
dencc to be submitted in support of
pension claims.
Precedents are quoted for the justi-
fication of the order, but this is poor
answer to the charge that it is uncon-
stitutional. The safe and conservative
course with respect to the age limit
order would have been to resolve all
doubts concerning its constitutional
ity, so that the distinctions defining
executive. legislative and judicial
powers would have been preserved
beyond question. The issue has now
entered into politics. Constitutional
questions are probably debatable in
the political arena. The Parker Con-
stitutional club is forcing an issue
whose discussion will be educative
and. helpful by bringing into clearer
view the old landmarks Of the con
stitution, which cannot be obscured
without national peril