New-York tribune., 1904-09-27
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE WARE PENSION ORDER.
Some Questions Raised by Friend Who
Doubts It's Wisdom

TO the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: I shouted for Fremont when a boy voted
for Lincoln and his Republican successors, and
expect to vote for Roosevelt But am not salts
fed as to the ruling of half disability at the age
Of sixty-two. That any veteran should be con-
sidered as totally untitled for manual labor at
seventy-ffve reasonable enough. Grant
further. that President McKinley's supplement TO
his predecessors decree. making sixty-ive years
the age OF half disability was all right, does not
President Rooseyets order contradict this? This
IS the dilemma: Mckinley right or wrong
II he right. sixty should still be the age
of half disability. Even President Roosevelt was
three years In finding out that sixty-two and not
sixty-hve. was the proper age for half pension
There must be loose screw in the governmental
machinery that permits such liberty OF decree. The
President Of the United States cannot pay 500
out OF the Treasury on his volition. yet mill
ions may be poured out by a stroke of the pen Is
not the fact this? An earnest effort was made to
secure service pension for all soldiers OF the
CiyiI War. General Black leaned on his crutches
and pleaded with tears in his eyes before the Seat
committee for service pension. Congress reIuS
disability was decided on that every soldier who
was twenty-three years old when the iL CEh w w ar II
pension Was not this getting ahead OF Congress;;
And. further II ali veterans are to be treated
alike. what can prevent a President in the future
who may desire 70 hurry up pensions lot the
the period OF haIf disability Surely such freedom
Of action should be restrained by Congressional
law am very truly yours pE&DEGRAss.
New-YOrk Sept 49, I9O4
lin declaring the attainment of sixty-two years
to be prima facie evidence, subject 10 rebutta!,
Of half dlsa bility the present administration did
not overrule the Lochren and Evans orders, but
simply extended them. The half-disabity age
limit was lowered because a longer experience
had shown that half disability was encountered.
as rule al or near sixty-two and that sixty
two was fairer average dividing line than
sixty-hve II cannot be justly said that the
President by Il stroke OF the pen" committed
the government TO any new expenditures under
Order No IS Not a cent was paid out under
this order until after II had been reported 10
Congress and Congress had voted Sl.10Wo 10
be used to meet any additional burdens incurred
under the ruling for tho remaining months Of
the fiscal year Both houses OF Congress are
thus as fully committed the administration
Is 10 the validity and proprety of the Ware
order
Again Congress never refused TO pass legis-
lation making age rebuttable or non-rebut-
table test OF disability. No legislation OF that
sort has come 10 a vote in either house Yet
Congress has given It's full assent 10 the age
pension principle, both in giving the Interior
Department power 70 construe the act of June
1880 so as TO establish age tests and in voting
without protest or objection. money 10 pay
claims awarded the basis OF age.
The Ware order is not applicable TO Spanish
war pension claims. II is an Interpretation ~
the Dependent act OF 1890, which deals only
with Civu War cases Executive order No IS
involves 10 infringement on the functions Of the
legislative branches II is subject, IS every
other order Of the sor, to revision. amendment
or abolition AZ The hands OF Congress. which re-
tains direct control OF pension appropriations
and can reshape our pension legislation AT any
tine and in any way II may see ht.-Ed-I