The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-09-16
AGE PENSION ORDER
ISLOOkED INTO.
Continued From First Page

r. z SohliHHedsFfom Flrsf Page
tive proof that he was not disabled.
Hence the question of the constitu-.
tionality of the presidents act depends
upon whether the statute of congress
granted pensions because man was
| sixty-two. II not, the order becomes
fafthless departure from the law in
stead of faithful execution of it.
Quote the Statutes
The following extract from the
statutes in point will be clear to every
one. We append to our report the full
text of the statutes to show the ac-
curacy and fairness of our extracts, as
In matter of this Importance nothing
| is to be taken for granted.
On Jan. 20. 1887, congress had en-
acted as follows, regarding pensions
for those In the Mexican War:
Section THAT the secretary of the
interior be and he is hereby authorized
and directed to place on the pension
and enlste games en the sur wSd ggn Officers
ii, Us Me actually served sixty days
| a battle in said war - provided
Ihat every such officer, enlisted man
I who. IS or may become sixty-two
4 > o.
| ject to any disability or dependency
equivalent to some cause prescribed or
Tecognized by the pension laws of the
nnlted states as a sufficient reason for
| titled to the benefits Of this act.
section Shat before the name of any
| person shall be placed on the pension roll
under this act, proof shall be made under
1 such rules and regulations as the secretary
OF the interior. may prescribe of the
Ilght OF the applicant to to pension.
4 or
| terms. pensioned every survivor of the
| Mexican war either sixty-two years old
or disabled. 1t was passed just thirty
nine years after that war was conclud-
ed. Every soldier who was at least
twenty-three years old when the war
ended, was thus expressly within its
terms, and was intended so to be.
Within five years after the act had
taken effect every soldier of the war
was within it's terms, whether disabled
or not, because he must have become
| sixty-two years of age
| Three years after this statute, con-
gress passed a statute relating to the
Civil war, which is the act mentioned
| in President Roosevelt's executive or
der. 1t provided:
That all persons who served ninety DAYS
or more in the military or naval service
of the United States during the late war
OF the rebellion and who have been hon
now or may hereafter be suffering from
any mental or physical disability or dis
aplllt1es OF permanent character, not the
result of their own vicious habits which
so incapacitates them from the perform
ance of manual labor as to render them
unapie 10 earn support, shall upon max
ing que proof OF the fact, according to
Of the interior may provide, be placed
upon the list Of invalid pensioners of the
United States, and be entitled to receive
ony,fI,
and not less than Sc per month, proper
toned to the degree of inability to earn
q support.
Here Is Difference
Observe the difference between tho
two statutes. Regarding the Mexican
war, congress prescribed that anyone
who was sixty-two years old or dis
abled, should receive pension. In re-
gard to the Civil war. congress pre-
scribed that anyone who was SO per-
manently disabled as to render him I'M
able to earn support by the perform
ance of manual labor, should receive
pension; but no pension was granted
for age.
Fourteen years after the Civil war
statute was passed, the presidents
pension order was issued from the
Office of the secretary of the interior.
The period that had then elapsed after
the Civil war was about the same as
the period elapsed after the Mexican
war when congress gave pension for
age to survivors of that war. The time
had arrived for congress to do the same
thing, If such was the will of congress-
for survivors of the Civil war. No such
statute was enacted. Nevertheless, the
president, by an executive order, de-
liberately and arbitrarily, substituted
the terms of the Mexican war act for
nf he Eor Of xxyhQ
the two were Numerically different
upon the statute book of the United
States. His order nullifed the re-
quirement of incapacity, expressly
placed by congress in the Civil war
statute, except so far as it relates to
men under ty-two Without further
discussion. it becomes manifest that
this was an intentional departure from
the law. and that the charge should be
sustained.
Contrast Between Two Orders
Much has appeared In the public
prints about the order of the pension
bureau issued under Mr.. Cleveland's
administration. This order prescribed
seventy-fv years of age. We need not
discuss the question whether that Or
der was justifiable; certainly it was
unimportant. The difference between
that order and the later one, for which
II serves as an excuse, is CndC the IOr-
mer was in accordance with common
knowledge, while the latter was both
against common knowledge and against
the construction which congress had
put upon its own acts. At siXty-two
man may be- and usually is, able to
perform manual labor; at seventy-five
he is not. And congress had recognized
the former fact when in the
Mexican war statute it gave
pension to men either sixty
two or disabled. The first order
may be justified as a legitimate rule
of evidence for the convenience of the
department, and within the scope Of
the statute. The second was the crea.
ton Of a new class of pensioners, whom
congress had not pensioned.
The usurpation of legislative power
by President Roosevelt is humorously
Illustrated in the words of Gen. Black
at the recent encampment of the Grand
Army, when he thanked the president
for what he had done and urged his
hearers to use their influence that a
law might be passed to the same eff
feet.
Cost of the Order
Te consider next the extent of this
executive usurpation. Almost every
veteran of the Civil war is today at
least sixty-two years old. The very
last will become so within the next
fol1r or five wears The actual effect