Norwich bulletin., 1911-11-30
THE HoLD-uP OF PENSIONS.

The hurried passage of the amend
 ment to the pension law of this state
 over the governors veto by the vote
 of the president of the senate upon a
 tie vote, has proven a misfortune to all the veterans of Connecticut, al- though this was not the intent of the law makers.
 These amendments have been con- tfnnously misfnterpreted and so we are not surprised to find Chairman Murphy of the board of assessors of Norwich wrong in his statement of the law. which was on Wednesday printed as follows.
 Col John P Murphy. president If the board of assessors. stated on Tuesday that the board is obliged to keep within the law, and in this con nection he said that the board has been obliged to place the regular valu- alton on the property of soldiers. This was made necessary by the law pass cd by the last legislature, giving the veterans a pension of s30 instead Of 1he abatement of s1, 900 on their prop ertr, as formerly At the time Gov ernor Baldwin declared the law to be unconstitutional, and vetoed it, but 1t was passed over his veto. The matter of the payment of the $50 to veterans has since been declared unconstitu- tionaI bx the attorney general, and the comptrolIer's office has been prevented from paying the pensions, though there were many applicants"
 The amendment to the law was for the purpose of equalizing benefits to all veterans residing in this state and owning property here, who were not wholly dependent upon the state for support
 The section of the law pronounced unconstitutional is so framed that it distributes state aid to all veterans in the state whether they served the state or not and, figuratively speak ing. extends it to their fathers. moth CTS. sisters, brothers, cousins and zunts. There Is nothing unconstitu tional in paying pensions to deserving veterans: but there is to wasting state tax funds upon sentiment instead of upon real service
 In eoualizing the taxes the exemp- ton of S1,000 had been deprived of from s3 1-3 to 50 per cent of it's orig inal benefit, hence this amendment of law to exempt s2.00O instead of s1,00o of the real estate of civil war veterans upon the supposition that the average tax was about Is mills to the s1,000 throughout Connecticut: and that this increased exemption or taxable prop erty would about equal the s30 award ed annually by this same amendment to soldiers of the civil war not own ing property, the exact amount, by the way, the state of Virginia gives her confederate veterans.
 There is nothing in the law which zbafes the property exemptions to the veteran soldiers: and the attorney general sn reply to a letter of inquiry from the editor of The Bulletin and printed on November II. 1911, said:
 The statute in question does not repeal the exemptions given to old soldiers under Section 2315 of the General Statutes, and amendments thereto; but simply provides that such exemptions shall not apply to the property of any person entitled to state aid under the provisions of the new law So, If the new law is held to be invalid. the exemptions under the old law will remain
 There is nothing indefinite about this ststement of Attorney General Light, ana # is surprising the assessors of the state had not taken counsel of him.
 This fs a decision which ought to command the respect of the Norwich 1 assessors. since it is explicitly stated that a trial of the case has no bear ing whatever on the old law which | exempts the property of civil war vet l