New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-11-23
"oARNEG1E EX-PREsIDENTs."

CARNEGIE EX-PRESIDENTS.'
If Mr.. Carnegies generous offer to
pension future ex-Presidents of the
United States serves TO draw the at
tentiOn Of Congress and the country 10
the possible desirability of government
provision for them it will have an
swered a useful purpose. Mr.. Carnegie
himself evidently considers his pension
scheme only tentative, and says he Will
be happy If his endowment Of ex-Presl-
dents and their widows, until the ma
"tion makes suitable provision for
them" induces Congress to act He
will therefore understand that 1t Is
through no failure to appreciate his
patriotic purpose that the prevailing
public sentiment will be one Of disap
prevail Of private pensions for ex'
Presidents.
We have become so used to private
benefactions on a large scale that at
first sight this offer seems to diner
from them only in detail 1t Is, now
ever, one thing to have Carnegie pro-
fessor emeritus. a Rhodes scholar,
Nobel prize winner, and quite another
thing to have a Carnegie eX-President
OF the United States. Recognition OF
genius, schemes Of education and a
provision experimenting that whlch
private enterprise and munifcence are
commonly expected to make for col
leges and their STATS do not endanger
the self-respect either Of individuals or
communities. But private pension
for a man merely because the people
have made him the head OF the nation
does endanger the self-respect OF the
nation. It BELTS the dignity neither OF
| the country nor Of the ex-President.
IL such q pension Is needed II should
be provided By the government. There
is, indeed, a difference between the &C.
ceptance even by an ex-President Of
large gift from Mr. Carnegie as an In
dividual, which few men would think
becoming, and Its acceptance from an
endowed and permanent fund. Yet we
do not believe that any possible recipi-
ent of this gift, though freed from any
sense of personal obligation, would feel
that a private pension fund was the
suitable appendage TO the great honor
Of the Presidency.
Whether or not an income should be
provided by law for eX-Presidents Is a
question on which intelligent opinion
will differ Some Of our earlier Presi-
dents were embarrassed after their re-
tirement, notably Jefferson and Mon
roe General Grant suffered mis-
fortune, but not because he lacked a
comfortable property on his retirement.
General Harrison practised law, and so
did Mr.. Cleveland after his first term,
and both earned comfortable incomes.
The latter after his second term did
not find it necessary TO engage In bust
ness, though the salary paid him for
some years as an Equitable trustee
doubtless added greatly to his re-
sources. No ex-President since the
Civil War has been forced TO any I'M
dlgnifed activities or any pecuniary
embarrassment, with the exception. as
noted, Of General Grant, whose fortune
was swept away by the Grant & Ward
failure. The recent Increase In the
Presidents salary allows a fair mar
gin for saving. Perhaps with the pres
ent scale Of living and the demands on
prominent men that margin IS not
enough. Any pension which carried
with 1t even an implied obligation that
an ex-President should refrain from
normal activities as citizen-frOm
practising law, or becoming an editor,
II he chose-would be unfortunate. We
want no endowed national f1gureheads,
set apart like princes Of the blood. At
the same time we want our Presidents
TO serve without worry about the
future, to be freed from any possible
necessity Of finding a money making
vocation, when perhaps age, health or
years Of dissertation from their private
profession have made such exertions
trying and success difficult. The nation
can well afford a salary for It's eI-
Presidents, provided 1t does not forbid
them the natural active life Of a dig.
! nifed private citizen. It would pro-
foundry dislike to see them the pen
sioneTs Of any private fund.