were shown due to the service and line of duty in the Civil War and in the War with Spain. The pending bill does not seek to give to these a higher rate in keeping with the new widows to come. Why not? Both are widows because their husbands lost their lives in defending their country. The same injustice applies to mothers, only in a less degree. Again, I find in the pending bill provision to pay the widow until her death. or for two years after her remarriage, should she remarry. I can conceive of no time in the life of a widow when she stands so little in need of a pension than the two years following her remarriage. But I can see in this a grave danger to these young widows. It offers an opportunity for an unscrupulous man to marry them, live for two years, largely upon her pension, and then deliberately desert her. Again, the pending bill requires in case of partial disability that in order to obtain the benefits offered that a claim be filed within one year from discharge, or two years if specially allowed by those charged with the adjudication of the claim. After two years, however, he is forever barred from the benefits of this proposed law by its terms. This is wholly wrong in my opinion. No man who is disabled, and can so prove, in the service of his country and line of duty should ever be barred by any statute of limitations in asking proper and just renumeration for the disability. Under the present law he could file a claim at any time, but he must prove the disability due to service and line of duty, and then the pension only begins at date he does file a claim therefor. He alone loses by his delay in filing; but he never finds his Government has shut its doors in his face through a statute of limitations, and I hope he never will. We now have a well-organized Pension Bureau, manned by a force skilled and trained in knowledge of the general pension law, and it is working smoothly in applying the principles of this good law to all claims which come before it, and will do so in all cases to come in the future. In the matter of the point as to lawful widowhood alone, the experience and knowledge of this trained force is most valuable, if not, in fact, essential to wise and proper adjudication of the claims to come. You can not enact a Federal "yardstick" law as to lawful widowhood that will be constitutional and valid. This arises from the fact that the several States have absolute jurisdiction as to what shall constitute lawful marriage within its bounds, and of course these State laws govern lawful widowhood within its territory. Some States recognize marriage as a common law as valid; others do not. Some recognize marriage as legally consummated by very slight ceremony; others demand most rigid compliance with existing statutes. Some recognize as a valid marriage a marriage that arose in common-law territory, where same was valid through comity, although such marriage is not recognized in its own territory; others do not recognize such principles of comity. In fact, not a claim of any character could arise out of this great war which this force, from its training and experience, would not be able to expeditiously dispose of with equal justice to the Government and the claimant. Why change the law in the first place, or take from this trained force the matter of adjudication of pension claims? Your bill by its pension provision would practically amount to creating two pension bureaus. Is such action wise, needful, or economical? I think not. Now, finally, there are two kinds of pension laws in force at present. are radically different. In principle they are as follows: They First. The general law, which, as set forth above, only gives pension where death or disability is clearly shown due to the service and line of duty; to the widow from date of her husband's death; to the soldier or sailor from the date of filing his claim. Second. The service laws, so called, that began with the act of June 27, 1890, and are now in force under acts of May 11, 1912, as to soldiers and sailors, and September 8, 1916, as to widows in connection with service in the War with Mexico and the Civil War, and the act of March 4, 1917, as to soldiers and their widows who served during certain Indian wars. These so-called service laws do not require that the death of the soldier or sailor, or any disability, be shown due in any way, directly or indirectly, to his service. They are, in fact, only based upon length of service, and either the death of the husband, in the widow's case, or his present age in his own case. In the bill pending before your committee and the testimony as regards same I fancy I see a strange confusion as to the two kinds of pension laws of our country and the cost of same. I have not the exact figures before me, but in round numbers we pay about $165,000,000 each year in pensions. Of this I have no doubt at least $130,000,000 goes to pay the pensioners under the so-called service laws. Your bill will not in any way affect these, but it works a sad injustice to those who would be entitled under the general law, as I have shown. Many do not believe in service laws, and these would counsel and advise that all such laws be annuled. If you did this, however, you would at once fill the poorhouses of every State with aged soldiers and sailors and their widows, who had served during the War with Mexico and the Civil War. Of course no such action would be taken by Congress. Permit me to state that there is no such thing possible as the enactment of a permanent, just, and perfect and unchangeable pension law. No future Congress, as we both know, is bound by any pension legislation of a former Congress. All future Congresses possess the right to amend, annul, suspend, or continue any pension law that it finds in existence. The life of a pension law depends wholly upon the wisdom and justice of its provisions. No future Congress will permit it to live one day after it has been found lacking in these qualities. In conclusion, I beg to state that in my opinion, should the pending bill be enacted with its present provisions, that on account of the grave injustices which I have pointed out in this letter, within a year from the date of its passage, Congress will be flooded by bills, seeking by special act of Congress individual cases to adjust, rectify, and remove the inequalities and injustice. So great will be the merit possessed by these cases that Congress will be forced, in a spirit of justice, to either pass thousands of special acts or by a general law remove the inequalities and injustices cited. Will you not kindly lay this letter before your committee, in accordance with our agreement which I entered into at your suggestion? Respectfully, JOHN A. KEY, Chairman Committee on Pensions. TABLE OF RATES. TABLE I.-For simple total (a disability equivalent to the anchylosis of a wrist) provided by section 4695, Revised Statutes, United States. First lieutenant, assistant surgeon, deputy provost marshal, and quartermaster 17.00 Second lieutenant and enrolling officer_ 15.00 All enlisted men.. 8.00 NAVY AND MARINE CORPS. 30.00 Captain, and all officers of higher rank, commander, lieutenant commanding, and master commanding, surgeon, paymaster, and chief engineer ranking with commander by law, lieutenant colonel, and all of higher rank in Marine Corps-Lieutenant, passed assistant surgeon, surgeon, paymaster, and chief engineer ranking with lieutenant by law, and major in Marine Corps 25. 00 Master (now lieutenant, junior grade), professor of mathematics, assistant surgeon, assistant paymaster, and chaplain, and captain in Marine Corps_ 20.00 First lieutenant in Marine Corps-- 17.00 First assistant engineer, ensign, and pilot, and second lieutenant in 15.00 Cadet midshipmen, passed midshipmen, midshipmen clerks of admirals, 10.00 8.00 1 $72 from June 17, 1878, only where the rate was $50, under act of June 18, 1874, and granted to date prior to June 16, 1880. First grade proper is $50, amended by act Mar. 4 180, which increases rate to $72. TABLE III.-Rates fixed by the Commissioner of Pensions for certain disabilities not specified by law. Anchylosis of shoulder__ Anchylosis of elbow-- Anchylosis of knee_ Anchylosis of ankle_ Anchylosis of wrist. Loss of sight of one eye_. Loss of one eye---- Nearly total deafness of one ear. Total deafness of one ear_ Slight deafness of both ears_ Severe deafness of one ear and slight of the other___ Per month. $12.00 10.00 10.00 8.00 8.00 12.00 17.00 6. 00 10.00 6.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 22.00 Total deafness of one ear and severe of the other___ 25.00 27.00 Loss of palm of hand, and all the fingers, the thumb remaining Inguinal hernia which passes through the external ring- 10.00 6. 00 14. 00 12.00 Double inguinal hernia, neither of which passes through the external 8.00 10.00 Section 4699, Revised Statutes, provides that the rate of $18 per month may be proportionately divided for any degree of disability established for which section 4695 makes no provision. The act of August 27, 1888, provides a $30 rate for total deafness and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant such proportion thereof in cases of partial deafness as he may deem equitable. Act January 15, 1903, increases rate for total deafness to $40. Rates on partial degrees not affected. The act of March 2, 1895, provides that "All pensioners now on the rolls who are pensioned at less than $6 per month for any degree of pensionable disa bility shall have their pensions increased to $6 per month; and that hereafter whenever any applicant for pension would, under existing rates, be entitled to less than $6 for any single disability or several combined disabilities, such pensioner shall be rated at not less than $6 per month: Provided also, That the provisions hereof shall not be held to cover any pensionable period prior to the passage of this act, nor authorize a rerating of any claim for any part of such period, nor prevent the allowance of lower rates than $6 per month, according to the existing practice in the Pension Office in pending cases covering any pensionable period prior to the passage of this act." |