competitor in the labor market than the man with some means of support. The second argument is obviously far-fetched. It requires a lot of imagination to suppose that the prospect of a very meager assistance in their old age would alone be sufficient to make wage-earners work for lower wages. Furthermore, it is known to all students that the wage rate paid, at the present time, does not presume savings for old age as a prime element and daily necessity for the working people. While there is some truth that in the industries having regular pension systems the wage rates of certain classes of workers-especially those past their middle age-may be lower than in other industries not having such systems, it is because there is the incentive to work in the one particular industry over the other. How a state-wide pension system could have a similar effect is difficult to see. As to the third contention of encouraging immigration it is not borne out by the facts in the countries where such systems are in operation. Long terms of residence within the state is required everywhere, and immigration, as is well known, is not popular with men past middle age. That a small pension given, when reaching old age would hardly be a sufficient inducement to young immigrants, is self-evident.

(5) Straight pensions, concludes the Massachusetts Commission, would have a disintegrating effect upon the family. "A non-contributory pension system would take away, in part, the filial obligation for the support of aged parents, which is a main bond of family solidarity. It would strike at one of the forces that have created the self-supporting, self-respecting American family. The impairment of family solidarity is one of the most serious consequences to be apprehended from an experiment with non-contributory pensions.

Mr. A. M. Huddell, in presenting a dissenting opinion upon this point states:

The facts that are before us as to the influence of pensions on the American family have either been entirely overlooked or misconstrued by the majority of the commissioners. We have before us the pension of the veterans of the Civil War, their widows and orphans, and I fail to find the evidence that warrants any statement to the effect that this pension by the United States Government has disintegrated the family, or lessened "the filial obligation for the support of the aged parents," or has in any way impaired the family solidarity. On the contrary, the pensions to the veterans of the Civil War has built up the American family, and the filial obligation of the family has been

strengthened and its solidarity maintained. An old person

living with a married son or daughter that is striving to bring up a family and provide for them as an American family should be provided for, and give to the children a proper education, can find a place for the veteran or his widow who receives a pension from the government in the family, because they do not take away from the family any of the necessities of life, or stop in any way the education of the children. At the same time, the independence of the veteran or his widow is maintained, because they have enough to pay for their needs at that period of life. With this pension the old veteran and his widow are made comfortable in their old age by living with their children, their friends, or in homes where they are paying their own way, and have a feeling of independence that old people should have. They know they are not taking away from the family any of the necessaries of life, or hampering the education of the children through any expense of their own support. Any extra expense in the workman's family directly affects the education of the child, compelling him to leave school and seek employment to help maintain the family.

The same argument is also answered by Mr. L. W. Squire as follows:

Fortunately or unfortunately, according to the standpoint of religion and economics from which one views the matter, we Americans have not that conception of the family, as the unit of society, and that reverence for old age, which is ingrafted upon the heart of the Oriental in all his religious and economic training. In China and Japan it is rare to find any individual in want above sixty years of age, who has not some relative, no matter how remote, whose ethics and religion command him to make a place in his home for the indigent one, and provide for him as if he were a member of his own immediate family. Almshouses, private indoor or outdoor relief, for the old, are hardly known in those Oriental lands, where high ethical regard for the aged is instilled into the individual common mind from infancy. Unfortunately, however, in this country, no such esteem for the aged one prevails, except among his near relatives and especially in agricultural communities. In our manufacturing centers especially, the helpless, destitute grandfather or grandmother is regarded as a distinct burden to the household, the carrying of which oftentimes forces the children out of school and into the streets, factories, or shops, in order to provide for the added increment to the household expenses which the taking on of an aged relative, no matter how near he may be to the immediate family, entails.

From the Commission's studies it was seen that in the case of both almshouse and benevolent institution inmates, more than 65.5 per cent had no children living. Of the aged applicants for relief, about 40 per cent had no children, and among the general aged population, altho the percentage of those. having no

children at all was little more than 10 per cent, only 24 per cent of the aged were actually supported by children, while 43 per cent had no other sources of income.

(6) Straight pensions are objected to also because they resemble charity much more than a system of insurance in which the worker makes a contribution. This, however, depends largely upon the public opinion. Considered in the light of deferred real wages instead of poor relief, the receipt of a pension would not involve any degrading effects.

(7) Non-contributory pensions by the state, argues the Massachusetts Commission will result in "mischievous political effects. It would open the door to political favoritism of various sorts." William H. Lacky contends that "Such a question would infallibly pass into the competitions of party warfare. It would become in most constituencies one of the most prominent of electioneering tests. Rival candidates would be competing for the vote of a wage-earning electorate who had a direct pecuniary interest in increasing or extending pensions and in relaxing the conditions on which they are given. Can it be doubted that in many cases their first object would be to outbid another, and that national and party politics would soon be forced into a demoralizing race of extravagance?

(8) The constitutionality of such a scheme is also questioned by the Massachusetts Commission. Strangely enough, however, it admits that firemen, policemen and teachers who "are not only rendering peculiarly hazardous meritorious services to society, but also have deprived themselves of the full opportunity of earning the largest returns for their services in a competitive way . . . have some claim upon the state for special consideration in the matter of public support in old age. This claim, however, cannot exist in the case of persons employed in the ordinary competitive callings." The fallacious method of the Commission's reasoning at this point is self-evident.

OLD AGE PENSIONS1

The preamble to the "old age pension act" of 1898 of the New Zealand Parliament, which is now before me, states the position of the colony in the matter clearly. It runs as follows:

1 From article by Hugh H. Lusk. Marlboro, New York. Arena. 23635-46. June, 1900.

Whereas, it is equitable that deserving persons who during the prime of life have helped to bear the public burdens of the colony by the payment of taxes, and to open up its resources by their labor and skill, should receive from the colony a pension in their old age.

Here, it will be remarked, there is no question of charity, and no note of complaint as for a burden submitted to but unwillingly borne. It is not because the community cannot permit the aged among its members to die of starvation, or to be tempted to crime, that it proposes to grant these pensions, but as a matter of justice and right. It is because these persons have an equitable claim on the community in which they have lived and worked, which it would be dishonest to deny and unjust to ignore. It is because the persons who are to receive the pensions have deserved well of the country; because in the past, while they had the power, they helped to bear the burden of its taxes, by which all, especially the rich and successful, have profited; because their labor and skill thrown into the common stock helped to develop the resources of the country, and so to benefit, to an extent practically incalculable, those who succeed them; it is for these reasons, and such as these, that the people of New Zealand propose to make their old age comfortable and their position honorable.

This legislative experiment of the people of New Zealand is noteworthy not only because of its novelty in the history of social legislation, but still more because it proceeds upon a new principle and recognizes a new code of social ethics not hitherto acknowledged in the legislation of civilization. The new note struck is one of gratitude on the part of society to those who have served it well. It is no longer a question, as it has been in all the legislation for the helpless in the past, as to how society can protect itself at once most cheaply and effectively, but how it can best recognize the services that each respectable and honest citizen has rendered to his fellows by the mere fact of his brotherhood. This principle is more important than even the special application of it to the case of helpless old age. It may be found that the particular application needs many amendments, but so long as the principle is maintained the amendments may be trusted to come. The substitution of the rights of its members for the collective selfishness of the community at large, of gratitude for past services for a grudging impatience that

there is no longer anything to be made out of those who in the past have borne the burden of the country's taxes and by their industry developed its wealth, and of the recognition of social obligation instead of that of social self-interest, furnish a new motive for legislation the wider application of which may yet be the means of solving many problems.