313 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR 
 
 PENSION 
 LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 A FOUR-THOUSAND-MILLION RECORD 
 OF LEGISLATIVE INCOMPETENCE 
 
 TENDING TO 
 GENERAL POLITICAL CORRUPTION 
 
 By 
 CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS 
 
 Reprinted from The IVorld's Work 
 
 "I want to say this, here and now, though I realize the 
 effect of my vote upon this question, that $50,000,000 
 a year is too big a price for the country to pay to bring me 
 back to Congress." — Hon. William Hughes, M. C. — 
 Congresiiond^Record, January 10, 1911, page 750. 
 
:<#! 
 
 Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030742872 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR 
 
 PENSION 
 LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 A FOUR-THOUSAND-MILLION RECORD 
 OF LEGISLATIVE INCOMPETENCE 
 
 TENDING TO 
 GENERAL POLITICAL CORRUPTION 
 
 By 
 CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS 
 
 Reprinted from Tie IVorld's Work 
 
 "I want to say this, here and now, though I realise the 
 effect of my vote upon this question, that $50,000,000 
 a year is too big a price for the country to pay to bring me 
 hack to Congress." — Hon. William Hughes, M. C. — 
 Congressional Record, January 10, 191 1, page 750. 
 
(iS 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 On Tuesday, December 12th last, the anticipated occurred. 
 The so-called "Sherwood" or "Dollar-a-day" pension bill, re- 
 ferred to and discussed in the following papers, was acted upon 
 as the earliest considerable measure taken up at the first regular 
 session of the Sixty-third Congress; and that by a Democratic 
 National House of Representatives pledged to an economical 
 expenditure, "wise, efficient and effective." The vote stood 229 
 yeas, against 92 nays. The character of the debate, and of the 
 speeches which preceded the taking of the vote, is elsewhere 
 referred to. Sentimental to the last degree, it was neither 
 creditable in tone nor in accordance with the ascertained facts 
 of history. 
 
 The pension disbursements in the year 1910-n because of 
 the Civil War amounted approximately to ^150,000,000. Since 
 the close of that war an aggregate of four thousand million dol- 
 lars has been disbursed from the National Treasury, pensions 
 paid because of physical injuries sustained, or services rendered, 
 or alleged to have been rendered, in that struggle. Should the 
 Sherwood "Dollar-a-day" bill become a law, it is estimated 
 by the Pension Bureau that a further amount of 1^75,000,000 a 
 year will be added to that disbursed in 19 10- 1 1, or an increase of 
 fifty per cent. And this, forty-seven years after Appomattox! 
 
 Under the coming allotment the country is to be parcelled 
 out for the next ten years into 435 congressional districts. In 
 each of these districts in 37 States, an average sum of i?40o,ooo 
 will be annually disbursed under already existing legislation. 
 Should the "Dollar-a-day" bill become a law, this annual dis- 
 bursement will be further increased by $200,000. In each of the 
 districts in the States referred to, there is now an average of 
 2600 recipients of pensions. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 The natural political result of such conditions at once sug- 
 gests itself. 
 
 The subject matter discussed in the! following paper is 
 momentous, reaching down as it does to the very base of our 
 American institutions — the purity of the constituencies. The fast 
 developing pension system is nothing more nor less than the 
 initial step in what will, and at no remote day, surely become an 
 established policy of general bribery and corruption. At present, 
 in dealing with the subject, members of Congress and others are 
 either short-sighted or foolish enough to say that, though the 
 amount expended is large, and steadily increases, it will be but 
 for a brief time. In ten years the "Veterans" will all, or nearly 
 all, be dead; the thing will then stop of itself. 
 
 Nothing of the sort will occur ! On the contrary, it is vastly 
 more probable that ten years hence the pension roll of this coun- 
 try will be three hundred million dollars a year than that it will 
 be less than it now is. What has hitherto been done in this 
 way, or is now being done, is merely the entering wedge. It 
 is so safe, as well as so personally inexpensive, for members of 
 Congress to buy votes with the public money! 
 
 The order of future events will proceed somewhat as fol- 
 lows: — We now have a "Veteran" pension system affecting, on 
 an average, about 2,600 voters in every congressional district 
 north of the Potomac and, with a few exceptions only, in all 
 of those west of the Mississippi. The parties openly and 
 avowedly bid against each other for that vote — Democrat 
 against Republican. It already involves an annual disburse- 
 ment of about $400,000 a year in each congressional dis- 
 trict. Under the proposed " Dollar-a-day " largess measure, this 
 amount will be increased to about |6oo,ooo a year in each 
 district. Next in order will be the Volunteer OflTicers, Retired 
 List, involving an annual expenditure of about ^15,000,000 a 
 year — §50,000 on an average, in each district. Next come 
 the widows and dependents of the "Veterans," involving an 
 amount impossible now to estimate. If fixed at $20 a month, 
 as proposed, it will probably be $100,000,000 a year for an 
 indefinite future period, and affect a number of households not 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 easy to calculate. That the "old militia men and teamsters and 
 telegraphers and the other men who did so much for the Union 
 cause" should now be given a pensionable status is next urged. 
 And why not? They also have votes in congressional elections! 
 
 The system thus fairly inaugurated, the next move, already 
 agitated, is to pension the Civil Service officials. These are some 
 300,000 in number, or about 700 in each congressional district, 
 which, added to the 2,600 already referred to makes an aggre- 
 gate of 3,400. Behind that comes the Old Age Pension Sys- 
 tem, and other gratuity projects, of which echoes from abroad 
 and suggestions at home already reach us. 
 
 It is not too much to say, therefore, that, on the road we 
 have now fairly entered, and upon which we by leaps and bounds 
 are so rapidly advancing, within the next fifteen years the annual 
 pension disbursements of this country will amount not improb- 
 ably to five hundred millions, representing over a million of annual 
 gratuities paid out in every congressional district, affecting no 
 less than from five to seven thousand voters therein. 
 
 Under the system hitherto in vogue in this country of pro- 
 gressive pensions — that is, annual increases promised by candi- 
 dates for office — it is not too much to say that at a not remote 
 period the government will thus at each election be practically put 
 up at auction. Each congressional candidate will travel through 
 his district, hat in hand, promising to be more liberal in the way 
 of pensions, etc., than his opponent. "Codlin's the friend, 
 not Short. Short's very well as far as he goes, but the real 
 friend is Codlin — not Short!" The result of such competitive 
 election bidding any disinterested citizen can with no consider- 
 able difficulty work out for himself. 
 
 As one of the most sagacious and experienced members of 
 the present Congress observed a short time since: — "Under the 
 natural development of the system inaugurated by the Old-age 
 Civil War Pension roll, within ten, or at the most fifteen, years, 
 the pensioned dependents on the National Treasury, each look- 
 ing eagerly for an early increase in the 'mere pittance' now 
 'doled out' to him, will represent six thousand votes to a dis- 
 trict, or the controlling factor in almost every election." 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 In this progressive system, the move immediately impending 
 is an increase of the Old-age Veteran pensions from an aggregate 
 of ^150,000,000 a year to one of ^225,000,000 a year, or, as has 
 already been said, the enlargement of the annual disbursement 
 in each of 435 congressional districts from ^5400,000 to ^600,000. 
 Of this large total, moreover, some six per cent, only is disbursed 
 in ten states, once members of the so-called Confederacy. 
 Ninety-four per cent, of it will be disbursed in congressional dis- 
 tricts north of the Potomac and Ohio, and west of the Missis- 
 sippi. 
 
 The writer has frequently been asked why, in face of the 
 apparently inevitable, he assumed the not inconsiderable task 
 of preparing the following papers. His reply is simple. Having 
 himself done military duty in the Civil War for a period little 
 short of four years, his sole object is, in so far as may be in his 
 power, to bear witness against what he considers, and what 
 many others consider, one of the most individually demoralizing 
 and politically debauching acts of which record exists, and al- 
 together the most ill-concealed and unblushing piece of political 
 jobbery, corruption and bribery as yet to be found inscribed in 
 American annals. Nor is any end to it yet in sight ! 
 
 Charles Francis Adams, 
 Col. and Brevet Brig. Gen. 1865. 
 Washington, i January, 19 12. 
 
 IV 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
I 
 
 spare at the Spigot and Spill at the Bung: The Modern Practical 
 Observance of a Political Mandate Looking to a Wise, Efficient 
 and Effective Administration of Public Affairs With a View to 
 a Retrenchment of Expenditures: Campaign Promise and 
 Congressional Performance: The Carcass and the Vultures. 
 
 THE publication known as the Congressional Record is an 
 awkward, as well as an enduring fact; and, with it at 
 hand for ready reference by political opponents, habit- 
 ually to reconcile utterances and votes of a wholly contradictory 
 tenor, involves, on the part of the average member of Congress, 
 recourse by no means infrequent to a fineness of distinction bear- 
 ing close resemblance to bare-faced sophistry. So gross is this, 
 indeed, as at times to seem indicative of scant respect for the 
 intelligence of those, constituents or otherwise, to confuse and 
 deceive whom it is designed. A somewhat striking illustration 
 of this commonplace is now apparently in order for January, 1912, 
 an illustration to be writ large and in dollars; in fact, in the scores 
 of millions of dollars. 
 
 The special session of the 62nd Congress, convened in April 
 last, adjourned on the 25th of August. Called in advance of the 
 regular date of meeting to consider and act upon the proposed 
 commercial pact with the Dominion of Canada, Congress, in so 
 far as was practical, confined its action to the business imme- 
 diately in hand, attempting no general legislation; but, at its 
 closing session, Mr. Oscar W. Underwood of Alabama, the official 
 and recognized leader of the dominant party in the House of 
 Representatives, made a statement in regard to the economies 
 
 •The following paper appeared in separate articles in three successive numbers of the 
 fVorld's Work — that for December, 191 1, and those for January and February, 1912. 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 in national expenditure so far effected, as a result of the incoming 
 of the political party of which he was the mouthpiece. The 
 amount was not considerable; in fact, as national expenditures 
 go, it was trivial. In Mr. Underwood's own language, "the total 
 saving in money as a result of the enforcement of Democratic 
 policies during the present session of Congress is $308,836.67." 
 But he then went on further to say that "a determined effort 
 will be made to effect proportional savings in the administration 
 of the Government in every department"; and he added — 
 "This House is pledged to reform the administration of public 
 affairs and to retrench public expenditures. . . . Not a 
 dollar will be appropriated which a careful investigation does 
 not demonstrate should be expended in a wise, efficient, and 
 effective administration of public affairs." 
 
 The programme to which Mr. Underwood thus committed 
 his party was excellent as well as pronounced. The effect, how- 
 ever, was somewhat impaired by a subsequent remark of Ex- 
 Speaker Cannon, to the effect that he believed "the country 
 will not approve the waste of time over the saving of cents here 
 and there, when the great affairs touching expenditures that 
 aggregate nearly a thousand million dollars are neglected!" and 
 he might have said "ignored." 
 
 The saving referred to by Mr. Underwood, so far merely in 
 the nature of an earnest, was thus, he explicitly asserted, the 
 first step in a systematic house-cleaning policy, both sweeping 
 and drastic. So much for the special session of the 62nd Con- 
 gress, and its Record. Meanwhile, throughout that session there 
 was, from its beginning to its end, in spite of its assurances and 
 commitments, an undertone curiously and distinctly ominous 
 so far as any reduction of the aggregate of public expenditures 
 was concerned — an undertone most suggestive of the ancient 
 adage as respects saving at the spigot and wasting at the bung- 
 hole. While a jealous and watchful eye was kept on the spigot 
 of House expense, the pension "Bung Hole" was with difficulty 
 kept stopped. The opening thereof, it was well understood, 
 awaited merely a more opportune, though not remote occasion. 
 Judging from the official report of what was said and done at 
 
 4 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 the special session, that occasion cannot apparently be deferred 
 far beyond the beginning of the new year. 
 
 For present purposes it is not necessary here to enlarge upon 
 the existing pension system of the United States. It is sufficient 
 to say that the world has not heretofore in its history seen, as 
 respects volume, anything like it — anything even approaching 
 it. In the year 1866, that immediately following the close of 
 the Civil War, the national appropriation for the payment of 
 pensions, though supposedly covering, under existing legislation, 
 cases of wounds and disability therein incurred, amounted to a 
 little in excess of $15,000,000, annually. Forty-five years later, 
 in 191 1, the exact amount reported as expended under that head 
 was $157,325, 160.35, and for the three years 1909, 1910, and 1911 
 the average annual disbursement because of pensions consider- 
 ably exceeded $ 1 60,000,000. The exact aggregate for those years 
 was $487,300,304.85 ; a sum so large that giving it conveys no idea 
 to the ordinary mind. In other words, fifty years after the close 
 of the Civil War, the pension payments because of that war hav- 
 ing increased in volume tenfold, were still on the ascending grade. 
 And that they were still on the ascending grade was clearly in- 
 dicated both in the debates and in the parliamentary action of the 
 special session of the 62nd Congress. Moreover, that, so far as 
 the House of Representatives was concerned, it was not then 
 increased by an amount variously estimated at from $20,000,000 
 to $50,000,000 annually, was due solely to the fact that, by a 
 recourse to ingenious parliamentary expedients on the part of 
 those anxious to make a showing of economies, action was pre- 
 vented on a measure upon the calendar — action both persistently 
 and strenuously pressed. Into the nature of the expedients thus 
 resorted to, it is for present purposes unnecessary to enter. So 
 doing would involve the explanation of a complicated system of 
 parliamentary procedure. The fact, however, was patent that, 
 those responsible for the conduct of affairs knew perfectly well that 
 could a way under the rules be found to compel a vote on the 
 measure in question, it would have been passed by an overwhelm- 
 ing majority of an opposition house, pledged to a reduction in the 
 
 5 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 volume of public expenditures. And this in spite of the fact that 
 the measure in question necessitated an increased treasury outgo 
 of some fifty millions a year — a bare-faced largess, in no possible 
 way contributing to a "wise, efficient, and effective administra- 
 tion of public affairs." 
 
 When, in December, the 62nd Congress meets in its first 
 regular session, recourse can apparently no longer be had to 
 parliamentary expedients to prevent action. Like a sword of 
 Damocles, the measure impends. It will have to be met; and 
 it will have to be disposed of. The present purpose is to discuss 
 the true nature of the impending measure; the reason for infer- 
 ring that no adequate opposition will or can be offered to its 
 passage; and finally, its defects, and the character of the possible 
 measure which should be substituted for it. The modest origin 
 and phenomenal growth of our pensions has been alluded to. 
 Both the system and the abuses which accompanied its growth 
 have been described in recent numbers of the World's fVork} 
 The question is no longer of the past; that speaks for itself in the 
 figures of a disbursement in excess of four thousand million 
 dollars. The present discussion relates to what is proposed to be 
 done in the immediate future; the objections to it; and, finally, the 
 substitute policy, which, better late than never, should now be 
 adopted. 
 
 The previous favorite measure, the passage of which was nar- 
 rowly prevented by recourse to a strict observance of the rules 
 of procedure in the Senate during the final days of the closing 
 session of the 6ist Congress, was known as the Sulloway Service 
 Pension Bill. As reported with a favorable recommendation 
 to the Senate, after its passage by the House, this measure would 
 have imposed upon the Treasury an additional draft estimated 
 by the Pension Office at ^50,000,000 a year. In a minority 
 committee report then submitted, it was stated that, during 
 the last four years, or since February 6, 1907, Congress had 
 increased the pension disbursements by the sum of ^29,000,000, 
 
 'See the series of five articles entitled "The Pension Carnival," by William Bayard Hale 
 in the issues of the IVorld's H-'ork for October, November, and December mio and 
 January and February, 191 1. ^ 
 
 6 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 per annum. The act known as that of 1907 increased them 
 by $16,000,000, and the act of April 19, 1908, added another 
 $13,000,000 to this amount. And now, a simple amend- 
 ment to existing laws, strongly urged, granting $30 a month 
 indiscriminately to every soldier of the war over 70 years of age, 
 would, it was estimated, swell these aggregates by $9,000,000 
 more. There would thus be a total increase of $38,000,000 in 
 the pension payments within four years. An average of, ap- 
 proximately, ten millions increase a year. 
 
 That preference in the order of business was not accorded this 
 measure, and that it should, solely because of a recourse to par- 
 liamentary expedients by those opposed to it, fail of passage, was, 
 it is needless to say, warmly resented by a large class of would- 
 have-been beneficiaries. As one of those objecting to its pre- 
 cipitate consideration — a public character of long and varied 
 legislative experience — at the time ruefully expressed it, while 
 in daily receipt of remonstrances, nearly all "denunciatory" and 
 many "excessively abusive," the natural inference would be that 
 a government now disbursing a hundred and fifty millions a year 
 in pensions "had never done anything for the soldiers of the Civil 
 War, and that this measure (to which precedence over other 
 measures had been denied) was an effort to get some slight 
 recognition for their services." 
 
 The 6 1 St Congress expired on the 4th of last March, and the 
 62nd Congress met a month later. The House of Representa- 
 tives of the old Congress had been strongly Republican; that of 
 the new was as strongly Democratic. This House had, more- 
 over, been chosen in an outspoken spirit of protest against the 
 extravagant and even reckless scale of public expenditure al- 
 leged to have been indulged in — a scale necessitating most 
 onerous taxation. Thus the popular branch of the 62nd Congress 
 was chosen under a distinct mandate — the inauguration of a 
 system of economical reform. The cost of living, already exces- 
 sive, was manifestly increasing; and a halt was accordingly called 
 to an era of inordinate and extravagant public profusion. With 
 an eye to this mandate, the committees of the new House were 
 in due time appointed. Over those committees Democratic 
 
 7 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 chairmen presided; Democrats predominated in their member- 
 ship. Among the committees thus appointed was that on In- 
 valid Pensions. It met, and at once proceeded to the work as- 
 signed it — that of a reformed and economical administration 
 involving far the largest single item of national disbursement. 
 
 As a result, it may be assumed, of full and deliberate con- 
 sideration, it at last, on August 19th, reported what must be taken 
 for its idea of an improved economical substitute for the so-called 
 SuUoway bill — that measure which had so narrowly failed of 
 passage by the previous Congress. Of this bill — the Sherwood 
 bill — more presently. Meanwhile, through some parliamentary 
 legerdemain unnecessary to consider, another measure was al- 
 ready before the House. This was known as the Anderson bill, 
 and was a measure of the character usually known as a "blanket 
 bill." That is, it provided for an indiscriminate and large in- 
 crease of pensions under provisions of the most sweeping char- 
 acter, including not only veterans of the war but the widows of 
 deceased soldiers and sailors; and it was estimated that, if it 
 became a law, it would increase the draft on the Treasury by some 
 ^50,000,000 a year — in other words, raise that draft in the aggre- 
 gate to the two hundred million mark. This bill, it was alleged, 
 had been so to speak, "sneaked" into its position on the calendar; 
 and the charge, which was apparently advanced in numerous 
 papers, led, on the 31st of July, to a somewhat unseemly alter- 
 cation on the floor of the House between two members, both from 
 Ohio — General Sherwood, the chairman of the Committee on 
 Invalid Pensions, and Mr. Anderson, a member of the committee, 
 the introducer of the bill. Mr. Anderson asserted that, though 
 he might have "sneaked" in his bill, he at least did not "sneak 
 into the corridors and fail to vote when the bill came up for 
 action," thus intimating that the chairman of the committee, 
 claiming paternity of another measure, had in this way sought to 
 evade responsibility. Passing by these amenities of debate as 
 immaterial to the main issue, it is not necessary, for present pur- 
 poses, seriously to consider the so-called Anderson bill. It would, 
 however, be difficult to suggest anything in its favor. Crude and 
 slovenly in form, it was in its provisions indiscriminate, grossly 
 
 8 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 inequitable and wildly profuse. "Blanket" legislation of the 
 most pronounced and vicious character, it was well calculated 
 to promote mendicancy, destroying all sense of respect in the 
 beneficiaries under it. But this measure has been practically 
 superseded by the so-called Sherwood bill, formally reported, 
 after much deliberation in committee, with one dissentient only. 
 It thus embodies the final conclusions of sixteen members of the 
 present House, ten of whom are Democrats, while six are Repub- 
 licans. Six of the number were born subsequent to i860, and 
 three only saw any actual Civil War service. The measure and 
 the accompanying report were, after presentation, referred to the 
 Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Under 
 the rules it is thus in position to be called up for action on any 
 specified Tuesday of the coming session. Over the head of the 
 Democratic House, about to fulfil its Mandate of Economy, this 
 bill now hangs. 
 
 In the report which accompanied this bill much space was, for 
 appearance sake, allotted to an enumeration of economies to be 
 effected thereby. The measure itself is framed on the basis of 
 what is known as the "dollar-a-day pension bill," first introduced 
 by the chairman of the present Committee, General Sherwood — 
 "Old Dollar-a-day Sherwood" as he likes to have himself des- 
 ignated — then a newly elected member, early in December, 
 1907. Re-introduced in December, 1909, it was pending before 
 the Committee on Invalid Pensions up to the end of the 6ist 
 Congress. In the report now accompanying its appearance in a 
 new and perfected form, much emphasis is laid upon the fact that, 
 during the preceding year, the Government had paid out over 
 ^700,000 for medical boards and special examiners. It was now 
 proposed that these boards, to a certain extent barriers against 
 abuse, were to be done away with, as being no longer required. 
 This was a measure of economy! Furthermore, it is stated that, 
 during the previous year, ^300,000 was paid out for special pen- 
 sion examiners, nearly all of which, it was argued, could now be 
 saved, and the money paid direct to the soldiers. A second 
 barrier against abuse done away with in the name of economy! 
 A further "economy" feature was that, under the sweeping pro- 
 
 9 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 visions of this measure, the Pension Bureau would be in a posi- 
 tion largely to reduce its office force. Over !^ 1,000,000, it 
 is claimed, now spent in salaries could thus be saved, and paid 
 direct to the soldiers. And yet, even while advancing this ar- 
 gument, those who advance it know perfectly well that the 
 measure they are advocating will increase the work of the Pen- 
 sion Bureau for years to come, necessitating a large addition to 
 its clerical force if the avalanche of claims which pour in is 
 to be disposed of within any reasonable estimate of the life- 
 time yet remaining to the " decrepit " and " halting " pension 
 claimant. But it is so throughout! The utter futility and 
 falseness of the arguments made and the considerations 
 advanced by those advocating more " liberal " pension legis- 
 lation are conceivable only by those who make a study of 
 the Record. The audacity of assertion, plainly contradictory, 
 exceeds belief. 
 
 Without repealing any existing pension law, or in any way 
 modifying, restricting, or changing the laws or rules governing 
 the payment of present pensions to the inmates of national 
 soldiers' homes, the so-called Sherwood, or dollar-a-day bill 
 seeks to provide that every soldier who served in the Civil 
 War, no matter where, when, or how, for the period of ninety 
 days should receive $15 per month for the remainder of his life; 
 every soldier who served 6 months, ^20; every one who served 9 
 months was to get ^25; and he who served one year or more, 
 irrespective of his present age, was to receive ^30 per month. All 
 these payments, it is to be borne in mind, were to be made to men 
 who suffered no wound or injury during their term of service, nor 
 incurred therein any physical disability. Such are already cared 
 for by virtue of other legislation. The payments now provided 
 were to be a pure gratuity, based upon the fact that the recipient, 
 at a period nearly fifty years ago, performed some sort of military 
 service for ninety days, or six months, or nine months, or one 
 year or more. Upon the theory that all the money to be appro- 
 priated should go to soldiers in distress, a provision was added 
 that no ex-soldier enjoying a net income of ^1000 a year or more, 
 should draw any additional pension under the provisions of this 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 act. The word "additional " here should be noted. It is a word 
 of much significance in this connection. 
 
 While this bill was being drafted and was still in committee, 
 it was referred to the Pension Bureau for the usual estimate of 
 the cost likely to be entailed thereby should it become a law. 
 The Pension Bureau refused, however, to make the called-for 
 estimate, on the ground that, owing to the section which ex- 
 cluded soldiers with a net private income per year of ^i,ooo or 
 more, no data existed upon which an estimate could be based. 
 Thereupon the Committee proceeded to make an estimate of its 
 own. By virtue of this "estimate," the possible number of 
 pension recipients was reduced from 20 to 30 per cent; that 
 number of "veterans" it was "guessed" enjoying incomes of 
 over ^1,000 a" year. Other deductions of somewhat similar 
 character were then made; and finally an estimate — a final 
 "guess" — was reached that the aggregate increased draft on 
 the Treasury during the first year of the operation of the bill 
 was not likely to exceed |2o,ooo,ooo. But, as the great mass of 
 the claims are necessarily acted upon during subsequent years 
 (the Bureau being swamped by the number thereof), and all 
 operate back to the time the claim was filed, it is not unsafe to 
 estimate that for the second year the draft made on the Treasury 
 by virtue of this measure would be in the neighborhood of at 
 least ^40,000,000.1 The report then goes on to state that under 
 this bill no provision was made for the soldiers of the Mexican 
 War; while any further measure for the benefit of soldiers' 
 widows, etc., was to be considered in a separate bill to be re- 
 ported by another committee. It would thus appear that, under 
 the measure now favorably acted on by the Committee on In- 
 
 'Subsequently, the Secretary of the Interior, in an official communication addressed to 
 the Hon. P. J. McCumber, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Pensions, estimated the 
 aggregate number of pensioners for the several periods of service prescribed in this measure 
 at 471,336, and the total increase of pension payments per annum at 175,651,548. The 
 average increase per annum per pensioner was fixed at 1 106. 50. It was further estimated 
 that the number of those entitled to a rate of $30 per month would be 357,474, implying 
 an annual disbursement on their account alone of §128,690,640. These totals are so 
 considerable as to carry no significance to the average mind. Meanwhile, by way of com- 
 parison, it may be observed that the total amount paid out since the foundation of the 
 Government on account of the War of Independence up to this time is estimated at 
 170,000,000, or less than the mere increase provided for by one year's operation of the 
 Sherwood "Dollar-a-day" bill. 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 valid Pensions, the ^160,000,000 paid out by the Pension Bureau, 
 according to its report in 1910, is to be increased by the sum of 
 from $50,000,000 to $75,000,000 in the not remote future; 
 further provision being yet to be made for the soldiers of the 
 Mexican War, for soldiers' widows, etc., etc., etc. 
 
 Sweeping and extravagant as this measure is, it does have one 
 feature of improvement, and of marked improvement, oyer 
 previous legislation. It recognizes to a certain degree the period 
 of service — it is at least an effort in the direction of manifest 
 justice. The ninety-days man, the six-months man, the nine- 
 months man, and the three-years man are not all lumped to- 
 gether and dealt with as if the mere fact of service at all or of 
 any sort alone called for consideration. Under this system, which 
 has permeated all previous legislation, men who had never heard 
 a hostile shot, or seen a Confederate flag outside of a museum, 
 men who, as had notoriously been the case, had taken advantage 
 of the expiration of a brief term of service to march home to the 
 sound of the enemy's cannon after battle had been actually 
 joined! — such were not set down as the equals in every respect 
 of those who went in for the whole war. A distinction was 
 recognized between the eleventh hour recruit and he who had 
 borne the heat and burden of the entire day. The bill was at 
 least an attempt to recognize the one great essential distinction 
 — differences of time in the manifold enlistments. It had in 
 this respect much to commend it as an advance upon all previous 
 
 'As a matter of practical experience, and speaking from the strictly military point of 
 view, the three, six, and nine months organizations of the Civil War were worse than 
 useless. Costly in point of money, they had a demoralizing effect upon the armies in 
 which they served. Of use as a training-school for reenlistments for longer terms, these 
 organizations in themselves did not know how to march, and could not be depended upon 
 to fight. In other words, the periods of their enlistments did not afford time in which 
 to ripen and harden them for the real work of warfare. There is in the files of the State 
 Department a curious letter, incidentally bearing on this subject, addressed by John Lolh- 
 rop Motley to Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State. Written from England a few months 
 only after the battle of Bull Run, Mr. Motley therein gave an account of a conversation 
 held with Earl Russell, at that time the British Foreign Secretary. Referring to the first 
 Bull Run, Earl Russell then said he "thought that much less effect had been produced in 
 England by the defeat and the rout than by the circumstance of so many regiments leaving 
 on the eve of active operations because their term of enlistment had expired." As respects 
 these short-term organizations, this was true throughout the entire conflict. They could 
 not be depended upon. Those composing them are, however, now clamorous applicants 
 for "more liberal pensions" in consideration of services which, as a rule, were of less than 
 no real military value. 
 
 12 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 efforts at pension legislation. So much, at least, must be said 
 in commendation of it. 
 
 Conceding this, the present "Sherwood" bill — that under 
 immediate consideration — is, as presented, none the less in 
 other respects a somewhat noticeable example of that absence of 
 care and exactness characteristic of all " blanket " legislation. 
 A slovenly piece of work, badly drawn, not grammatical and at 
 points meaningless,^ it was in these respects in thorough keeping 
 with the mass of pension enactments. It, moreover, invites con- 
 cealment, deception, fraud, and perjury. Take, for example, 
 that clause upon which so much emphasis in the accompanying 
 report is laid, intended to confine pension payments under this 
 act to the needy. Under a previous pension measure of a dif- 
 ferent character reported in the Senate in 1909 (Senate 4183), 
 it was provided that a beneficiary under that act should first 
 "make affidavit that his income derived from private sources 
 and including the income of his wife" did not exceed a specified 
 amount; but in the Sherwood bill, it will be observed, it is merely 
 provided that a pension under the act should not be paid to any 
 soldier whose annual income is ?iooo or more. As already 
 stated, it was then crudely estimated that from 20 to 30 per cent, 
 of the possible beneficiaries would be excluded by the operations 
 of this clause. If so, they must, it would appear, be excluded 
 at their own option. No affidavit is required; no provision is 
 made for examination of individual cases; there is no exception 
 because of income derived from a wife. The possible beneficiary 
 is left to settle the matter with his own conscience. Practically, 
 the exception thus amounts to nothing. Moreover, what at 
 most, or in any case, does it amount to? The accompanying 
 report especially says that the bill does not repeal or modify 
 any existing pension law. The exclusion, therefore, of cases 
 in which the possible recipient has a private income of ^1000 or 
 more, would only prevent his drawing the difference between the 
 pension provided under a previous law and a pension provided 
 under the proposed law. The economy upon which so much 
 
 'See speech of Mr. Evans of Illinois, December 9, 191 1, Record, Sad Congress, Second 
 Session, pp. 144-45. 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 emphasis in the report is laid, thus amounts to nothing at all. 
 It is an economical blind, devised to "save the face," so to speak, 
 of a committee uneasily conscious of a mandate to reduce the 
 public outgo^- 
 
 It has already been stated that no precedent exists in the history 
 of the human race for such indiscriminate and promiscuous 
 giving as that already provided for under the existing pension 
 laws of the United States, or for anything even approaching it. 
 Of this the British Old Age Pension act is illustrative. This 
 act — at the time of its passage deemed one of unprecedented 
 liberality outside of our own pension system — it was estimated, 
 would impose a draft on the Imperial Treasury of about six 
 million sterling (^30,000,000) a year. Experience is uniform and 
 invariable to the effect that every measure of indiscriminate pub- 
 lic giving far exceeds, in its practical operation, any preceding 
 estimate made of the cost thereof. It proved so in the case of 
 the British Old Age Pension act, the provisions of which were 
 most general. The originally estimated disbursement of six 
 million sterling a year, will, in the third year of the operation 
 of the act be thirteen million — the equivalent of some 
 ^65,000,000, in American money. The annual pension drain on 
 the American Treasury, because of a war fought close upon fifty 
 years ago, already considerably more than twice that amount, 
 will, under the proposed legislation, should it become a law, 
 exceed it by more than threefold. Nor is the limit reached, or 
 the end even remotely in sight. 
 
 It is a safe and good rule for legislators, whether municipal, 
 state, or national, to measure every proposed public expenditure 
 by their individual and private standards — in other words, to 
 do for and with the public as under similar conditions and cir- 
 cumstances they would do for themselves, with their own. When 
 
 •Subsequently, this provision was stricken from the bill by a vote of 1 57 yeas to g^ nays. 
 This action was markedly characteristic of the temper of the House throughout the debate 
 on the Sherwood Bill in the following December. Any effort to limit the aggregate dis- 
 bursement or to reduce in any way the number of benficiaries under the act was mani- 
 festly repugnant to a majority of the body elected under a direct mandate to reduce public 
 expenditures. In the course of the debate attention was emphatically called to this by 
 Mr. Fitzgerald of New York, who said of the Sherwood Bill: — "Its enactment sounds 
 the death knell of the hopes of the Democratic party successfully to reduce expenditures 
 and to lower substantially tariff taxes." Record. December 12, 191 1, page 221. 
 
 14 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 for instance, it is a question of making a draft on the public 
 treasury, the strictly conscientious legislator would err on the 
 right side only, should he be actuated, mutatis mutandis, by the 
 same considerations of reasonable expenditure which would 
 actuate him were he signing a check or authorizing a draft on 
 his own bank deposit. 
 
 The matter of provision to be made for those who for any 
 reason are insufficiently provided for, is no new question. On 
 the contrary, in one form or another, it has, as a problem, oc- 
 cupied the attention of the individual man, the legislator, and 
 the business administrator or director almost since the beginning 
 of time. And if, as a result of all human experience, through 
 largesses, distributions, charitable bequests and foundations, 
 poor-laws and work-houses, doles, out-door reliefs, asylums, and 
 pensions — the panem et circenses of all times and kinds — one 
 fact stands forth more distinct and indisputable than most 
 others, it is that promiscuous and indiscriminate benefactions 
 and givings are a curse to all concerned. In such case the demand 
 always exceeds the supply; feeding on itself, the thing fed grows 
 with an exceeding growth. Impairing self-respect, it saps the 
 desire of self-help. It creates dependents and begets mendicants. 
 
 It remains to apply these rules of action and results of ex- 
 perience to the United States pension legislation. Did any one 
 ever hear of a private individual or a large business concern 
 which, in providing for employees and dependents, pursued the 
 policy which has for the last thirty years been pursued by the 
 United States Congress, as respects what are known as the 
 "veterans" of the Civil War, or those dependent upon them? 
 Did any one, either in a private capacity, a corporate capacity, 
 or a public capacity, ever hear of a system under which equal 
 amounts were distributed in the form of annuities to every one 
 who had been in a public or private or corporate employ, at a 
 given period of time — provided only it was in excess of ninety 
 days — and wholly irrespective of his means, present occupation, 
 earning capacity, or physical condition? A private individual 
 who, dealing with his own funds, adopted such a policy, would 
 unquestionably at an early day be in bankruptcy; provided 
 
 15 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 always he was not put under guardianship by a court-of-law 
 on petition of members of his family or those dependent on him. 
 The directors of a business corporation, no matter how large, 
 who pursued such a policy, would unquestionably be held per- 
 sonally liable for perversion of corporate funds. Yet this is 
 exactly the course which, in the case of the Civil War pension 
 roll, has, for the last thirty years, been pursued by a succession 
 of Congresses. 
 
 Custom has habituated the country to the spectacle; and the 
 extreme crudeness, and consequent waste and incidental abuses 
 and corruption of the system are taken as matters of course. 
 They excite neither notice nor criticism. To realize the situation 
 it becomes necessary to get a glimpse of it objectively — to see 
 ourselves as others must see us. Let a case be supposed. Ref- 
 erence has already been made to the British Old Age Pension 
 system. By virtue of that act, ill-considered in many respects 
 and confessedly open to grave criticism, weekly payments are 
 made under clauses necessarily general in their phraseology, to 
 all persons coming under their purview. These of course are 
 numbered by tens of thousands. Now let it be assumed that, 
 in addition to general legislative action. Parliament were to 
 assume both administrative and judicial functions; inviting indi- 
 vidual applications, exceptional in character, and undertaking 
 to pass upon each separate appeal; granting special exemptions 
 and favors, and in cases even correcting and setting aside the 
 judgments and sentences of judicial tribunals, declaring him 
 not a criminal who is a criminal of record ; and if this were done 
 habitually and in thousands of cases each year (pensioning and 
 pardoning being recognized as a parliamentary perquisite) such 
 a system, indiscriminate, illogical, wasteful and confused, we 
 would at once pronounce unworthy of a civilized country and 
 impossible of continued operation. Yet that is the exact system 
 in use in the United States. As a result of its workings, a hundred 
 and sixty million dollars were, in 1910, drawn out of the Treasury, 
 and under those workings it is proposed to draw out over two 
 hundred and twenty-five millions in 191 3. Were this not a fact, 
 the statement of it would seem incredible. 
 
 16 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 The question, therefore, naturally suggests itself, why is such 
 a system continued? And much more, how has it come about 
 that the extension of such a system is not only proposed but is 
 so sure of passage, that, can it once be brought to a vote, action 
 can be forestalled only by recourse to parliamentary expedients? 
 To any one who makes a study, even a superficial study, of 
 existing conditions, the answer is obvious. Much has been heard 
 of late of the trusts and of great trade combinations which con- 
 trol legislation, greatly to the public detriment, while more 
 conducive yet to private emolument — "predatory wealth," 
 the phrase goes. It is safe, however, to say that there is to-day 
 in Washington, or in the world, no influence which, in its power 
 to break down opposition and to bring about the legislative 
 results it desires, is at all comparable to the influence which has 
 grown up and become organized under the existing United States 
 pension system. That system disburses eight score millions a 
 year. Wherever disbursements on any account run into the 
 millions, the opportunity for what is known as "pickings" can- 
 not but exist. To that rule no exception can be found. The 
 Commissioner of Pensions, in his report for the year ending 
 June 30, 19 10, states that more than 25,000 recognized attor- 
 neys practise before the Bureau. During the year 1909 more than 
 ^320,000 of public money was disbursed among them. He 
 further states that there was a marked increase in the amount 
 of attorneys' fees paid, due to claims filed and allowed under an 
 act passed during the previous year. Every "blanket" act 
 implies an enormous increase of attorneys' fees. A most fair- 
 faced and plausible, but altogether deceptive clause from 
 time to time appears in these acts to the effect that no 
 money under the provisions thereof shall be paid to attorneys. 
 The clause amounts to absolutely nothing. This was curiously 
 demonstrated in the case of possible beneficiaries under the 
 various pension laws after the Spanish War. "On the return 
 of the army from the Philippine Islands, most of the troops were 
 mustered out in San Francisco. In advance of their arrival at 
 that point, the pension attorneys of Washington hurried to the 
 spot to open offices or have their agents ready to meet the return- 
 
 17 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 ing soldiers. According to the language of the soldiers themselves 
 the rival agents beset them at once, importuning them to file 
 their claims for pensions without delay. To the bewildered youth 
 eager only to reach their homes, seventy-five attorneys seemed 
 to be pursuing each victim, assuring him that it was his duty 
 to file his application, whether an invahd or not. The hospitals 
 had to be guarded against these tormentors masquerading as 
 friends of the invalids." In the case of a single regiment com- 
 posed of officers and men of exceptional physical excellence, 477 
 applications for pensions were filed within four months, for over 
 twenty different diseases! 
 
 "Wheresoever the carcass is there will the eagles be gathered 
 together." For "carcass" in the above biblical aphorism read 
 "Pension largess" and, for "eagles," "vultures," and the situa- 
 tion with us as respects pension attorneys is not inadequately 
 set forth. For them, each fresh "blanket" bill spells — 
 "Harvest!" And it is safe to say that, if the exigencies of legis- 
 lation called for it, every one of the 25,000 attorneys practising 
 before the Pension Bureau could be depended upon for at least 
 one telegram to some member of Congress. It is no exaggeration, 
 therefore, to assert that, at a single indication amounting merely 
 to a warning from the sentinel "vulture," from twenty to thirty 
 thousand telegrams would in a single day be poured in upon Con- 
 gress. The pressure also could be directed exactly at the points 
 where pressure was most necessary or desirable. Outside of 
 congressional circles, few have any idea of the influences which 
 can thus be brought to bear. It is to be remembered also that, 
 on the other side, nothing is heard. What is every one's busi- 
 ness is proverbially no one's business; and any member of Con- 
 gress, whether Senate or House, questioned on the point, would 
 state that to one letter or message of protest against some 
 "blanket" act involving the expenditure of tens of millions, he 
 will receive at least a hundred urgent messages demanding its 
 passage. If, moreover, any member of Congress raises his voice 
 against such a measure, he becomes at once the recipient of 
 letters of remonstrance, some indignant, others abusive and 
 threatening. Most rarely, however, does he get a letter of com- 
 
 18 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 mendation or sympathy. The logical result follows. Members 
 of Congress are somewhat exceptionally human. 
 
 Looked at from another point of view, the political influence 
 in favor of any and every additional pension measure, no matter 
 what its character, is apparent, and even more startling than 
 apparent. On the 30th of June last, there were upon the rolls 
 of the Pension Office the names of over 880,000 recipients. These 
 of course, are unequally distributed. They represent, however, 
 on an average, considerably more than 2,000 recipients for each 
 present congressional district of the country. In Indiana, for 
 instance, there are 4,176 pensioners to a district; in Maine there 
 are 3,773. The six New England states average 2,985 recipients 
 to each district. In twelve other states — New York, Pennsyl- 
 vania, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, 
 Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas — the districts average a 
 trifle more than 2,800 each. On the other hand, in the eleven 
 states which constituted the Confederacy, represented in the 
 aggregate by 98 members of Congress, there are but 754 recip- 
 ients to a district. The two states of the Confederacy having 
 the largest number of pensioners are Arkansas and Tennessee 
 with a fraction more than 1,640 to a district; but Georgia with 
 eleven representatives averages 310 pensioners only to each 
 district; while South Carolina with seven representatives has 
 but 275. In seven former Confederate states having an aggre- 
 gate of sixty-eight representatives, the pensioners average 490 
 only to a district, as compared with 3,258, the average in six 
 populous Northern states returning 89 members of the House. 
 Furthermore, the pensioners in the Southern states referred to 
 are, presumbly, nearly all pensioners coming down from earlier wars 
 — the Mexican War or even that of 1812 — and the provisions 
 of the pending Sherwood bill, with its fifty millions of increased 
 annual outgo, affect the states named in no appreciable degree;' 
 
 'Less than 6 per cent, of the total amount paid out for pensions is disbursed in ten states 
 which include 25 per cent, of the whole number of congressional districts. This fact 
 accounts for the extreme eagerness of the present House of Representatives to make most 
 liberal provision in any pension act that might be passed for the surviving "veterans" of 
 the Mexican War. It was desired to conciliate the states of the old Confederacy, giving 
 them what is known in Washington as their "share of the pork." On this subject Mr. 
 Edwards of Georgia, made some exceptionally well considered and suggestive remarks in 
 the course of the final debate on the Sherwood bill. {Record, December 1 2, 1 9 1 1 , pp. 23 5-6.) 
 
 19 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 while, on the other hand, six Northern states — Ohio, Illinois, 
 Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Kansas — have at least 120,000 
 would-be beneficiaries under that bill, averaging not less 
 than 1,300 to a congressional district. 
 
 For reasons that at once suggest themselves, no considerable 
 opposition to this indiscriminate but unequal distribution of 
 public money has as yet been made by the representatives of the 
 Southern states; though, in addition to their share of the heavy 
 burden of taxation imposed generally by the national pension 
 payments, each of these states supports a local system making 
 provision for the disabled and necessitous yet living, among 
 those furnished by it to the armies of the Confederacy. In- 
 cidentally, it may be observed that some of those Confederate 
 pension measures as respects administration as well as the measure 
 of relief furnished, might well afford material for congressional 
 study. Carefully framed, while assisting the deserving and 
 needy, they do not hold out temptation to fraud or actively 
 stimulate and foster mendicancy. For instance, under the 
 pension law of South Carolina there is a provision that property 
 sufficient to produce $75 in the applicant's own or his wife's 
 name, debars a possible beneficiary from receipt of a pension. 
 Furthermore, it is credibly asserted that in the Confederacy 
 the veteran "who possesses even a moderate competence, who 
 has sons or daughters able to provide for him, would regard it as 
 a humiliation to be offered a pension by the State." 
 
 20 
 
II 
 
 Pension Beneficiaries as a Political Factor and Menace: Those 
 Once Battle-scared now the Battle-scarred: The Travesty of 
 Special Enactments: The Conscription Scarecrow: The 
 Bounty Jumper and Deserter: President Lincoln on "Rotten- 
 ness" in the Army of 1862: More than 500,000 Cases of Re- 
 corded Desertion. 
 
 REFERRING, in April last, incidentally and in the course 
 of some remarks on another but cognate subject, to the 
 Civil War pension system, the present Secretary of the 
 Treasury, Mr. Franklin MacVeagh, observed that it had lost 
 its patriotic aspects and now become a political list. In Washing- 
 ton this fact is understood and appreciated; for, while it is true 
 that all pensioners are not actual voters, it is equally true that 
 those who are not voters, largely women, when it comes to political 
 action are probably more formidable as factors than an equal 
 number of the opposite sex. As petitioners for relief, women are 
 apt to be both tearfully importunate and persistently persuasive; 
 men, when not sympathetic, are notoriously good-natured. As 
 a class the pensioners, whether male or female, act as a unit ; and 
 exciting the hostility of the pensioners is to a politician like chal- 
 lenging an organized phalanx actuated throughout by the 
 strongest motives of self-interest. Of this fact Secretary Mac- 
 Veagh afforded a good illustration as a result of his altogether 
 truthful assertion just referred to. It excited a storm of angry 
 protest, which was perhaps best and most typically voiced by a 
 leading orator on the following Decoration Day, who declared 
 that the Secretary had recently made himself ridiculous "by 
 raising an outcry against pensions"; adding, "if I were President 
 of the United States and had such an ingrate in my Cabinet, I 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 would fire him as far as Chicago so quickly it would make his 
 head swim." Let one example suffice; but generally it may not 
 unsafely be asserted that if any member of Congress,— or indeed 
 citizen in private life of sufficient prominence to excite remark 
 at all — ventures on a criticism, much more an analysis, of the pen- 
 sion roll, he may with tolerable certainty count on a response 
 in no way dissimilar to that visited on Secretary MacVeagh; nor 
 need he hope for either fairness of treatment or moderation of 
 speech. He may, on the contrary, rest assured that the denun- 
 ciation will be personal, abusive and mendacious — that usually 
 experienced from the sturdy and persistent mendicant to whom 
 alms are denied. To the outsider, this, in accordance with the 
 everlasting order of things, matters little; but to him who is 
 playing the game of politics it counts for much. It may to-day 
 safely be asserted that any member of Congress representing a 
 district north of the Potomac, who dares to criticize, much less 
 to challenge a measure involving an increase in the appropria- 
 tion for pension payments, practically takes his political life in 
 his hand. 
 
 Massachusetts furnishes an example. Under the last census 
 fourteen congressional districts were apportioned to Massachu- 
 setts. The average number of pensioners in each district of 
 Massachusetts is just 2,700. At the election in November, 1910, 
 in which the members of the present Congress (62d) were chosen, 
 the vote in Massachusetts, Republican and Democratic, was 
 almost exactly equal, 203,136 Republican, 203,624 Democratic. 
 In five districts in which an aggregate of 182,000 votes were cast, 
 the total of the pluralities of the successful candidates, one way 
 or the other, amounted to only 2,806. In those six districts 
 there were probably 18,000 pensioners. The average plurality 
 to a district was 450. Such figures speak for themselves. 
 
 It is idle as well as false to assert in this connection that the 
 pensioner, in point of fact, has not made himself actively felt as 
 a political factor. The contrary is susceptible of proof. In 
 recent debates in Congress it was asserted that, during the cam- 
 paign of 19 10, United States Senators went through certain 
 sharply contested districts, throwing their whole weight for or 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 against the respective candidates on the pension issue alone. It 
 was urged in advocacy of one man that he had introduced a 
 "dollar-a-day" pension bill; while against another it was charged 
 that his whole course had been one consistent effort to "fool the 
 soldier." Elsewhere districts were flooded with letters and 
 circulars emanating directly from the organization of pension 
 applicants, advocating or opposing candidates on this issue, and 
 this issue alone. Statements to this effect made openly in course 
 of debate met with no denial. Members of Congress who had 
 been defeated for reelection attributed that result to these cir- 
 culars. Thus, when Secretary MacVeagh, in the occasional 
 speech which has been referred to, spoke of the pension list as 
 no longer a Roll of Honor, but as a political list, he used language 
 of moderation. He might truthfully and fairly have referred 
 to it as an enormous instance of political jobbery of the most far- 
 reaching character, deeply affecting, both in its direct and its 
 indirect outcome, not merely the Treasury, but the moral 
 health and lasting well-being of the whole body politic. In 
 plain English, the legislation under that head is to a large extent 
 simply a disguised method of bribery and corruption on the 
 largest possible scale, and with money paid out of the National 
 Treasury instead of from the pockets of candidates. 
 
 Take, for instance, the gross abuse of special pension legislation 
 as a political factor. Since 1861 there have been granted to 
 individuals under special acts no less than 32,401 original pen- 
 sions or increases of existing pensions. In the 39th Congress, 
 that immediately succeeding the close of the Civil War, when 
 exceptional cases of pecuHar hardship were naturally fresh in 
 memory or sight, 138 cases only were provided for in this way. 
 Subsequently it became an understanding in Congress that each 
 member of either house was entitled, as a perquisite or special 
 bit of personal pocket patronage, to two acts at a session — a 
 sort of congressional extra. The custom thus obtained a foot- 
 hold; the usual result followed. In the second session of the 
 6 1st Congress there were 6,063 individual cases provided for 
 by special acts, at rates varying from $6 a month, of which there 
 were three, to f 100 a month, of which there was a single instance. 
 
 23 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 The great mass of beneficiaries, far exceeding in number all others 
 combined, were those to whom was granted ^24 a month of which 
 there were 2,639, and those granted ^30 a month of which there 
 were 1,921 — in all, 4,560 cases of beneficiaries at either ^24 or 
 ^30 a month. And this by special acts including perhaps 600 
 beneficiaries in a lump, passed with hardly a word of debate, 
 and no criticism or remonstrance. These figures represent an 
 average of rather more than thirteen special beneficiaries to each 
 member of either house, in a single session thereof. A very 
 respectable bit of patronage, which the average Senator and 
 Representative feels little disposition to forego! The question 
 naturally suggests itself: how would it be under conditions at all 
 analogous were that Senator or Member acting for himself or 
 as the director of a business corporation — much more as a 
 trustee, which last a legislator in strictness is? A breach of trust, 
 such action is a travesty of legislation. 
 
 Nor, in this respect, is the outlook alluring; for, during the 
 special session of the 62d Congress, just closed, the records show 
 what may not unfairly be described as a flood of special cases 
 presented and referred to the proper committees, sometimes as 
 many as thirty by a single member in one day's sitting; and it has 
 been oflficially stated that 30,000 applications of this character 
 are now on file in the office of the proper House Committee alone. 
 
 The condition of affairs existing in the room of that committee 
 at the beginning of the last session of the 6ist Congress was in- 
 deed forcibly set forth in a report presented December 15, 1910, 
 by Mr. Fuller, one of its members, speaking on its behalf. The 
 really curious thing, however, in connection with the report re- 
 ferred to, was its unconscious betrayal of the mental condition, 
 as respects what is known as a system of constructive legisla- 
 tion, of the member who drew the document up, and of the com- 
 mittee which authorized its presentation; for it was therein stated 
 that there was not a member of either branch of Congress who 
 was not besieged with hundreds of applications for relief by 
 special act, there being no "existing law to cover these distressing 
 cases." The report then goes on to say: "The pension com- 
 mittees of Congress, working by night and by day, have been able 
 
 24 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 to bring relief to a few thousand soldiers, yet in comparison with 
 the thousands who are still knocking at its doors for help, it is 
 but a drop in the bucket. In this Congress alone, there has been 
 referred to the two pension committees of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, more than 20,000 bills for private legislation." 
 
 The committee in question is thus depicted, graphically though 
 unconsciously, as a shifting and necessarily unorganized charity 
 bureau, indiscriminately distributing money not its own. 
 
 Under these circumstances, it might naturally be supposed 
 that a committee composed of men of average intelligence and 
 business experience would reach the conclusion that, when the 
 exceptional cases under the system in use had grown to such 
 dimensions and the system itself had fairly broken down, some 
 other system — a system based on well-considered, constructive 
 legislation — was altogether desirable, indeed, quite essential; 
 for such alone would meet the exigencies of the situation. Noth- 
 ing of the sort seems to have suggested itself. On the contrary, 
 all that the committee had to propose was the passage of yet 
 another "blanket" bill of the customary, indiscriminate kind, 
 raising existing pensions in a lump and to an extent which would 
 constitute an additional fifty-million draft on the Treasury. It 
 was then innocently observed that, though this was a large sum 
 to be added to the present pension appropriation of ^160,000,000 
 a year, yet it was necessary to grant it if Congress was to be 
 reHeved of a vast amount of special pension legislation! That 
 the passage of the proposed bill would only increase the scale 
 but in no degree correct the evil referred to, seems no less appa- 
 rent than that, just so long as the old system is thus continued, 
 special cases of particular alleged individual hardship will arise, 
 and importunately present themselves. Members of Congress 
 will, moreover, be just as desirous of at once signalizing their 
 fidelity to their duties and incidentally making themselves solid 
 with their constituencies by obtaining consideration for such 
 applications on the new scale as they were on the old. Thus, the 
 whole experience of forty years went in this case for nothing. 
 The general increase proposed was simply, in other words, 
 another entering wedge. 
 
 25 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 But, in other respects, the debate on the so-called Fuller bill 
 (January lo, 1911), which accompanied this report, and the 
 speeches — not delivered in the course thereof, but subsequently 
 published by permission in the Record (January 12, 1912) — are 
 curiously, and far from pleasantly, suggestive to one who actively 
 participated in the military operations of the Civil War. Rhe- 
 torical, and evidently intended for use in the various districts 
 of the members thus delivering themselves, they certainly are 
 not indicative of close acquaintance with the facts in the case, 
 or even of desire to present those facts with any approach to 
 either accuracy or realism. 
 
 It is, of course, to be borne in mind that nearly all those re- 
 sponsible for the utterances referred to, besides being politicians, 
 were born either subsequent to the Civil War, or had not at that 
 time attained an age of distinct memory, much less of accurate 
 knowledge. Accordingly, those engaged in the war are uni- 
 formly referred to in somewhat stilted terms as "veterans" and 
 "heroes"; as being "battle-scarred," and invariably as "deserv- 
 ing and worthy"; men who "enlisted at the call of duty with no 
 thought of emoluments, pay, or pension. They were patriots 
 then and they are patriots now"; — and so forth and so on! 
 Furthermore they are uniformly described as "old and infirm, 
 some blind, some crippled, some bed-ridden; most of them poor 
 and many destitute." It is furthermore alleged of them as a 
 body that those who are not dependent on others or the public 
 for support constitute "so few exceptions as to be negligible." 
 
 To those who themselves personally took part in the struggle, 
 none of these statements or implications commend themselves. 
 They are simply absurd in their exaggeration. Speaking coldly, 
 and bearing witness as one personally acquainted with the facts 
 in the case, the army of the Union, numbering more than two 
 million, was a very miscellaneous body, composed of material 
 of all sorts and conditions; and this, moreover, was a necessary 
 result of the radically vicious and wasteful system pursued in re- 
 cruiting its loss and waste. 
 
 The original enlistments, those of the first eight months fol- 
 lowing April, 1 86 1, constituted probably as fine a body of raw 
 
 26 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 military material as was ever got together. It was composed 
 of the very pick of American youth of that period. Those men 
 did indeed enroll themselves in a storm of enthusiasm and from a 
 sense of duty. Enlisting for three years, and at the expiration 
 of those three years to a large extent reenlisting, they formed 
 the nucleus of the Union Army. Too much cannot be said in 
 their praise. 
 
 The beginning of a war is always in the nature of a picnic — a 
 stimulating novelty; everyone is anxious to have a hand in it, 
 in some shape or manner. Men almost shed tears if rejected as 
 recruits. But after the glow of the first call to arms dies away, 
 and real war reveals its grim, repulsive aspect, the response to 
 each renewal of that call-to-arms grows less and less in volume; 
 until, in the case of our Civil War, within the very first year of 
 the struggle (April, 1862) volunteering practically ceased. Under 
 such circumstances, as everyone at all informed on that subject 
 knows perfectly well, there is but one true course to pursue — 
 recourse should be had to a system of conscription, exacting, 
 stern, and even cruel. Permitting the fewest possible grounds 
 of exemption, it should accept no excuses. Our Government in 
 the Civil War, however, never dared have a real recourse to that 
 drastic but alone effective measure. Conscription, in the states 
 of the Confederacy, a stern, unrelenting reality, was in the loyal 
 states a scarecrow. Enacted under the pressure of necessity 
 into a law, that law was used as a threat to compel local com- 
 munities to band together to fill their quotas — somehow! Re- 
 course was then naturally had to the bounty system; and 
 this early in the second year of the war. The frightful losses 
 incurred in McClellan's Peninsular Campaign thus had to be 
 made good. 
 
 The communities, local and otherwise, then combined; en- 
 listing agencies were established; and men sold themselves and 
 were bought and delivered singly and in lots at so much a head, 
 like cattle. It was a wretched system, cowardly, wasteful, in- 
 human; but, under it — and it was pursued for three years — 
 men were quoted much as bullocks at Smithfield — a fair aver- 
 age valuation being, say, three to six dollars a pound — the only 
 
 27 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 difference from the Smithfield basis of dealing being that quality 
 was not considered. Anything went! 
 
 Needless to say, the material forwarded to the front under such 
 a system — the bogus conscription system — constantly de- 
 teriorated. In the army, this was notorious — notorious not 
 only to everyone who held a commission, but to every 
 man in the ranks called upon to associate with those 
 forwarded under guard to fill up the war-worn battalions. De- 
 sertion and "bounty-jumping," having become a calling, were 
 reduced to a system. As the war went on, the "recruits," recent 
 importations from Europe, or picked up in the slums and from 
 the gutters of the great cities, were notoriously looked upon by 
 the veterans of '6i with averted eyes — objects of contempt; 
 they were treated with scant consideration. Yet these, "the 
 cankers of a calm world and a long peace, " to a large extent, con- 
 stituted what are now known as "war-worn veterans," "glorious 
 heroes," and "worthy patriots!" 
 
 To one who personally recalls the events of that struggle — its 
 hard, realistic and mercenary features — the present day utter- 
 ances concerning it are a constant source of amused astonish- 
 ment. In skimming over the columns of the Congressional 
 Record, such cannot but marvel at the amount of cant and fustian 
 — nauseating twaddle, perhaps, would not be too extreme a 
 term — deemed useful properly to lubricate the creaking district 
 machinery. Any detailed recurrence to the facts and evidence 
 is, however, apt to be denominated "muckraking," and de- 
 nounced as such. Perhaps, however, a brief reference in this 
 connection might be permitted to such standard authorities as 
 Mr. James Ford Rhodes's History, and Secretary Gideon F. 
 Welles's Diary. Mr. Rhodes would inform the gushy members of 
 Congress referred to that — "The Government, the states, the 
 counties, and other political divisions were munificent in their 
 oflFers of bounties, of which a salient example is seen in the ad- 
 vertisement of the New York Volunteer Committee: '30,000 
 Volunteers Wanted.' The following are the pecuniary induce- 
 ments offered : 'County bounty, cash down, f 300; State bounty, 
 ^75; United States bounty to new recruits, $302; additional to 
 
 28 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 veteran soldiers, ?ioo'; making totals, respectively, of $677 and 
 I777 for service which would not exceed three years, which was 
 likely to be less, and which turned out to be an active duty of 
 little more than one year — besides the private soldiers' pay 
 of j?i6 per month with clothing and rations. The bounty in the 
 county of New York was more than that generally paid through- 
 out the country, although in some districts it was even higher." 
 As repects the "bounty-jumper," the inevitable product of such 
 a system, Mr. Rhodes next says: — "The Provost-Marshal- 
 General stated in his final report that 'A man now in the Albany 
 penitentiary, undergoing an imprisonment of four years, con- 
 fessed to having jumped the bounty thirty-two times.' It was 
 stated that 'out of a detachment of 625 recruits sent to reinforce 
 a New Hampshire regiment in the Army of the Potomac, 137 
 deserted on the passage, 82 to the enemy's picket line, and 36 
 to the rear, leaving but 370 men.'" (Rhodes, Vol. IV, pp. 
 430-1.) 
 
 Recurring next to the recently published diary of Gideon F. 
 Welles, President Lincoln's Secretary of the Navy, the following 
 is from the report, written down at the time, of a species of coun- 
 cil of magnates held at the White House, September i, 1862, 
 before the war was yet eighteen months old: "... In 
 these remarks the President concurred, and said he was shocked 
 to find that of 140,000 whom we were paying for in Pope's army 
 only 60,000 could be found. McClellan brought away 93,000 
 from the Peninsula, but could not to-day count on over 45,000. 
 As regarded demoralization, the President said, there was no 
 doubt that some of our men permitted themselves to be captured 
 in order that they might leave on parole, get discharged, and go 
 home. Where there is such rottenness, is there not reason to 
 fear for the country?" — (Diary of Gideon Welles, Vol.1 , p. 1 17.) 
 Later on, as is well known, Andersonville put an effectual stop 
 to that familiar game; but it went briskly on at first. Lincoln 
 and his advisers called it "rottenness"; but now they differentiate 
 it in Congress as only a form of nostalgia! The poor lads, fresh 
 from their innocent homes, labored under such an uncontrollable 
 desire to get back to their mammas and the vine-covered cottage, 
 
 29 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 that they instinctively sought the enemy's lines as being the 
 most direct road thereto. They were, however, all good boys, 
 though a bit guileless perhaps; but, all "heroes" now, every one, 
 without discrimination, is to have for life a dollar a day pension 
 money ! 
 
 Historically speaking, it is a fact not to be denied that the 
 bounty-bought material constituted a large percentage of the 
 whole Civil War levy — how large it is impossible to say; but it 
 certainly sounds strange to the ears of those personally cognizant 
 of the facts, and is, to say the least, an incorrect use of language 
 to assert that those men enlisted without "thought of emolu- 
 ments, pay or pension." They did nothing of the kind; nor 
 were they "patriots" either then or now. They sold themselves 
 for bounty money; and they got it! Simply and avowedly 
 mercenaries, they were constantly referred to by the older and 
 more reliable as the "seven-dollars-a-pound fellows." As food 
 for powder, such were paid at the time all, and more than all, 
 they were worth. And to the truth of every word of this statement 
 any officer who had, during the last two years of the war, charge 
 of recruits on their way to the front — and there were many such 
 — can bear testimony still. The great difficulty of preventing 
 these "patriots" and "worthy soldiers" from deserting the 
 moment they had handled their bounty money was one of the 
 problems of the service. Then, far more battle-scared than now 
 battle-scarred, they are indiscriminately pensioned as "dis- 
 interested heroes!" 
 
 Much the same tone of reckless exaggeration is noticeable in 
 the references made to the present condition of those who served. 
 It is little less than a libel to speak of them as a class as pre- 
 maturely old, or decrepit, or unable to support themselves, or 
 as dependents, or as a band of virtual paupers. As a mass they 
 do not in any of these respects differ from the great body of other 
 American citizens. It was asserted in the recent congressional 
 debate referred to that there are some 800,000 or 900,000 of these 
 men still surviving. This again was a gross exaggeration. There 
 are in fact somewhere in the neighborhood of half a million; 
 but, speaking of the survivors of the Civil War as a whole, wounds 
 
 30 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 and disabilities apart — and such cases are liberally provided for 
 in the pension acts — there was nothing connected with the 
 service or life in the army which differentiated such in any notice- 
 able respect from those who had passed through no similar ex- 
 perience. The drunkard, the "bounty-jumper," the deserter, 
 the malingerer, the "dead beat," after his term of service expired, 
 was just what he was before it began. He in time became a de- 
 pendent, in many cases a pauper. He was born that way, and 
 traveled to his destined end; but the great mass of those who 
 obtained an honorable discharge, especially those of volunteer- 
 ing days, were subsequently self-respecting and self-supporting, 
 and such as survive to-day are as well-to-do and quite as 
 sufficiently provided for as the average American. Two 
 years after Cromwell's Puritan army of the British Common- 
 wealth was disbanded, following the Stuart restoration in 1660, 
 the Royalist office holder, Samuel Pepys, wrote in his diary, "of 
 all the old army now you cannot see a man begging about the 
 street; but what? You shall have this captain turned a shoe- 
 maker; the lieutenant a baker; this a brewer; that a haberdasher; 
 this common soldier a porter; and every man in his apron and 
 frock, etc., as if they never had done anything else." And much 
 the same might have been said of the earlier enlistments of the 
 Civil War during the years that immediately followed its close. 
 Then the politicians and pension-mongering vote-buyers got 
 after them with the usual demoralizing result. Even then they 
 were and are as other American citizens; and surely it would 
 be a libel on the average of American citizens to assert that the 
 greater part of them, or indeed that more than a small percent- 
 age, are unable to obtain even the necessaries of life without 
 assistance from the public. Those who composed the bone 
 and sinew of the army of the Union were in these respects cer- 
 tainly not below the American average. To assert of them, as 
 has been asserted in Congress, that 96 per cent, of them would be 
 paupers if they were not pensioners — a grotesque perversion 
 of facts — is remote from the truth. 
 
 So also as respects deserters, toward whom, judging by the 
 Record, a most lenient congressional disposition exists — "amend- 
 
 31 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 ing" or "correcting" the record, the wise call it. Bills to effect 
 this result — in other words bills seeking by legislative action 
 to set aside court records — are introduced by the score on every 
 private-bill legislative day. All duly referred, they were formerly 
 acted upon by committees so carelessly, and consequently so 
 favorably, that the thing grew to be a scandal. The committees 
 were finally notified that the President would feel obliged to 
 veto such acts. Measures looking to a "correction of records" 
 with a view to the extended drawing of pensions have, accordingly, 
 dwindled in number. Nevertheless, our Civil War annals, as 
 respects desertions, are not pleasant reading. As a matter of 
 history, the subject has never been thoroughly investigated; but 
 this, together with the bounty abuse just referred to, would 
 constitute for youthful and rhetorical members of Congress a 
 field of inquiry at once fruitful and instructive. If called for, 
 or if the assertions here made are challenged, the record can be 
 produced. That muck-heap would not require much raking to 
 yield malodorous results. 
 
 For present purposes it can be briefly disposed of. It has 
 been asserted that, in the whole course of the Franco-Prussian 
 war of 1870, so far as the German army was concerned, there were 
 recorded but seventeen cases of established desertion. The 
 reason is obvious. The deserter from that service had nowhere 
 to go. His apprehension was certain; the consequences thereof, 
 not less so. In our Civil War it was otherwise; and the official 
 records of the Adjutant-General's office at Washington report the 
 almost incredible number of 508,494 as the grand total of deser- 
 tions during the war, a number exceeding twenty-five per cent. — 
 one quarter part — of the total enlistments'! And "at the close 
 of the Civil War, notwithstanding the many efforts of the Govern- 
 ment, through the promise of pardon and restoration to duty, 
 to secure their return, there were still 1 17,247 deserters at large, 
 exclusive of non-reporting drafted men." Largely congressional 
 "heroes" and "worthy soldiers" now; and, in altogether too many 
 cases, the recipients of "liberal pensions"! 
 
 But in gentle and kindly extenuation of this terrible but in- 
 effaceable record it is sometimes urged that the number was 
 
 32 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 largely, if not in greatest part, made up of men who, having 
 served faithfully until hostilities ceased, then disappeared, or 
 failed to report back for duty, because of their eagerness to return 
 to their families and to civil life. That some such cases occurred 
 is indisputable; but they were only rare exceptions. As any 
 company or regimental officer who served in that war knows and 
 will testify — General Isaac R. Sherwood of Ohio, for example 
 — those men who, having served in the war, served it out, were 
 not indiiferent whether the word "Deserter" was then inscribed 
 against their names on the last regimental muster-roll. Proud 
 of what they had done, they wanted honorable discharge. Be- 
 yond this, the deserter forfeited his pay and emoluments; he 
 forfeited transportaiton to his home. The plea in extenuation 
 just stated shows in fact only the simple-minded ignorance — the 
 charitable disposition perhaps — of him who advances it. Those 
 who witnessed what was probably the most notable display of the 
 nineteenth century — the review of the Union army at Washing- 
 ton after the close of hostilities — cannot but retain a distinct 
 recollection of the occasion, and of the character and bearing 
 of the men who figured in it. How many of those who there 
 tramped in review before President and Commander-in-Chief 
 is it supposed subsequently deserted, without pay and trans- 
 portation, in their eagerness to get back to their families and 
 homes? Safe to say, not one! 
 
 But, as matter of history, the deserter was, in the army of the 
 Union, referred to with scorn and treated with contumely; and 
 any one who commanded either a company or a regiment will 
 now bear witness that those who deserted from it were almost 
 invariably of the scum and dregs thereof. As a rule, their 
 absence, unaccounted for, was better than their "Present" at 
 roll-call. One and all, they then deserved to be shot; now, by 
 act of Congress, they are pensioned by the score! More ex- 
 traordinary still, not infrequently a suggestion has been heard on 
 the floor of Congress to^this effect — " Isn't it about time to let 
 up on the deserters?" As respects such, the "blanket" pension 
 bill is unquestionably convenient. Nor was it with undue 
 strength of speech that Mr. Underwood, the leader of the majority 
 
 33 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 in the present House, recently referred in debate to a measure of 
 this description, which it was proposed to introduce out of the 
 regular order, as "a bill to pension deserters who have had the 
 charge of desertion removed by this House; to pension men who 
 were never within five hundred miles of a firing line; men who 
 did not serve over thirty days in the army." And, when his 
 attention was called to the fact that the particular "blanket" 
 bill then in question provided for a somewhat longer period of 
 service, he answered with a manifest sneer: "Yes, it says ninety 
 days instead of thirty days!" 
 
 It remains to consider the measure of remedial constructive 
 legislation manifestly called for to meet such conditions. One of 
 those who last winter participated in the House debate on the 
 so-called Sulloway bill, truly observed that, if our national 
 pension system policy were "tested by the pension policy of any 
 civilized government in history, such a measure as that then 
 proposed [the Sulloway bill], ignoring the cardinal factors of 
 merit and need, could never stand. The country has already 
 gone too far in the pension policy in confounding the deserving 
 with the undeserving, and the stupendous expenditures for un- 
 worthy cases is sure at last to imperil the cause of the deserving. 
 The time has come when our pension policy is tending to pau- 
 perize able-bodied men and restrict the funds available for really 
 needy soldiers and their dependents." The facts thus stated are 
 indisputable; but, before considering the remedy, it is necessary 
 to ha ve a clear understanding of the cause of the scandal and abuse. 
 
 34 
 
Ill 
 
 The Pension Bureau an Overworked Factory of Pauperism: Men- 
 dicancy Stimulated: Self-support at a Discount: The Enter- 
 ing JVedge and the Flying Wedge: The Volunteer Officers' 
 Retired List: Special Enactments by the Thousand: A 
 Committee Worked Day and Night: A System of Publicity 
 Necessary to a Purging of the Roll of Honor: The Great Desid- 
 eratum, Constructive and Scientific Pension Legislation as 
 a Substitute for the Blanket, Makeshift, Piecemeal Travesty 
 of Such Now in Operation. 
 
 FORTY-SIX years after the echoes of the last gun dis- 
 charged in the Civil War had died away, it was officially 
 estimated that rather more than 550,000 of those who 
 served therein in any military capacity still survived, and that 
 96 per cent, of those surviving were the recipients of pensions. 
 Such a statement, including, as the aggregate of survivors neces- 
 sarily must, those whose term or character of service was merely 
 nominal, those who were in advance paid for all they did, and 
 paid most liberally, those who are otherwise amply provided for, 
 and those who for various causes are undeserving of assistance — 
 and when men gathered up promiscuously are numbered by the 
 hundreds of thousands the percentage of such is of necessity 
 invariably large — taking all these cases into consideration, the 
 statement speaks for itself. Such a showing is not creditable. 
 On its face it is suggestive of reckless and indiscriminate giving 
 on the part of the public, and of fraud and false pretence on the 
 part of the recipients. That more than one quarter of those who 
 genuinely participated in a war half a century ago still survive is, 
 to say the least, surprising. If substantiated, however, the fact 
 speaks volumes for the excellent physical condition in which 
 they came out of it. On the other hand, the implication that no 
 
 35 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 less than ninety-six out of a hundred of these survivors of the 
 stalwart American youth of 1861, are now if not virtually paupers 
 yet dependent for a comfortable support on others or on the pub- 
 lic, is certainly in no degree conducive to an increased national 
 self-complacency. The simple fact is, neither of the things 
 stated is really so. No such number of proper and worthy 
 recipients of public assistance survive; no such proportion (96 
 per cent.) of average American citizens of any class stand in need 
 of assistance from the public. If any faith at all can be put in 
 the statistics of American life, or, throwing statistics aside, if any 
 reliance can be put on ordinary, every-day observation, it is mani- 
 fest that more than half of the enormous sum ($157,325,160.35) 
 thus expended in 19 10- 11 was worse than thrown away; 
 that is, if the rule universally deduced from human experience — 
 that profuse and indiscriminate giving is a curse — holds good 
 in this case also. That our pension system tends to pauperize 
 the community by undermining that sense of self-respect always 
 incident to self-support, hardly admits of denial; that indis- 
 criminate giving, regardless of individual requirements, re- 
 stricts the funds available for the relief of the truly deserving 
 and really needy, is a self-evident proposition. That such a 
 condition of things calls for reform is obvious; but before a proper 
 measure of reform can be devised, it is necessary to have a clear 
 understanding of the real cause of difficulty — the root of the 
 evil. 
 
 In the case of the pension system, that root of evil is found in 
 the legislative policy which has for nearly thirty years been 
 steadily followed in regard to it — a piecemeal, instalment-plan 
 policy, gradually assuming shape through an ill-considered suc- 
 cession of progressive "blanket bill" enactments. In other 
 words, while perpetually legislating, no measure has ever been 
 even suggested which professed, much less which was intended, 
 to be comprehensive and final. Itself avowedly an entering 
 wedge, the passage of each measure is forced through by a system 
 of tactics which might most aptly be described as the "flying 
 wedge." In other words, the organization having this legis- 
 lation in charge — the General Pension-Staff, we will call it — 
 
 36 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 first considers what can probably be obtained under conditions 
 at the time prevaiHng — the particular political party in control, 
 the state of the Treasury, and the greater or less proximity of 
 an election. A measure is then introduced intended for imme- 
 diate action, with a distinct intimation that further and ulterior 
 results are in view, but reserved for a more opportune occasion! 
 The measure selected is as much as can probably be made to go 
 now. As the result of a varied experience stretching through the 
 lifetime of an entire generation, the General Pension-Staff is 
 well advised as respects both pension strategy and congressional 
 tactics. The method of procedure has been reduced to a system. 
 In the last Congress it was time and again asserted in debate 
 that the end ultimately in view was the securing of legislation 
 which would give what is known as the "dollar-a-day" pension 
 to every man who, having served 90 days during the Civil War, 
 had received an honorable discharge, and ^20 a month to the 
 widows of such, regardless of the date of marriage. The so- 
 called SuUoway bill, it was claimed, would "at once put at 
 least 75 per cent, of all soldiers on the roll at I30 per month, and 
 the balance will receive a like amount before long." The widows, 
 dependents, hospital nurses, teamsters, camp-followers generally, 
 and even militia, were to follow, an endless procession — as long as 
 the money held out ! 
 
 The legislation thus immediately proposed, which would un- 
 questionably have gone through could it have been brought to 
 a vote, would easily have lifted the appropriation above the two- 
 hundred-millions-a-year mark. Upon this the "flying" wedge 
 was directed; but this again was merely an "entering" wedge. 
 Judging by the experience of the past it can admit of no question 
 that if the Sulloway bill had become a law, and the dollar-a-day 
 pension basis had been established, the cry would next have been 
 heard that the cost of living had so increased that a-dollar-and 
 a-half a day was in purchasing power now no more than a dollar 
 a day at the time the measure was first advocated. The pensions 
 should in "justice" be increased accordingly. Furthermore, 
 under no measure yet even introduced, much less made law, has 
 any attempt been made toward reducing to a system legislation 
 
 37 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 by special act covering individual cases. On the contrary, it was 
 distinctly stated in the debate on the Sulloway bill, nor was 
 the statement denied, that, if the most extreme of the present 
 " blanket " measures were passed the future introduction of special 
 acts would in no way be restricted. Rather, a new life would 
 be infused into that vicious practice, but on a higher level. 
 
 Every bill, therefore, yet introduced has been of the "blanket" 
 and "entering wedge" character — an instalment only. 
 
 The "flying wedge" is then brought into legislative play. All 
 the forces behind every possible description of pension act, 
 whether reported, contemplated, or hoped for, are concentrated 
 in solid phalanx behind that measure which immediately holds 
 the stage. That carried, the next is in order! 
 
 Next, thus in order, to the Sherwood Dollar-a-day bill — now 
 actually reported and immediately impending — the measure 
 known as the Volunteer Officers' Retired List affords in its history 
 an apt illustration of the "entering wedge" tactics. This measure 
 originated in 1905. On March 3, of that year. Gen. Joseph R. 
 Hawley and Gen. P. J. Osterhaus, officers of the Volunteer Civil 
 War service, were placed by special act on the pension roll as 
 Major Generals "retired." A precedent was thus created; the 
 narrow edge had been inserted. The principle was at once pro- 
 nounced excellent; its further application was proposed. So the 
 next year a bill was prepared and submitted, generalizing, but 
 in moderation only, the exceptional case. Presented May 7, 
 1906, and referred to the Committee on Military Claims, this 
 measure, strictly limited, had a most plausible sound. As such 
 it appealed. In fact, as soon became apparent, it was only the 
 second blow upon the wedge inserted the previous year. Under 
 this bill (59th Congress, Document No. 489, reported June 1 3, 
 1906), it was proposed to create a special roll to be known as 
 the Volunteer Retired List. A place upon this roll was limited 
 to those 70 years and upward of age, who had, after an actual 
 Civil War service of two and one half years, attained the rank 
 of Major General or Brigadier General of Volunteers, or who, 
 being field officers of volunteer regiments, had been brevetted 
 Major General or Brigadier General. Eligibility to this roll was 
 
 38 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 very properly extended to all who, without reference to the 
 length of their service, having attained the above rank, had in 
 the line of duty sustained injuries of a specified character. Those 
 on the roll were to be entitled to three fourths pay on the scale 
 received by officers of like rank in the regular army. A some- 
 what imperfect list was prepared, assumedly containing the 
 names of 191 persons reported as possible beneficiaries under 
 this act, should it become law. The passage of the act, would, 
 it was stated, involve an annual expenditure of about §550,000; 
 not, for the end in view and under the conditions set forth, a 
 considerable or unreasonable addition to an annual pension 
 appropriation exceeding §150,000,000. 
 
 At first glance the measure commended itself. The length 
 of service rendered — thirty months — the rank achieved — 
 that of general — the age attained before becoming eligible as a 
 beneficiary — 70 years — serving as guarantees, all estab- 
 lished limitations. Here was honorable recognition and reason- 
 able reward for exceptional service, long rendered. It soon 
 became apparent, however, that this bill, in the form proposed, 
 stood no chance of passage; and this on obvious grounds. For, 
 whereas, a "blanket" pension bill covering enlisted men as well 
 as officers would affect some six or eight hundred thousand voters, 
 a bill which affected less than two hundred voters only, no matter 
 how individually deserving, was plainly lacking in political 
 merit ; for, in considering proposed pension legislation, the voting 
 strength of those affected is in the congressional mind the prime 
 consideration. The measure now suggested went home to but 
 half a vote on the average in each congressional district; argal, 
 as Shakespeare's clown would have discoursed, it was undeserv- 
 ing of consideration. Though a strenuous effort was made 
 toward the passage of this measure, nothing could be effected. 
 Obviously, it was necessary to enlarge it. It would be purpose- 
 less here to follow it through its several subsequent stages. An- 
 nually brought up, and ever in a new and more attractive form 
 pressed upon the notice of Congress, it made no progress; and so, 
 gradually assuming new shape, it at last became thoroughly 
 comprehensive — so to speak, broad-bottomed! The age limit 
 
 39 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 disappeared; the length of service was reduced; one after another, 
 every grade of commissioned officer was included in its scope. 
 
 A little "log rolling" was also at this stage expedient. The 
 consideration and passage of the measure could tacitly but most 
 advantageously be combined with the consideration and passage 
 of another "blanket" measure in favor of the enlisted man; a 
 measure affecting, it was said, 800,000 beneficiaries, and adding 
 f 5 5,000,000 to the pension payments. This was business! In 
 thirty states of the Union the two measures would, if combined, 
 probably affect an average of 3,000 beneficiaries in each congres- 
 sional district; and, while it was true the establishing of the 
 retired list alone would in those states probably affect on the 
 average hardly more than one hundred voters in each district, 
 yet they were active and influential voters ! 
 
 In its final shape, and so accompanied, the original bill of 1906 
 had thus assumed a wholly new aspect. The measure as now 
 framed applied to all ever having held a commission in the Civil 
 War Volunteer Army, without regard to age, provided only that 
 the entire term of service of the proposed beneficiary had ex- 
 ceeded six months. In other words, every individual who had 
 received a commission during the Civil War and had served half 
 a year or more, whether as enlisted man or officer, at the front or 
 in the snug retirement of a recruiting office, was placed for the 
 remainder of his life on the Retired Volunteer Officers' Pension 
 Roll, with two thirds pay, quite irrespective of whether he had 
 received injury during his period of service, which had to a degree 
 already been provided for under other legislation, and without 
 regard to his extraneous means of support. And yet it is safe 
 to say that quite a large proportion of these proposed beneficiaries 
 had, during their period of military service, been the recipients 
 of larger salaries than had ever subsequently come their way. 
 
 The innocent looking, strictly limited measure introduced in 
 1906 had thus in 1910 become "blanket" legislation of the widest 
 and most vicious character. As such, it was estimated that it 
 would include 22,000 beneficiaries, instead of less than 200 as 
 originally proposed, and, instead of $550,000 a year, it would add 
 $14,600,000 to the annual pension roll of $155,000,000. Though 
 
 40 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 favorably reported, this handsomely enlarged measure still failed 
 in obtaining the necessary support. In other words, it did not 
 even yet represent a sufficient number of votes to make its pass- 
 age worth while in the average congressional estimate. Nor did 
 the rank and file of the pension roll, so to speak, regard it with 
 favor. In the eye of the enlisted man, the commissioned officer 
 had already enjoyed sufficient advantages; he was in no way 
 entitled to further favors. That the bill should again be recast, 
 and reappear in a still more seductive form was reluctantly 
 recognized as essential. This work was accordingly next taken 
 in hand, and, on February 21, 191 1, the measure was 'reported 
 in the Senate in an entirely new and altogether more reasonable 
 shape. It now included all surviving volunteer commissioned 
 officers who had served during the Civil War for a term or terms 
 aggregating two years. They were to receive a reasonable retiring 
 allowance at a diminishing rate, running from fcoo per annum 
 in the case of a colonel, or grades higher than colonel, those hold- 
 ing the same having served two years and more, to ^450 to lieu- 
 tenants having served in excess of one year; provided that no ex- 
 officer should be entitled to, or should receive the retired allow- 
 ance until he should have arrived at the age of 70 years, nor until 
 he should first make affidavit that his income, derived from 
 private sources, including the income of his wife, did not exceed 
 ^1200 per annum. It was estimated that the first year's net cost 
 of the measure thus recast and limited would be approximately 
 ^5,000,000 in excess of all pensions (^3,000,000) now paid to the 
 proposed beneficiaries under existing pension laws. It might 
 apply in all, it was assumed, to about 15,000 persons; and right 
 of admission to the roll without retired pay was very properly 
 extended to all surviving officers who had served six months or 
 more, irrespective of age or private income; a merely honorary 
 recognition. 
 
 Reduced to this final form, the measure may be considered as 
 now pending, and ready for consideration by the present Congress 
 at its first regular seession; that is, practically, after the passage 
 of a previous "blanket" measure, satisfactory to a much larger 
 number of the rank-and-file, has been secured. That has the 
 
 41 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 right of way! In the form it now bears, the Volunteer Officers' 
 bill is plausible. Nevertheless, under the established and pre- 
 scriptive system of pension legislation, this measure also if now 
 passed, will in all human probability prove to be merely another 
 stage of the Hawley-Osterhaus wedge. Once it becomes law, the 
 cry will be raised — Why this discrimination between the list of 
 the Regular Service and the Civil War Volunteer list? The 
 limitation of age will hardly be swept away, because the number 
 of the Civil War commissioned officers already less than 70 years 
 old is inconsiderable. The other limitations would, however, 
 one by one be removed, until finally all distinctions between the 
 volunteer retired list and the regular army retired list would cease. 
 The Hawley-Osterhaus precedent would, in the joint names of 
 Justice and Honorable Recognition, be applied universally! 
 
 The arguments most confidently urged in its support are, if 
 calmly considered from a detached point of view, the most curious 
 feature in the very earnest advocacy of this measure by those 
 interested in its passage. And apparently those who advance 
 these arguments actually believe in them ! They never weary of 
 asserting, until they have convinced themselves, that the measure 
 is one of right ; that it merely carries out a solemn pledge made 
 by Congress and confirmed by Abraham Lincoln during the first 
 year of the Civil War (July, 1861) — a promise to the effect that 
 those mustered into the volunteer Civil War service should be 
 placed on the same footing as to pay and allowances as similar 
 corps of the regular army. The proposed beneficiaries then go 
 on somewhat^ strenuously to ask — "How has the Government 
 kept this promise?" And it is pointed out that since 1866 Con- 
 gress has passed various acts conferring honors and benefits on 
 officers of the regular army, solely on account of their Civil War 
 service; but has passed no acts of a similar character in favor of 
 the officers of the volunteer service. 
 
 The passage of similar measures relating to the volunteer 
 officers is next demanded as an act of simple justice — the re- 
 demption of a solemn contract volunteered by the Government 
 when in dire need, etc., etc. The fact is conveniently ignored 
 that no one of the several measures referred to applied to officers 
 
 42 
 
LACK-OF-SYSIEM 
 
 of the regular service who had subsequent to the war been mus- 
 tered out of that service. It applied only to officers of continued 
 and consecutive service lasting until those to whom the acts ap- 
 plied had been retired for age or incapacity. No one of these 
 acts applied to those who had been mustered out, least of all 
 those who had been mustered out more than forty years before 
 at their own request and in order that they might enter upon 
 other occupations which at the time had seemed to them likely 
 to be more remunerative, or in other respects desirable. There is, 
 consequently, no analogy whatever between the two cases, and 
 no pledge was ever made which the Government can justly be 
 called upon now to redeem. Regulars and volunteers are on 
 precisely the same footing. Yet those who would be beneficiaries 
 under the proposed act have actually argued themselves into a 
 firm belief that, in demanding a great preference, they are merely 
 insisting upon the fulfilment of an obligation which has up to 
 date been unduly and unrighteously withheld ! 
 
 A similar analogy is drawn between the officers of the Civil 
 War and the officers of the, so-called. Revolutionary army,wholly 
 oblivious again of the fact that there is no real analogy between 
 the two cases. No benefits or pensions of any description were 
 conferred upon the officers of the Revolutionary army until the 
 lapse of close upon half a century after that struggle closed. 
 During the Civil War the officers of the volunteer army were paid, 
 as were the officers of the regular army, what belonged to the 
 grades they held in the legal-tender money then in use — " the 
 blood-sealed greenback," as the beloved and congressionally con- 
 secrated monetary medium of that period was designated — 
 which possessed a recognized value. The officers of the Rev- 
 olutionary army, on the contrary, were paid in a continental 
 money, constantly depreciating and finally altogether valueless. 
 Every officer of the Civil War who has seen fit to claim it has 
 since been the recipient of a regular pension, the same as that of 
 the enlisted man. No real analogy, therefore, exists between 
 the two cases; and yet the analogy is constantly urged, as if it 
 were perfect at every point, and as if a right conceded to the 
 officers of the earlier struggle had been denied to those of the 
 
 43 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 later. In other words, a Preference is importunately demanded 
 in the names of Justice and Equality ! 
 
 Such, as respects pensions, is the system of progressive, patch- 
 work, instalment-plan, blanket legislation which has been pur- 
 sued for the last forty years, and is still being pursued. Nor is 
 any end in sight, or limit proposed. It simply feeds on itself — 
 and f 1 50,000,000 a year of public money, soon to be §200,000,000! 
 Under such circumstances, what the occasion now calls for is 
 obvious. It calls, and it calls imperatively, for some measure of 
 a wholly new character — at once constructive, definite, and 
 final. A measure which will discharge the overloaded and 
 groaning committees of Congress from all further consideration 
 of pension acts, general or special. The framing of Jsuch a measure 
 should also, it would seem, be easy; nor in framing it would it 
 be necessary to tax the knowledge or ingenuity of the congres- 
 sional Committee on Invalid Pensions. On the contrary, such 
 a measure would best be prepared under instruction and for the 
 use of that committee in the Pension Bureau and the office of the 
 Adjutant-General. Then, prepared by experts in the full light 
 of a vast accumulated experience, it would be so framed as to make 
 provision, at once suitable and liberal, for all ordinary classes, as 
 also to provide for cases of exceptional hardship. The business 
 of Congress is to legislate, not sit as a tribunal, whether executive, 
 administrative, judicial, or eleemosynary. 
 
 The first existing condition manifestly calling for attention in 
 such a measure would be a purging of the roll. It is useless to 
 assert, as is generally asserted, that no purging of the roll in the 
 case is necessary; or that, so far as it is necessary, the machinery 
 for it already exists. Neither statement is true. During the 
 year closing June 30 last, in consequence of repeated allegations 
 of extensive fraud, the Commissioner of Pensions has instituted 
 what he terms a "checking of the pension roll." It amounts, 
 however, to nothing more than the ascertainment that, in the 
 localities selected for investigation, the person receiving the pen- 
 sion was actually the person entitled to draw it. Beyond that 
 somewhat immaterial consideration there was no attempt to go. 
 The charge is that in this, as in all similar cases, the inducement 
 
 44 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 to fraud has begotten fraud. Measures of a more searching and 
 drastic character are called for, and, in the case of a private com- 
 pany engaged in the business of insurance or the payment of 
 annuities, would be in use. But even allowing that a machinery, 
 such as it is, for the elimination of fraud already exists and is in 
 use, the charge is made, and moreover is supported by reference 
 to cases judicially and otherwise exposed, that the existing pen- 
 sion roll is largely factitious, built upon perjury, misrepresenta- 
 tion, and evasion. Notoriously, it is a sealed book. Within the 
 last year it has been, in private, confidently asserted by officers 
 of the Government, than whom none have better means of reach- 
 ing a correct conclusion, that if the existing roll were as thoroughly 
 purged as a similar roll would be by a private business organiza- 
 tion, the amount paid out thereunder would be reduced by one 
 half. 
 
 Such cases as the following, too numerous to specify, are on 
 record and have in course of recent debate been brought to the 
 notice of Congress. A responsible man, himself a veteran of the 
 war, wrote from a town in Ohio that he "could name at least 
 twenty men in the same company to which he belonged who are 
 receiving under special pension acts $24 a month, and who never 
 stood in line of battle." Still another case was specified on the 
 floor of the last House of a man "who enlisted in 1864, got a big 
 bounty, stayed in the hospital until discharged, never fired a 
 gun or did a day's duty at the front, came home, was examined, 
 was pensioned at $12 per month for the last stages of consump- 
 tion, and is living yet." A system under which such abuses 
 exist, and are practically connived at, is one not improperly 
 characterized as a "system which oifers every possible induce- 
 ment to mendicancy and conceals every possible inducement 
 to fraud." 
 
 Without going into the exact truth, or possible exaggeration, 
 of such statements, it should be sufficient that they are made, 
 publicly made, and in congressional debate. The pension bene- 
 ficiaries, in this respect resembling all other recipients of public 
 money, should be peculiarly sensitive under such imputations. 
 Demanding inquiry, they should challenge searching investiga- 
 
 45 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 tion. The pension roll, it is claimed, is one of honor. If it be 
 one of honor, those who discredit it by their presence should be 
 exposed, and their names stricken therefrom. 
 
 The first and obvious step to this end would be publicity. The 
 fullest light should be let on. This would be brought about by 
 the annual publication of a list of pensioners, indicating in each 
 case the name, place of residence, and the amount of which the 
 beneficiary is in regular receipt. It should be by state, county, 
 and congressional district, town and ward, the appeal being to 
 persons dwelling in the immediate vicinage of the recipient. 
 
 Against this most obvious remedial measure two arguments 
 are advanced — arguments singularly contradictory as well as 
 futile. In fact, in this respect as in others when pensions are 
 in question, great mental ingenuity is displayed in the invention 
 of objections to any measure looking to public enlightenment. 1 n 
 the first place, the pension roll is proclaimed a roll of honor. It 
 is then, however, immediately argued that the acceptance of 
 public money savors of pauperism, and places the recipient there- 
 of somewhat in the position of a mendicant. His presence on the 
 roll is, in some respects, agreeable; but, savoring of charity, they 
 prefer it should not be disclosed. In other words, the roll al- 
 together ceases to be one of honor! "Veterans" are sensitive; 
 and their sense of delicacy should not be so outraged. Next, and 
 with increasing ingenuity, it is asserted that the publication of 
 such a roll subjects those whose names thereon appear to receiv- 
 ing applications from attorneys, "green-goods" men, dealers in 
 quack medicines, and other well-known solicitors of patronage, 
 and in this way subjects the battle-scarred veteran to unnecessary 
 annoyances; which, however, are shared in common by them with 
 the ten to twelve thousand persons whose names appear in " Who's 
 Who in America" and other similar publications. 
 
 The simple fact is that those advancing these ingenious argu- 
 ments, as well as others of similar character, do so for the ex- 
 cellent reason that they well know the existing pension roll would 
 not bear the glare of the limelight. Cases of fraud by the thou- 
 sand would, it is alleged, at once become patent, were that light 
 let on. Those who take a proper pride in the presence of their 
 
 46 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 names upon the roll of honor should on this score alone demand 
 that the roll be made public. 
 
 Finally, it is urged that this and the other measures proposed 
 involve an annual expenditure of large sums, which had much 
 better be saved and given to the veteran under the "blanket" 
 system, without formal examination or prying inquiry into the 
 particular case. Any private corporation distributing annually 
 considerable amounts in the form of pensions to superannuated 
 employees, or employees injured in the service of the company, 
 would unquestionably consider 5 per cent, of the amount dis- 
 tributed well expended in the work of administering its relief. 
 Were 5 per cent, of the United States pension appropriations so 
 expended it would amount to no less than the absurdly unne- 
 cessary sum of ^8,000,000 a year. One half of that amount 
 would amply provide for all existing Pension Bureau expenses 
 and also pay the cost of the most drastic investigation, including 
 the annual publication of the roll of beneficiaries. The argu- 
 ment for economy through dispensing with effective adminis- 
 trative work is merely a cover for a public expenditure fraudu- 
 lently profuse. 
 
 Publicity and the consequent purging of the roll being then 
 first provided for, the next step would be to prepare, in the light 
 of the experience of fifty years, a definitive and comprehensive 
 measure understood to be of a final character, covering all possible 
 cases and classes of cases, both ordinary and exceptional. It is 
 useless to argue that such a measure is difficult of preparation. 
 All the material necessary for framing it must have been ac- 
 cumulated, and is now in the hands of bureaus and officials amply 
 competent to frame a measure accordingly. It only needs that 
 they should be set to work. That the ordinary member of a 
 Committee on Invalid Pensions is not qualified, or in any respect 
 competent, to prepare so complex a measure, is obvious. He has 
 not the knowledge of precedents and statistics, nor could he devote 
 to the framing of the billthe necessary amount of time and thought. 
 It should be prepared to his hand; taking the place of one of 
 those slip-shod "blanket" measures so discreditable to legislators, 
 but which committees seem always ready to accept and report. 
 
 47 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 The course now to be pursued by the honestly sympathetic 
 but yet conscientious Congressman would thus seem tolerably 
 plain. When the next bill providing for an indiscriminate in- 
 crease of pensions is proposed, he should not oppose it as a 
 measure of relief to the "worthy soldier" and "veteran," but, 
 objecting to its form, he should ask that it be referred back to the 
 committee reporting it, with instructions to prepare a bill of a 
 definitive character, understood to be final as well as compre- 
 hensive, covering all cases which a century's experience has 
 shown likely to arise; the same to be reported as a substi- 
 tute for the last pending specimen of "blanket" legislation. 
 After all these years and in the face of such an accu- 
 mulation of experience, involving more than four thousand 
 millions of public money already actually disbursed, no measure, 
 not so framed and reported as final, is entitled to respectful 
 consideration. 
 
 Finally, a comprehensive measure, understood to be definitive, 
 and as such doing away with all necessity for future congres- 
 sional action, having been prepared, it would remain to provide 
 the administrative machinery necessary to its effective working. 
 This should not be difficult. It was, in fact, clearly pointed out 
 in the debate on the Sulloway bill by Mr. Payne of New York. 
 The committee in its report had complained in terms already 
 referred to of being hopelessly overworked; it was unable by ut- 
 most exertion — "day and night" put forth — to dispose of more 
 than one in fifty of the cases referred to it. In reply Mr. Payne 
 said that, if the committee was not able to reach all these "dis- 
 tressing cases," he wished to point out to them that, by "en- 
 acting into general law the rules which they enforce when bills 
 are brought before that committee, giving the administration 
 of it to the Pension Bureau, they would relieve the committee of 
 the consideration of nearly all these cases." To enact into law 
 "the rules adopted by the pension committees of the two houses, 
 under which they are reporting special bills, and give the Com- 
 missioner of Pensions authority to grant pensions in accordance 
 with those rules would be far more just than the passage of the 
 'blanket' bill then pending. The affidavits which are now 
 
 48 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 examined hastily by the committees, from the necessities of the 
 case, would then have to undergo the scrutiny of the Pension 
 Bureau, and the facts could be far more easily and accurately 
 established." Such a disposition of the matter would, how- 
 ever, it must be confessed, be inconsistent with the economical 
 theories, more popular in the congressional mind, advanced in 
 the same debate by a Representative from Ohio. This gentle- 
 man thus expressed himself: " 1 would, in a spirit of real economy 
 abolish the brass ornaments and expensive machinery of the 
 Pension Bureau, muster out the army of agents, examiners, 
 and medical boards, and then grant without question a pension 
 to every Civil War veteran holding an honorable discharge or 
 being able to satisfactorily account for its absence. Thus would 
 millions be saved annually to the Government which it now 
 expends in useless salaries." 
 
 The administrative method here suggested has certainly the 
 merit of simplicity. It would effectually do away with every 
 barrier to a free access to the Treasury. The most ardent sup- 
 porter of pension appropriations could hardly ask for more. On 
 this head, however, the gentleman just quoted is hardly entitled 
 to the consideration which properly belongs to Mr. Payne. That, 
 however, the Committee on Invalid Pensions will, or any other 
 congressional committee similarly situated would, take such a 
 rational view of the subject as that suggested by him can scarcely 
 be hoped; for, under the legislative system now in vogue, the 
 Committee on Invalid Pensions has a larger patronage at its dis- 
 posal than probably any other committee of Congress, perhaps 
 larger than all others. Able to report favorably, or to refuse to 
 act, on any one of some 30,000 applications for pensions on its 
 files, with the number increased by many hundreds each legis- 
 lative week, the members of that committee can exercise a polit- 
 ical influence most considerable. That they should willingly divest 
 ' themselves of it, is scarcely to be hoped. They can be divested 
 of it only by action from without; but, until they are divested 
 of it, the abuse of special pension legislation, which has now 
 grown to unprecedented dimension, cannot be corrected. None 
 the less, the simple measure alone necessary for its correction is 
 
 49 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 obvious. Mr. Paine pointed it out, and his remarks in so doing 
 can be found in the Record* 
 
 Tribunals would thus be provided sufficient in number to in- 
 sure reasonably prompt action on all cases which presented 
 themselves; and to them, by standing rule, would be referred 
 every application of exceptional character. Such tribunals 
 would be in the nature of a Court of Claims. Instead of the com- 
 mittee undertaking to pass upon the individual application, the 
 members of it thus assuming judicial or administrative functions, 
 it would confine itself to proper legislative work. Framing and 
 enacting general rules, it would receive each application for 
 special relief, refer the same at once to the proper branch of the 
 Pension Bureau, by which the application would be intelligently 
 and locally passed upon, and the applicant either refused or given 
 that measure of relief provided in the general act. 
 
 Could such a system as that here outlined be adopted even at 
 this late day, it would do away with the necessity of any further 
 pension legislation, whether blanket or individual. The Com- 
 mittee on Invalid Pensions would be at once relieved of its con- 
 gestion — its groans would cease for lack of occasion therefor. 
 This result attained, it would be of comparatively little impor- 
 tance how liberal, within reason, the provisions of the general and 
 definitive act might be, or what addition it might make to the 
 present drain upon the Treasury. The "entering wedge" and 
 instalment-plan system would be brought to an end; but, until 
 that system is brought to an end, no reduction of the pension roll 
 disbursements can be expected. On this point no one can longer 
 either be deceived or deceive himself. It is always and regularly 
 admitted that the present appropriation is large and the amount 
 already expended, running into the billions, is beyond human com- 
 prehension. Yet it is argued with wearisome iteration that the ad- 
 ditional relief now provided is but temporary, and within the next 
 ten years will cease through the death-rate. Nothing of the sort 
 will occur. Under the existing system every year new acts will be 
 reported and passed, and ever increasing recourse had to special 
 
 *The speech of Mr. Payne is in the Record of January 17, 1911; pp. 10, 33 — 34. The 
 rules referred to of the Committee on Invalid Pensions are to be found in the 
 Record of January 16, 1911; p. 958. 
 
 50 
 
LACK-OF-S VSTEM 
 
 acts. The future will, in this respect, be merely a repetition of the 
 past. This slovenly makeshift and manifest fraud should stop ; and 
 stop now. Were it made to stop, the life of the pension system 
 would admit of actuarial computation. The process of regular 
 reduction and ultimate extinction would begin, and could be 
 figured to a nicety. For instance, take the measure already re- 
 ferred to, introduced in the last Congress, and providing for a 
 Volunteer Officers' Retired List. It was estimated that under 
 the proposed bill there would be at first 21,995 possible bene- 
 ficiaries. The annual reduction which would occur was then 
 computed, with the result that, while the measure would, in 19 11, 
 call for an appropriation of ^13,521,393, in 1912 the amount re- 
 quired under it would be reduced to ^179,940. There would 
 then remain only 243 beneficiaries. 
 
 Under any well-considered measure of constructive legislation 
 it should be the same with the general pension list. To-day 
 there are upon that list more than 900,000 names. Of these, it 
 is computed, some 40,000 and upward are dropped from natural 
 causes each year. The computation is, however, to a degree 
 deceptive. If even such a proportion were maintained the exist- 
 ing roll would practically disappear during the life of the next 
 generation. We all know nothing of the sort will take place, 
 and that the last name will hardly have been removed from that 
 roll when the twenty-first century is ushered in. On this head, 
 the experience of the Revolutionary past is instructive. 
 
 Any such action as that here outlined — action at once obvious, 
 simple, effective, and economical of the public money — is most 
 improbable; and it is made improbable by the condition of affairs 
 which admits of easy illustration. In the course of the debate 
 of January last on the Sulloway bill {Record, Jan. 10, 1911; p. 
 750), one member voiced his opposition in few words, closing 
 thus — " Yet I want to say this here and now, though 1 realize 
 the eff^ect of my vote upon this question, that ^50,000,000 a year 
 is too big a price for the country to pay to bring me back to Con- 
 gress." The nail was here hit on the head; but the average 
 member of the House is not afflicted with any similar excess of 
 modesty. In his estimation no price seems to be too consider- 
 
 51 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 able to pay for his retention in Congress, provided always the 
 money paid to bring that result about comes not out of his private 
 resources, but from the National Treasury. Hence in the same 
 debate another member proclaimed himself not only in favor of 
 the pending measure — the dollar-a-day pension — but also of 
 the most unquestioning private legislation in addition thereto, 
 and the sweeping away of all limitation of the date of marriage 
 in the case of soldiers' widows and increasing the amount in such 
 cases to ^20 per month. Obviously, a somewhat excessive pre- 
 mium on immorality; but it, also, meant votes! Furthermore, 
 he advocated the extension of this beneficent system to cover 
 all the militia of the war period, who, though "never technically 
 mustered into the service of the United States," yet "served 
 their country." Those men, he claimed, "should in justice and 
 honor be granted military status and the accruing benefits." 
 Here was indeed a bid for votes! It included not only the aged 
 and war-worn veterans and the "spring chicken" relict, but that 
 body of participants known in civic processions as "citizens 
 generally." This gentleman evidently set not fifty, but a 
 hundred and fifty millions a year as the value to the country of 
 a retention of his presence in the national council chamber. 
 
 The case of this member will, however, sufficiently exemplify 
 what the particular measure then under discussion — the Sullo- 
 way bill — meant as a political factor in a single district — ex 
 pede.Herculem! In the absence of a detailed statement it is 
 not possible to specify the aggregate number of pensioners, or 
 the number of pensioners of each description, resident in the 
 district in question. The average number in each district of 
 the state, which the member in part represented, is almost exactly 
 2,300. Assuming that his particular district did not fall behind 
 the average, it is not unfair to assume that one half at least of 
 those receiving pensions were "veterans," and would be bene- 
 ficiaries under the provisions of the measure then pending. The 
 average amount of the pension paid under the existing law is 
 $15.00 a month; this it was proposed to double in the case of the 
 beneficiaries under the pending measure, making it §30.00 a. 
 month. The net result would be that in this particular district 
 
 52 
 
LACK-OF-SYSTEM 
 
 the passage of the SuIIoway bill meant the gratuitous disburse- 
 ment among the voters of an additional sum of {^17,000 a month, 
 a similar sum being already disbursed, or ^200,000 per annum 
 in addition to the ^200,000 provided by existing law. The 
 plurality received by the member in question at the last election 
 was 2,500 in a total vote of 46,000. Comment is unnecessary; 
 the inference suggests itself. 
 
 There are at this time two senatorial scandals exciting much 
 public attention. Of these, one involves the use made of a fund 
 of ^50,000 raised to effect the result; the other the use made of a 
 sum of ^117,000 furnished by the successful candidate for 
 senatorial honors. The two amounts seem large; the last so 
 excessive as to be scandalous. Here, however, is a sum of 
 ?200,ooo a year — ^400,000 for a single congressional term — 
 voted by a member out of the National Treasury "to bring 
 me back to Congress." And in his view, even this does not 
 suffice ! The alleged corruption funds so interminably discussed 
 in the Lorimer and Stephenson cases sink into insignificance. 
 
 As already observed at the commencement of this series of 
 papers, the party of political opposition elected under a mandate 
 to restrict a too profuse public expenditure, is now in control of 
 the National House of Representatives. Measures are pending 
 looking to the increase of the present appropriation for payment 
 of pensions merely because of the age of the recipients thereof, 
 from ^157,000,000 a year to ^225,000,000 and more. "Progres- 
 sive" measures are in agitation and warmly advocated which, 
 if they become law, would increase this amount to $250,000,000. 
 An average sum of $600,000 to be each year gratuitously disbursed 
 in every congressional district of the entire country! The 
 measure immediately impending involves the additional gratui- 
 tous annual disbursement of approximately $175,000 in each of 
 the congressional districts of the more northern section of the 
 country; the more southern section will not participate in it to 
 any considerable extent. Each of its districts may possibly get 
 from it $2,000 a year — crumbs from the table! At the close 
 of the opening session of the present Congress, Mr. Underwood, 
 the leader of the Democratic party, on the floor of the House 
 
 53 
 
THE CIVIL-WAR PENSION 
 
 declared, in language already quoted, that "This House is pledged 
 to reform the administration of public affairs and to retrench 
 public expenditures. . . . Not a dollar will be appropriated 
 which a careful investigation does not demonstrate should be 
 expended in a wise, efficient and effective administration of public 
 affairs." The issue will soon be presented, and it remains to be 
 seen whether the gratuitous expenditure of seventy-five millions 
 a year in addition to the ^i 57,000,000 already provided, "to bring 
 Me back to Congress," is in the estimation of a majority of the 
 present House of Representatives, a sum "expended in a wise, 
 efficient and effective administration of public afi^airs." 
 
 54 
 
APPENDIX 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 PENSIONS GRANTED BY SPECIAL ACT DURING THE THIRD SESSION OF THE SIXTY-FIRST 
 
 CONGRESS 
 
 RATES SPECIFIED 
 
 155 
 I50 
 
 }j6 
 
 I35 
 f30 
 
 ?27 
 $25 
 
 f24 
 $20 
 
 |i8 
 fi7 
 $16 
 I15 
 
 NUMBER 
 GRANTED 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 44 
 84 
 132 
 
 4 
 
 1,116 
 
 I 
 
 '4 
 
 1,636 
 
 212 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 58 
 9 
 
 RATES SFECIEIED 
 
 NUUBER 
 GRANTED 
 
 $14 
 
 $12 
 
 $10 
 
 $6 
 
 Inoperative: 
 
 ho 
 
 $36 
 
 $30 
 
 ?24 
 
 $30 
 
 h 
 
 $12 
 
 Total 
 
 I 
 
 211 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 20 
 16 
 
 3 
 
 3,586 
 
 PENSIONS OF THE SEVERAL WARS AND OF THE PEACE ESTABLISH- 
 MENT 
 
 The amounts that have been paid for pensions to soldiers, 
 sailors, and marines, their widows, minor children, and depend- 
 ent relatives on account of military and naval service in the sev- 
 eral wars and in the regular service since the foundation of the 
 Government to June 30, 19 11, are as follows: 
 
 War of the Revolution (estimate) $70,000,000.00 
 
 War of 1812 (service pension) 45.853.024.19 
 
 Indian Wars (service pension) "''^^'IqI'I^ 
 
 War with Mexico (service pension) 45,279,6«6.83 
 
 Civil War 3.985.719.836-93 
 
 War with Spain and insurrection in Philippine Islands 34,142,976.37 
 
 Regular establishment 21,705,852.33 
 
 Unclassified 16,488,147.99 
 
 Total disbursements for pensions $4,230,381,730.16 
 
 57 
 
APPENDIX 
 DISBURSEMENTS FOR PENSIONS AND FOR MAINTENANCE OF PENSION SYSTEM, 1866 TO I9II 
 
 nSCAL YEAR 
 
 1866. 
 1867. 
 1868. 
 1869. 
 1870. 
 
 I87I. 
 1872. 
 1873. 
 1874. 
 1875. 
 
 1876. 
 1877. 
 1878. 
 1879. 
 1880. 
 
 I881. 
 1882. 
 1883. 
 1884. 
 1885. 
 
 1886. 
 1887. 
 
 1890. 
 
 1891. 
 1892. 
 1893. 
 1894. 
 1895. 
 
 1896. 
 1897. 
 
 1899. 
 1900. 
 
 I9OI. 
 1902. 
 1903. 
 1904. 
 1905. 
 
 1906. 
 1907. 
 1908. 
 1909, 
 I9IO. 
 191 I. . 
 
 PAID AS PENSIONS 
 
 Total , 
 
 $15,450,549.88 
 20,784,789.69 
 23,101,509.36 
 28,513,247.27 
 29,351,488.78 
 
 28,518,792.62 
 29,752,746.81 
 26,982,063.89 
 30,206,778.99 
 29,270,404.76 
 
 27,936,209.53 
 28,182,821.72 
 26,786,009.44 
 33,664,428.92 
 56,689,229.08 
 
 50,583,405.35 
 54,313,172.05 
 60,427,573.81 
 57,912,387.47 
 65.171.93712 
 
 64,091,142,90 
 73.752.99708 
 78,950,501.67 
 88,842.720.58 
 106,093,850.39 
 
 117,312,690.50 
 
 ■39.394. 147- 1 1 
 156,906,637.94 
 139,986,726.17 
 139,812,294.30 
 
 138,220,704.46 
 
 '39.949.717-35 
 144,651,879.80 
 "38,355.052.95 
 138,462,130.65 
 
 138,531.483-84 
 137,504,267.99 
 
 •37.759.653-7" 
 '41.093,571.49 
 141,142,861.33 
 
 139,000,288.25 
 '38,155,412.46 
 ' 53,093,086.27 
 161,973,703.77 
 '59.974.056.08 
 157,325,160.35 
 
 COST, MAINTE- 
 NANCE AND EX- 
 PENSES 
 
 4. '33.936,285.93 
 
 1407,165.00 
 
 490.97735 
 553,020.34 
 564,526.81 
 600,997.86 
 
 863,079.00 
 951,253.00 
 1,003,200.64 
 966,794.13 
 982,695.35 
 
 1,015,078.81 
 1,034,459.33 
 1,032,500.09 
 
 837.734- '4 
 935,027.28 
 
 1,072,059.64 
 1,466,236.01 
 2,591,648.29 
 2,385,181.00 
 3.392,576.34 
 
 3,245,016.61 
 3,753,400,91 
 3,515,057.27 
 3,466,968.40 
 3,526,382.13 
 
 4,700,636.44 
 4,898,665.80 
 4.867,734.42 
 3.963.976.31 
 4,338,020.2 1 
 
 3.991.375-61 
 3.987.783-07 
 4,114,091.46 
 
 4.'47.5"7-73 
 3,841,706.74 
 
 3,868,795.44 
 3,831,378.96 
 3,993,216.79 
 3,849,366.25 
 3,721,832.82 
 
 3,523,269.51 
 3,309,110.44 
 2,800,963.36 
 2,852,583.73 
 2.657,673.86 
 2,517,127.06 
 
 120,879,861.74 
 "58 
 
 1 15.857.7 '4-88 
 21,275,767.04 
 23,654,529.70 
 29.077.774-08 
 29,952,486.64 
 
 29,381,871.62 
 30,703,999.81 
 27,985,264.53 
 
 3'.i73.573-'2 
 30,253,100.11 
 
 28,951,288.34 
 29,217,281.05 
 27,818,509.53 
 34,502,163.06 
 57,624,256.36 
 
 51,655,464.99 
 55.779.408.06 
 63,019,222.10 
 60,747,568.47 
 68,564,513.46 
 
 67.336.159-51 
 77.506,397.99 
 
 82,465.558.94 
 92,309,688.98 
 109,620,232.52 
 
 122,013,326.94 
 144,292,812.91 
 '61,774.372.36 
 '43.950,702.48 
 144,150,314.51 
 
 142,212,080.07 
 •43.937.500.42 
 148,765,971.26 
 142,502,570.68 
 142,303,887.39 
 
 142,400,279.28 
 141,335,646.95 
 141,752,870.50 
 144,942,937.74 
 144,864,694.15 
 
 142,523.557-76 
 141,464,522.90 
 155,894,049.63 
 164,826,287.50 
 162,631,729.94 
 159,842.287.41 
 
 NUUBER OF 
 PENSIONERS 
 
 4,254,816,147.67 
 
 126,722 
 
 155.474 
 169,643 
 187,963 
 198,686 
 
 207,495 
 232,229 
 238.411 
 236,241 
 234,821 
 
 232,137 
 232,104 
 223,998 
 
 242.755 
 250,802 
 
 268,830 
 285,697 
 303,658 
 322,756 
 
 345.125 
 
 365.783 
 406,007 
 
 452,557 
 489,725 
 
 537.944 
 
 676,160 
 876,068 
 966,012 
 969.544 
 970.524 
 
 970,678 
 976,014 
 993.7'4 
 99'.5'9 
 993.529 
 
 997.735 
 999,446 
 
 996,545 
 994,762 
 998,441 
 
 985.971 
 967,371 
 951.687 
 
 946.194 
 921,083 
 892,098 
 
APPENDIX 
 PENSIONERS ON THE ROLL JUNE JO, I9II, AND JUNE JO, igiO 
 
 Revolutionary War: 
 
 Daughter 
 
 War of 1812: 
 
 Widows 
 
 Indian Wars: 
 
 Survivors 
 
 Widows 
 
 War with Mexico: 
 
 Survivors 
 
 Widows 
 
 Civil War: 
 
 Act Feb. 6, 1907 — 
 
 Survivors 
 
 General Law — 
 
 Invalids 
 
 Widows 
 
 Minor Children 
 
 Mothers 
 
 Fathers 
 
 Brothers, sisters, sons, and 
 
 daughters 
 
 Helpless children 
 
 Act June 27, 1890 — 
 
 Invalids 
 
 Minor children 
 
 Helpless children 
 
 Act Apr. 19, 1908 — 
 
 Widows 
 
 Army nurses 
 
 War with Spain: 
 
 Invalids 
 
 Widows 
 
 Minor children 
 
 Mothers 
 
 Fathers 
 
 Brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters. 
 
 Helpless children 
 
 Regular establishment: 
 
 Invalids 
 
 Widows 
 
 Minor children 
 
 Mothers 
 
 Fathers 
 
 Brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters . 
 Helpless children 
 
 Total. 
 
 TQII 
 
 279 
 
 1.387 
 2,629 
 
 1,639 
 5,982 
 
 356,830 
 
 I 13,063 
 
 67,509 
 
 385 
 
 >,877 
 278 
 
 353 
 508 
 
 59.991 
 
 3.983 
 
 375 
 
 228,198 
 406 
 
 23.383 
 
 1,217 
 
 326 
 
 3,032 
 
 522 
 
 9 
 I 
 
 ■3.757 
 
 2.799 
 
 149 
 
 1,066 
 
 152 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 IQIO 
 
 892,098 
 
 338 
 
 1,560 
 2,822 
 
 2,042 
 6.359 
 
 362,433 
 
 121,581 
 70.587 
 
 445 
 2,391 
 368 
 
 300 
 533 
 
 78,601 
 
 4,009 
 
 335 
 
 220,826 
 442 
 
 22,783 
 1,183 
 
 330 
 
 3,072 
 
 512 
 
 7 
 2 
 
 13,180 
 
 2,727 
 
 136 
 
 1,011 
 
 152 
 
 7 
 
 Net loss. 
 
 92 1 ,083 
 
 53 
 
 40 
 7.372 
 
 600 
 34 
 
 577 
 72 
 
 13 
 55 
 
 I 
 
 8,829 
 
 59 
 
 '73 
 ■93 
 
 403 
 
 377 
 
 5,603 
 
 8,518 
 
 3,078 
 
 60 
 
 5>4 
 90 
 
 25 
 
 18,610 
 26 
 
 36 
 
 4 
 40 
 
 37.814 
 
 28,985 
 
 The number of soldiers and sailors on the pension roll at the 
 close of the year was 570,050, the number of dependents and 
 widows was 321,642, and the number of army nurses was 406 
 
 59 
 
Cornell University Library 
 
 UB373 .A62 
 
 + 
 
 The Civil-War lacl(-of-system. 
 
 „ 3 1924 030 742 872 
 
 °"" Overs 
 
 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 fflBie^W 
 
 m^v 
 
 
 
 mj 
 
 
 
 
 DEgsJ 
 
 a 
 
 ^rSVU^^g^ 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 J" 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^■m 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 Jr 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 
 PH1NTEDIN U.S.A.