Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Many classes of men go to war; but for our purposes they may be separated into two categories -- those who serve for gain whether as wages, booty, or political advancement, and those who serve for honor and patriotism. With the former we have nothing to do; they embark like every adventurer on an enterprise the success of which is all their own if it comes, and the risks of which they must therefore take. But the citizen-soldier who enlists from a sense of duty, jeopardizes his lawful calling, and with cheerful courage and self-denial ventures all for his country and his home does not he also receive pay? There may be two opinions as to this question. If the comparatively small sum which is given to the soldier either in the ranks or as an officer is an adequate return for his services in a difficult and dangerous occupation then there is an end of it, and there is no obligation on the part of the employer lasting for the lifetime of the employee. But many things combine to discredit this view. In the first place if we compare two men of equal parts and equal social standing, one fighting in the field, the other pursuing his occupation at home, the pay, equipment, and rations of the former are far less than the earnings of the latter, about sixty per cent, being a fair estimate. The soldier can sustain life and spare something for the support of those who are dependent upon him. And that is all; there is no question of growing rich by honest means in the military profession. On the other hand he pays no tax on his income and is not subject to forced contributions except in the uncertainty of pay day. It looks as if the burden of war were thus divided between the fighting citizen in the ranks and the tax-paying citizen at home. But in the second place the salaries of professional soldiers in the regular army are certainly calculated with reference to the life-long pension paid on retirement or disability. This pension is as much a part of the remuneration as the full pay during service, the total being spread over a lifetime to guard against imprudence, thriftlessness, or misfortune on the part of the recipient. If then the volunteer soldier, as is normally the case, receives the same pay as the regular or less without promise of pension, it follows that the idea of compensation does not enter into the offer of either bounty or monthly payment made on enlistment. Taking therefore either horn of the dilemma, that the citizen soldier either does or does not receive hire, he is neither legally nor morally right in demanding a pension for disability, much less for service. The state in emergencies has the power and the right to the assistance in some form of all its citizens, and by the enforcement of war contributions upon the capital of all and upon the labor of the non-combatants equalizes in a measure their burden with the service of those who fight.

It appears then that the citizen soldier has neither a moral nor a legal right to a pension. But, if so, why have most civilized nations been in the habit of granting pensions to disabled soldiers? The answer is one creditable to human nature. Gratitude, wisdom, and a sense of merciful compassion prompt us to a liberal pension system on the ground of disability. At the close of the civil war we were told, and properly so, of the nation's widows and orphans, of the nation's dependents, and the nation's wards. To all who take great risks, whether of life, property, or credit in the public service, we owe an endless debt of gratitude. Such a debt cannot be paid, and so the world has devised a system of military promotion or decoration, of societies and uniforms, which are a public proclamation of the nation's debt. Distinction and honor in some form are the rewards of merit, and human experience has stamped as both inexpedient and dangerous any attempt to transmute them into money.

Giving to honor grace, to danger pride,
Shine, martial Faith and courtesy's bright star
Through all the wreckful storms that cloud the brow of war!

But the general common-sense and right feeling of mankind realizes that for the disabled, for the widows and young children of the fallen, something more must be done. After the close of the war Americans showed themselves more grateful and lavish than any people had ever done. Every provision for the care and comfort of the sufferers was made in hospitals and soldiers' homes, and pension laws on a scale of liberality never before known were enacted. The sums granted were large and were steadily increased by successive acts; in one class of pensions from twenty-five to seventy-two dollars a month for the honorably discharged private. The restrictions as to those who were to receive the pension of the killed were so magnanimous as to give it to a widow, child, dependent mother or orphan sister, and three years after the war additions were made so as to increase the pension by a fixed sum ($2.00 monthly) for every child under sixteen. The whole system was right and most credit able to the nation. Under this plan the number of pensioners increased steadily as might have been expected for ten years after the war. There were 85,986 in 1865 and 238,411 in 1873. Under the same system the decrease in numbers as was natural then began, falling until the passage of the Arrears of Pensions Act in 1879, at the rate of about 2500 a year, the figures for 1878 being 223,998. Correspondingly the disbursements ran from $8,525,153 in 1865 up to $33,777,383 in 1871, decreasing to $26,844,415 in 1878. But since that date the number of pensioners has increased to 550,000 in 1890 and the appropriations for pensions to something over $100,000,000, without deficiencies.