as well as quality, the number of claims disposed of and the accuracy of the work, as it passes through the hands of the “reviewers.” When the efficiency record is before me, those who have done the most and the best work are promoted, and those who have fallen behind are reduced. This system has proved to be a powerful stimulus, and the result is that almost every one in the Pension Office does his utmost. I do not believe there is an office in any of the Departments where there is so large a proportion of work done by the employés. With an increase of force I hope the Office will be able to grapple with the flood of work which is pouring upon it.
2. As to the mistakes made in the adjudication of pension claims I think I have better opportunities of judging than your correspondent, for the reason that rejected pension claims are carried up to the Department on appeal whenever there appears to be any chance for upsetting the decision of the Pension Office. These appealed cases are carefully examined by competent persons in the “pension division” of the “Secretary's office” and then submitted to me, and I find that the number of cases in which the decision of the pension officials has to be reversed, is very small, smaller indeed than might be expected considering the constant pressure under which the work in the Pension Office has to be done. A larger number of mistakes is probably made in allowing claims which should not be allowed, owing to the circumstance that under the present system pension claims are adjudicated on mere ex-parte testimony. But this your correspondent does not find fault with, as he thinks that it is better to give pensions to ten persons whose claims are fraudulent, than to withhold from one whose claim is just.
3. As to the hunting after fraudulent claims your correspondent is mistaken. The discoveries of fraud have
