The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-01-24
NsxsR rs WE

NO amendment being offered IN committee Oh the whole,
the bill was reported 70 the Senate.
question was upon ordering il 10 be engrossed Tor
a third reading
Mr. FETCH do not understand the case very well
from The reading OF the report II seems TO me that this
bill deserves further consideration before pass
upon IT, manifest that the person here who claims
pension is not entitled TO il under any law in force
hope the bill will be laid for further consideration
Mr. BADGER. hope not The case is a very clear
one, think, from the report in IFS favor Every fact
existed in this case which entitled the party 10 receive
pension under the of 1897 but one OF the regulations
OF the Navy Department in carrying that act into effect
required that when the death OF The did not APP
pear upon the records the fact OF the death shoHd be
proved by commissioned officer II this regulation
OF the Navy Department which inerposed the only diff
Guilty, as no evidence, however competent could be re-
ceived ande that regulation but the evidence OF com
missoned officer The act OF 1897 which gave the right
TO pension was retroactive II declared that the chill
dren and widow under all circumstances OF the officer OF
seaman who should die or had died in the naval service
should be entitled TO pension. Now, between the
death OF this seaman, in 1901 and the year 1887 every
commissioned officer on board the vessel at the time Of
the death had deceased and that regulation could not
OF course be complied with The case Itself, however
comes clearly within the provisions OF that act OF 1887
The act itself says nothing about the kind OF test
mony that shall be received and this regulation was one
OF the Navy Department alone. Now, | think that the
evidence reported by the committee in their very able
and satisfactory report shows that every fact proved
with ceaIness and precsion which facts, If they had
been certified TO by surviving commissioned officer
would have entitled the petitioner TO pension at once.
Therefore this bill the petitioner 10 be entitled TO
pension, although the seaman not OF sufficient i'm
poance on board the ship 10 have his death noted and
reported 10 the department. and it cannot now be proved
by commissioned officers, they having, in the course OF
nature, all died. That is the whole
Mr.. FELCH l would like to inquire whether the
facts in this would have warranted the pension but
for the single fact that the rule OF the Navy Department
required the proof of a commissioned officer.
MIR; BADGER. That is the only difficulty, it would
have been allowed at once
Mr.. BAYARD. Under the law OF 1887, il appears that
the widow was entitled TO haIf-pay until she married
again. In this case the time of the second marriage is
stand it. TO give the daughter the hafpay from the death
OF her father, although the widow drew il from the time
he died until she married again.
| Mr.. BADGER | suppose this case did not appear to
the committee in the light il would have been
made to appear in the Of legal pleading in which
it was expected 10 have demurrer. This widow was
children were to be entitled TO il from the time OF the
marriage Till they were twenty zone years OF age This
widow did marry and thereby forfeited her claim; and
the child now comes forward, and prefers hers.
Mr.. BAYARD. II seems TO me that, unless this bill
designed TO extend relief beyond what the law of 1897
would have given, under the construction Of that law
the time when the widow married ought TO have been
asceained. Now, if read the law OF 1887 rightly, the
widow would be entitled 10 hafpay until she married
again, and then the child would have been entitled TO il
from the time Of the marriage until the age of twenty
years. Now, il the object OF the bill is TO extend the
relief beyond the provision of the law OF 1887 that is
another question. But the report seems look to that
law as its governing principle and il 10 that the
facts are not stated with sufficient ceaness 10 let know
whether the party is or is not entitled TO relief under the
Mr., HALE. am not opposed to this bill, but want
the Senate to consider whether they will sanction this
principle or not am willing TO do II myself. But
have advised some Of my friends who have preferred
claims under the act of 1897, referred TO in the report
that that act having been repealed-havng been con-
sldered an improvdent actthose cases that would be
entitled TO receive pensions, if that act still in force,
would not be iavoraby regarded by the Senate now.
But i il be the OF the Senate that arising
der that act which would be entitled pensions If il was
now in force, TO be favoraby considered and favor
ably acted upon by the Senate that is another thing
That understand TO be the principle of this bill Now,
happen TO have some friends in my State whom
have advised session after session. that there pos
sibity OF getting the Senate to listen favoraby 10 such
proposition. The act itself having been repealed and
struck out OF existence told them that Congress would
not take up which failed TO be prosecuted UNI
der the act when in force. That is view OF it,
But il the Senate incline 10 take this view Of the case,
which think is mboded in this bill, will not com
plains for II will relieve some very meritorous cases
which are IN my own State. and which have supposed
TO be beyond the reach of relief But If the Senate feel
disposed take that view OF the case, 10 me
that this bill should be amended in one par,icularhat
is. 10 make apply in this case from the time OF the mar
riage Ii that not done, then the widow will get the
pension up TO the time OF her marriage and The child for
the Time also, and until she 2l years OF age
Mr. BADGER. The question suggested by the sena-
tor from New Hampshire [Mr HALr lis one tina, would
admit OF very grave consideration If the bill now before
the Senate really raised that question But the bill does
not undertake TO allow claim under the act OF 1887,
brought forward after the repeal OF that act. This Is
very different case Ii is where, while the act was
in full force, the party applied TO the proper executive
ohcer whose business II was TO see that act carried into
execution and she was then prepared 10 show under that
law the existence OF the services and the DEATH and the
other facts from which the title pension accrued, bu,
was precluded from being allowed TO evidence these
facts by rule adopted IN the department. which excluded
all evidence except OF commissioned officers. have no
hesitation in saying that every OF that kind in which
the party applied, and did all in his power 10 obtain the
benefit OF the law while IL in force is case which
should be entitled the favorable consideration OF Con-
gress now But would be different in regard 10
not brought forward while the law was in force. Now
this instance, Il seems 10 me, is plain case, falling
within The equity OF the statuie-a claim existing and
preferred while the statute in force, and which
would have been allowed bat for what may be permit
ted TO say rather absurd regulation OF the depart
exception for cases where the commissioned officers had
ueu that The highest requisite 81 the law would
oe lal le pest eVuence which, under the nature oil the
case, was IN the partys power, shall be admitted There
would have been some ground OF suspicion for the COM
plant one or more OF the commissioned officers had been
alive, and the testimony OF these officers had not been
procured. But when il is shown that all the commits
stoned officers are dead. and therefore their testimony
cannot be produced, II TO that there neces.
sy in order that there may be ground for the susp-
eon OF an attempt 10 impose upon the department, OF
bringing forward the testimony OF inferior persons show
ing the death OF the seaman and thus proving that IL is
case Tor which the regulation OF the department ought 10
for all
Mr.. BAYARD II this bill proposed only to give the
under the law OF 1897, supposing that her proof had
been IN accordance with the regulations OF the Navy
Department. should not have objected 10 H. And il the
senator will move TO restrict to that, should be dis
posed TO vote for the bill But goes further II pro-
vides, first, for the pension which she would have re.
would not have been entitled receive under tina, law
the half from the of his death in 1901 does