The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-10-27
The Pension Case OF DIR. Grim.

The following communication we copy from
the Union of the oath instant it being a reply
to the structures of writer in that paper over
the signature of " peritas:" s
To the Editor Of The Union: r.
Sra: Your paper OF the 10Th instant contains SUM-
dry interrogatores in relation to the allowance of
the half pay claim of DR.. Corbin Griffin by the
present Commissioner of Pensions, and which in
terrogatories, by innuendo, mpugn the validity Of
that claim, and assail the integrity of the agent
who prosecuted it and recovered the money.
1t is neither my business nor my purpose to en-
ter into the general controversy which has arisen
in your columns with reference to the admin. IRA.
ton OF the affairs OF the Pension Bureau; 6ut it ia
my right, my duty, and my present purpose, to
defend my own agency, whenever and however
assailed; shall stop this occasion to inquire
toho it is that deals the blows behind his mask!
should prefer, it 10 true, to know my assailant
bat willingly forego the inquiry in the present
instance, not doubling that he will appreciate my
forbearance in not requiring his name in advance
of my response, when assure him that, if he be
that honest and conscientious man he assumes to
be, have too much pity for his weakness to desire
to witness his contrition.
The innuendos of your correspondent who
writes the inappropriate name of pe,itas
are as follow:
1. That the Secretary of the Treasury rejected
the claim of DIR. Corbin Griffin, many years ago,
on the ground that his service was not Of mill.
tary character.
2 That subsequently, the late Commissioner of
Pensions rejected the claim on the same ground
3. That the present Commissioner of Pensions
evidence.
4, That tie agent who made the Applicant and
recovered the claim by the present Commission
eI's decision, had made efforts.in the Legislature
oil ia ilp af
missioner from the office of Auditor of Virginia.
The fourth and last innuendo will be first noticed
The claim of Doctor Corbin G rifIin was presented
for reconsideration by myself in 1850. The prose-
cution OF said claim was conducted solely by my.
SELF The money was paid to me, and to me alone
No other person bad any thing whatever to do with
the management of the claim from the time asked
its reconsideration to the day of it's adjudication
and payment.
was not then, nor had been for twelve years
previously, member of the Legislature of vir-
ginia; nor did ever whilst in the Legislature
make any efforts, or know Of any being made, to
prevent Mr.. Heath's removal from the Office of
Fret Auditor. know OF no opposition made to
his collection to that post whilst served in that
body. So much for this innuendo, as far as the
agent who recovered the claim is interested. 1t is
simply untrue in all its bearings
But have casually learned that your i'll informed
correspondent aimed his attack at another gentle.
man, whom he supposed prosecuted this claim.
How lar Mr.. "Veritas" may consider himself jus.
tilted in dealing his blows at random, and without
investigation, may depend somewhat upon his
own peculiar moral perceptions. But he shall
have the foil benefit of even his conjectures.
gentleman in lower Virginia, a distinguished
and honorable member Of the Virginia Legislature,
held power Of attorney from the personal repre-
sentative Of DR.. Griffin to prosecute this claim.
This gentleman substituted me as the agent of the
administrator; nor did he on any occasion, whilst
the claim was in progress interfere, personally
by letter, with my management Of the claim; nor
did The Commissioner Of Pensions kno,D uat this
sentlemans name ,Das in the potoer Of attorney until
he had Gdjudicaied and allo,ped the claim
When the case bad been decided on its merits, !
presented the power of attorney and substitution,
with the certificate of administration, and received
the amount awarded. The fourth innuendo, there.
OF its author, who has had the magnanimity to fab
ricate charge of collision, favoritism, and COR
ruption, without even the scmbapce Of pretext
He is welcome to his reflections
now proceed to notice the other innuendos in
their order
First. The Secretary of the Treasury did not
reject the claim, as has been intimated. The
ground on which he suspended the claim in 1895
may be seen by reference to his letter of inquiry
directed to the Auditor of Virginia on the 18th
February, 1885, and his letter addressed to myself
CHE original agent on the 18th day OF April, 1885
He inquired OF the Auditor as follows: Whether
there ,oas any proof his office Of the tristence and
organisation Of naral hospital IN Virginia in the
Revolution?
The Auditor of Virginia not being able at that
time to furnish such proof, the Secretary, on the
10Th April, 1885, informed me that had not fur
nished the necessary proof that DR.. Grifins SER
vices were such as to entitle him to half pay but
that any record proof sho'ong such service should
receipe due considsraion."
The sum total, then, of the Secretary's action
and opinion was that the case must be Suspended
until the production of some record proof showing
Yorktown, and that DR.. Corbin Griffin was lie
surgeon.
In this opinion l cheerfully acqucsced; and
there the case rested, until, sometime afterwards,
Gas learn,) another individual, during my alb
sence from Virginia, took charge of the claim, and
made Intellectual efforts to procure the proof which
had been required.
This brings me to the second innuendo; and on
this point can only say that have seen no evi
dence Of any action whatever by the former Com.
missioner OF Pensions this claim. There ia no
note on the papers of any such action; nor have
found, after much search, that he ever considered
the case at all II he did do 30, presume he adopt
edt(a he should have done) the opinion of the Sc
cretary OF the Treasury, expressed in 1895, |
that some record proof ,oas necessary to shop the
eIistence and organisation Of naual hospital and
that Dr. Griffin tcas its surgeon"
This brings me to the third and most important
innus,ado, to wit: "hat The present Con,,nissioner
Of Pensions atio,ced this claim ,othoat the produc
ti0n Of eptdence."
And here, Mr. Editor, allow me to repeat that the
requirement of the Secretary in 1895, to which ]
have alluded, was in strict accordance with the |
general practice of this Government the adjud
cation of claims of the officers of the Continental
and State lines, to wit: that SOME RECORD PROOF OF
the TACT that the claimant officer should be
required. There are cases in which this rule has |
been relaxed, and where overw helming parol proof
has been held sufficient, In the of Dr. Griffin
the allowance Of the claim aoithout such record |
proof, after the Secretary had required It, would |
have subjected any Commissioner of Pensions to
censure; and presume no agent who values his
reputation for fairness would insist upon such al
lowance, without producing the proof which had
been thus properly demanded.
1t was simply and only because could not find |
such proof at an earlier day, that permitted this
case to slulnber until the winter Of lS505l, when
fortunately, such proof ioas found and presented;
and thus was the very objection raised by the Sec.
retary in 1895 met and removed! The allegation
destination, i"nuende, or whatever may be The APP