Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1857-08-21
WASHINGTON NEWS AND GOSSIP.

readers, We publish the two following commu-
ncations. In according to them place IN our
columns. we will barely remark that we cannot
perceive that the views we presented a few
DAYS ago on the subject discussed by them.
have been at all controverted. 1t Is admitted
by 76" that arrearages of pension, or, more
properly speaking, unclaimed pensions, due a
soldier at the time of his death, have never been
allowed his grand children" 60 nomine, and
this is precisely what we contended was the
fact In truth, grand children have only been
awarded such arrears, or unclaimed pensions,
in cases where, if there had been no widow,
children or grand children, the amount due
would have been equally recoverable, by the
practice OF the Pension Bureau, at times through
an executor or administrator, by collateral re-
latiOns, or even creditors.
With respect to what the Supreme Court has
really decided in this matter, we still adhere to
the opinion that, insomuch as the question of
the legality of the payment by the Government
to the administrator of the money in contro-
versy was not only not before the Court, but
admitted in the pleadings, the Court cannot
properly be regarded as having decided more
than the isolated point in issue, namely-the
relative rights of the parties to the suit
The amount Of money involved in this matter
appears to be regarded by both writers, al
though for very different reasons, as of little
consequence to the Government; but even TO
them the question in controversy will assume
an aspect of some moment, when it is considered
that if their views shall be carried out, q re-
adjustment Of many claims already adjudca,ed
would become necessary, in which portions of
the money already paid to the children of de-
ceased soldiers must be again paid to their
grandchildren.
We here dismiss this subject, and for obvious
reasons close our columns to further cOmmuni-
cations upon it.
IL 1.-THE T" interesting pension-law question: you
commented on recently be worth stating at all.
II IS worth stating correctly. In the memoran-
dunn submitted TO You did not attempt to Tx
blame on any one. did not point out the incOn-
sistency of an administration which demands
and rlghfully demands, the obedience of sover-
elgn States TO political opinion of the upreme
Court, and yet itself refuses to obey jud gment
Of that body paltry matter of dollars and cents
did not point to the disreputable fact that that
administration is norc inquring who are right
fully entitled to the benefit of laws enacted twenty
nine years ago. ine-tenths of the claimants under
which have already been paid, and, through you,
calling Congress to say whether the. other
tenth shall be paid in the same manner wish,
however only to state the facts, not the GU
mentS.
1; From 1925 to 1915, both grandchildren and
children We're paid arrears. In ISIS, Mr. Marcy
decided that grandchildren Were not entitled
In l1i9, Mr.. Ewing, after elaborate Investigation
admitted their claims. In 1853, MIR. McClelland
again unsettled the practice, and rejected their
Claims. No one in the Pension Bureau who
knows anything the subject will DENY this
= pom whatever grounds, Mr.. Cushing did
decide that children should continue to receive
DfplpppSSOr bol
decided that the law entitled not only children
but personal representatives.
) The twenty fifth section of the Judiciary
act, cited by ihe Supreme Court in the decision /
referred 10, grants right of appeal to that BODY
from State courts where the right arose under any
statute OF the nited States. If any body will
contend that this section constitutes the Court
board Of arbtrators in cases where there never
was any right at all under the statute I leave
him TO enjoy his improved ideas of the office of
That august tribunal.
a. Nor do l any more concur with your idea
mat IL Is the duty OF an executive officer to inter-
frre between Congress and claimant where he is
AFRAID The latter Will get more money than lie
thinks ne ought to have. | know il is proven bal
here that some of the officers estimate case more
by the amount involved than by the evidence adj
duced but believe this is the first tim. have
heard the practice commended.
D. IL II Is the Intention to daily with this oues
ton until Congress shall meet, il would be a
great RELIEF to many, myself among the number
TO state the fact candidly The same thing was
done in Virginia communication cases to the re-
demptOn of which the faith of the Government
was pledged; aud then, because Congress did not
act at all, the Department openly repudiated the
obligation, and has never paid one since Il.
Editor Of the Star. SIR: I'm your comments
In the star OF some days ago, upon a communica-
ton IN relation TO the Pensio question now pend
ing before the Attorney General, you say of your
correspondent:
He is probably mistaken in the belief that
there IS settled precedent for the payment of ar
reaTage To grand children. Such is not the nm
Outstanding of the Pension Bureau,
Now, although it may he true that there is no
settled precedent for paying arrea-ages of pen.
slons 10 grand chiidien,' 60 nomine, yet there
was long settled practice Of paying such arrear-
ages for the benefit Of grand child EN- in default
OF a widow or children TO claim them
The earliest OF the series of revolutionary pen
sion acts now in force, is the act of May Is ISIS
immediately after the passage of this act the
Secretary of the Treasury, To whom it's execution
was committed, issued his Instructions directing
that in case of the death of person entitled to the
benefit of said act, without having received his
pension, the arrears should be paid, first to the
widow, next to the children, and in defanIt of
both widow and children. to the executor or adj
minlstrator. SO that, under this construction of
the law, not only were grand children entitled to
the arrears. in default OF widow and children hut
even collateral heirs were entitled in default of
grand children. And such continued to be the
construction given, not only TO the act of ISIS but
to the supplemental act of 1892 and to the yarious
widows acts, from that time down to the DIST of
hpII- Iofof WucH MI marcy. secretary OF War.
decided, that ''there being no child or children
of the deceased, the payment cannot be made to
the executor
In March, 1850, Mr.. Ewing, Secretary of the In
terror, reviewed this question: and reaIfi rmed the
old construction, in favor Of paying the arrears TO
the personal representatives, in deIault of widow
and children Some two years afterwards how
ever, the practice was again chanred-by whose
authority L am unable to say-and payments to
executors ana administrators, where no widow
or children survived, were discontinued
From the foregoing brief history il will be seen
that during. nineteen out of the twenty-nne wears
that have elapsed since the present revolutionary
pension system was inaugurated, arrearayes have
been paid for the benefit of grand children i'm deg
fault OF a widow or children to assert a prior
right.
In your comments aforesaid You take the
ground that because the decided by the Su-
preme Court was a case in which money had been
obtained from the Government, and the question
was merely one as to the distribution of said mo-
ney the question Of the right of grand children TO
recover as against the Government, was not con.
sidered o decided
This, l apprehend, was the result of a very
nasty consideration of the question. The case
before the court was d case in which the money
had been paid over to her administrator There