The Washington union., 1857-09-25

Opo1 of The Aaoracy General Pensions Of Csadrea and
Grandchildren synopsis of the opinion of the Attor-
ney General in the of Deborah Grant has been pub
shed by the press generally subjoned is the opinion
entire
ATTORNEY GENERAL's 0FFIoE,
September 10, 1857.
Sin have received your letter the application
made by the grandchildren of Deborah Grant for the
pension to which they alege she entitled and have
examined the papers by which it was accompanied.
Mrs. Grant first began TO receive pension in 1889 II
increased in I84l and in 1853 she applied for still
further increase alleging that the services performed by
her husband entitled her to larger pension than either
of the previous decisions OF the office had given her
Pending this last appropriation, she died. leaving grand
children, but no children, living The grandchildren
renew the application.
AS to the increase applied for in 1853 but al
lowed that must be regarded unestablished claim
to pension The application made in her lifetime
does not make the right of her children any better than
it would have been II she had never applied at all
take it for granted that her grandchildren have proofs
sufficient show that she in her lifetime entitled to
receive what they claim her representatives Nor
will stop discuss the question whether the grandchil
dren of pensoner have have not the rights that
children havei 1t is settled by the Supreme Court (9
How, $3.50 that they stand equal ground What has
been decided by that tribunal is not and ought not to
be, open to further dispute.
1t is also very clear that pensions due to widows will
descend to their children grandchildren just in the
way that pensions coming to revolutionary soldiers
themselves will descend to theirs
These principles being thus settled the before me,
and the question arising on it, may be put thus A sol
der of the revolution who might have got himself placed
the pension roll and received from the government
pension during his natural life has died without doing So
Can his children after his DEATH get all that he might
have got in his lifetime the production OF the same
proofs
Before this question be answered in the affirmative
the right of the children must be shown by some act OF
Congress which gives it to them either expressly or by
to forbid it proves nothing Every claim upon the
public money must be made out aifrmatively by the
claimant The burden of proving that such demand is
not well founded lies upon the government. No
be allowed to take from the treasury what Con-
gress has not gven and Congress gives nothing except
when the intention to do expressed in plain and
ambiguous words
1t is utterly in vain to argue that the annuity which
the law authorizes soldier to receive is property
in which he has vested right and descendble
like money secured to him by bond. 1t is not So
If it were Congress would have power to say whom
it should go to after the death of the pensioner for
Congress cannot regulate the descent distribution
of property in the States 1t would necessarily pass
by the law of succession which prevails at the place
of the pensioners domicil. But it is gratuty
which the government may and does bestow whom it
pleases Ii be not extended beyond the immediate OBJ
ject of the bounty his representatives have no inter
est in it, If it be extended, the representatives take
it favor and not of right 1t is for this alone
that Congress- without regard to the law of the States
has always exercised the power of saying to whom
the arrearages of pension shall be paid when the
pensioner dies. 1t is given to widow in exclusion of
children, and in other to children in exclusion
of collateral kindred and creditors This right of be-
slowing it classes of relatives while Others equal
y entitled in justice and preferred by the general rules
of law, forbidden to enjoy it, springs entirely out of
the right to withhold it from all of them. 1t follows
that if the children of revolutionary soldier get the
pension due to their ancestor they must get it in purs
of some positive law to that effect. Nothing
MAINS therefore, but to whether Congress has made
obi nnfn
soldier to prove the services of their parent and get the
pension which might have been awarded to him.
The second and third sections of the act of 1886 5 u
s. L. l2S manifesty and plainly intended to give
certain representatives of deceased soldiers the privilege
of establishing claims established by the soldiers
themselves But the second section does not this
case because it refers only to those soldiers who died
between the 4th of March, 1884, and the 7th of June,
1882 The third section is equally inapplicabe for it
intended solely to substitute the widow of soldier
pensoner in his place upon proof by her of his SER
vices Children not spoken Of.
The act of 1882 a u S. L, $780, in the fourth
ton provides for the of pensioner dying between
the semannual pay days. and directs that the proper
tonate amount accrung between the last pay day and
the time of his death shall be paid to his widow if he
left widow to his children. This refers clearly to
pensoner actually put on the roll in his lifetime that
nobody pretends to claim anything under it for the chill
dren of soldier who died without being pensoner. If
there were no other law on the subject should have
my doubts whether the children OF pensioncr could re-
for what accrued further back than from the
last yay before his DEATH though several full
payments might be due
But the act of 1929, section l. a, y. S. l.. 350 de-
clares that whenever any revolutionary pensoner shall
die the of pension due to the said pensioner at the
time of his death shall he paid to his widow, or if he
left widow to his children There is considera
ton which sets aside all petence of claim under this law
in case like the present 1t provides only for the pay
ment of This word has sgncation definite
and well known any other in the language 1t means
a balanceone portion left behind another portion-a
still remaining unpaid, after payment of part I'm
less pensoner received part of his pension during his
e land he could not do that without being the pen
sion roll there be such thing at his
DEATH There other equally potent In favor
of the constructions but they will he embraced in
what have to say about the act of 1910.
That act 5 U. S. L., $3.50 provides for the of
pasioa who dies leaving widow and for the of
peasoner who is widow but dies leaving children and
in both cases it says that she amount Of the pension due to
such ynsioer at The lime Of his Tor herr DEATH shall be paid
for the sole Of the children 1t ID mcomprehensibe
how this law came to be understood it has been
by of the officers of the Pension Bureau There is
not word in it which could properly have been used to
express the intention that children shall have the prvi
lege of establishing claim which their parent never made
good
For whose children does the act provides For the
children Of pensioners. And who is pensoneri One
who receives pension 1t certainly does not include
any but those who actually enjoy the bounty of the gov
enment in the shape of periodical payments To say that
person is pensoner for the that he might have
become by act of his own, would be gross vi
oation of the jus norma bqued as to call man sol