The Portland daily press., 1869-10-09
United States Comm ssioner,s Court.
WA. II. CLIFFORD, ESQ.,, COMMISSIONER.
United States " Mary Whituev ..

wM. II. CLIFFORD, ESQ.,, COMMISSIONER.
United States v. Mary A. Whitney.
Geo. F. Emery Esq, submitted long, earnest,
and able argument in behalf of the accused. He
spoke of her good standing in the community and
in the church, of the patriotic sacrifices she and
her aged husband had made in giving to the
country the life Of the son upon whom they had
depended for the support of their old age. He
claimed that the pension was properly asked for
and properly granted. mother might be
pensioner though she was possessed of some
property. It's question simply whether or not
she was dependent in whole or in part upon the
son for support The pension officer had allowed
pensions in similar cases to persons having
property. But if the pension was improperly al
lowed, which he denied he claimed that there was
no fraudulent statement made and no guilty
intention on the part of the applicant She had
mistaken her rights under perhaps mistaken
views obtained by her counsel She and they
might easily make such mistake, when it was not
settled by the Department itself where the line
fell between those mothers entitled to pensions
on account Of their poverty and those not en-
titled on account of their aff1uence Everything
stated in her application and affidavits were true.
She had received part of her living from her
deceased son. She had stated that she had
small farm. If she had not stated the amount
and value of the property of her husband, she
had not been asked about it. The incapacity of
her husband to labor had been clearly shown by
her affidavits, and here again by evidence, and
was not denied. And finally, whatever mis-.
statement or omission her papers contained, she
was not illegally answerable for, as they were the
statements of other persons, she herself con-
csaling nothing and falsfying nothing. He
said the prosecution was to his knowledge gotten
up by envious neighbors, whose attempt to get
pensions not warranted by law he had thwarted.
He asked the Commissioner if he would upon
any but the cearest evidence send home that
venerable lady with the record of an honorable
and Christian life behind her to the community
whose esteem and respect she had enjoyed,
branded with the odium of mean and disgrace
full crime.
District Attorney Talbot in reply said, that he
had no disposition to suppress the instictve feel
ing of reverence he felt toward persons who could
claim nearest kinship with two generations that
have made such sacrifices for their country. If
there were a class of the people entitled to ex-
emption from the disabilities of the laws it was
the men who could boast at the same time, that
their fathers had perilled their lives in first
great war, and their children had fallen in battle
in our last. But there was no such class. The
laws made for the good of all must be applied to
all alike
There were but few simple questions to settle
here. Was this a case entitled to pension I'M
der the law2 The law was intended to relieve
from suffering those only whose support. whose
maintenance whose hiring depended upon the in
come lost by the loss of the contribution of
deceased son. Otherwise the wealthiest citizens
might claim it. wealthy person may lose GER
tain sources of income, but as long as he has
property enough to maintain him, it is no ques-
ton of dependence upon that income for support
1t does not become question of support until
his losses begin to diminish the fund out of
which he must be supported 1t is always under
stood that the disability of the applicant must be
shown. No one believes that if the Commissioner
had been informed that Mrs. Whitney was living
with her husband, both in possession of more
than the usual health and vigor of persons of
their years, upon farm worth $4,000 or $4,000,
her husband owning other land, stock and per-
sonal property worth $1,000 more, free from debt
and with little money at interest, he would ever
have placed her upon the pension roll. How
came she placed on it? By her own application
and representation of her circums tances. She
cannot divide the responsibility by these repre-
sentation among her witnesses. her counsel or her
husband. She used them and received the bene-
fit of them. Her claim was false, and that it
represented her as dependent upon her daily labor
and upon this deceased son for support. Whereas
she was living amicabIy with her husband, bound
in law to maintain her and with means to do 1t to
the end of their lives without either of them ever
doing days work. This representation was
untrue
Did she know it to be untrue? She knew she
made it. The words are common ineligible
words. She knew their meaning. She knew
what means her husband had She knew she was
not dependent as she had declared.
Commissioner Clifford was disposed to takc the
case for advsement, but at the soliciatio, of
counsel on both sides, concluded to give suc;,
decision as his present impressions dictated.
He said he was clearly of opinion the pension
never should have been allowed, that the accus.
ed did not belong to the class of persons entitled
to receive pension under the act giving pen
sion to certain mothers. But that was not tn,
question for him to decide. Whether the defend
ant had any criminal intent, or knowing that sh
was not entitled to a pension had fraudulent.
made the application was the question for him tt
decide 1t was possible she might under advic
of friends or others believe that she was entitled
to this compensation, and she might not hav
made or thought of the nice distinction made b.
counsel between income and support. A
against person whose character has been so Ii
reproachable, be said be should not presume an
criminaity and on the ground of guilty kno,cledg
not shown, he should order the discharge of tn
defendant. I.....