National Republican., 1880-09-21
FACTS VS.. FALSEH00D.
An Open letter to WOuld.be Demo.
cratic Expert.
A Campaign Document Spoiled-A Con-
gresham Convicted OF Whole
sale FaIsihcation.
cnnfrontod Mith the Ofclnl Figures.

Hon. w. b. Myers author OF campaign docn'
mcnt which lie evidently hoped would last
until after the Indiana election, but which
is likely to prove boomerang:
PENSION OFFICE, WAsHINGToN, d. G.,
September 90, 1880.
Ron. ". r. Myers Anderson, Ind:
SIR have seen your published letter of
the Cd instant to Mr.. Hittnger of Indian.
apols, purporting to detail some discoveries
made by committee of congress, Of which
you were member at the last session, whit
investigating the pension office.
/ notice IL only because 1t Is calculated to
miscad persons interested in the pensions, and
embarrass the branch of the public service in
trusted with their settlement, of which have
charge.
You say ut appeared to be the object of
the administration to give as many politicians
places us possible and to SO rctaid the work MS
to keep them in steady employment; such
were the conclusions to be derived from the
evidence and testimony adduccd before tho
committee"
You know that there was no evidence pre-.
sented to the committee which justihes such
conclusions. On the other hand, you know
that the evidence before the committee was
conclusive, consisting Of official figures; that
the average net increase in the lumber of
pensions allowed during the three years OF my
the thrce years preceding July l, 1876, was
more than eleven per cent. in the army aud
navy cases, while 81 006 pensions We're allowed
for service in the wurOf 1912, against 2270 for
the three years preceding July, 1876, alto
gethcr an increase OF moro thnn nifty seven
per cent, with no noticeable advantage in tho
average appropriations for the employment OF
clerks. You stated that the number of clerks
employed in the pension Office during the
year ending June 30, 1866, was 175; thcaver-
age number WAS 49, You stated that 42O
were employed in 1875; there were only 3Sl.
YUu stated there were 500 during the seven
months from July |, 1919, to February l, lcS0,
ard there were instead i0i thus in your com
parsons belittling the clerical force against
the present management more than seven per
cent. on one cnd, and exaggcrNtnG 1t on the
other more than nineteen per cent.
These mistakes are, however, entirely
eclipscd by your forgetfuness of the following
facts necessary to II truthful comparison, viz:
That from July /, 1870 to February, 1850, thc
Office was flooded with the immense number
of claims which came in under the arrears
act the daily average being more than double
the number ever before known, aud nearly
three times the average of 1866 that during
that seven months 40,737 claims for arrears
were settled and the amount duo paid to the
pensioners; that the 10000 cases allowed IN
1866 involved comparatively little labor, the
greater part being settled upon the records OF
the war department, whereas the cases setil led
at the present day not only involve similar
labor, but u work several times greater in pro
curing and considering the additional paro
evidence covering the medical and scientific
facts as well rs the other history of the claim
mt buck to his discharge, an average period
Of nearly sixteen years; that from forty to fifty
clerks in the Office were employed upon /
new record which was extra work; that The
mail averaged $500 pieces received daily, ex
Guiding Sundays, which had increased tC
these dimensions from 1876 pieces in 1876.
Nor is this all. In stating the number o
claims settled in 1866 you included the wild
pws MS well rs tue invalids. For the sever
months you omitted not only the army wild
Bws, but both iuvalids aud widows of thu
navy These added would make the figures
stand 5,S0i against 1882, as stated by you il
addition to the 40,737 arrears cases.
You say THAT it appears that there hG
been trouble in that department ever Sine
Mr.. Bentley came into the office Of commits
sioner. Attorneys and claim agents have no
been given the facilities for expCdting thei
work and claims before that department." etc
etc.
The claim agents have had trouble? Wha
facilities" have been dcuied them? 1t is tru
that the members Of the Washington ring, o
clam.ugeuts syndicate, several Of whom hay
II business which brings them many thousand
of dollars per annum out of the pensions, hav
not been given advantages in the TRANSACTION
of their business which would give 1t prect
demce over the business Of Il bounty agen
who has few claims for his nCi Cighbors. The
have been compelled to take thcirregular tui
with others.
Again, invited claimants to present thci
application in person without AN attorney
aud assured them that their cases should II
ccive just US prompt attention. And lastly
for four years ! have constantly recon-
l,I Int m lp ulOutCu II ~
to cause the testimony IN pension cases to
taken by government officers in the immt
diUte ucgNbOrhOOd OF the claimants aud thei
witnesses without expense to them, to the ell
that their cases might be more speedily an
justly settled
know Of no other facilities" which hav
been denied the claim agents un'ess IL bo III
refusal to comply with your demand last vii
ter that / open the records aud files Of I'll
pension office to three of the principal Wusl
ington claim agents, whom you brought wit
you one of whom appeared before the invest
eating committee, actively engineering tl
investigation, and the other TWO us Willlh
witnesses"
VIII you please point out the facilities
which l have denied the claim agents {
shown in the testimony before the committe
aud which you would have accorded to thel
had you been commissioner OF penslonsY
You say sit was shown by the invesigatio
tnul many Oh Tue IulSs hNOplcu W il' pChtlN
were arbitrary and without any warrant
law whatever; that ho had been in the hab
OF dropping pensioners from tine rolls withol
the sworn statement of any one, when IL
United States statutes provide that in no ca'
shall n pension be withdrawn or reduced c!
cept upon notice to the pensioner and hea
ing upon sworn testimony" the additions
words of the provision are except as TO Il
certificate of the examining surgeon"
This statute was passed ON the 2lst oGJun
1879, and was attached 10 the provision aba
ishing the biennial examinations, which pr
vision l had recommended in my annual \
port for 1873.
There was no testimony before the commi
tee that pensioners had been dropped from Il
roll since July, 1876 without sworn tcstmon
aud an ample opportunity to be heard, exec
i'm cases where the examining surgeon Ia
certified that the disability for which the pc
sion had been granted no longer existed.
For few months after the passage Of tn
law the Office construed II rs not changir
the rule in such cases; but upon its being urg,
that tho rule was changed, ] adopted that co
struction, and tho "habit had already bee
broken up before any esIinOny touching
was presented to the committee
Now, as to the arbitrary rules when yc
say adopted" If you refer to rules anectll
evidence, no new rules were shown to ma
been adopted which are not more liberal
ward the peusoner than those which beto
aNistsI nm ihn Euna slibiprT. and every one