The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1884-05-08
"The District Attorney Did IT..

1.-THE District Attorney Did IT."
In another column we reprint from the
Little Rock Ark Democrat a report of the
trial of one J. J. Matthews, in the u. S.
court at that place, on the charge of having
obtained pension by fraud. In the course
OF the trial the presiding Judge took occasion
to censure very severely the course of the
Pension Office in bringing such "unwar-
ranted" and frivolous prosecutions, and
the result was that the jury, without leaving
their seats, rendered verdict of acquittal
Naturally the Pension Office feels greatly
aggrieved by this bitter denunciation of its
methods by Judge Caldwell, and we learn,
upon inquiry, that it disclaims all response
bllity for the bringing of this prosecution,
and fatty denies that the investigation
made by Special Examiner Marsh was in
any sense ex-parte. As to the latter point
we are inclined to think, after an examina-
ton of the papers, that the pensioner was
afforded sufficient opportunity to present
his side Of the case, and that the structures
OF Judge Caldwell so far as they reflected
on the conduct of the special examiner, were
not perhaps, altogether deserved; but that
does not affect the question whether or not
this was an unwarranted and frivolous
prosecution. or relieve the Pension Office
from the responsibility of having inflated
IT. In its own defense the Pension Office
declares that it was not its intention to have
the pensioner prosecuted for fraudulently
obtaining a pension, and had simply in
structed its special examiner to place the
papers in the case IN the hands of the e. S.
district attorney, with view to having the
pensioners attorney prosecuted for taking
an illegal fee. leaving him free to take such
action as he might deem proper, and that,
therefore, it is the district attorney who
should be held responsible for the prosecu-
ton. But if this was the case, the question
naturally arises: Why was the evidence col
iected by the special examiner in regard to
the pensioners disability laid before the dis
trict attorney at ALL 1t had nothing what
ever to do with the charge against the
attorney that he had taken an Illegal fee,
and all that was required to substantiate
that charge was proof that he had repre-
scented the claimant before the Pension Office
and taken an illegal fee If the Pension
Office did not intend to have the pensioner
prosecuted, why YVES it so careful to lay
before the district attorney, for such action
as he might deem proper" the testimony
which had been obtained by its special ex-
aminer to show that the disability alleged
had been incurred prior to enlistment? But
what it is still more difficult to account for
supposing that The Pension Office did not
contemplate this prosecution, is the fact that
on receipt Of the report of its special exam
iner, pending which it had suspended the
payment Of pension to the pensioner, it took
no action upon it, but straightway returned
it to the examiner, with instructions to Law
it before the district attorney. If it had no
expectation that the court would pass upon
the merits of the case, why did it not act
upon the report, and either resume the pay
ment of pension or strike the name of the
pensioner from the rolls?
As the case now stands, the interesting
spectacle is presented of an ex-soldier ac-
quilted by jury of his peers of the charge
of obtaining his pension by fraud, yet still
denied the payment of that pension 10y the
Pension Office. The pensioner having been
put to all the cost and trouble of defending
himself in a criminal suit the Pension Office
viii ROW do, we suppose, what it should
have done before sending the case to court
refer the report of the special examiner to
the Board of Review for action. We con-
graduate it upon this momentous result of
its labors. We now know what one at
least, of its special examiners has been doing
to facilitate the adjudication of pension
claims and put an end to the present mon
strous delay!