The National tribune., 1884-04-24

ing their work but extending il from year TO year
thus making your expenditure much larger
than il ought 10 he. My amendment means that
you shall simplify the wo III the Pension Office
that you shall say That shal be evidence and what
shall not what is their business and what is not
THIS is in other words. to tell them at the Pension
Office. you have no business to spend the money OF
the country in having men attempt to prove a neg
alive. This tells them they must rest satisfied with
the record evidence, and to presume all men are
honest-that the men who Went into the service
and suffered disability Were honest.
Here Dir. Brumms time expired, and the
following coloquy ensued
Mr.. RANDALL. You might do great injury
to the pensioncr by establishing new rule of evil
dence. As have said, it is now pdrte.
Mr.. BRUM3. Oh, no. If you establish thai
rule il shifts the burden of poor upon the Govern
ment, and that is the effect of this and nothing
else.
SECRETARY TELLER's OPINION.
Mr.. CURTIN (Dein.), Pa. understand that tho
Secretary of the interior is prepared TO rne now
that the prf1in facie Is with the soldier who was
regularly examined and pronounced fit to perform
service, and the burden of proof is thrown upon
the Government to prove that he was not fit and
that has muster WAS a fraud.
Mr.. BRUAlM If that be the case there can be
no harm in the adoption of this amendment.
Nevertheless the Speaker ruled this amend.
ment also out of order.
Mr. White lRep.), of Kentucky, then offered
the following:
And proridsd further, That the mother of de-
pendent upon her son within the meaning of the
pension laws, If at the date of his death at any
time subsequent thereto she had no other adequate
means OF support.
In support of his amendment, he said:
Under the present ruling the mother is compelled
TO prove that she was dependent on her son. Now,
il very hard for the mother prove at this time
that she was dependent upon son who was just
entering manhood aud went into the army and
lost his iie but IL is easy for every OF us TO
that she was soon to be dependent upon him, and
thai she would have been dependent upon him
or less from that time TO this. But mother
however much she may be suffering now, If she
cannot prove that she dependent upon her son
at the tine he enlisted can get pension for tina,
sous services although he may have lost his life
Ia the service. 1t strikes that there is here sc
clear case of injustice that should not higgle
about II FOR moment
MIR. RANDALL. AS the gentleman from Ken
tucky has spoken on the merits of his proposition
yield for moment 10 the gentleman from Ohio
MIR. Warner to make statement. that il may be
opposed 10 the proposition, but make it because
ii has no place in this bill
Mr. WA gNER tOhio) wish to state that the
bill have heretofore referred to the defect OF
winch the gentleman from Kentucky complains
Mr. WHITE tKyl. But does the gentleman think
we will pass IL this session.
VI. WARNER tohio). hope we will on Mon
day.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from
Pennsylvania Insist on the point OF order?
MIR. RANDALL. / do, for the reason l have
stated.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair, on the grounds
already stated in connection with the amendment
proposed by the gentleman from West Virginia
lair. Golf !, susiains the point of order.
And so the several attempts TO incorporate in
the pension appropriation bill some positive
legislation TO prevent further delay in the adj
judication of the claims pending before the
Pension Office aud thus make sure of action
by both houses of Congress during the present
session, came TO naught. Nevertheless, We feel
certain that the effect of this debate upon the
future action of the House will be decidedly
salutary, for the fact has now been clearly de-
veloped that it is not the iliberality of the
pension laws that are the cause of the delay in
the Pension Office, but the unjust and iliiberal
Interpretation which the latter has placed upon
them. Representative Cnrtin's statement that
the Secretary of the Interior is ready to rule
that upon the Government rests the burden OF
proof that the applicant for pension was not
sound at the date of muster. is plain admis-
sion that this is not question of law, but
simply one of administration. This ruling
could and should have been adopted long ago