The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-02-27

enlistment The pension office then gave him
notice that they would attend to taking the |
testimony at Barre, Vt. At this hearing sew |
eral days we're spent In taking testimony. The |
government was represented by Homer Riggs, |
Esq, OF Hartford, Conn, and Me- Carpenter |
by his attorney, t. J. Deavitt, Esq of Mont |
peler. The testimony was considered at the |
pension office and the claim again rejected, on |
the ground Of the record evidence and one
witness who testified that Mr.. Carpenter was
deaf prior to his enlistment. Mr.. Carpenter
then appealed his case to the secretary OF the
interior, where 1t was argued on the part OF
the government by Judge b Rixford Of WASH
ington, d c., and for Carpenter by t. j.
Deavitt, Esq, OF Montpelier. The following
is an extract from Mr.. Deavitts argument be-
fore the secretary of the interior, which shows
the points raised, with his comments upon the
testimony: "Charles d. Carpenter of Barre,
Vt, was a soldier ia company G, first regiment
of cavalry of Vermont volunteers. That while
in said service, and in line of his duty at Stras-
burgh, Va, in 1862, he contracted deafness by
exposure and hardship incident to the service.
He applied for pension, and his claim has
been considered in the pension office and re-
jected on the ground that record evidence from
the war department shows that the alleged
deafness existed prior to his enlistment, sup
plemented by deposition taken by special
examiner of the pension office to the same eff
feet He represents that injustice has been
done him by the adverse action of the commits
sioner Of pensions That he was free from
deafness up to the time he entered the United
States military service. He was examined by
medical experts when he entered the service
aforesaid and was declared sound, etc., which
Is also of record evidence. That the record re-
ferred to by the commissioner was the one
made when he was discharged from the SER
vice, which shows that he was discharged for
deafness that 'ertStsd prior to enlistment He
represents and declares that 80 much of said
record as shows the deafness to have existed
prior to enlistment is falSe and the one who
made 1t must have done so without knowledge
and upon false information or supposition.
That he filed large number of affdavits of
his neighbors, and others who had ample OPP
portunity of knowing, stating that he was free
from deafness at enlistment The special ex-
aminer OF the pension office took the testimony
of many to the same effect. John Lease of
Montpelier testified that Charles d. Carpenter
was with him for the six years next prior to
his enlistment, at work in his harness shop, and
they worked within few feet OF each other,
boarded at the same place and slept together
part of the time; with such opportunity to
know, he never discovered any deafness of
Mr.. Carpenter, and testified that he was free
from deafness when he enlisted Mr.. Whet-
more of Barre testified that he attended school
with Mr.. Carpenter, and while Carpenter was
learning his harness trade, at Montpelier,
he himself was learning the trade Of stone
cutter at the same place. That they were
together in going to and from Montpelier
at the end of week or two, and were
much together while at Montpelier. He
never discovered any defect in the hearing of
Mr.. Carpenter prior to his enlistment, and be-
lieved that he was free from deafness up to
his enlistment Eli Holden lieutenant in the
company in which Carpenter served, testified
that he drilled the company before it left the
state, and that the company was under his
command for some part OF every day for the
| first six months of their service. He was also
/ rod wi IN liat.
ment. He says Carpenter was free from deaf
ness at enlistment, always obeyed his orders
promptly, he never having to repeat them. He
also testifies that Carpenter contracted his
deafness in the service in April, 1862. at
| Strasburgh, Va, caused by exposure Incl
dent to the service. The only testimony, aside
from the record, tending to show deafness
! prior to enlistment, as far as he Is aware, is
the testimony Of Leonard F. Adricb Of Barre,
! Vt, who testfies that Carpenter was deaf
prior to enlistment The first question of the
! special examiner, when he met Mr.. Aldrich, was
an improper one and one that would not have
been admitted in court, for the reason the
question assumed that Carpenter was deaf be-
fore he enlisted. The question was this: "Mr.
Aldrich. we are round to see how deaf Carpen-
ter was before he enlisted ?" Mr.. Aldrich an
swered: 81 think he was considerable deaf. "
He then went to a suitable place with the ak
aminer and gave the testimony he did. His
testimony is very indefinite as TO when he first
knew he was deaf He could give no occasion
prior to enlistment at which he noticed he was
deaf, and when asked il it was not possible that
he WAS mistaken as to first knowing that Car
penter was deaf prior to enlistment, he said il
might be possible, but he thought he was deal
prior to enlistment 1t also appears that he
was no more Familiarity acquainted with Car
penter than he was with the other young men
and boys of the village and the six years next
prior to Carpenters enlistment Carpenter had
resided in Montpelier, Vt, and Aldrich had
but little if any opportunity to know Carpen
ter's condition. Mr.. Carpenter met Mr.. AL
drich at Washington, D. G after his discharge
from the service, when on his way home from
the front in the field He was then deaf, and
that is probably the first time Mr.. Adrich ever
knew of his being deaf In Mr. Carpenters case
ithad been reported in Barre that his claim fol-
pension had been rejected on the ground thai
Carpenter was deaf prior to enlistment Mr.. AL
drich probably formed his opinion from such re
port that Carpenters deafness existed prior tC
enlistment His testimony shows that it was
only his opinion - The decision of the secre
tary of the interior has been rendered in favol
OF Carpenter, and he has received pension o.
S4 a month, with 81, OILS arrears