Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1884-09-18

Is IN ere in thisi
If the claimant in this class of cases has any
right to pension At all, that right dates from the
fling of his original application, and to refuse to
give him the benefit OF this bill, except upon the
condition that he waives this right, IS TO take q
shameful advantage of his helpessness. Instead
Of a bill to expedite the settlement of pension
claims, this ought to be entitled: An act to scale
the Governments debt to the soldier!" II is
downright Notwithstanding more, nothing
less.
In the third place, this bill fails to make any
provision whatever for the widows and minor
children OF those Tho may die after being award
ed pensions under il
But we have been proceeding under the as
sumption. 30 far, that the bill really does afford
some relief, and have only set forth the injustice
and unreaSonableness Of the conditions under
which claimants are allowed to take advantage of
it. Is that assumption really justified By the terms
of the bills Does it really provide for any abate
nent in the amount of evidence required 10 est2b-
lish claim! Let examine the language OF the
bill. What is the applicant required TO prove?
Ist. That he is now disabled. To determine
this fact he is required to 60 before board OF
amining surgeons. as now.
I'd. That his disability is not the result of his
own misconduct or bad habits or other known
cause, occurring since his discharge, and that II
probably was incurred in the line OF duty. This is
in the nature of negative testimony-the most
difficult of all to furnish.
Finally, he is required to make 'due proof of the
facts, under such regulations may be prescribed
by the proper authority, and that proper authorl-
ty-the Commissioner OF PenSionS-iS be the
Judge OF whether this proof affords probable cause
to believe that his disability originated in line of
duty In what respect do these requirements
differ from those prescribed bv existing law: AS
Representative Brown Justly remarked the differ
ence Is simply that while under the old law the
claimant was entitled to pension II he served
but day q week, If he incurred disability, n
der the proposed law ne must nave served three
months! Ii the proposed law valves anything in
favor OF the Claimant 1t IS only such requirements
as under existing law ought not to be exacted by
the Pension Office. 1t merely gives the soldier the
benefit of the doubt, to which ne is entitled under
the present law, and OF which he should never
been deprived.
The fact is, that the only positive merit in this
bill is contained in the provision of the last section
that the tact that claimant served three months
shall be regarded as PrinG: :facit evidence of his
soundness at date of enlistment, and this, not be-
cause it is new legislation, but because it is de-
claTatory as to how tbs Commissioner of Pensions
should construe the present law.
To sum it all up, this bill is deluson and
The relief which II pretends to afford is in
tangible the sacrltce which it imposes upon those
who, by reason of their poverty, may be driven
apply for pension under it, monstrous and cruel.
Our ex-soldiers have asked for bread and Congress
has given them stone.
What will you do about it, comrades. The bill
is now before the Senate, and whatever is done to
its modification must be done at once. 1t is
own judgment that the pension committee OF
the Grand Army, whose recommendations have
been thus deliberately disregarded in the enact
ment OF this measure, should be Immediately
convened at the capital to demonstrate against
passage; and that every ex-soder, whether
comrade of the Grand Army not, should at
once by letter to his Senators and Representative,
enter his protest against the consummation OF this
great wrong!
The National Tribune of May l, 1884,
contains the following additional editorial:
The Warner Bill a Sham.
In last issue took accession to point out the
futility of the Warner pension bill, which passed
1e IN nj he Mi nos OT
pr<ueHfizg ii from becoming Ia1V IN its present
shape. We are now in receipt of numerous letters
and kilograms heartily iHdO,Sing tie position taken
BY THE TRIBUNE in regard TO thfs 6iil, aad demand
ing HS modification. Chairman HerrIH, Of the
pension committee of the Grand ATmy, telesraphS
tkaf tie 6iH IS an apple Of ashes and oHehtf 10 be
buried thousand feet deep" General Charles
H. Grosvenor, another member of the committee,
telegraphs: The Warner 6iH IS not satisfactory,
and ought 10 be amended Tie demand that the dp-
plicGNf shall reIIH9aISA his claim 10 has
SHPPor! in justice. COuyadf Tanner, Of the pen
sion committee, telegraPhs us that he agrees with
General Merrill as to The fHtflity or the bill. We
infer therefore, that prompt and vigorous action
i be TAKEN to compel Congress to yeSoiNd its kaSfy
Gcfios, and do full justice to deserving claimants.
The truth is that this measure not only affords
remedy for the delay in the adjudication OF pension
claims. which it processes to provide for, but apc
pears to be founded a gross misconcepuon of
the cause of that delay.
The editor says that the Union soldiers
have asked Congress for bread and it has
given them a stone.
lean come back nearer home than that
was not coming to declaim to this audi
ence to day. j was not coming without be-
ing fortified in every single proposition. l
went to Judge Walker of the Pension De-
partment. He is a very fine lawyer. He
commands the respect of the country, and
especially of the Union soldiers. l asked
him to give me the difference between the
Warner bill and the Mexican pension bill.
He prepared the letter which | hold in my
hands. He and Commissioner Dudley occu-
py the same position, and when he gave me
this paper, he said You are at liberty to
use it as my private opinion. l have no
right to bind this office Gen. Dudley is
higher than me in authority, but you are at
perfect liberty to use this as my opinion"
He stakes his reputation as a lawyer upon
it, and ! want to read it:
"Under existing pension laws soldier in
the late war to obtain pension is only re-
quired to prove that he contracted disabil
ity in said service and line OF duty, and that
he has been disabled to pensionable degree
since his discharge from the service. The
House bill No. $685., reported by Mr.. War
ner, and passed April %, 1884, requires the
soldier to show that there is probable cause"
to believe that the alleged disability was
contracted in the military service and in line
of duty, and also not the result of his own
misconduct or bad habits, or "other kno~n
cause occurring since such service"
II will be observed that this bill adds TO
the proof now required of a soldier to obtain
a pension by compelling him TO show a neg
atiue in addition thereto. 1t is claimed by
Mr. Warner that the probable cause" men
toned in the statute would be presumed upon
the report from the War Department show,
ing service, and that he was sound when he
went into the service and disabled when dis
charged. But it is clear that it really re-
stricts the rights of the soldier under the ex-
listing laws, for proof showing that the disa-
bility was contracted in line of duty is still
required with the addition mentioned"
This is the opinion OF Judge Walker, and
further on in this letter he says: "The War
ner bill added to the proof now required to
est a hlish a nension claim -