The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1884-08-14
"PRIOR SOUNDNESS."
Important Pension Decision by the
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
| He Rules that II Soldier was Sound Eaoagh TO
do Duty He is Entitled To a Pension.

He Rules that II Soldier was Sound Eaoagh TO
do Duty He is Entitled to Pension.
The Interior Department has kindly fur
nished THE NATIONAL TRIBUNE with the text
of the recent very important ruling of Assist
ant Secretary Joslyn, which is as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, July 26, 1884.
On Appeal.-No. 313, 3,5o2-~Bessie Z. Leayitt,
Widow.
The Commissioner Of Pensions.
SIR: This claim presents two important
points for consideration. First, as TO the prior
soHndness of the soldier, and, second, as TO the
incurrence of the alleged disability in the
service and line of duty. The parole evidence
filed tends to show that the soldier did receive
some injury to right foot in 1857, four years
anterior to his enlistment in the u. s. service; /;
but that he was not disabled for the per-
formance of manual labor by reason of said
injury is established by the fact that he
continued to work In various laborious pur-
suits until August, 1861, when, after be-
ing duly examined by Army Surgeons, he
was pronounced physically fit for military
service and enlisted therein ManifestIy. he
developed no disabling symptoms at that time,
from the additional fact that he was assigned
to the cavalry, which, it is fair to presume,
would not otherwise have been done. The
soldier continued in the service, showing no
signs of a disability inssaid foot, receiving no
treatment for any disease or injury whatever
until December, 1882 when he claims to have
incurred the injury for the results Of which
pension is claimed. The testimony az to the
injury prior TO said soldiers enlistment, though
general and in many instances contradictory,
lsreled upon to support the presumption against
the soldiers prior soundneSs. This. to my
mind, is rule of construction and an act of
injustice not to be sustained. The Government
subjected this soldier TO the crueible of medical
examination, accepted his services of most
laborious and hazardous character became the
beneficiary OF his efforts, and every humane
and just consideration demands that in cases
where there are doubts arising from the char
acter and weight of the testimony the soldier
should have the benefit of it as against the
Government, whose existence he imperiled his
life to maintain. In this case it must there
fore, be held that said soldiers soundness prior
to his enlistment has been established. Was.
then, the alleged disability incurred in the
service and line of duty? The record furnishes
no evidence except the fact that said soldier,
in January or February, 1862 was sick at
Halls farm" itdOes not indicate the character
of his sickness" In the absence of record evi-
dence, the next best evidence obtainabIe under
the circumstances must be supplied.
William Bostwick, a comrade, testifes "that
he knew the soldier and was with him in the
service at the time alleged; that at or about
the time of the second battle of Bull Run the
claimants horse fell ON him aud hurt his foot
and leg together, and that claimant went to
Halls farm and was not fit for duty FOR some
time" OF these facts the affiant is positive
DR.. Robert A. DodSon, Surgeon, 1st Nd Cav,
swears that "about December, 1862 at Halls
farm, Va, the said soldier came under his
treatment for injury of FOOT" and that he
walked almost entirely on crutches."
By these witnesses it is clearly established
that the claimant was injured in his leg or foot
in December, 1862, for which he was treated at
Halls farm, Va, at which time his physical
condition-for, in the language of DR.. DodsOn,
she was walking entirely on crubches ~
was essentially different from his condition
anterior to the time the injury is alleged to
have been received. But the claimant testifes
in his own behalf Through the wisdom of
modern legislation, both State and National all
parties IN interest are permitted to testify in
their own behalf; the only qualification to
this beneficent rule is the credibility of the
witness and the eorroborating circumstances in
the case. Its justice and humanity is illustrated
In this case. Here is a soldier in the perform
ance OF his duty separated from his command,
suddenly surrounded by theenemy and injured,
and yet, being among strangers, unable to pro-
duce eyewitness to the fact is called upon
and permitted to testify in his own behalf TO
all facts material to his claim.
lie Is under the same obligation to tell the
truth; he incurs the penalties for perjury If he
does not. What does he say? That he was in
service at the time alleged,-the record verifies
it; that he was injured at or about the time
alleged, d,-Bostwick's testimony sustains it; that
he was treated by DR.. Dodson at Halls FARM
DR.. Dodson confirms it. The soldiers character
for truth and integrity is overwhelmingly
established; also, that of Bostwick and Dodson.
The combination circumstances, eacheonfrm-
atory of the other, leaves no doubt in my mind
that said soldiers injury was incurred in the
service and line of duty, and the rejection of
said claim is therefore overruled. and the
papers herewith returned for the adjudication
of the same in accordance with the above views
Very respectfully,
(Signed) NJ L. JosLYN,
Acting Secretary.