The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1884-05-15
Mr.. MARTIN EXPLAINS.
He Repudiates the cleveland Leader Interview
He Never Said &c.

lie Never Said it.
We are In receipt of the following letter from
1r. Leonard Martin, supervising examiner or
pensions at Cleveland, o., in regard to the in
teTyicw which a reporter of the Cleveland
Leader held with him in February last, and to
which sttention was editoriaily called in our
issue of April 3:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, PENSION OFFICE,
SPECIAL EXAMINATION DIVISION.
OFFICE OF SUPERVISING EXAMINER.
CLEVELAND. o., April IA. 1854.
To the Editor NATIONAL TRIBUNE,
WASHINGTON, d. G.
My attention called for the first time to-day
to the ineioscd editorial in your paper TIE Ma
TEoSAL TRIBUEEl of april 6. Iss4, headed " Are
there Three COMMISSIONER which severely
critics certain statements attributed 10 me In an
article which appeared IN the Cleveland Leader OF
February "a 1854. This article puTports TO be the
result OF sn interview between a reporter OF the
Leader and myself concerning pension matters.
IN the editorial reseTged 70. my language and the
meaning ! intended 20 convey are signaliy mis-
represented, that IN justice to myself feel that an
explanation and correction should be made, and
think that in spirit Of fairness you viii cause this
explanation 20 be published in your paper.
In the rst place. that portion OF the article which
is copied IN fuil IN THE TEIsUEE and is devoted to
narFatng the experience Of special examiner in q
country town, arm IN no way responsible for as
viii be seen by the incosoi slim from the Leader
81 yesterday. Whatever information the reporter
based thai portion Of his article upon came from
some other source beside myself, and unknown to
Nothing OF the KIND ever been said
either to reporter CT any other person, nor has
anything similar 10 what Is therein stated come
under my Oh eryation. although / have been for
nearly five years IN different parts Of the country
examining pension claims Neither do | believe
inst any other examiner hes ever had any such
Perience That part of the Erticle referred to- and
upoa which you seem 10 lay particular stress La,
! Therefore disposed Of as far SIS am concerned.
The balance OF The reported interview sm partly
responsible Tor, though most Of IL Ia in language
not nay own, but tbs reporters. did not make
% tie expression thai special examiners have
to follow NO claims through many devious ways, "
or any thing similar 10 It. did say, however, that
examiners often found great difficulty in ascer-
tanning the facts 10 claims, owing 20 the long
lapse Of tine since the alleged incidents occurred
during which many persons having knowledge OF
them had died removed 20 parts unknown, or for
gotten what had trGnEpircd 70 long ago. as an
Instance. cited the referred to in your editor
ial. 81 the soldier who injured in attempting
10 board moving train IN Cleveland. 1t was
claimed that this attempt was made by the direct
command Of his superior officer. This being an
unusual order, and unless Il given the soldier
hs6 no business to endanger his life or person in
Each attempt. the investigation was ordered 70
determine whether OF not ouch order given
in other words, whether the allegation was true
or not. There nothing IN what said TO con.
vey the impression that any unfair means were
desired or would be used TO show that such an
ORDER was not Issued but simply that the examiner
nlusl obtain all testimony possible 10 ascertain il
! possible. whether not such order was given
Again, In the case cited in your editorial Of the
soldier discharged for rheumatism and partial
psaiysi5 you omit TO stale the most material part
1 Of that case, and which appeared In the Leade,
article This was, that the same record which
showed the soldier discharged for rheumatism and
partial paralysis further said that these disease.
existed prior 10 the soldiers enlistment" In view
] Of such a statement Ia the record, made some
| twenty years ago, al the time Of the soldiers dis
/ charge examiner would be fully justified in
making careful inquiry to tho soldiers physca
condition before he enlisted 20 determine whethe
! or not that record was true
uwould seem by your editorial that you believe
or 81 least intend 10 co1Yey the impression that
land theoretically all other special examinersl ain
only 70 procure testimony TO defeat claim Ii
1 this you wholly in the wrong special ex
aminer can have no possible motive for doing suci
injustice to a claimant. The rules laid down fo
hiG guidance forbid IL even going 30 far TO direc
that Ia bias for against claim has founC
I Judgment IN his mind" he should immediately
return the case, that il may be placed in the hand
OF Some other examiner Tor investigation. Neithe
lie his position standing in any way affected b,
/ the bearing 81 the evidence obtained by him
/ Ehetkcr Ia favor or against tho claim His duty 4
| TO develop all facts possible bearing upon il
merits, irrespective OF what their influence may b.
/ upon L. ard the thorouEhnexs with which this 4
| done bzes his standing.
LEONARD MARTIN
/ Supervising Examiner,