The National tribune., 1884-05-22


that the applicant received the disability in the
military service, it shall be the dsty of the Com
missioner of Pensions to put him on the pension
roll Why, sir. if un deYstand the law, that sIhe
rule now. If from the evidence il appears probable.
If the weight OF the evidence is that he has incurred
disability in the military service, it is the duty of
the Commissioner to put the applicant on the PEN
sonroll But this restricts il in this, that he shall
not only that he has incurred the disability
IN the military service of the United States but he
shall also show that he served three months before
he is entitled 60 the pension.
Under the present law it is not necessary
that an applicant should show that he served
any specific period in order TO obtain PEN
sion. 1t makes no difference whether he
service; that he was disabled in line of duty
is the one fact conclusive of his right to pen
sion, whereas, under this proposed law, he
must have served three months TO be entitled
TO pension. Notwithstanding that the very
received injuries in the line of duty that
would constitute just claim upon the Gov
so plainly shows it already is the duty of
the Commissioner of Pensions, under the
present law, to put the applicant on the
pensiOn-roll, if from the evidence it appears
probable-if the weight of the evidence sus-
tains the presumption-that he incurred his
disability in the military service, so that so
far from affording additional relief the War
ner hill does not relax the provisions of ex-
listing law particle. But how did it come
about, then that the House of Representa-
tives was prevailed upon to pass such a bill,
SO widely at variance with the principles of
justice and so antagonistic to the wishes of
our veterans themselves II certainly can
not be said for it, that it was in ignorance Of
what the wishes of our veterans were, for
they had been formally communicated to it
by a committee of the Grand Army repre-
senting 100000 ex-soldiers, and especially
appointed for that purpose. These wishes
were as follows:
We also favor giving pensions to all honorably
discharged soldiers and sailors who now dis
abled and dependent upon their own labor for sup
port sxty-five years OF age, sDithota conn
peing them 10 prone at Hts date that such disability
actually orose from the serrice.
Yet our Representatives in Congress, dis
regarding this formal and authoritative
recommendation. passed bill, the very
essence of which, as admitted by Mr. Rogers,
is that mo soldier is entitled to pension
under it who did not become entitled by
reason of disability incurred in service in
| the field"
What influence brought this about?
What power, setting itself up in opposition
to the wishes of our ex-soldiers, the constit-
uents of these Representatives, prevailed
upon the latter to ignore the specific de-
mands of our veterans? We shall not have
to look far to ascertain. As early as Febru-
airy last, we find the Commissioner of Pen
sions recommending the adoption of sueh
legislation. On February Is he appeared
before the. House Committee OF Invalid
Pensions, and, in the course Of, detailed
exposition of his views IN regard to pensions,
committed himself to the proposition that if
Congress should pass law of this descrip-
ton he should " deem it unwise that a pen
sion obtained in this way should carry
arrears" I would not repeal" said he,
a the existing law, but would make this
proposed law applicable TO the future, and
would give man who had claim pending,
who had some doubt as to being able to
obtain the necessary proofs under the exist
ing law, the right to elect whether he would
take under the old law or under the new"
"Would you not" said the chairman,
"giye claimant whose claim is now pend
ing the benefit of that, if it carried arrears
with it?p
II don't think should" replied the Com
missioner
So the bill was prepared to meet the views
of the Commissioner, and when twas brought
up for action in the House, Mr. Whiting, o.
Massachusetts,, declared:
I'VE hare considered Gis bill 1yord by arord and
line By line tOts Commissioner Dudley aud he ap
proves IT,"
1t is clear, therefore, that to the Commits
sioner Of Pensions attaches the sponsibilitJ
for the passage of this bill. 1t was he who
first suggested it, who opposed the extension
of it's benefits TO applicants for arrears, and
whose Endorsement of it was used to fore,
It's passage through the House almost with
E out debate and in spite Of the grave objec
: tons raised against it by members who, iik'
Mr. Brown, of Pennsylvania, felt that GU
veterans might be more injured than ben
Gifted" by the bill.
. We are at a loss to understand the actor
] of General Dudley In this matter. It i
: certainly strange and incomprehensibl,
: thing that bill which four out Of the fiy
4 members of the Grand Army pension COM
inittee have openly denounced as withou
support ia justice should have had such