The National tribune., 1885-12-31
PENSION DECISIONS
Recently Made by Commissioner BLACK


Dishonor Of Dismissal Removed
No. 28i6I5.-Widow of Silas J. Garrett Captain,
Co. K 18th Ill.
The record shows that this officer was on June 1,
'63, summarily and dishonorably dismissed the
service for rendering false and fraudulent accounts
against the Government. On March 3, 1865. the
disability to re-enter the service resulting from
such dismissal was removed by competent
authority, upon satisfactory explanation of the
charges.
Dshonorable discharge Is a bar to pension but
in this case the Commissioner holds that the re-
moval of incapacity to re-enter the service. by
competent authority and apt time, substantially
relieved the officer from the of this dismissal
and renewed in him all right to pension, which he
might have had if honorably discharged.
The claim being otherwise established, will be
allowed.
Discredited HIS Oocn Statements
John OConner, jrs Co. b, 102d n. Y. claim for
The original declarations lone informal and the
other formaD distinctly set forth that said wound
was received in q skirmish with the enemy at
Catletts Station shortly before the second battle of
Bull Rum The same statement was made by
claimant to the first Examining Surgeon who ex-
amined him. The records show, however, that the
soldier accidentally shot off finger Aug &C. 1862.
and since in hospital"
This was just before the second battle Of Bull
Run. The claimant, upon being informed that the
record was in conflict with his allegations to the
manner of receiving the alleged wound. filed an
affidavit setting forth that he was wounded acct
denta1y by the discharge of his own gun while
cleaning it i'll wagon alone. The testimony of
the Captain and Lieutenant of the company is also
to the effect that the alleged disability acct
dentaly incurred although they nor any one else
were Immediately present with the claimant at the
time. The Commissioner held that as claimant, at
time when his recollection OF the date, place and
manner of the receipt of said wound must, from
the very nature of the disability, have been clear
and distinct, repeatedly asserted that the same
received in action with the enemy, and after being
informed that the record shows accidental wound
ing made oath to state of facts in direct conflict
with his former allegations. He has thrown dis
credit his statements, and as the record and
the testimony of his company officers show that
the wound was accidentally received, the applica-
ton Is disallowed on the ground that claimant Is
not shown to have been in the line of duty when
said wounding occurred
Desertion no Forfeiture of Rights Previously dc
CURED.
Enlisted in Co. f, 9th Pa, March 4, 1862; wound
ed in action June Is. 1868 mustered out March 8,
eran volunteers March 2, 1864, in same company
and regiment; deserted Aug. 10, 1864, and never
rejoned his command.
Held that his discharge from his first enlistment
contract perfected his rights Hereunder, which
not forfeited by his failure to comply with the
terms of subsequent enlistment.
Held to be q DeSerter.
Enlisted in Co. C, 2sth Mich. Sept. l. 1864. DE
serted Sept 80 1864, at Kalamazoo-supposed to be
in Canada" Continued deserter until taken up
on the roll for Maryland, June, 1865. when noted
Mich, under Presidents Proclamation, April 4,
1S65." He remained with his company and was
mustered out with it. June 5, 1866.
Under date of Oct %, 1885, these facts were sub
mtled to the Adiutant- General for his considera-
ton to whether the charge of desertion should
be removed" Nov. Is, ultimo, the Adjutant- Cen
eral replied that the charge of desertiOn cannot
be removed as it is not considered that the soldier
returned from desertion within a reasonable time
within the meaning of the Act of Congress approved
Held that the War Department has jurisdiction
the question, and its judgment is final therein.
The records still showing that this man deserted
fro e.
jected upon that ground.
Hithheld During Nom Dependence.
In this case it appears that claimant and her hus-
band were possessed of small estate valued at
about 81 600; that, having sold onehalf of it, they
decided the remaining half to Stafford, in con-
sideration of life-maintenance of the claimant
and her husband by the said Stafford. This con-
tract entered into June %, 1882, and the decla
ton for pension was filed Jan. f. 1888. While it is
definitely stated it appears that this contract
remained in force until about September, 1888. The
question arises to the right to pension during
the period for which maintenance was thus fur
nished by Stafford the consideration therefor be-
inc held by some to have been insufficient.
The Commissioner holds that the insufficency of
the consideration does not enter into the question:
long as the contract was complied with by STAFF
ford; ii not appearing that he was bound by duty
and affection to assist this claimant, but that the
transaction was purely business one; and the
pension, if granted. should be withheld during the
period of said non dependence.
Desertion and Subsequent Re enlistment.
In this case the examination of the evidence
shows that Capt. Berry left his command when it
approaching the enemy, being at the time a
member of the I'd n. Y. 1t. Cav, commanded by
Capt Harris; that for punishment for such act of
desertion so-caled, but really cowardice), he was
dishonoraby discharged the service Feb IL, 1863
that subsequently, thereto, on the 10th of October
1868 he re-entered the service of the United States
Captain of Co. G., 18th Pa. Cav; that while in said
service and while in line of duty, he received the
injury for which he now claims pension. The
question presented for consideration is whether
the record of desertion from his command at the
moment it was approaching the enemy, and OF his
subsequent dismissal so taints the second enlist
ment to bring the claimant within the inhibition
of law as to pensions to deserters.
In ruling on this point the Commissioner holds
that the execution of the sentence of his dismissal
from the first service was the completion of the
punishment for the oifense wherewith he was
into its service for a second term was an independ-
ent undertaking; that if the case is otherwise
proved the fact of the record of dismissal from the
first service would not destroy his claim to pension
arising under the second.
Payment of attorneys Fees.
Whereas, Under the several statutes governing
the fees of attorneys in pension claims and the
payment of same by pension agents, of amounts
for by fee agreements it has been the practice of
pension agents to deduct any sum alleged by claim
ants to have been paid by them to their attorneys
and
Whereas such deductions have been made upon
the naked statement of claimants to amount
only without reference to the time or manner of
payment, and
Whereas these statements made by claimants as
to prior payments often met by denial on the
part of the attorneys and from the loose and irreg
uar practice in these cases great delay is involved
in the equitable adjustment of the questions thus
opened between claimants and attorneys, and
Whereas further this office has under the pres
ent practice no method for the preparation of data
upon which base intelligent action in such prem
Uses. and appeals are taken a matter of course,
by which distractions arise to the public business.
Now then to remedy these evils, and that justice
may be done in the premises, well to faithful at
torneys as claimants for pension well also to
relieve this Office from the burden of unnecessary
correspondence and the appeal docket OF a great
number of cases.
IL is ordered that from and after the LIST day of
January 4. ID. 1886, all pension agents where
claimants ailege payment by them of any sum or
sums to their attorney OF record shall request said
claimants to make affidavit to the amount of pay
ment the date of payment. under what certificate
made and as far may be in their recollection how
such payment was made; and that the said affda-
Wit shall be in and form substantially the
blank form hereto annexed marked exhibit "A, !"
and made part of this order though fully incor
porated herein. and
IL is further ordered, that each and every of such
affidavits shall be executed in duplicate, to be
retained by the pension agent his voucher and
sworn to have been paid and the duplicate thereof
to be promptly forwarded to this office for filing
with the record in the claim wherein such affidavit
purports to be made. and
IL is further ordered, that where claimants cannot
make such affidavifs as herein prescribed and set
forth with reasonable certainty that the pension
agent shall pay the fee certified by this office or