National Republican., 1886-12-11
Mr.. Cohen's Reply to tho Statements
in the Ladd Case.


in the Ladd Case.
EDITOR NATIONAL REPUBLICAN,: The publi-
cation of the Ladd pension case in your paper
has given him at least hearing before the
public II he cannot get one before the depart
mcnt of pensions. You will notice, Mr. Editor,
that while Mr.. Buitss letter and investigation,
MS well the New York Herald statements, are
full of their side of the case, they say nothing
on part Of the pensioncr, except "that
evidence filed In rebuttal was not deemed suf-
flcient to change action" We object to this
because in the original decision in this case
the following language can be found "Since
Mr. Ladd's name was dropped from the rolls
he has tled testimony OF several persons in
good standing to show he was free from dis
ease prior TO his first enlistment, and that they
never knew him to have had doctor" This
the Herald, neither in Mr.. Butts's Investigation
nor In his letter. Why not2 Mr.. Butts con-
cedes that the right OF the pensioner to draw
his pension remained unquestioned until 1888,
when letter of @. s. Miller not signed by, but
in behalf Of 'over twenty comrades" making
certain statements as TO the pensioners general
pensloner had served in other organizations
than the one for which he drew pension.
Suppose he did2 Does that show he had the
disease before his first enlistment, or does II
show he was sound and In service2 Mr.. Butts
states that the case was then referred TO
special examiner in 1888, but what the out
come was he does not state. Mr. Ladd
amined by Special Examiner Bailey,
who examined a number of people, who
knew him at his home in the state Of New
proof was overwhelmingly In Ladd's favor.
Where is that. reportP Why is 1t not given2
Why was Ladd not dropped from the pension
the notice was not served in due time for this
examination. My assertion applies to the next
special examination taken by Special Exam
liner j.. II. Bostick on Dec. 21, 1884, upon which
Ladd was dropped from the rolls This notice,
of which the original is In my possession,
shows that IL was dated Dec. q, 1891, and the
examination is set therein for Dec. 81, 1884,
first, because not Issued and served in due time,
and second, because the 2lst day of December,
1854, was Sunday. It is alleged that the war
can war. While this has nothing to do with
his pension for the late war, we deny the cor
ree!ness Of il, and can pIo,e Its inGorrectness;
in this case states that the. rolls for January
and February, 1868, report him as having de;
serted from Ne NeTberne, n c. nI, since disputed
with quite different story, which says that he
was captured in February, 1868, paroled. and
reported in March, 1868. This alone establishes
our charge that the record quoted In the do
cision is not correct, garbltd ex parte, and
manufactured to show a bad-looklng case
against this pensioner.
Il viii be observed that surgeons of Penn.
sylVania regiments are quoted as having given
report three months after Ladd's first enlist
ment that he had rheumatism (which has eX-
who Ladd says never saw or heard OF him be-
fore knew that he had rheumatism twenty
one months before he enlisted surpasses his
comprehension, and no doubt everybody else's
except the last administration of the pension
office. And this In the face OF the fact that
three months prior to this report he had been
of the government and the additional fact
that he enlisted three times after that and
served the country up to June. 1868. The de-
cision states that Ladd again enlisted In Au-
gust, 1854 in company d, 9th New York vol
unteers, as a substitute under the name of King
Ladd. Since denied this as a fact find that
Mr.. Butts adds to the decision on this point the
following: "Also borne on the rolls as John X.
Ladd." The absurdlty OF this is selfevldent.
In August, 1868, depot surgeon, 1t appears,
certifes that Iadd was then and there COM
official language, and that he was not even fit
to be IN invalid. Yet we find him two months
later In December, 1868, to enlist to be ac-
cepted by the government, ana to serve again
up to June, 1865, and to be alive yet, twenty
three years since this valuable opinion was
given. This depot surgeon was not satisfied
with trying to bury Ladd alive but made q
suggestion, which, considering the time when
II was made, was, to say the least, extraordi-
Diary, namely that Ladd was not entitled TO
pension. Yet 1t appears that the pension office
which granted his pension did not concur. To
say that Ladd concealed the fact of his service,
when they were matters of public record, Is
absurd. His application for pension was made
In 1866, and was pending four years before IL
was granted In 1870. Space will not admit of
going further into the case Enough has been
shown that there is something wrong In this
case. !, therefore, close by stating that the
decision in this case will show that Mr. Ladd's
name w0s dropped from the pension rolls July
TO- 1885, on the ground that the disability for
which he was pensoned existed previous to
his first enlistment. rs shown by tho record
evidence and confirmed byh own admission.
The grounds Tor reopening OF this case l
claim TO be:
First. That the record evidence in this case
Is not correct is garbled, and eX parte, as
quoted in the decision of this case,
Second. That the notice and examination
purporting to contain Ladd's own admission
hs TO HIS disease before his first enlistment are
Illegal and contrary to law because due time
was not given, opportunity for counsel denied,
md because II was done on Sunday. II
should therefore, be stricken from the record
Third. Because we desire to submit the aai.
davit of John X. Ladd and other witnesses
wi were present that he did not admit to the
special examiner J. H. BoStiek, upon whose
report he was dropped from the roll, that he
had rheumatism before his first enlistment.
Fourth. Because we desire to call up and
examine material evidence on flo bearing
upon the points for which he was dropped,
which were not considered in this case, and
to submit, II necessary additional evidence.
Mr. Editor, am neither pension agent,
claim agent, nor even practising attorney,
and have no pecuniary interest In this case,
the pension office is right and Ladd Is wrong,
they ought to give him every opportunity u
prove 1t. In denying this right the suspicion
must rest upon them The cry OF claim agents
regard as claptrap, for venture the opinion
that without them poor claimants would get
nothing, ISAAC COHEN.
FLESH wounds (cuts and bruises, can be