The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1893-08-17
THE NATIONAL TRIBUNE: WASHINGTON D. c. THURSDAY AUGUST II

1t naturally follows assthesnight follows the
| day thatif man is disabled for performance
of manual labor he issanrNe 10 earn a Support
(by manual labor), partially or otherwise
| The additional words in the new law, which
have caused the Secretary so much concern
are mere surplusage and if they were added
to the law providing pensions for disabili-
ties of service origin W0aEd not reduce single
pensioner uader the old lar. How unjust il
is, then, to discriminate against the new-law
pensioners, and deny them the benefits of q
law created for them.-s We quote again from
Senator Davis:
The word manual" was inserted before the
word labor" in line 6, to make the bill read.
which incapacitates them for the performances oil
manual labor in such a degree to render them
unable 10 earn support amendment which
was strenuousy insisted upon by the House con-
ferees, and which do not think is of material
significance one way or the other.
The Senator says of no material signifi-
canoe one way or the other" So thought
Commissioner Raum and Assistant Secre-
tary Bussey and Others who were not
hostile to the pension system. Order 164
naturally followed as a memorandum of in
structions to the Examiners of the Pension
Bureau
Incapacity to perform manual labor by
reason of some physical or mental defect is
the only foundation there is in any law re
lating to invalid pensioners The files of the
Pension Bureau contain thousands of claims
rejected under the old law on the ground
that the claimant was not disabled for
manual labor, and it has been uniformly de-
cided by our former Secretaries that a pen
sion isgraDted as compensation for disability
which renders the pensioner thereby unable
to the extent of such disability from earning
a support or livelihood, and the same princi-
pie applies to the old law, and the ratings
should be the same for the same degree of
disability between So and S12 The Secre-
tary is not supported by the law, which he
admits cannot be superseded by himself or
by the Commissioner, and he then proceeds
to set it aside
of Secretary Smiths ruling ia the Bennett
case, is homogeneous
Pension BUREAU June H. 1853.
Circular.
In the matter of rating cases under the act of
June a. 1880. the following directions will serve
landmarks only, and will be subject 10 such varia
tons the particular may require. The
ratings will be sI2, So So, and &c. The rating of
sI2 will be allowed only ian the following class of
cases.
l. In cases where the claimant Is clearly disabled
from performing any effective manual labor
2. In loss of either hand or arm. (5ince amended
to include loss of either leg or foot
3. In total deafness of both ears.
The minimum rate shall be allowed for a disabi-
ity equivalent to anchyioss Of elbow joint (5ince
amended to include double inguinal hernia I'M
complicated. double inguinai hernia one in
completely
Tie ratings between So and Sc will be given
in proportion the claimant is disabled from
earning n support by manual labor.
II there are two more disabilities each de-
manding rate of Sc. the rating of IS only will be
allowed, and II there two disabilities,
ench demanding rate of So, the rating of $40 shall
be allowed, but two more disabilities, each de-
a rating below Sc, shall not be added to
make a minimum rating, and such shall be
jected.
All specific ratings as published in the book of
have application In adjudicating
claims under this act.
THos FEATHERsTosHAUGH,
Med. Referee
Anchylosis of elbow joint ratable under
the old law at $40 per month, is rated at
only Sc per month under the new law-that
is, one man with stiff elbow joint Is pre-
vented from performing manual labor, and
is thereby unable TO earn support to the
cisely The same conditions, is disabled only to
the extent of SO. How can there be any
difference in the degrees of disability be-
tween two men each with stiff elbow joint?
Is the S6 man better able TO earn support
than the $40 man?
The Medical Referees instructions also
provide rating of So for two or more So
disabilities, and $40 for two or more So dis
abilities, while two or more 81 disabili-
ties get nothing at all. What ariih-
metic sanctions such remarkable calcu-
lations? Does not twice four make eight,
and twice six make -? Is not man who
has rheumatism, for instance, and who is
rated at 81, wound which is rated at 81
more and another disability which is rated
at 81 more, making $12 in all, disabled
from the combined causes, for the perform
ance Of manual labor to that extent and his
ability to earn support that much less
ened? Is he any less disabled than another
man who is rated at Sc, So or $40? And
yet under the new order of things he ia
denied even the minimum rate of So. How
absurd it all is, and how unjust it all is
Any theory based upon the supposition that
where two or more disabilities exist one
lessons the degree of disability of the other
cannot be defended except on the principle
that might makes right.