Huntsville gazette., 1893-07-15
THAT PENSION RULING.
A Piece Of Prctentious Demagogy for Pc
Iitical Purposes.

A Piece Of Prctentious Demagogy for Pc
Iiticsl Purposes.
We have endeavored to find some
basis for the claim that Secretary of the
Interior Hole Smith, in his new ruling
on the pension law of 1890, had done
something meritorious or extraordi-
nary. We fail to see that he has done
anything but issue an order that the
provisions of that law shall be OBJ
served. Such an order might be neces-
sary if those provisions were generally
ignored by the officials of the pension
office; but it seems to be based on one
case in which, if the statements made
by the democrats of the interior de-
pension of S12 per month under the
law of 1890, whose claips thereto seem
to be doubtful. To mako .he case plain,
let us quote from that law. Section 2
provides:
THAT all persons who served ninety days or
more in the military or naval service of the
United States during the late war Of the re.
bellion and who have been honorably dis
charged therefrom, and who are now or who
may be hereafter be suffering from mental or
physical disability of permanent character,
not the result OF their own vicious habits,
which incapacitateS them from the performance
OF manual labor to such a degree as to render
them unable to earn a support shall, upon
making due proof of the fact, according to such
rules and regulations tho secretary of the
interior may provide, be placed upon the list Of
invalid pensioners Of the United States, and be
entitled to receive pension not exceeding Sl2
per month and not less than S6 per month, pro-
portioned to the degree of inability to earn a
support and each pension shall commence
from tho date of the filing of the applica tion In
the pension office, after the passage of this act,
upon proof that the disability then existed, and
shall continue during the existence Of the
same"
1t will be noted that the amount of
pension is to be ''proportioned to the
degree of inability to earn a support. "
Pension Commissioner Raum ordered
that the rating under this act should
be the same as for like disabilities of
service origin: that is, if an old soldier
be disabled by disease his rate of pen
sion should be the same as it would
under the old pension law for the same
disease contracted in the servjce-of
course, none exceeding twelve dollars
per month, the limit allowed by the
law. This is the order Hoke Smith has
set aside, he claiming that Raum's
order fixes different standard of dis
ability from that ordered by the Sec
ton of the law of 1890 quoted above.
Secretary Smith says on this question:
'Incapacity to perform manual labor, which
is the foundation to the right to pension under
the act Of juno 81, 1890, fixes an entirely differ
ent standard of disability from that just
mentioned, contained in the revised statutes,
covering injuries of service origin. sabili-
ties incurred while in actual service and in
capacity coming upon applicant long after
service ceased are made by the law to stand
upon an entirely different footing. Those in
Cured during service and in the line Of duty
are pension sblc without regard to capacity to
earn support. and are graded without refer
ence TO this condition Disabilities resulting
from causes other than of service origin arc
pensionable only when incapacity of labor
joins with incapacity to earn support and the
grades OF rating are dependent upon these two
conditions When, by order No 164, it was de-
clared that disabilities under the act Of June
H. 1890, should be rated as il of service origin,
the very principle which governed the rating
under the act of June q, 1890, was displaced,
and a rule applicable to a different act was
substituted" ?"
The case which caused this order was
that of one Bennett, private in an In
diana regiment, who applied under the
old law, in 1886, for an invalid pension
on the ground that in 1865, while in the
service, he was Frustrated by sunstroke,
from which resulted a disease of the
head and loss of hearing. His applica-
ton was refused, on the ground that
he had no hospital record, but was
present for duty" from enlistment to
discharge. The examining surgeons
reported in 1886 that they could dis
cover no evidences of disease but a
slight deafness in both ears, but not
sufficient to warrant a rating. Ben
nett, in 1892, appealed from the de-
cision Meanwhile, he had applied for
pension under the law of 1890, and
was granted a pension of twelve dol
lars per month. His appeal led to an
investigation of his case, and as no
disability existed other than the deaf
ness referred to above, it was decided
that this did not come within the pro-
visions of the law, and the action of
the bureau in granting the pension was
reversed.
passed upon again by the bureau. If
Bennett can prove that he is incapacit-
ated from earning a support he is en-
titled to a pension under the law of
1890; if not, he is not so entitled. We
regard the case as one of error in
granting the pension, and do not see
that Raum's order had anything to do
with it. AS BENEFITS deafness had
been found so slight as not to entitle
him to any rating under the old pen
sion law, under Raum's order he would
be entitled to no pension at all under
the law of 1890. That one was granted
was in violation of Raum's order
Hence Hoke Smiths order is piece OF
pretentious demagogy, bit of official
ism intended for political purposes, and
not relevant to the case of Bennett at
all.-Toledo Blade.