Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1893-09-02
RAUM ON PENSIONS.
Comments on the Policy Of
Secretary Smith.
HIS RULINGS PRONOUNCED ILLEGAL

he Acts of one Administration Not Re
viewnble by Its Successor Lochren
Modifies the Order a to Su,pen,ions-
+ Condition of the National Finances a.
Per Monthly ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS in
= Congress-President at Home.
WASHINGTON, Sept. Eek Pension Com
Missioner Raum has written a letter to
.acey, OF the committee on invalid pen
ons, expressing his views, on the action
Secretary Hoke Smith in revoking his
Raum's) rulings and orders on the pen
on act of June %, 1890 He cites the
-ders issued by himself for the enforce
tent of the act and then cites the order of
ecretary Holle Smith calling for new ruI-
lgs and new ratings under the act, md
calls attention TO the fact that under the
ew rating only three classes of disability
Re entitled to the maximum rate of S12
r month, while under his rulings there
ere forty-three such classes. He defends
Il is on the ground that inability TO per-
RIM manual labor might result from
her causes than loss of limbs
IL Hoke Smiths Action Not Legal.
The pith of Raum's letter is his COM
tent on the legality of the action of the in
S-ior department in making its interpre-
ltion of the law retroactive He says on
e subject: Il fully recognize the right
der the law of Secretary Smith and his
Coordinate officers to make changes in
e regulations and orders in regard 10 che
oofs and ratings in pension claims; but
4 ese gentlemen should understand that
sir orders must have a prospective and
retrospective operation For wherein
heir legal authority 10 make regula-
ms and orders greater Chan that of their
edecessors, St cretary Noble and his sub
tinates? They adopted orders to Nos 1872
4 l64 i'll regard to the proofs and ratings
claims by authority of the law of June.
+; %. These orders followed the exact Ian
lge of the statute in reference to the
{Nure of the disabilities which were pen
Unable; the rates determined were as
lilated to the rates under the old law
ich had grown up in the office from an
'erience of forty years and which were
tanned in well understood schedules.
A Big Contract on Hand.
These orders were acted upon by the
mants, and by the departments, and
e in full force during three sessions OF
gress-mOre than $4,000 claims were
wed under these orders-pension certi-
IS were issued upon these allowed
ms under the seal # the department,
the names of the pensioners were
ed upon the pension rolls of the coun-
in pursuance OF the Interpretation of
laws by Secretary Noble, Assistant
'etary Bussey and Commissioner Raum
the pensioners We're paid the pensions
wed by these certificates. and now the
position Is that Secretary Smith, Assis-
j Secretary Reynolds and Commits
K er LOchren shall review these $50. GOO
IS determined by their predecessors be-
iie ,forsooih, they do not agree with them
ne construction of the law
ATTORNEY General Wirt's Opinion.
his is no new question. 1t is as old az
government and has been UNANIMOUSLY
.ussed by some of the most learned
fers and Judges OF the country. II n.
lam Writ, attorney general o, the
ed States, in an opinion rendered
/, 1925, reported il volume ., page s,
lions of Attorney Generals, lays down
rue doctrine upon this subject His
UfIttOn LdS bttu lOllO"eu Dy All MS sue
prs" and Raum quotes Writ to the
I that the rule of action prescribed for
ssxecutive is to consider the acts of its
ecessors conclusive, and any other
would keep the acts of the executive
titled and afloat.
NO Right to Review Decisions.
ium then concludes as follows: "The
isme court of the United States has
I'D upon the question number of
y, uniformly holding that the quasi
ial questions decided by one secretary
department could not be reviewed
reversed by his successor. And now it
mes a pertinent question if it was not
tpetent for Secretary Noble to revoke
lction of his predecessor, Secretary
in respect to determining the ques-
of right of way of railroad COM
how is it that it is competent for
itary Smith to revoke the action of
X tary Noble in the quasi-judcial pro-
4 ags of granting a pension to n soldier'
Il e no hesitation in saying that such
Fl eding has not warrant in law, is con-
II to the well established usages of the
nment and is gross usurpation of
nrity"