The National tribune., 1894-01-18

THE JUSTICE LONG CASE.
Legal documents are not usually very in
teresting reading to the general public, bu
we imagine that the readers of THE Ma
TIoNAL TRIBUNE will not miss word o
the very interesting decision of .Justie'
| Bradley, of the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia, in the Justice Long case
which we give in full in this issue.
The decision is full of meat, and very
| toothsome meat at that TO every friend o
/ the veterans. 1t goes over the whole ground
of contention, and fits down very suugly
everywhere. 1t deals first with the attempt
made to evade the decision by restoring
| Justice Long to his position on the rolls under
| the law of last Decem Der. and then imme-
| diately suspending him under the same law
This was piece Of cunning on the part of the
Attorney-Geueral's Department, which took
/ charge of the case for the Administration, to
defeat the original suit and compel the
took cognizance of this trick, and right
fully refused TO become party in carry
ing it out.
Next, the Court takes up the question
whether mandamus is right; whether the
Court has the power to order the Commits
sioner Of Pensions TO execute the law On
this point the Court is very clear aud specific.
If the granting or withholding of Justice
Longs pension were legally within the dis
erection of the Commissioner then the Court
would have no right to interfere. II cannot
control powers of discretion conferred upon
any executive officer. But the law says that
certain things shall lie done and the Court
has, therefore, the right to compel AN execu-
tive to do those things.
The point that Justice Long did not need
the pens on as a means of support is dis
Gu sed exclusively. The principle for
which We have contended so long is affirmed
IN ali its entirety. That is, that physical
disability is the sole standard by which
pensions can be measured; that pension
Is given as compensation for that is
ability, and that the Government his no
right TO go beyond this and inqaire into
Claimants circumstances, and whether he
can possibly manage 10 get along without
his pension. A pension is de't incurred
by the United States in the execution of q
contract, and that debt should be paid with
as little regard to the other circumstances
of the pensioner as it is in the case of a
bondholder.
The definition of total and permanent
disability is stated with great elearnesS. If
the Attorney-Generars theory were accepted
no man could be permanently aud totally
disabled so long as he had spark of life
A man with both eyes out still has the use
of his hands and feet and brain; a man who
has lost 10th legs still has bis arms and
eyes, and 50 on. The provision must have
reasonable Interpretation, and this the
Court gives it.
There is but one point in the decision to
which We take exceptions. This is in the
discussion of whether pension is bounty.
The Court defines il as bounty but very
properly says that it is the act of Congress,
which no servant Of Congress has the right
to withhold. To our mind just and ade-
quate pension to those disabled was as much
part of the contract the Government made
with those who entered its service as were
the items of pay, clothing, food aud medical
attendance.
Next comes the all-important rule of res
ndjadicata. 1t is vital, not only TO the
proper carrying on Of the Government, but
also to all the business of life that there
should be definite settlement of things.
Otherwise we would have cliaos. 1t is SIM
ply intolerable that every time new set of
officials come into power they can review
and overturn all the settlements made by
their predecessors. or course, like every.
thing else, they should have the right
within certain limits, such as the prOduc-
ton of important evidence hitherto UNI
known, or the existence of new conditions
TO reopen settled case. But it is repu.-
nant 10 every pr nciple of Government that
any official can take up case Justly settled
by his predecessor, and, with precisely the
same facts before him, reverse or change that
settlement Such thing has not been per-
mitted in any other Department of the
Government, and the Court now says that
this cannot be done in the Pension Bureau.
Justice Long was properly and lawfully put
upon the pension-roll by predecessor of
Commissioner Lochren, aud he has no power
to reverse that act, or to change it in any
way.
Whether the Attorney General will appeal
from this decision to the Supreme Court of
the United States remains to be seen. He
has five days in which to give his notice of
appeal, and these had not expired at the
time of going to press II will he interest