The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1895-02-07
In FAVOR OF
JUDGE LONG,
Justice Bradley Decides That He Must
Have His Pension.

In order that the exact status of Judge Long.
case may be fully understood, the following
resume is given:
In October, 1888, the Commissioner of Pen
sions suspended the pension of Judge Charles
ID. Long, of Detroit Mich, whereupon he filed
petition in the Supreme Court of tho District
| of Columbia for mandamus against the Com
missioner to compel hem to remove the snspen-
sion. Justice Bradley heard this case and de-
cided IN favor of Judge Long. Before the an
| nouncement of the decision the act of Dec 81,
1893, was passed by Congress, and the Commits
sioner Immediately removed the suspension.
This practically ended that case.
The Commissioner, however, at once gave a
30 days notice under the above act of Congress,
and Judge Long, in January, 1894, filed bill
in equity against the Commissioner for an in
junction to restrain him from proceeding under
such notice. The hearing in this ease which
was before Justice Cox occupied several days
and the opinion was adverse to the contention
of Judge Long. In this opinion of over 40
pages there was not one word or syllable indi-
cative of sympathy oven of friendiness to-
ward this MANNED and crippled soldier who for
more than 80 years had lived q living death. No
one was surprised at the conclusion reached by
Justice Cox, but even his friends were surprised
that he should pass, without so much as saying
"This man deserves well of his country" upon
the case of veteran SO badly wounded in de-
have dressed those wounds % 600 times since
they were received. Before final decree, how
ever, was entered in this case, counsel for Judge
Long dismissed the bill without prejudice"
thereby reserving the right to institute a new
snit. which yVas done; and ii is this new suit,
which was ,etition for another writ of man.
damus filed before Justice Bradley to compel
the Commissioner to put Judge Long back upon
the pension.roll at S72 per month, that has just
been decided.
Without doubt the Government will now
take the case up to the Court of Appeals, and
from thence it will probably 60 to the Supreme
Court of the United States.
Both of these Justices are Southern men,
raised in this city. Justice Bradley was q
schoolboy during the war. Justice Cox, who
is older, was practicing law here during that
eventful period and did not join either the
Confederate or the Union army. He was coun-
sci for two Of the conspirators against the life
of Mr.. Lincoln, and his clients were both
victed, though he made an impassioned appeal
in their behalf
Much credit is due Col. Thomas G. Hopkins
the attorney for Judge Long who has conducted
the case throughout with energy and clear
sghtedness.
The immediate question upon which action
was taken was an application for mandamus
against the Commissioner of Pensions COM
manding him to vacate the order passed by him
reVOKIng UDe pension VI
Aug. 10, 1889 and to restore the pension
awarded by that certificate from March 4, 1894.
Judge Bradley dismissed the proceeding as to
the Secretary of the Interior because it appears
that no function was performed by the Secrs-
tary in the revocation of the certificate, and
that act is essential to be performed by the
Secretary to restore Judge Long his right.
Three questions are involved" says Judge
Bradley: WAS Commissioner Tanners issu-
ance of the certificate of Aug. 16, 1889, giving
Judge Long a pension of S72 month justified
by Judge Longs disability and by the law at
the timer Had Comm issioner Lochren any
power to review and reverse his predecessors
action upon the same state of facts for alleged
error in judgment, to change the status of Judge
Long upon the pension-rolls, and revoke his
pension certifcste2 And has the court power,
by writ of mandsmus, TO direct the Commits
sioner of Pensions to vacate his order Of revo-
cation?D
The Judge reviews Judge Longs condition
and the status of his case from time to time,
Was the action of Commissioner Tanner without
his jurisdiction, and nullity as claimed in the
answer The act of June 16, 1880, provides
that all soldiers and sailors who are now receiv
ing pensions of $50 per non tn under act of June
is. 1874, shall receive in lieu of all pensions
paid them the sum OF $72 month, and that
they should be paid the difference between
said sums from June II, 1873, to the time OF
Il
in the former mandamus proceeding" says
Judge Bradley, lit is clear that the words
now receiving'a pension of $50 month
were intended to describe the class of persons
whose disabilities entitled them to receive
that amount under the law. It could not
have been the intention of Congress that q dis
abled soldier who was entitled to the pension
Of $50 but was not receiving it at the date of
the act should be deprived of its benefits
Judge Long came strictly within the class Of
those so nearly" utterly helpless as to require
regular aid and assistance, TACT Of 1879
and, as well, those " SO permanently and totally
disabled as to require" such aid Tact 1874;
likewise within the provisions Of the latter act
as one whose injuries resulted in permanent
total helplessness requiring" such aid. The
permanency Of his disability to the extent Of
the loss of Judge Longs arm could not be
questioned. The conclusion of incurability of
his hip wound was justified by its "a years of
existence. and as well by medical testimony.
1t is apparent the statutes referred to cont tenn
plated helplessness in various degrees even in
cases requiring aid and attendance. man
may be absolutely helpless in every particu-
lar IN which one is ordinarily helpful, or he
may be only so helpl as to require the regular
aid and attendance OF another person. In
either case he is entitled to $72 month under
the act of 1880. The ruling OF Commissioner
Tanner was consistent with prior rulings in
Had the respondent the right OF power,
against the will. aud without the request Of
the relator, 10 consider the case, and upon the
same state of the facts, without new evidence.
to reverse the action of his predecessor, aud
revoke the certificate of the relatOrf Section
1922 Revised Statutes Classics pensionable
disabilities as total" inferior" and "per-
manent specific" The first and the last are to
receive the peDsion expressly provided by law,
aud the IS inferior" an amount prOportionate to
that provided by "total." Section 1896 pre-
scIibes the rate for total disabilities. Sections
1857 aud 1898 provide for the rate and com
mencement of pensions for permanent and
specific disabilities, among which is the loss of
specific members of the body. the permanent
disablement of the same, and such other dis
ability as amounts to utter helplessncss, or SO
nearly so as TO require the personal aid and at
tendance of another person. 1t is conceded
that the specific disability is lone specifically
described like the loss of hand or foot" but
contended that it is " not one described gener-
ally as an injury resulting in utter helpless-
ness" 1t is important to settle this question
for upon il depends somewhat the power of
the Commissioner of Pensions to order special
EXAM nation of pensioners"
In cases in which the permanent specific
disability being officially determined. the law
prescribes the rate. Hence it was provided
that In cases of permanent specific disabilities