The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1895-02-07

sion Oaice, indicated b the Digest not onl,
does not suthoriso thssaSt Of respondent Loeb
| rep. but it appears to forbid II.
1t 10 claimed that the Commissioner has th,
right Of review in cases where new aud ma
terial facts are brought to his attention. and
the recent discovery thst the relator Is mem
| Der of the Supreme Court of Michigan. What
reason 10 there for the assertion that Commits
sioner Tanner was unsvare OF that oircum-
| stance does not appear. There Is every reason
to suppose he knew tho fact However, the
alleged newly-discovsreds evidence is merely
| accumulative, and according to the rules of
common practice would not support motion
for q new trial.
Was it within the power Of the respondent
to reconsider or review the REALTORS case with
out his request, or reverse the Judgment of his
predecessor. etc? The Judge reviews several
cases. and decides as in one that where no evil
dence had been presented to alter the facts as
they existed az the time of the original adjudi-
cation. or to show that the action then taken
was based upon any false or fraudulent repre-
sentation on the part of the claimant, it is held
that the propriety of the original allowance
should not be questioned. The act Of Congress
of July IA, 1862, provides that "any officer
private in the army who has been since the 4th
of March, 1861, or shall hereafter be disabled
by reason of any wound received while in the
service OF the United States, snd IN the ilne OF
duty, SHALL upon making the due proof of the
fact, be placed upon the list of invalid pensions,
and be entitled to receive for the highest rate
of disability such pension as is hereinafter pro-
vided in such cases."
1t would be beneath the dignity of q great
Government to recognize its obligation to the
former class because bound by contract, but to
break faith with the latter because the pension
provided was spontaneous gift and not bind
ing contract, both classes being gallant men
who, in that hour Of gloom, stood forth to peril
their lives for their country" 1t was the in
tentlon of Congress that these men should stand
in equal right under the law, whether disabled
before the promise or after. The Commissioner
of Pensions is not the Government or Congress.
No authority is given by any statute to inter-
fcre with pensioners adjudged status II
am of the opinion that the act of respondent
Lochren in revoking the REALTORS pension GER
tifcate was without the authority of the law,
that he had no discretionary power in the
premises. and that it is his clear duty to re-
woke that order, to restore the reator his rights
under the certificate of 1859, and to see that
the payment of the pension Is allowed in that
the certificate is continued"
Has the court the power to compel the per-
Torrance of this duty by mandamus9 The
having attempted to exercise
power which he did not possess, and having at
tempted revoked the pension certificate with
out authority of law. and it being his duty to
restore the relator to his status as it existed
prior to such unauthorized act and such duty
being simply ministerial, the reator is entitled
to the writ prayed against the respondent
Lochren, which will issue.