Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-01-29
JUDGE LONGS PENSION
Judge Bradley Decides Against Commits
sioner 4ochren Today
Says He Had No Authority to Reduce
the PensiOn-Refers to Judge
Co1's Decision.

| l.
day filed his opinion In the case of Judge
Charles d. Long of Michigan against tie
| Secretary Of the Interior and the commits
sioner of pensions. The case was one in
which Judge Long prayed the court, by
writ Of mandamus, commanding the COM
missioner of pensions to vacate an order,
| passed by him, revoking Judge Longs ren-
| sion certificate of August 16. 1889, and to
| restore to him the pension awarded him by
| that certificate from March 4, 1894. Judge
Bradley dismissed the proceeding as to The
| Secretary Of the Interior. explaining that
he does so because it appears that no func-
ton was performed by the Secretary in the
| revocation Of the pension certificate, and
that no act is essential to be performed by
| the Secretary to restore Judge Long to his
| right.
| AS to the commissioner Of pensions Judge
| Bradley says: 1.-The respondent the COM
| missioner of pensions having attempted
| to exercise power which he did not pos
| sess, and having revoked the pension GER
| tificate of the relator Judge Long, with
| out authority of law, and it being his duty
| to restore the relator to his status us it
| existed prior to such unauthorized act, and
| such duty being simply ministerial, the re-
lator Is entitled to the writ prayed against
the respondent. Lochren, which will ISSUE"
As to Judge Cox.
| The opinion Of Judge Bradley is an I'M
| usually voluminous document, covering
| twenty-four full typewriter pages. The
| judge refers to the fact that the questions
| raised in the case were practically the
| same as those decided by him in former
| application for a writ of mandamus, and
similar to those made in bill filed On the
| equity side of the court for an injunction
| to restrain the commissioner of pensions
| from reducing the pension of Judge Long.
Judge Bradley explains that while Judge
| Cox, who heard the suit for the injunction,
| reached the conclusion that Judge Long
| was entitled to an injunction because the
| notice of the commissioner required by law
| to be given was no. given, Judge Cox de-
| eide the main questions adversely to
| Judge Long, arriving at a conclusion the
opposite of his (Bradleys) reached in the
earlier mandamus proceeding upon the
| same state of facts.
Judge Cox, further explains Judge Brad
| ley, concluded that the disabilities of Judge
| Long did not entitle him to he cl:ssed as
| no had been classed by Commissioner of
| Pensions Tanner, or to draw the pension
| that he was receiving, and that Commits
| Sioner Tanners decision could be reviewed
and revoked, and his CTanner's) act
| scinded Illegal and improvident by his
| successor, Lochren. In such a conclusion,
| says Judge Bradley, he finds himself unable
to concur. notwithstanding Judge Coxs
| reasoning, and despite his Q8radley's) high
| respect for Judge Coxs ability.
| Questions Involved.
Three questions were involved in the case,
| states Judge Bradley, viz: Was Commits
| sioner Tsnner's Issuance Of the certificate
of August 1G. 1889, giving Judge Long a
| pension Of $72 month justified by Judge
Longs disability and by the law at the
| time? Had Commissioner Lochren any
| power to review and reverse his predeces-
sor's 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 certificate?
| And has the court power. by writ of man
| damus, to direct the commissioner of pen
| sions to vacate his order CT revocation?
| Explaining that Judge Long lost his left
| arm near the shoulder April III. 1862, and
received a gunshot wound in the left hip,
| Judge Bradley describes the various steps
taken by Judge Long for pension, which
| efforts finally resulted in a pension being
granted him, under the act of June rs.
| 1880. of ST. month. That increased rate
| he was paid until March 4. 1894. when
| Commissioner Lochren reduced it to SO
| month. The increase, says Judge Bradley,
| was allowed by Commissioner Tanner.
Judge Bradley holds that Judge Long was
sufficiently disabled to entitle him to re-
! ceive the higher rating of sI2 month.
Notwithstanding his ability to perform his
| duties as a member of the Michigan
| preme court
Should BE Restored.
| Referring to the contention of Commits
| sioncr Lochren that he had the authority
| to order special examination in Judge
| Longs case, Judge Bradley holds that it
| was not case in which a biennial eXanli-
| nation was required, and says that he finds
| that no duty was imposed and no author
ity was conferred upon Commissioner Loeb
| rem to order a special examination in Judge
| Longs case. Judge Bradley also declares
that the act Of December u, 1888, requir-
ing a notice Of thirty days to be given
pensioners where suspension or the drop
| ping of them from the rolls is contem-
| plated, applied to only those cases where
| the commissioner of pensions could law
| fully so act but that it did not apply to
| Judge Longs case, because the commits
sioner without authority of law to act
| as he did.
| In conclusion, Judge Bradley holds that
| the court possesses the power to compel, by
| mandamus the commissioner of pensions
| to do as prayed and remarks: Il am of
| the opinion that the act of the respondent,
| Lochren, in revokng REALTORS pension GER
| t1ficate was without the authority of law;
| that he had no discretionary power in the
| premises, and that it Is clear duty to re-
| woke the order, to restore the relator to his
| rights under the certificate of 1889 and to
see that the payment of the pension al
| lowed in that certificate is continued"
ARMOR FOR THE BATTLE SHIPS.