The National tribune., 1897-07-15

Davis.
A very important decision was that rendered
last week by Assistant Secretary of the Interior
Wobsier Davis In the case Of Francis Frank,
Go. 81, 10th Mich, whose claim for pension was
rejected Jan. %, 1897, on the ground that
peusionsbls degree of disability was not shown
The action was appealed from April j, 1884,
In this case the claimant is 65 years of age.
he was found to be suffering, st least in n mild
degree. Mr.. Davis says from chronic cystitis,
rheumatism, defective cyesight larcns senllls,
due alone 10 eject Of arel and other disahili-
ties which clearly entitle him to rating.
The action of the Bureau is, therefore, re-
verseo. Mr.. Davis says:
am not unaware that age as factor IN
the consideration of these claims under the act
OF June %. 1890. is somewhat uncertain as a
means OF determining title. But 1T must be re-
memlered that all pension statutes wherein
age Is taken into consideration deal Literally
and with Justice think, with this disabling
cause in retiremeuts from the Army the age
OF 60 is fixed as of itself sufficient reason Tor
considering the advance to his age as warrant
fox cessation of the active duties OF an officer
Again. the act of Jan. %, 1887, fixed the same
age (G2) as emitting soldier or sailor OF the
Mexi,an war TO the rate of pension therein
provided. independent of any disability.
this Department, July 6, 1885, it WAS held that
declaration which alleged no disabling cause
whatever, save that the applicant was 40 years
o. age or over, would ne held to be suincient
allegation of disability, and. further, that
where disabling causes have been alleged
which indicate senility as pathological result,
such declaration would be held good WITHOUT
alteration or statement as to age.
BY Order 2.i your Bureau declared that
in cases in which the pensioner has reached
the are OF 30 his rate shall not be disturbed II
he is receiving the maximum tSl2). and II he
is no; pensoner lie shall receive the maxi.
mum Tor senility alone. if there are no speciai
pensionable disabilities
"Ou Sept; 6. 1898. carrying out the directions
of this Department in the claim Of Rinkle
above cited, and ex ending your Order No. 2al,
your Bureau issued No. PAP, holding that IL
shall lie presumed. in claims for increase under
the act OF June q, 1890. that claimants who
have attained the age of as years are wholly
disabled for manual labor within the meaning
of this law emitting them to the maximum
rate of SIP per month.
Now" pursues Mr. Davis "if age alone
may be settled upon SIS emitting claimant to
the maximum rate. age as q factor IN connec-
ton with disabilities. or alone, may justly be
considered as emitting claimant to the mini
mum or intermediate rates. As hereinbefore
stated, age alone is more or less uncertain
OASIS I0r ueteTu1iniug ilbics comc ancu a.
senile at 50 while others are comparatively
vigorous al q later age.
II therefore hold that unless the evidence
and medical examinations disclose an unusual
vigor and activity for the performance of man.
nal labor (the basis of title under the statutel,
a claimant for pension under the act OF June
q, 1890, who has attained the age of IS yean
shall be deemed entitled to st least the mimi
mum rate of pension provided By that act"
COMMISSIONER NAY PAT PENsIoNxR.
The Assistant Secretary also decided the case
of Edward w. Moore, 14th Ind'p't Battery Ohio
L. A., in which he holds that when it shall be
shown that the pensioners right 70 have the
pension inure wholly to his benefit is being
abridged or forfeited by the malfeasance of the
guardian. and that the appointing court will
no. administer relief then the Commissioner
of Pensions would be legally authorized to re-
fuse payment to the guardian. and, IL need be,
to pay the pensioner himself"
1t appears thst Moore, . pensionsr under
the general Law. was. by order of the Probate
Court of Warren County, O., placed under
guardianship on the ground that the soldier
was an imbecile, and payment has been made 10
the guardian.
cit was held by my predecessor in office.
Hon. John M. Reynolds. that pay mept Of pen.
sion to the guardian of . person under legal
disability is not obligatory; and if the Com
missioner of Pensions ehall become satisfied
that the pensioners interests would better be
subserved by pay ment to the pensi0ner himself,
be may SO direct.
Your Bureau was at the same time directed
70 permit the filing of the evidence rendered,
and if the same shall. prima facie, substan-
tste his allegations. make an investigation,
through a Special Examiner, to determine
whether not the present arrangement is
beneficial to the pensioner. IL 1t il not then,
said Assistant Secretary Reynolds, it will be
the duty Of your Bureau TO make, or cause to
be made, such change ~ will best secure TO
him tic proper emf yment of the Governments
bounty"
The pension laws, Mr.. Davis continues, pro-
vide that the pension shall inure wholly to the
benefit Of the pensioner: they permit the pay
ment OF pension on account OF persons under
legal disability to the guardians of such PEN
siorers. But they do not ia my opinion, re-
Quiie is. Rather. these laws require their adj
aDit list ator. the Comm issioner of Pensions, to
eniorc then so that they shall inure to the
pensio Ier's benefit, and authorize him, in his
niserct on. to direct personal payment to the
peIlsioa q, whenever it Is deemed necessary and
pro- er 10 secure to the pensiouer bis rights.
And this is wise provision, because but Tor it,
il the q svernment were compelled to make the
pension payable TO the pensioner through his
guardian, it would he possible, through the
machinery of the State courts, to secure the ap-
p0lnlnlent OF agents IN whose hands the rights
81 the pensioner could be made TO suffer diminu-
tion OF absolute loss"
OTHER DECISIONS RENDERED.
In affirming the former action in another
case, IN which it had been shown that an
attorney had manufactured false evidence. Mr..
Davis says that where pension has been allowed
for several disabilities, and il is afterwards
discovered that the evidence upon which nj.
lowancc was made as to portion of them WAS
wholly false and fraudulent, and there is no
valid evidence to sustain their alleged origin
In service. il is not only proper, bat the duty
Of the Bureau, to stop payment OF the pension
for SUCH disabilities. aud 20 recover the money
enormously paid out Of any pension due on
other disabilities.
In the case OF Lewis II. Good win, Major.
l7th Ind. Mr. Davis has decided that an appeal
from action rejecting claim for straight in
crease docs not lie when entered subsequent To
Cling claim for increase. The claimants
remedy is TO file a claim for rerating, where
upon the several actions had in his claim will
- reviewed by the Bureau subject to appeal to
the Department
In this case the claimant had fled straight
increase claim. which was rejected Sept. 22
1855. he 6led another claim Anril 10. 1887
end in May, 1887, certificate was issued "a
sllow increass. Dec. 30. 1896, appeal was en-.
tered from the action rejecting the FIRST claim.
Dir. Davis says:
To consider the appeal would be to approve
spractice permitting separate appeals to be en-
- -