The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1898-05-19
PENSION DECISIONS.
Cases Disposed of by Assistant
Secretary Davis.

In the case of the minors of Thomas Jim
merson, or .Jamison, Co. F, 9TH Kan. Cav,
the claimants fled application April %,
1881, alleging that their father disappeared
and is supposed to have died soon after his
discharge from the service, in September,
1865 and he has not been seen or heard of
since; that their mother, the widow re-
married in February 1867 and that they,
being under 10 years of age at that time,
are entitled to pension. No evidence was
filed showing that the soldier was actually
dead, and the claim was rejected, Nov. g.
1898 on the ground of claimants inability
to show his death. On appeal it was CON-
tended that under the law and the rules
laid down in Departmental decisions, the
long continued absence of soldier under
the circumstances indicated by the evil
dence, showed to be sufficient to warrant
the presumption OF his death. Most
amicabIe relations with and lack of Just
cause for DESERVING his family were shown.
The evidence, Mr.. Davis says, is sufficient
TO sustain the contention that the circum-
stances of the disappearance and the long
continued absence without being heard
of warrants the presumption of death. But
the real di fficulty in the case, and the true
reason for its rejection is the fact that the
cause of soldiers death is not and cannot
be shown. In a case OF this kind il Is
necessary under the law to show that the
death of the soldier was due TO some dis
ability contracted in or incidental to his
service in line OF duty.
eli to the evidence showing that soldier
has not been seen or heard of since dis
CHARGE says Mr.. Davis, the claimants
could add evidence that he had contracted
some disability In service from which he
was suffering at his discharge and which
was so severe as to be liable to prove fatal
within a short time, the presumption might
be extended not only to include the fact Of
death but the cause as well, and the claim
be considered established" But the rejec
ton must stand.
In the case of a Pennsylvania soldier,
docket No. 81, $50, the claimant was enrolled
July 8, 1861, and was member OF Co. /,
196th Pa, until Nov. II, when he was mus
tered out with the company. He was en-
rolled in Co. ID, 213th Pa, on Feb. %, 1865,
and deserted at Camp Parole, Md, Aug. IA,
1856. The War Department reported July
13, 1864, that an uncOnditlon al pardon for
deSertion was granted to this man by the
President on April p, 1879. Under the
second section of the second article of the
Constitution, the President had full power
to grant pardon to the soldier.
MIR. Davis says: " In reply TO an inquiry
of the Pension Office, the War Department.
on Feb. Is, 1885, stated that it was held by
that Department that the pardon of this
soldier by the President for desertiOn did
not operate to honOrably discharge him from
the service of the United States.
Another question arises, whether the
soldier is not entitled upon proper appli-
cation to the War Department to an honor
able discharge as of the date at which he
left the military service. The rejection Of
the claim is set aside and the claim is re-
opened for reference to the War Department.
for the determination OF this question: