The National tribune., 1899-07-20
DEPARTMENT NEWS.
Decisions RuIngs etc. Of Interest to Soldiers and Sailors
and Their Heirs.


RECOGNITION OF ATTORNEYS-ACT
OF MARCH 3. 1S99.-On the appeal OF Milo
B. Stevens & Co., it is held (ASslStant
Secretary Davis, June 10, 1890 that an
attorney is entitled TO recognition IN the
claim of a wife for part of the pension OF her
husband, an invalid pensioner. Com.
missioner Evans, without the approval of
the Secretary issued an order directing that
no attorneys be recognized in such cases,
though the evidence required is almost as
great as that required to establish title to
widows pension under the act of June q,
1890. The decision says: TN connection
with the reasons assigned for refusing to
recognize the appellants it is stated that
blank applications are sent by the Bureau
to persons desiring to avail themselves of
the provisions of the act, and that the calls
upon applicants in the several classes are
full and explicit as to what evidence IS
required.
'Such is the practice in all classes of
claims filed in the Pension Bureau, yet fees
are paid to attorneys for their services IN all
those classes of claims where any services
are required. 1t is manifest from the call
for evidence issued by the Bureau that a
great deal of service is required in the claims
under the act of March 3. 1899, before said
claims can be allowed. Furthermore. it is
quite reasonable to suppose that nearly all
these claims will be contested, that attor-
neys will be employed by both parties, and
greater amount of proof will be required
where there is a contest than there would
be in claims where party is only required
TO file evidence that prima facie shows the
facts specified in the several acts granting
pensions TO soldiers and to those dependent
upon them. 1t is not presumed that the
Bureau has the requisite knowledge for the
purpose of making calls for evidence neces-
Sary to establish the res geStp, the fact that
the pensioner deserted the claimant, in
claims under said act, until the claimant
has advised the Bureau in each particular
case. BY the call referred to, a claimant is
notified to-file evidence showing that he
(soldier) deserted you for a period of six
months or more. Now what light is
afforded claimant as to what constitutes
desertion and as to the competency of
witnesses necessary TO show the fact?
Certainly it is not seriously intended to
accept mere recitation by some person or
persons who may or may not be interested,
under oath, that claimants husband de
serted her as sufficient TO prove the fact of
desertion. There are persons skilled in the
law who are able to decide upon the com
petency and sufficiency of evidence; claim
ants under said act are privileged to have
recourse to such persons for all purposes
relative to their claims hereunder. Not
only may an attorney be recognized III
claims under said act, but in view of the
fact that contests are liable to arise in all
and the claimant. it is deemed that attor
neys are essential, and that by refusing to
accord to either a pensioners or claim
ants attorney recognition III such claims
said parties are deprived OF their privileges
as citizens without any warrant or cause
therefor.
Not only are attorneys necessary and
essential for the proper prosecution of the
claim, and hence entitled TO recognition, but
it is submitted that in many instances that
may arise it would, in view Of the fact that
the Bureau is to pass upon the preponder
ance of the evidence touching particular
fact or facts relative to the question of de-
sertion, be a question of propriety for the
Bureau to inform either the claimant or the
pensioner as TO the sufficiency or kind of
evidence required. 1t will be remembered
that the effect Of the judgment of the Bu-
reau if favorable TO the claimant is not
disposition Of Government funds. but of the
pensioners property, and that due regard
must be had 10 every safeguard the law
throws around person in the protection of
his rights. To deprive a claimant of the
right TO prosecute or pensioner To defend
his cause, in perSonam or through the
services of a competent attorney, would be
an act i'll utter disregard of principles upon
which depend all the privileges conferred
by the law.
For the foregoing reasons the action of
the Bureau in denying appellants recog
milton in the above entitled claim is over
ruled, it appearing that they have been
duly authorized to prosecute such claim and
no other attorneys have prior rights.