The National tribune., 1899-09-14

| in many of which the proof necessary tt
establish title was nearly complete. but il
which some detail was not covered, which
feet prevented favorable action upon the
case. In every community wee soldiers
who were known to their neighbors as hav,
ing entered the army early in the war and
| IN the primo of vigorous manhood. and tc
have returned broken in body and strength
| or 10 have broken down after returning and
to have been unable to earn n livelihood
| since the war by reason of their disabilities.
and who, being unable to furnish the full
| measure of the proof required to establish
| claim under the then existing law, were
unab bic to obtain a pension and in their ad-
vanclng age were compelled to face the
prospect of becoming public charge. In
| many eases of the heirs of deceased soldiers
proof OF the origin in the military service
| OF the death cause was lacking and i'm
possible, and widows and orphans of de-
ceased soldiers were a charge upon sur
vIvlng comrades or upon the community in
which they resided.
These conditions led to the seeking of {,
remedy therefor. After exhaustive debates
by Congress and the passage of a measure
| which failed to meet executive approval, the
effort for relief eliminated in the passage of
the act of June p. 1890.
AS TO THE NECESSITY
for the enactment of this law, it was well
said by the Hon. Cushman K. Davis Chair
| man of the Senate Committee on Pensions,
| in the del te preceding its passage:
Tho di feTerce between this bill and the
| pension policy rs it is now is that, whereas
under prcsel trension legislation it is neces-
sary by compctel proof, pre;cribed in q
| particular manner by tie Bureau of Pen
slorS, 10 trace the disability or death di-
rectly 10 the casualties of tie service this
| bill. as in the i'll which passed in the 49th
! Congress ~ d rs in the bill which passed
UNI cccSsary. ard makes it orly requisite
TO prove that the soldier either died or
sufic-e1 f-On c!tal or physical disability.
10 matter vixen or how incurred. whether
III the service or rot.
The principal rcaSoEs for this outside of
ard apart fro Il its natural Justice inhere III
( the fact that in the lapse of time since the
war tie mode of proof prescril ed by the
i'cl sion Euroau, and Ly the law rs il row is,
ard lrdccd a.y mode of proof by which it
IS required 10 attribute ard trace the dis
case or tie death by force of pathological
com c"tinn to TIE casualties or hardships of
tie service. h::s loconIe so difficult that in
the majority of eases it is imposSil le to pro-
clGe 1t. 80 there seems TO have been.
;lmo' tie People who favor this kind of
legislation. for some wears, ard it has
RIPENED INTO ABSOLUTE CONVICTION.
strcrgtfer cd IS it is by the rIdoubted fact
tlat not . man wcrt into the war and served
through its IrfiI ite casualties and hard
ships ~ d came out as well as he was before
ard without the seeds of disease in his CON
stItution-fs say it has become the deliberate
CONVICTION OF those who favor libcraliZed
legisl slatlOn OF this character that the tech
ical bar in the way of proof to entitle a dis
! allied soldier to the liEcrality and bounty
OF his com try shall he removed,
IhIS bill contains the limitations anl;
conditions that the soldier shall be disabled
from the performance of labor in such a de-
gree IS to render him unable to earn a sup
port. That is phrase which in certain
aspects OF pension legislation exists in the
BODY OF the statutes to-day, and the phrase,
or the equivalent of it, was used in the act of
March 3. 1873"
Further reference might be made TO the
debates in Congress antecedent to the p.s-
sage OF the act of June 81, 1890, and of the
vetoed act also rs illustrating the Under
standing by that body of the provisions of
the act and the intent Of Congress in its
enactment and its clear appreciation of its
results II reasonably and properly con-
strued and executed in the same spirit in
which 1t was passed. but it is sufficient TO
state that such debates show n full appreci-
atlon by Congress Of the fact that owing TO
the rigorous requirements of the then exist
iilS law 1t was impossible in large number
oi merltorlouS claims to furnish the Droof
necessary to Secure their allowance. and
also the desire of Congress to enact n
remedial and beneficent law which would
cure lhe wrongs complained of ard enable
substantial Justice to be done
INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT OF
JUNE 81.
The new statute went into effect under
the personal direction of the then President
OF the United States, the Secretary of the
IrtcrIor, and the Assistant Secretary of the
i terror. three ex-soldiers and members of
TINS great comradeship, all of whom are
skilled in the law. the Chief Mapistrate of
the Nation a lawyer Of worldwide repu-
tatlon and influcrce. Under their ad-
minlstration. with the fullest consideration
OF the question in the immediate preserce
and under the influence of the exhaustive
debates IN the American Congress. and re-
sponaIve to the public sentiment Which then
controlled, the then Commissioner of Pen
sions, Oct. Is, 1890, issued Order No, 1G1
which reads as follows:
That all claimants under the act Of June
q, 1880, Showing i mental or physical dis
ability or disabilities of permanent char
acter, rot the result of their own yicious
habits. and which incapacitate them for the
performance OF manual labor rendering
them unable TO earn u support i'm such n
degree as would be rated under former laws
at or above S6 and less than S12, shall be
rated the same us like disabilities of service
origin: and that all cases showing a pen-
slonibie disability which, if of service origin.
would lie rated at or above S12 per month
shall he rated at sl2 per month";"
Under this rule, 100000 names were
added to the pension roll. During the
| nearly three Years it stood as the expression
Of generous and grateful people. Con-
grcss twice made appropriations to give it
continued life ard vitalic effect. Nav =,
1899. under a decision rendered hNr tho then
Secretary Of the Inferior. in the case of
Charles L. Bennett. il was announced TO the
country that in the issuing of Order No. 1854.
that the eminent lawy ers, the then Presi-
dent Of tfc United States. the then Secre-
tary OF the iItcriur. and the then Com
missioner Of Pensions. all skilled in the con-
stricfion Of staint3=y law, had violated and
displaced the very principle which governed
ratings under the act of June -, 1890, and
substituted a ruling applicable 10 a different
law. This WAS necessary, ard WAS nm.
hesita'ingly done in order to construct a
logo for the destruction Of Order No. l64.
SPECIAL PLEADING"
This Bennett decision set I'D and defined
by an ingenious process of Special plead
ing Il difference between the basis of pen
sion existing under sections 1902 and 4693.
itcvIscd Statutes, and that under section 9
OF the ac. OF June p, 1890. Under the first
1t held thatthe basis nf pension SIS disab abiIity
by reason: of wound, iajury. or disease con
tracted wili.e IN tile service and i'm line of
dt'.: Under HE second ii argues that the
| hiisiS oi pension Is ":Gcapaciiy. due to any
! irrinhich mental "f physical disability not
liie rcSilit OF VICIOUS habits 10 such "A degree
as renders cltiniaiIt unable 10 earn a sup
| port hy nI:inl;tl !::!pr"
| All Invalid pa,is:0Ds arc granted as q
substitute iur ttc Impairment of the earn
| il@ capacity oi i!;e recipient, due to some