The National tribune., 1899-06-22


animation as soon as practicable after the
filing of his application. Mr.. Evans pro-
posed to do nothing whatever in that class
of cases until year had elapsed. By a
decision rendered March 80, 1898, Assistant
Secretary Davis required Mr.. Evans tc
rescind his order, pointing out to him tina,
under the law the increase if granted would
commence from date of the medical eX'
animation, and that his order would neces
sarily result in loss and gross injustice tc
claimants who were entitled to increase
through delaying or refusing to issue the
necessary order for medical examination
At about the same time as above Mr.
Evans concluded to construe an old order,
No. ia, of Jan. q, 1892, so as to exclude
attorneys and claimants from examination
of any and all evidence obtained through
the Special Examination Division of the
Bureau. Until this time the order had been
construed as only forbidding examination
of such evidence relating to criminal
charges and Investigations
Appeal was entered with Assistant Secre-
tary Davis on Jan. 20, 1898, and on Aug.
| 13, 1898, Mr.. Evans was finally prevailed
upon to furnish a statement that the As
sistaat Secretary should regard as re-
sponsve to the contentious of the appeal
entered Mr. Evans held that the evil
dence obtained by the Special Examiners
was confidential papers," and complained
that if attorneys were allowed to examine
this evidence they would often find an
opening to overcome the evidence which
the Pension Bureau regarded as unfavor-
| able The Commissioner said: "The Wash
| ington expert, who knows every word,
term, phrase, or sentence necessary to
controvert or impeach the evidence Sc
cured, is called in and affidavits are pre-
pared and sent out to be sworn to and re-
turned to the Bureau, frequently impeach-
| ing the testimony of reliable witnesses.
The Government seems to have absolutely
no rights in these matters" So Mr.. Evans
proposed to prevent the testimony OF these
reliable witnesses against the claimant
being impeached, by shutting the evidence
up and not letting any one outside the
Pension Bureau know what it was. He
called attention to the fact that while the
case is under special examination the
claimant or his attorney have the 7oriri-
Iege of attending at the taking of all the
evidence; but he neglected to say further
that the privilege can seldom be taken ad
vantage of. In oyerruling Mr.. Evans,
Assistant Secretary Davis said:
ut is true, if the claimant were present
or was represented by an attorney through
out the special investigation, and was
then made fully cogniZant Of the nature of
all the testimony, there could be no Just
cause for complaint But the records of
the Bureau of Pensions will show that such
instances are exceedingly rare, and al
though the privilege is granted to claimant
to he present, it is in most instances inn
possible for him to do so. AS rule, his
statement is taken, and he is compelled by
force of circumstances to waive his right
to be present, as the special examination
proceeds from place to place, often III diff
ferent States; nor is he able to employ at
torneys to follow the investigation in the
field.
"The result is, in very large proper
ton Of the cases, the special examination
is conducted in his absence, with no at
torney to represent his interests, and the
rejection of the claim follows by reason of
the testimony thus obtained.
practically it has been an eL 11arte ex-
animation, and under the present practice
in your Bureau the claimant has no knowl-
edge of the adverse testimony upon which
the claim has been rejected.
"It would ba lunracticl blp IN furnish
him with copy of the evidence, as was the
practice formerly, but his request to see the
evidence, or Il like request by his author
lied attorney, can not lawfully and justly
be denied. AS indicated in my commune
cation of April II, 1898, j am convinced
that the number of appeals has been largely
augmented by reason of this practice. /
think You will agree with me that due re-
spect for the rights of claimants or their
authorized attorneys will be in harmony
with the letter and spirit of the pension
laws, and at the same time the rights of the
Government will be preserved. i am led
to the conclusion that the practice which
prevails in Your Bureau of denying to
claimants OF their authorized attorneys the
right to examine the evidence obtained by
special examination, except that contained
i'll reports of Special Examiners relating to
criminal charges and Investigations is
unjust to claimants and unwarranted by
law. 1t is therefore directed that all orders
or instructions which have that effect shall
be revoked"
On Oct 20, 1897, Mr. Evans issued an order
directing that thereafter the reports of ex-
amining surgeons might be examined only by
the claimants or their attorneys in person, and
then only after rejection of the claim and
within three months after notice thereof He
did this without consulting his superior Off
GERS Of the Department and in total disregard
of an order, No. 26S, dated July 2S, 1894,
issued in conformity with the act Of July IS,
1894, which requires that "the report OF such
examining surgeons when filed in the Pen
sion Bureau shall be open to the examination
and inspection OF the claimant or his attorney,
under such reasonable rules and regulations
as the Secretary Of the Interior may provide.
He was at his usual trick OF trying 10 nullify
| a law which did not suit him. Aug. 27, 1898,
Assistant Secretary Davis overruled him, and
directed him TO carry out the law. Evans's
attention was also called very sharply to the
Departmental order prohibiting Commission.