The evening times., 1899-08-05

One of the most interesting cases ever
before the Pension Office has just been de-
cided by the Board of Pension Appeals. In
filed an application for pension as widow
of Charles w. Resser, late sergeant OF
Company H, Thirty-seventh Illinois Vol
unteer Infantry. She alleged that the
death of this soldier. on June Is, 1897. left
her without other means OF support than
her labor. On the same date, as guardian,
she also fled an application for pension
in behalf of Albert F. and Bennie Resser.
minor children of Sergeant Resser. under
the age of sixteen at the time OF their
fathers death. The widow claimed the
pension on the ground that her last mar
riage to the soldier was subsequent to the
act of Congress Of June q. 1890. tending
by its terms to exclude her from its bene-
fits and provisions The minor ehildren's s
claim was on the ground that their father
left widow surviving, who still hv-
ing and unmarried.
There was no dispute about the material
facts in the case. which is romantic and
full of interest. Charles and Mary Resser
were married twice to each other. The
first marriage took place in August. 1871.
and they lived as husband and wife until
January Z, 1895, upon which date the vile
was granted an absolute divorce by the
district court OF Polk county, Iowa. The
divorce was granted on the ground OF in
human conduct. and the woman given all
the rights. and. privileges Of single person
Subsequently, in June Is. 1896, the pair
were again married, and tho lived together
as man and wife until the husbands death.
1t was also shown that Albert F. and Ben
ME Ressie were children of the soldier and
his wife, that they were born to them dur
ing their first marriage and prior to the di-
vorce, and that they were under the age
lof sixteen at the time of their fathers
death.
Now the language of the second provi-
sion of the third seetion Of the act Of June
q, 1890, expressly excludes from parttcipa-
ton in its benefits such widows as have
married the soldier on account OF whose
death the claim for pension is made. sub
sequent to the date of the passage of said
act. The attorneys for the widow contend
ed that the remarriage of this couple sub
sequent TO their divorce was lin the nature
of continuation of the first marriage rela-
tion since she had not remarked in the
interim" The Pension Office held that
this claim was without foundation what
ever. and as legal proposition was alb
surd. The degree of divorce by court of
competent Jurisdiction absolutely and COM
pletely abrogated annulled, wiped out and
destroyed the previous matrimonial rela-
tion existing between the two, and rele-
gated each of them to the legal status OF
single, unmarried persons from and after
the date of its rendition. said the pension
officials. The woman was then free to
marry whomsoever she pleased, and was
In the eye of the law as much a single un-
married woman as IL she never had been
married; and If the soldier had died prior
to her second marriage to him. she could
have set up no valid claim whatever to be
considered his widow.
The Board of Pension Appeals held that
was a separate. distinct and independent
contract. and bore no relation to and was
in no possible manner or way connected
with their former matrimonial union. and
the present status of the woman as the
the widow of the soldier. and all her rights
as such. both legal and pensionable. rest
solely and alone upon the.second marriage.
and are derived therefrom. Since the
second marriage was consummated long
after the act of June 81, $780, 1t was too
manifest for argument that she had no
title whatever to pension as Charles w.
Resser's widow.
AS 10 the claim of the minor children,
the board ruled that they can have no I'll
tie to pension in their own right so long
as their mother Is, Lying. and remains un-
married. notwithstanding the fact that
their mothers last marriage to their faith
er was subsequent to the passage Of the
act of $780, - - S'"