The National tribune., 1900-09-06

pie, direct and beyond fhe power OF the
juggler in wordsito MAIN or cripple. That
it is logical, sensible and fair prcsenta-
ton of the law. expressing the evident in
tent of the Congress, seems equally clear.
But what is tne rule which would CON
troll court in the consideration of this
vital principle-the elemental principle of
The law directly affecting the rights Of
The citizen-soldier who only seeks for jus
tice? OF IN
UNAUTHORIZED INTERPRETATIONS.
Sutherland on statutory Construction,
an authority not tn be challenged, says
page 3Jl, section 301, Contemporaneous
Constructionl: The aid of contempora-
neous construction is invoked where the
language of Il statute is of doubtful I'M
port and cannot be made plain by the help
Of any other part ot the same statute, nor
by the assistance of any act in pari ma
terra which may be read with it, nor of
the course of the common law up to the
time of its enactment. Under such cir
cumstances the court may consider what
was the construction put upon the act
when II hrSt came into operation. Where
this has been given by enactment it is con-
elusive. y contemporaneous construction is
that which it receives soon after its enact
ment. This. after the lapse of time, without
change OF that construction by legiSla-
lion or judicial decision, has been declared
10 be generally the best construction. 1t
gives the sense of the community as to the
terms made Use of by the legislature. If
there is ambiguity in the language, the
understanding of the application of it
when the statute first goes into operation.
sanctioned by long acquiescence on the
part of the legislature and judicial tri-
DunalS, Is the strongest evidence that it
has been rightly explained in practice. A
construction under such circumstances be-
comes established law"
The facts need not be recited at length
For nearly three years adjudicatiOnS un-
der the new law were controlled by Order
l64. During this period the Congress
passed two appropriation bills to give it
continued life; no objection to its terms
was heard in public or private places. A
change came, the history of which is still
fresh in the public mind. Order 22J was
born and came into being for q specific
purpose affecting the rights of a class of
citizens who deserved more generous treat
ment than was accorded them, but who
bore the burden brayely, patiently, wait
ing for relief from injustice. Now, the
supreme law-making branch of the Gov
crnment, without dissenting vote, has
written in the statute books the original
construction, and the Executive, promptly
and gladly, gave it his approval. The in
tent of Congress during the last four
years is eloquently told in the balance
sheets of the National Treasury, as wit
ness these figures: The balance to the
ll3,S05.93; July /, 1898, it was S2,045,-
iiV.4S; July !, 1899, it had grown to ST.
25J, 1922, and on the first day of July,
1900, the difference between the appro-
priatiOns for pensions and the expendi-
lures was the princely sum Of s., 130,-
141.3I to the credit of this fund. The
Congress has not withheld the means and
the fault does not lie at the door of the
legislative branch of the Government.
NEED OF ANOTHER TRIBUNAL.
For many years, under different Ad-
ministrations of the Government, ques-
tions springing from pension legislation
and administration, more or less import
ant and more or less, irritating, have
claimed the attention of the public and the
National Encanipments of the Grand
Army. What haye been deemed unreason-
able. unjust aud harsh regulations"
have been much discussed. Many of these
rules" were doubtless issued with good
intent by officials moi always qualified by
technical and professional training to
properly apply the plainest principles of
medical and legal jurisprudence. The
Pension Bureauiis invested with uDmeas-
ured power and authority. To appeal
from the head of the Bureau under the
system now in vogue is practically the
pro!onging of an unequal and generally
hopeless contest. The body Of Examiners,
dignihed by the term Board of Pension
Appeals" cannot in the very nature of
the case afford relief to an appreciabie
degree. About $4,000 appeals are now
pending. The average age of the ex-soldier
or sailor seeking that. what he esteemS
his legal rights is past 81 years. Can he
wait! For the year ended June 30, 1000,
the number of appeals was 1920; the num-
ber affirmed was 5,515, and the number
reversed 316. OF the nearly 6,000 cases
decided by this court" the action of the
Pension Bureau was sustained "a times in
each 100 considered. The old soldier
ought to be grateful, perhaps, that six
times in hundred the contention of the
veteran or widow was held to be well
founded, but they ought not to be expect
ed to longer indulge the hope of relief
from this tribunal.
The pensioncr or non-pensiOner who be-
lieves that he has not been accorded fair
treatment ought to be permitted under
the forms of law and the practice of the
Federal Courts to avail himself Of the
last recourse of an American citizen seek
ing for justice, the submission of his con-
tention to duly constituted court under,
of course, proper limitations.
THE COURT OF PENSION APPEALS.
June -, IJUD, IL Dill 10. NO tJtJ) was
introduced in the Senate by Mr.. Turner,
of the State of Washington, and on the
same day in the House Oh. X. 12,122) by
Mr.. Miers, of Indiana, to establish a
Court of Pension Appeals. This Court,
composed of five Judges, is to be created
for the hearing and determination of
cases founded upon or arising under the
Pension laws of the United States" 1t
is to be Court of Record with original
and appellate jurisdiction within defined
limitations. The jurisdiction of the Court
is defined:
First, ''All applications under any gen.
eral or special pension law may be re-
ferred to it by either House of Congress-
Second, ANY question of Law that shall
affect class of cases under the pension
laws which may be referred to it by the
Commissioner of Pensions" and,
Third, The claim or application of any
person founded upon or arising under any
general or special pension law of the
| United States which may be appealed to il
| by such claimant or applicant from the de-
cision of, or which may have been rejected
| in whole or in part by the Secretary of
| the Interior or the Commissioner of Pen
sions."
TOO MUCH oNE-MAN POWER.
The Board of Pension Appeals is to be
| discontinued, as is the, right Of appeal to