The National tribune., 1901-05-09

before he testified in the case he was in
law suit with one of claimants sons anC
that he was bitterly prejudiced. and haC
said on various occasions that he 'wOulC
get the old woman's pension from her.
} 1T must be borne in mind that tn,
claimant lived in a country community
: where the affairs of the neighber are
, known to everyone 1t seems incredible
; that - neighbors, who had known the
claimant for from Is to. 80 years, should
come forward and testify to her good
moral character if she was a common
prostitute, as the Examiner states, OF
even if she occupied any station aboye
that charged, short of uprightness and
probity. 1t is matter of common knowl-
edge that the standard of morals in the
average country district is high, and any
falling from grace by Il resident of the
district is known by everybody, and al
most universally deprecated.
There are positive statements in the
evidence taken by the Examiner which
should carry some weight, although the
source of the testimony is in question. If
the claimant acted as is charged by the
four witnesses, an unprejudiced Examiner
can usually get at the facts The claim
ant seems 10 be Il woman of some prOmi-
nence and is well known. Her character,
her general reputation, her standing gem
orally in the community where she re-
sides, can be definitely ascertained, and
to her and to the Government.
Too much cannot be said against the
methods apparently pursued by the Spe-
cial Examiner in this case. He appears
10 have fallen into the hands of the en-
emies of the claimant at his first visit,
and from the prejudices then imbibed he
| never was free. He Incorporated in his
report charges so vile and incredible that
| they at once shock the mind and con.
| science of any unbiased reader. The Spe-
| cial Examiner occupies a position of trust
| IN which he shoulG act fairly, without bias
| or prejudice for or against the claimant.
| When he falls away from this position he
| prostitutes his office, and the result of
| his labors is often of irreparable injury.
| He holds in his hands the power to de-
| stroy character and reputation, and these
sacred attributes of the citizen should be
safe from prejudice and unreasOning at
| tack.
Without passing at this time on the
question of the greater weight or pre-
ponderance of the evidence now on file in
the case, for the reasons given above, the
action appealed from is reversed.
The claim should at once be placed
in the hands of an unbiased Special EX-
aminer and sent into the field for fur
ther special examination. This should be
promptly attended to, and when the re-
port of the Examiner is returned to the
Bureau it should be acted upon, and the
papers returned to the Department with
an additional report"
RERATING OF PENSION EVI-
DENCE.-In the rerating claim of Alon-
20 @. Veale, deceased, it is held asst
Sec'y Campbell, April ~, 1901) that
Title to rerating becomes clear only
when it appears manifest from the evil
dence in the case that the action of the
Bureau was the result of mistake of law
or 20 of hut a1I Ion. CT, Ial
by officers of the Government fairly u.s.
ing their discretionary judgment, within
its proper scope, should not be disturbed
for light and transient causes; and in this
case, 30 years having elapsed since first
allowance of pension, and increase under
many examinations, the rates fixed viii
not be disturbed" The decision says: 1T |
must appear from the face of the medi- !
cal certificates, made at the time, that the |
ratings given were manifestly inadequate |
to the degree of disability effectively |
shown by such certificates before the rat
ings Hereunder should be disturbed. Aft |
davits of laymen, and even of medical |
men, made long after the date of the GER |
tifcates which were the foundation of the |
ratings given, clearly should not be heard |
in impeachment of them. To allow this |
should be to transcend all those principles |
of evidence which experience and legal |
acumen have dictated, and place the un-
certainties and treacheries of memory on |
a higher plane than the written records !
of sworn officers.
"a careful examination of the medical |
certificates in this case, read in the light |
thrown on them by the lay and medical |
testimony in the record, fails to show any
injustice TO the legal or equitable rights
of the soldier.
"There is certainly nothing appearing
on the face of these certificates that indi-
Gates in any degree that the Bureau acted
under mistake of law or fact. 1t acted |
within the scope of its authority and
seems to have exercised wisely and fair
ly the discretion vested in it, and under
the law and decisions of the Department
the action appealed from should be, and
is hereby, affirmed"
PENSION CLARATION Il
AMENDMENT-ALL In
the pension case Of Felix Myers the SOL
der filed pension application which in
its formal parts indicated a claim under
the act Of June q, 1890, but the specific
service recited was the 10Th U. s. Inf.
from Jan. "a, 1867, to Jan. "a, 1870, and
the claim was based on disabilities alleged
to have been incurred in such service. In
short, the claimant had ignorantly made
application for pension under the general
law upon an application form intended to
be used in applying under the act of June
81, 1890.
The decision says: "This declaration
was jacketed as a claim under the general
law, and was treated as such in the calls
for evidence. Testimony showing origin
in service and continuance OF alleged dis
abilities was filed from time to time, and
the case was pending for more than 10
years as a claim for pension on account of
disability contracted in line of duty.
When it came to be finally adjudcated,
however, it was briefed as claim under
the act of June %, 1890, and rejected on
the ground that claimants service was
not rendered during the war of the re.
belliOn-a fact which was apparent in the
first instance and before any evidence was
required or filed.
This action implied, of course, that the
claim was not one under the general law,
and in slip attached to the face brief it
is declared that said declaration would not
be accepted as such a claim. 1t is pre-
sumed, although there is no record of il,
that claimant and mis- attorneys were in
formed OF this conclusion at the time they
wore notified, Feb. 8, 1901, of the reiec-
tion of the claim under the act of June
81, 1890, and an appeal has been entered
Feb. %. 1901, contending that the refusal
to entertain the claim under the general
law was error. 1t is pointed out in this
appeal that the character of the claim
was apparent from the erasure of the
words act of June 81, $780, on the mar
gin, and from the allegations as to ser
vice and disability.
There is force in these contentious,
and the facts mentioned, with others here