The National tribune., 1901-02-14
REASONABLE DOUBT.

| A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Commissioner Evans Jared very badly
at the hands of his -townsman. Rep
resentative III. Il. Gibson, of Tennessee,
in speech the latter made in the House
Jan. 81.
In a previous speech Representative
Gibson had shown :, very thoroughly the
Commissioners absolutely indefensible ex-
actions in the matter of evidence. Mr..
Evans attempted to defend himself in a
letter which was read by Gen. C. IL.
| Grosvenor, and which contained the fol-
lowing:
In reply to a question by Hon. Mr. Glib
| son, as follows: rs there any law that
requires the Pension Bureau 10 be salts
| fed beyond reasonable doubtl' L an
swered as follows: Il do not know that
there is. 1t is customary in all courts"
After dissecting some of the Commits
sioner's previous eyasions and tergiyersa-
tions Mr.. Gibson said:
The COMMISSIONER letter shows on its
face that | twice propounded to him the
question whether proof beyond n reasona-
| bic doubt was not required by the Pen
| sion Bureau, and on his own showing he
| evaded an answer to my first question,
and when l pressed him for answer he
says he answered that he did not know
whether such was the rule or not, but
that such rule was customary in all
courts"
SO L am abundantly content to let this
issue be determined by the Commission
ers own letter. L will add, however, that
1t would not be safe for the honorable
Commissioner to appeal to the Invalid
Pension Committee on this question.
take it, Mr.. Chairman, that Com
missioner Evans either did not know what
| the rule of evidence was in his Bureau,
or else did not consider the full effect of
the rule. This is charitable view of
the matter.
1t is very clear from this that not only
Mr.. Gibson, but all the members of the
Invalid Pensions Committee have become
tiresomely familiar with Mr. Evans's gen
eral trickiness and absolute unreliability
Continuing, Mr. Gibson said:
The honorable Commissioner insists
that the reasonable-doubt rule is "cus-
toInary in all courts" l beg leave to say,
SIR. Chairman, the Commissioner is griey-
ously mistaken in this matter. Instead
of such rule being customary in all
courts" there is not 4 court in the United
States or in the British Empire where
such rule prevails in civil cases. The
rule of reasonable doubt is applied only
in criminal cases. L hope the honorable
Commissioner does not mean to insist, or
to even insinuate, that pension claim is
IN the nature OF criminal suit against
the Government
That is the gist of the whole matter.
Mr.. Evans insists that a pension claim
IS in the nature of a criminal proceeding,
with the conditions reversed, and the
claimant being required to produce
stronger proof than the State would to
hang him.
AS to what sis customary in all courts"
Mr.. Gibson said:
In note to section 13a of Greenleaf
on Evidence Q5th ed, p. 25) the rule as
10 the quantity of proof required is stated
thus:
There seems to be al The present time
no exception in the United States to the
two rules ~ that in criminal cases the
jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt by the proof, and (2) that in civil
cases they may decide upon the mere pre-
ponderance of evidence"
That is the rule that is customary in
all courts" No exception TO it in the
United States" says Greenleaf, stand
ard authority on questions of evidence.
A mere preponderance of evidence is all
that is necessary in civil case, and yet
the Pension Bureau for years has been
enforcing the rule applicable to criminal
cases. Right here, Mr.. Chairman, | be-
ileye is the secret of the unpopularity of
the Pension Bureau and the cause of the
injustice it has done.
In the courts of the United States a
claimant can recover judgment Of a mil
non dollars on a mere preponderance of
proof in his favor, but in the Pension
oureau, in order to get pension of So
Il month, you must prove your case be-
yond reasonable doubt; that is, you must
make the same quantity of proof you
would be required TO make to convict Il
man Of murder in the first degree. In
short, the claimant in a pension case is
treated as though he was proving a crim-
nal case against the Government instead
of q civil case. No wonder so many old
soldiers and widows have failed to prove
their claims to the satisfaction of the
Pension Bureau,