The National tribune., 1901-05-09

ability, or else suffer death, now to den
him pension OIL account of such disabilit
upon any legal techHicaity. His activ
loyalty to the Government of the Unite
States was the direct cause which place,
= him under the dire circumstances b.
which he became thus disabled, withou
any fault on his part, unless it be consid
cred q fault that he submitted at all {,
the requirements of his captors. But, i
appears. il was submission either to theS
requirements or TO probable death, and t.
a fruitless death at that, of nc avail /,
! his country in its peril
Il am aware that to hold that one i
entitled TO pension on account of disa
bility which is thus incurred while he i!
: engaged in active reasonable acts direct
t ed against and of great immediate dam
, age and injury TO his country and fellow
countrymen is opening the door, possibly
TO those who are inclined TO defraud, ant
that the granting of pensions in Sucl
cases may influence others similarly sit
uated in the future to accede more readily
than they otherwise would TO such re
quirements by their captorS to engage ii
active operations against their own coun
try when they consider that they may re-
ceive n pension on account of any diSa.
bility incurred while so engaged. and not
withstanding the trcaSonable character OF
such operations.
But is is not intended hereby TO estab.
lsh any general rule for application TO all
| such cases. Each case must be decided
upon its own facts-the necessity under
which the party acted, his own good faith
in the matter, and all the attendant cir
| cumStances of the case showing that the
duress under which he was acting was
absolute, certain, unqualified, and vital;
that he had well-grounded fear for his
life, and that his own life was, in all
probability, at stake"
| SPECIAL EXAMINATION - UN-
FAIRNESS AND BIAS OF SPECIAL
EXAMINER-In the pension case of the
widow of Maxim Darden the pensioner
was dropped from the roll under the act
of Aug. Z, 1882 because of alleged open
and notorious cohabitation." This action
was based on an investigation conducted
| by Special Examiner of the Pension Bu-
reau. Her application for restoration was
| rejected on the evidence obtained by the
| Special Examiner, Notwithstanding the
controverting evidence filed in support Of
her application. 1t appears that on Sept
%, 1897, the case was submitted to Com
missioner Evans for his personal cOnsid-
GRAFTON, and notwithstanding the state
ment of the facts as prepared by the Re
viewer, the Commissioner declined to re-
open the case. The statement prepared
by the Reviewer and submitted TO the
Commissioner is as follows:
THE question now arises as TO whether
the facts as shown by the evidence bring
her case within the meaning of the act
of Aug. Z, 1882, and warranted the dis
continuance of her pension.
In examining the papers in the case,
in order to give a full and explicit an
swer to the letter of Hon. ]. A. Hemen-
way, which is hereto attached, and which
hrir, 20, ,.l fla 81 \
am persuaded that the action of this Bu-
reau in dropping pensioners name from
the rolls was an error, as the evidence
fails to show that she has been guilty Of
the open and notorious adulterous cohabi
tatioD contemplated by the act mentioned.
Il will briefly outline the reasons which
have led to this conclusion. First, it will
appear that the question of her right to
draw pension was raised by Special FIX
aminer r. y. Nall, and he recommended
her name to be dropped from the rolls in
his preliminary report, stating in conclu-
sion that there is not a possible
probable shadow of doubt as to her
guilt She had been given no chance
to prove her innocence, and the
wording of the Special Examiners prelim-
mary report shows that he was not en-
tirely free from bias against claimant.
His subsequent reports show that he con-
tinued to entertain and manifest the same
prejudice. It therefore becomes necessary
to carefully study his report, and all the
dispositions taken by him, in the light of
his leaning, in order to get at the true
condition of affairs.
In examining the evidence it appears
to be chiefly negative in it's character,
nearly all the witnesses who do not testify
directly in claimants favor state that
they have no personal knowledge of claim
ants immoral conduct, that they are not
part, and had she been guilty taey believe
they would have known it. They further
state that there has been much gossip and
neighborhOod talk concerning claimants
alleged immoral character. mostly ema-
mating from unreliable sources also, some
bantering and coarse jesting among a GER
tain class of young men about her. IL
will also be observed that number of
witnesses state that they place no reliance
in said reports, and give their reasons
therefor.
Only three or four witnesses testify |
to anything of a positive adverse charac- |
ter, and it appears that they are not
wholly reliable, and bearing more or less
prejudice against the claimant explains in |
part the motive for their statements, and |
materially affects its value.
1.-The principal witness against claim |
ant is Alexander HiX, who is shown to |
be an open enemy Of hers, does not bear
very enyiable reputation, is drinking, /
quarrelsome man, as shown by some of |
the evidence, and under all the circum- |
stances his testimony, In my opinion, |
should not be relied upon.
1.-The notice to claimant (which under |
the practice had to be specifc) advised |
her that the contemplated dropping of her
name from the rolls was on account of |
her open and notorious adulterous cohab-
itation with one Alexander Xix. She |
fled the sfidavits of Is or more witnesses
to disprove the charge and to show that |
said Hix was unfriendly to her, and did |
not bear a good reputation. There are,
however, some elements Of weakness in |
the new evidence filed, and in part 1t Is |
inconsistent and evasiye, though not upon |
essential points.
Upon consideration of all the evidence, |
however, adverse action was taken; and |
Teopening has been refused upon new and |
additional evidence filed, as it proves no
new facts For the reasons stated | am |
persuaded that the Government, which |
has the burden Of proof upon it, has not |
shown claimant guilty of open and no.
tOrious adulterous cohabtation as con-
templated by the act referred TO, and if
her name should not be restored to the
rolls upon the evidence now in the case,
the claim should at least be placed in
the hands of another Special Examiner
with instructions to ascertain the true
facts without bias.
THE claim is therefore referred TO you
for a decision in the matter, after an ex-
animation of the evidence, as it is not be-
hot nP al, b,