The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1901-08-15
DEPARTMENT NEWS.

ACT OF JUNE 81, 1S90-MAR-
RAGE AFTER JUNE 26, 1S90-MI-
NOR'S PENSION.-In the pension case
of the minors of George w. Douglas, ap-
plying under the act OF June -, Io9o:
through guardian, the widow, mother OF
the applicant was married to the soldier
after June 26, 1890, and subsequent to
the soldiers death remarked and dled.
Application for pension on behalf OF the
surviving child of the soldier by the WIZ
ow was filed and rejected by the Pension
Bureau on the ground that the parents
not being married before the date of the
act, June q, 1890, not only was the wid-
oy barred from pension under the act by
the proviso of the third section OF the
act, but the child or children Of such mar
rage are equally barred.
The decision assistant Secretary
Campbell. July 10, 19O1) says: This &C
ton evidently depends Oh the theory, be-
fore alluded to, that title in the children
Is by and through the mother WIDOW
oLly) Such theory is not considered ten
able for the reason that the general tenor
of all the laws makes the service or death
of the soldier the basis of title, SO that
the grant to minor children is separate
of and independent of that to widows,
EXCEPT that the one takes effect only al
ter the other has lapsed.
This idea of separateness OF title is
even borne out by the said third sectlsn
OF the act IL II is ItSlu III NVhJuiNliOh
with the provisions of the general law
(section 1902, Revised StatutesJ. The two
laws should be construed in pari materla,
and it may be readily perceived that 1t
was clearly the intention to embody IN a
more succinct form in SAID third section
the provision for widows and minors ID
the older law, based on the new conditions
named in the first portion of the section.
Thus construed the words such pension
shall be paid" etc, lose that peculiar
significance which it has been sought to
give them, and, instead of relating to the
pension granted and belonging to the wild
ow as such, refer specifically to the pen
sion intended to be granted on account of
the service and death of the soldier, first
to the widow, if she was married to him
prior to the passage of the act, then TO
the minor children upon her death or re-
marriage. The grant in this section is in
effect the same as that under the general
law, and was meant to be so.
THUS it is clear that the prOviso to the
third section, already quoted, has no ref
erence to the title of a minor under the
act, and since such minor is held to have
title in its own right, under this law, as
under previous laws, it need not be ques-
toned whether the parents were married
before or after the passage of the act so
long as legitimacy as a child of the sol
der can be established, and it is shown
that there is no widow surviving and IN,
married.
lit is believed this view will bear the
test of sound reason and is the only just
and logical Interpretation Of the matter il
issue.
1T is held, therefore, that the rejection
Of the claim for the reason stated was er-
Tor and the action is reversed"
WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE-PRE
SUMPTION.-In the pension case of the
widow of Peter Dorgan, applying under
the act of June u, 1890, the claim was
first rejected on the ground that claimant
was not shown to be the lawful widow oil
the soldier, and that, moreover, the sol
der was not shown to be dead. On ap
peal this action was reversed and thu
Pension Bureau thereupon again rejected
the claim on the ground that there is NJ
satisfactory evidence In the case that thu
soldier was not in the military or nava
service of the United States during tn,
war of the rebellion prior to Nov. q, 1861
or subsequent to Sept. Z, 1863, and tn
claimant has declared her inability to fur
nish the same"
A new appeal was taken, contendin;
the insutticiency of the new ground of re
lection. The decision assistant Secre
tary Campbell, July 10, 1901 says: 9TH
claimant has good and sufficient reason
why she cannot furnish positive evidenc
that the soldier was not in the militar
or naval service of the United States 9th
erwise than as stated She was not maj
ried to him until 1873; the marriage oC
CURED in Ireland; she did not come t
this country until 1880; consequently sh
does not know of any persons who kneN
him during his residence here prior [
November, 1861, or between Sept. Z, 1S6:
and the date of his return to Ireland
There appear to be no reason
for suppOsing that he was IN the seryic
prior or subsequent to the dates named
except those stated by a reviewer, in
slip attached to the brief as follows
Soldier was discharged Sept Z, 1868; al
piled for pension Sept 49, 1868; was el
amined May %, 1864, and had a recor
for alleged disability. The claim was e,
tablished, and yet he failed to turtle
prosecute, and never drew pension. Their
were still opportunities for enlistment
and high bounties were then prevalen
and a great incentive. In fact, all tn
circumstances point to the probability @
re-enlistment one or more times. In fac
he may have been a successful bounty
jumper. At least soon after, he was abb