Evening star., 1901-07-13

To the Editor of The Evening Star:
l was glad to see in your recent editorial
reply to Past Department Commander Slay-
baugh of the Grand Army of the Republic
that The Star wants to do with facts. In
that case. YOU will pardon my claiming a
small portion of your space to add some
facts bearing upon the present controversy
relative to the commissioner of pensions.
Mr.. Evans has. as you say administered
the duties of his office honestly But the
credit of being wall between the public
treasury and plundering schemers,' which
you attribute to him. is not his due. The
executive is the wall and Mr.. Evans has
simply been his instrument The commits
sioner of pensions is not responsible for the
construction or misconstruction of the chief
bones of contention-the pension act of 1890
and the amendatory act of May, 1900. He
is a subordinate of the Secretary of the
Interior and can issue no order or ruling
except such as may be duly approved by
his superior officer. All the formal deci-
slonD which settle the construction of PEN
sion law emanate from the office of the Sec
retary of the Interior not from the pension
bureau So Mr.. Evans has been governed,
IN his adjudication Of claims under the act
OF 1SsO by the decisions of the department
handed down from the last Cleveland ad-
ministration and approved for the most
part by decisions of more recent date.
Grand Army pension committee, and the
Grand Army in general, should know that
TO obtain the removal of Mr.. Evans, or his
resignation under duress. is in effect simply
TO make him scapegoat for others, and
especially the President. Mr.. Evans has
official sins of his own, to be sure; but the
great cardinal objections to his incumbency
cannot be laid at his door. The Grand Army
pension committee could have known as
nearly everybody else realized that the
proposed legislation now known as the act
OF May 2, 1890. and designed to abrogate
the construction of the pension act of 1890
prevailing since 1898, would be Intellectual
so far as regards survivors pension claims
under the act of 1890. The commissioner Of
pensions could not and did not ''construe,
that imperative legislation.
Mr.. Evans has ably carried out the men,
sion policy of the administration, which is
70 keep the pension appropriations down
IL is not to be expected that a faithful
servant of the master is subject to dis
missal at the behest of any organization.
much less at the "clamoring" of those
.l1,l %hom The Star broadly characterizes as
pIundering schemers'' and sharks
Granting that the present commissioner of
pensions Is not in high favor with the rem
resentatives Of pension claimants is The
Star willing to conclude that It is because
of his defeat of Schemes for "plunder-
ing? The Star is not true to It's own
usual attitude of fairness and Is unjust
not TO say cruel, to large number of it's
Fellow citizens, who will compare yery
iavorably as a whole with any other class
or citizens. l venture. in its characterize
tion OF the representatives before the pen
sion bureau of those whom we are told.
the nation delights to honor. Does the
press usually assume that the bar is gov
erned purely and solely by sordid motives
IN IT'S objections to the appointment or re-
tentlon of judge? Why may not the
par, If you please, of the pension bureau
have perfectly proper. legitimate and honor
able objections to Mr. Evans as commits
slcher of pensions? One needs only to ex-
anime the reported official decisions of the
interior Department in pension matters to
md something of the reason why the pres
ent commissioner of pensions Is not held
In nigh regard by those sustaining profess
slonal relations with the pension bureau
Yet 1t Is very questionable, as 1t seems
to me, whether Mr.. Evans should not con-
tinue to administer the pension policy of
the executive. 1t is not apparent what
substantial gain there would be in the ap-
polntment or new commissioner who
must. perforce, execute the pension policy
OF the administration. whatever his personal
VIEWS EUGENE E. STEVENS