Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-07-23
No Charges Against Commissioner
Evans.
e Editor Of The Evening Star:

To the Editor of The Evening Star:
General Sickles bases his demand for the
summary removal of the commissioner Of
pensions on an alleged promise made to
him prior to the last presidential election
by certain representatives of the republic
can party with the knowledge and approval
of the President that the commissioner
should be removed, ipso facto. after that
election. OF course, if there was such an
arrangement it was made because of clear,
specific and uncontradicted charges against
the official character of the commissioner
charges so serious and conclusive that
President Mckinley had no recourse than
to require that officer at once to vacate
his position. Now, If Commissioner Evans
was thus impeached and the President was
fully convinced of his guilt why In the
name of common justice. was he not then
and there removed? Why was he retained
d day after his official malfeasance, or
whatever his offense was called. had been
made known to President Mckinley? That
is the question. And we are told that the
President. for some occult reason, made
his own reelection a condition precedent
to the dismissal of the guilty commits
SiOler. Is not this story incredible? Can
the people believe that such a uIshonorable
bargain was made? Is it not far NOR" rea-
sonable to assume that the President
found the alleged charges altogether Insult
fcient, and that therefore the commits
sioner not removed? And If the
charges that have been made public con-
stitute the sum total of those upon which
the commissioners removal was demand
ed 1t must be obvious to every minded
man that the President could not have
reached any other conclusion than that
they were utterly inadequate. But what
Were those charges? So far as I have been
able to learn Commissioner Evans has rot
been specifically accused of any official
malfeasance or misdemeanor or of my d.
rect violation of pension law, or Of not
allowing pension with the fun amount
under the law to any person entitled 10 it
Nor has the commissioner been generally
charged with official neglect or lack Of
ability In administering the affairs OF his
great office During the first four years
of his service Commissioner Evans had to
account for amount exceeding half a
billion dollars. but no critic has as yet
appeared to find word Of fault with his
management and disposition of that vast
sum. But. according to General SickIes
there appears to be feeling Of great dis
satisfaction on the part of some Of the
veterans because the commissioner has not
construed pension laws more favOrably
and because he has not shown more lib
erai policy generally in the adjudication of
pension claims. This seems to be the sum
ana burden of the generals extremely in
definite complaint, for he does not so far
as l am aware. point out single instance
where the commissioner displayed an illib-
eral policy or where a claimant cid not
get all the law allows 1t should rot he
overlooked that the commissioners dis
erection Is limited by acts of Congress- and
that in adjudicating pension claims he has
no right to be influenced either by senti-
ment or by prejudice. To call him 70 judg-
ment and demand his dismissal because he
has failed to satisfy everybody would be-
1t appears to me, the veriest travesty Of
justice.
I doubt If there Is a man in the rublic
service who could retain his place for q
day II dissatisfaction with his official con-
duct. expressed by somebody, were suffi-
cient cause for his discharge.
A word concerning the veterans. be-
ifeve that they are entitled to the most
generous consideration. and I am in favor
OF the most liberal pension policy They
are rapidly passing away. They gave the
best of their young lives for their coun-
trys sake. Many of them starved in
prison deRs. Many enriched our soil with
their blood. Many. MANNED and wrecked
in health. are still with us. We cannot
do too much for them and theirs God
forbid that they should crave the country's
bounty as dishonored mendicants!
DE WITT c. SPRAGJYE;