Sunday Washington globe., 1902-03-16

Take the other side Of the widows law in
the claims filed prior 10 this amendment OF
May 9, 1900. Hauison's administration al
lowed exempt $3.50 income. There Evans
is rejecting as many as possible by sham
devices in order TO compel them 10 rehle
under the May law and lose all the pension
prior to this rehling He even charges the
earnings of the widow and children as part
Of the 500 income (which is all he allows as
exempt in those cases. where the family
live together on a small poor farm worth
$500 or $1,000 and her sons and daughters
who are grown work the farm without hire
a charity gift to her support and the
rental value of the farm would be about $50
There he charges up the gross products OF
the farm, although she has only a dover
third, and he allows nothing for labor, al
though twO-thirds Of the products are due
to labor (the tenants share If rented).
Thousands of cases of this kind, even where
the children are 80 years old, can be found
on the rejected files during Evans FIVE
years. This is in violation of the June law
and the decisions rendered by Assistant
Secretary Davis in ninth volume; but Evans
does not permit any more such decisions to
be rendered. The board of appeals is held
mute on such subjects. In such cases the
widow, in law and fact, is entitled TO only a
third of a third of $50, but because the
labor Of the children and the children's
legal share of the crops from the undivided
two thirds Of the landare put into the same
crib with the widows one-ninth, and all
amount to over 500 gross Evans rejects
such claims The children really consume
or live up their own shares. (See GLOBE,
January S. 1902 He holds that they must
I've rs So H..
judge not only because he lacks an educa-
ton, but also because he is devoid of
spirit of justice and honesty necessary to
discriminate the simplest affairs OF life.
The only change made in. the widows
law by the amendment of Nav 9, 1901 was
20 limit net income generally to $3.50. This
was just provision and should be followed.
The dependent law does not undertake to
support widows
In this same connection Evans propen-
sity and uncomfortable desire to prevari-
cate, misrepresent and falsify where
straightforward, manly course would better
have accomplished the same result in
legal way, cropped out in his methods to
prevent Commissioner Raum's order I64
from being restored for rating new. law
cases the same as the old-law cases are
rated, between 50 and SI2.
Evans propensity carried him 70 the ex-
tent of preventing Congress from inserting
in the law the words total inability to per-
form any manual labor" a $50 disability for
SI2 rate, which Evans had unlawfully, by
pretended construction Of the law, foisted
into that law in place of the words "inabil
ity to earn a support by manual labor"
two phrases which are not at all similar, and
bear no analogy to each other by any
analysis of the English language GLOBE,
Dec. /, Jan. 26.)
The last phrase is fully complied with by
lack of So in ability to perform the labor
Of an able-bodied man; whereas the first
phrase requires a man to be almost of his
feet
When the ant-pension leaders concluded
to go back on the election promises for cor
rectly constituting the pension laws, the best
men IN the aut-pensiOn junto were for hav-
ing Congress put Evans clause in the June
law by amendment
That would have left clean work after the
law should have been amended; and Evans
therefore opposed it, When the c. A. r.
encampment at Philadelphia passed its
resolution for the restoration Of that lawful
construction by Harrison't administration,
and averred that il believed such construc-
ton to have been the only legal construc-
ton, (See GLOBE Dec ] aud Feb. 23)
President Mckinley sent for Evans (see
GLOBE Jan. 26), who advised the President
then to ignore it, and not to mention the
subject in his message, assuring the Presi-
dent that the construction requiring a $40
disability for a $I2 rate. as given in order
225, is the correct construction followed by
Evans), and that Harrison's administration
IN the Weike decision 10 P. d. 1q3) had
really adopted the same construction. This
advice to the President was false in fact, in
law and in good politics In China the
emperor beheads an official or compels dis
emboweling for giving the crown false ad-
vice. Evans propensity TO false propo-
sitions led him to attack the Harrison ad-
ministration at the Philadelphia National
encampment about this order I64 which the
veterans were demanding. He declared
that the Harrison administration never
adopted it, but that il was foisted onto
Assistant Secretary Bussey by arti6ce, who
never saw it, and as proof said it was signed
by Bussey's stamp Evans at the time
knew positively that Bussey had approved
il after full consideration with President
Harrison and Secretary Noble, and had sus-
tanned it in a ruling 1.-THE Weike decision, 6
~ WAANA A|NhAs AleiA DGGu lAAalE present
ing as practically annulling it," (See
Evans annual report 1899, page 3e Evans
knows that often the mere assertion of an
official will be taken for granted as true,
especially if he sets out a copy of the thing
or decision which he misrepresents His
followers will accept it without analysis OF
reading. That is why Evans copied the
Weike decision in his annual report with
that assertion.
Evans did not deceive Congress on the
Weike decision. Congressman Curtis, in
January, on the floor of the House declared
that the Weike decision contained no such
doctrine as Evans contended for If you
will turn to that decision you will see that
It sustained Commissioner Raum through
out 1t clearly shows that both old law and
new law rates should be based on inability
to perform manual labor. Weike was a
pensioner at IS under the old law for
rheumatism and resulting disease Of heart
of service origin; and he applied to be
transferred to the new law for the same
disease and the additional diseases of
urinary trouble, dyspepsia, and habitual