The Bellefontaine Republican. [volume] (Bellefontaine, Logan County, Ohio) 1855-1905, 1902-01-24

nd suitable men, then, in the absence
f fraud, the old soldier should have
he benefit OF the rating given by men
vho have personally examined him,
md not be compelled TO take the rating
If men sitting In their Offices hundreds
If miles away from the old soldier.
1t is no doubt true that there are
county pension examiners who are IL
iterate and incompetent, but that Is
no reason why the old soldier should
suffer. IL the examiners report Is not
Intelligent or full enough to show that
the local bolrd understood the soldiers
case, let it be sent back until q satis-
factory report Is made; and when 1t ap-
pears that the local board does under
stand the case, let the report stand. |
What I object to Is that these gentle
men in Washington set aside the rat
ings given by local boards, who are
just as competent to decide what the
soldier is entitled to receive as they
are. In each OF the six counties CON-
posing the district have the honor to
represent there is an examining board
just as competent to decide these ques-
tions as the medical board At Washing.
ton. Why should these local boards
be mere fgureheads? IL they have
not the power to fix q rating that will
be binding, let the power be given so
that it will be bidding except 10 case
| OF fraud or evident mistake.
Again, there seem to be rules 10 re-
gard to cumulative disabilities which
are unjust to the old soldier. ] have
known many men who are afflicted
with a number Of different disabilities
of service origin, who, under the rul-
lings, can not receive over Sit per
month, and yet they are unable to psr-
form any manual labor. They are
hand or foot, and yet these.men with
out hand or foot get $50 per month
aud that IL not too much; but the other
man, who is almost q total wreck from
hernia, rheumatism, heart disease ane
chronic diarrhea, can not, under th'
rulings get over $l7 per month. Ther'
is something wrong about the system
i One OF my constituents lately re
ceived notice Of the rejection Of BIZ
claim for increase OF pension, and the
language used was in substance rs fol
, lowe: "Your claim for increase OF pen
sion Is rejected for the reason that tn,
sl2 per month you are now receiving
: is commensurate with. your disabilitie
} of chronic diarrhea, rheumatism, hear
disease, scurvy, and consequent loss G
, teeth" | would like for the medics
board at Washington who made ths
3 ruling 10 see that old soldier Ifh
2 lived In Washington his pension woul
. not pay his dentist bill.
: Another class OF claimants whose aE
? plications are subjected TO vexatiou
and technical objections, Is the wid"'
of the deceased soldier. This is no
always the case. The Commissioner {
Pensions, when the widow IL very OIL
D or very poor. has In many cases pei
sonally gone out of his way TO hav
] such cases allowed at once; and he
: deserving OF credit for that; but necei
I sa rily he would be unable to take u
2 many individual cases.
The most vexatious and technics
e rule In this class OF cases is that whic
D requires q widow, who was marie
] during the war or before the war an
s lived with her husband for twenty O
thirty or forty years and raised fan
' lily, not only to prove with great deta
: the fact OF the marriage, but the ful
q ther fact thas although she may hav
8 lived with her husband for forty year
a | she ia also required to prove that tn
q husband and wife had never befor
e been married to any other person an
t lhave never since been married to an
t other person. In oneS..csse now pend
n ing the widow is over 10 years ole
;. She was married to the deceased 30
s Idier over fifty years ago. Her case
: held up because she has been unabl
Il to get witnesses who knew her hui
e band and herself ffty years ago wh
q can testify from their own knowledg
v that neither Of them was ever marie
s. before.
III AS I said 10 the beginning, 1 inten
: to introduce bill, and shall try
o have it enacted into law, to free tt
= Pension Office of these rules, whic
Is have been handed down from one q,
st. ministration to another, and some
which are the result of decisions
1. tee Secretary Of the Interior or b
Z. predecessors.
,el | desire to say again, In closing, tn
10 these criticisms are made not on Il
n. Commissioner of Pensions or his su
d ordinates, but upon the unreasonab
" decisions and precedents which ha
10 grown up with the years, and th
C. have the binding force Of law up
m them, and which believe they wOu
a gladly see changed.
IaI These much-needed changes l shi
p endea vor to bring to the attention
"a Congress in an amendment which
m shall offer to the existing pension Law
ty Applause
OF
ct REREI TEADER