Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-09-05
TO CONSTRUE A LAW
Union Veterans Who Served
in the Confederacy.
0P MONS DIFF ER
DATE FROM WHICH PENSIONS
BEGIN IN DOUBT.
Attorney General Says From Date of
Original Filing of Claims-Com-
missioner's View.

1t is likely that a very interesting con-
troversy will take place over the act of the
last Congress- providing that veterans of
the Union army who were in the confeder-
ate service prior to their enlistment under
the American flag should receive pensions.
Under the law of 1890 this class of veterans
were pensioned. but almost Immediately
ruling was made by the commissioner OF
pensions at that time which made their
prior service in the confederacy act as
bar to the granting of a pension. From
that time until the passage by the last Con-
gress of public resolution AZ, which was ap-
proved by President Roosevelt, July 1, 1892,
the subject of extending the benefits of pen
sions to this class of soldiers has been agi-
tated.
The question that will be of widespread
interest is whether these pensions are to
cate from the time of the original filing of
applications under the law of 1890, or fr m
the filing of the applica ton after the pas
sage of resolution ~ by the last Congress.
On this question will depend the payment
of about $5,OO0,000 to Union veterans wi-o
early in the war fought on the side of the
south. This estimate is made from very
general Information, and may be far from
correct, but the amount is likely to be with
In million of dollars way another.
Under the law of 1880 there We're about
20 0O0 applications filed from this class of
veterans Some of these applications came
in in 1890, and most of them We're received
within few years OF that date. Tie pen
sions, when granted, will be from So to $12
Fer month, and if they are computed from
the date Of application thousands of these
veterans will get several hundred dollars
as their first payment.
The pension office has accurate esti-
mate of what the aggregate payment on
this account will be, but in 1897 rough
estimate was made, which placed the total
at aho Cipcp han ha aoonl
has easily doubled and very roughly it is
estimated that this act of Congress will in
volve the payment of Slo,coo,"t0 to this
class of veterans if it is decided to be
troactive, and half that much if it is to
date after the passage Of the recent act.
Basis of Controversy.
This question has got into a condition to
give rise to a controversy from the fact
that recently a decision was made by the
Attorney General to the effect that the act
of July !, 1902, was retroactive in effect.
This decision was sent by the Secretary of
the Interior to the commissioner of pen
sions. The decision of the Attorney General
was based on the wording of the act which
declared that the act of June 81, 1899, is
construed and held to include all persons"
etc. 1t was argued by the Attorney General
that Congress merely construed former
law which was equivalent to a declaration
lldl tHe commissioner OF pensions haQ erred
in not having construed it from the passage
Of the original act in 1890. That being the
case, an error had been made by not having
paid these pensions from the date of the
original filing of the claims.
When this decision came into the posses
sion of the commissioner of pensions he
gave another Interpretation to the law. He
said that further on in the act it was de-
clared that section 4716, Revised Statutes
of the United States, is amended according
ly,' &c. He took the view that an amenda-
tory act is not retroactive in the absence of
a specific declaration to that effect. There
was no such specific declaration. The act
also further amends the law of 1890, and
these amendments are of a nature that
We're not affected by the former declara-
ton about the construction of the act.
At this stage in the proceeding the At
torney General Withdrew his opinion, and
it was suggested at the time that no opin-
ion on that matter had been called for be-
cause no claim under the amendatory act
of July l. 1892, had been allowed. When
the first claim is allowed 1t will date only
from the filing of the claim after July /
last. 1t will doubtlessly be appealed to the
Secretary of the Interior, who will have
the opinion of the Attorney General and
the views of the commissioner of pensions
before him on which to render a decision.