The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1902-05-01


would have eliminated himself in the eyes
of claimant by voluntarily cOnfessing to
prior marriage. The rumor of this former
marriage was evidently sub rosa in the
community after John returned home
from the army in 1865, and those inter
eSted and who heard the rumor evidently
believed that no good end could be gained
by bringing up the matter at the time OF
his marriage with claimant, and after his
marriage with claimant the same feeling
seemed to exist. Moreover, if John did
actually remain silent upon the matter
it would not have been a strange proceed
ure on his part, for it is not an uncom'
mon thing by any means for both hus
| bands and wives to conceal many things
from each other, especially regarding
questionable matters which occurred dur
ing their early life when a knowledge of
such matters could produce no present
good. but would be liable to result not only
| in domestic unhappinesS, but perhaps III
disaster to those wholly innocent as well
as to themselves.
The Department holds, under the evil
dence that the claimants knowledge of
the marriage of John and Jane Conklin
does not date prior to the period of time
| in which she filed her application for pen
sion as the widow of John COnlllin. 1t
is further observed at this point that
while one person evidently did, either IN
1896 or 1897, convey some kind of IN
formation to claimant, probably indirectly,
regarding the rUmor of the marriage of
John and Jane which had been prevalent
| over so years before, yet it seems to be
! apparent by the testimony of the said
person that such information was not
conveyed for the purpose of upsetting the
peace of mind of the claimant or for any
other Interior motive. but solely for the
purpose of putting claimant upon guard
as to Il possible obstacle which might arise
| in prosecuting her claim for pension rs
the widow of John: and, as hereinbefore
set forth, such knowledge appears to have
| been used by claimant in most COM
mendable manner. She did not believe
that the rumored facts were true, but she
| did her utmost TO get TO the bottom of
| the whole affair, and by so doing complete
| " overthrow the claim which she was
prosecuting.
Concluding as the Department does,
| that the knowledge of the marriage of
John and Jane does not antedate the sol
dier's death, the issue Immediately arises,
was claimants life with John COnklin,
covering Il period from Sept. 6, 1866. TO
Oct. IA, 1895, one of open and notorious
adulterous cohabitatiOn:
While it has been held that the act
| of Aug {, 1882, is not penal in its terms,
yet it is not to he disputed for a moment
| but that the adulterOus cohabitatiOn men
! toned in the act is, in its nature, immoral
and criminal. 1t is not enough that it be
! simply illegal from an abstract technical
| standpoint; the intercourse referred to IN
! the act must be meretriclous, and such
as is coupled with vitiated morals and Il
| lack of chastity on the part of the one
! claiming Il pension. The willingness to
forsake the path of virtue, notwithstand-
ing the fact that the pressure may be
Superinduced by extreme circumstances,
would be necessary to exist before the
term 'adulterOus cohabitation' could APP
ply. Provided the claimant had no knOw-
edge that John COnklin lacked legal
| capacity to contract because of living
undivorced wife, but, on the contrary,
was without cause for belief that either
John or herself was not free to marry;
and provided further. that during their
married life of 80 years no suspicious cir
cumStance arose which would indicate
| that their said marriage was Of doubtful
chara cter, legally, it is impossible to dis
cover any foundation on which TO rest a
charge of adulterous cohabitation. Her
cohabitation with John was certainly
open, and it was notorious enough; but it
was an open and notorious bOna-tide
marital relation, not tainted in the slight
est degree with anything immoral in the
| eyes of the community. 1t was not adul-
ferrous within the meaning of the act of
Aug. 4, 1882, for it was not of such \
nature as would support a charge suffl-
cient to justify punishment, or to deprive
her of or to compel her to forfeit any right
/ which she might have, and which might
/ be upset by reason of adultery, and this
| for the reason that she was entirely in
nOcent of any lack of chastity or of NOR
atty, but based her conduct through all
of her life upon warranted belief that
her marriage with John was valid, moral
| iy and legally.
1.-The Department holds, under the law
and facts as herein shown, that the claim
ant does not come within the terms of the
act of Aug. Z, 1882, and that she must
! be held to be the widow of Harrison
| Conklin, absolutely free and blameless
from any charge of open and notorious
aduIterous cehabitation.
The case is remanded for re-Opening
and REHABILITATION in conformity with
the conclusions herein reached"
1t is noteworthy that claimant first ap-
piled for pension on account of her see
ond husbands service. and his claim be
ing rejected on the ground that she was
not his legal wife, the effect of the hold.
ing of the Pension Bureau in her second
case was TO cut her off from all pension
| after 1882.
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE-PRE
SUAPTIONS.-In the widows pension
claim under the act of June -, 1890, OF
Annie u. Burgoyne, it appeared that
claimants deceased husband, to whom
she was married in 1888, had stated It
other persons that he had been previously
married and that his former wife was
dead. Claimant herself never heard OF
his former marriage till after his death
The claim was rejected by the Pension
Bureau in March, 1899, after special in
vestigation, on the ground that the claim
ant was unable to show that she was the
legal widOw-thrOugh her inability t
show the death of her husbands former
wife.
The decision asst Secretary Campbell
Feb 20, 1902, says:
'All efforts of the Special Examiners Il
learn something more definite as to tn,
sailors previous history and his ALLEGED
former wife have been in vain. We ar,
confronted, then, with this state of facts
Il. \ marriage between the claimant
and the sailor in 1883, followed by co
habitatiOn until the death of the sailor il
1885.
'2. No reason for questioning the valid
ity of said marriage, except the fact tina
he said he had had a former wife, VIII,
was dead.
The case is similar to that OF Car
RE Peterson III +. D.. 1897, the facts an,
holdings in which are stated in the syl
labus as follows:
Claimants marriage to the soldier i
shown by evidence of a ceremony and co
habitatiOn. The only evidence Of his prio
marriage is the testimony of his sister an,