The National tribune., 1902-01-16

| 81, 1868, and the minors having filed a
declaration presumably prior To July -,
| 1865. said declaration having been eN-
ccutcd on Dec. >. 1867. the conclusion ap-
pears to he unavoidable that this claim
ants title passed to the minor children
upon her remarriagc by virruc of the act
of March ;S. 1860.
That the rights of widow who re-
marrics were somewhat obscure and not
wholly defined by law is evidenced by the
fact that on July %, 1865. an act was ap-
proved % Stat. l.. 23II, section 10 of
said act being as follows:
THAT the rcmarriagc Of any widow
or dependent mother. otherwise entitled
TO a pension prior to the application there
for. or to the issue of pension certificate
to her, shall not dehar her right To Il pen
sion for the period Clapsing from the
death of her husband or son, on account
of whose service and death she may claim
Il pension to her rcmarrage: Provided,
however. That nothing in this section
shall he construed To repeal or modify the
fourth section of an act entitled AN act
supplementary to the several acts grant
ing pension" approved March 3, 1861
This section provided. first. that the
filing of an application by widow prior
to her rcmarriagc was not necessary in
order to perpctuatc her right, and second
the provision shows clearly that 1t was
the intent of Congress that the rights
granted in the act of March ), 1860,
should remain inviolatc. No other legIS-
latiOn upon the point ut issue appears to
have been had up to the date of the re
vision of the pension laws. which took
place under an act approved on March i,
1872 The last section quoted Is inserted
herein III order that il may be seen that
it appeared to be the intent of Congress.
not only by the act of July y, 1866, but
by the act of July 81, 1868, that the
minors rights. described in the act of
March >. 1860, should remain as granted
in the aforementioned act.
"The issue raised by the appeal in the
case at bar appears to have been hrst
raised in this Department in the case of
Catharine Jones. widow q l.. Il. =, 2S4)
In the opinion in this case Secretary Cox
held, on April 10, 1870, that widows
remarriage while her pension claim was
pending barred her title, provided there
were minor children. The issue was
again before the Department in the case
of the widow of John BOis Claise Il L.
D., O. S. 49,, dated Nov. 10, 1872. In
the opinion accompanying this case Act
ing Secretary Cowcn held that the act of
July %, 1866. and the act of July "a,
1865, enlarged the widows right to the
extent that, Notwithstanding the fact
there were minor children, the widow
would take up to the date of her remar-
riage. The decisions are silent from the
date of the aforementioned one up to Sept
10, 1880, when Acting Secretary Bell, in
the opinion in the case of Martha Watson
q =. D., o. s., 2l2l, held that the act of
March 3. 1860, placed title in the minors
if the widow remarked before payment
TO her OF any part of the pension, and
that the acts of July %, 1866, and July
-, 1868, did not alter the minors right
as described in the act of March }, 1S65
ha Of aTth a
son were identical, or rather equivalent, to
the ones in the case at bar, and the
faIlacy of the ruling made by acting Sec
retary Cowen is plainly apparent. for the
reason that he totally ignored the fact
that the act of July %, 1866, did not pre-
tend in any manner to impair the rights
bestowed upon the minors in the act Of
March 3. 1860, but simply gave the widow
n right to pension, Notwithstanding the
fact that she had remarked, If her claim
was pending at the date of her remarrlage
provided that there were no minor chill
dren: and. further, he did not take into
consideration the prOviso in the act OF
July 81, 1868, which prOviso distinctly
stated that the said act did not repeal or
modify the fourth section of the act OF
March 3, 1860.
1.-The issue in the case at bar came up
collateraIIy before Assistant Secretary
Bussey in the cases of the widow of Will
lam S. Colderan a p. D., 41S) and the
widow of Perry Jackson Is Z. D., 800.
and while, as stated, the issue was but
collateral, yet the trend Of the decisions
in the last two cases is to the effect that
the act Of March 3, 1868, placed the titlG
in the minors, provided the widow died
or REMARKED prior to the payment to her
Of any part of the pension.
at is held that on the date of the re
lection of the within-named widows
claim. viz, on March 80. 1868, the law
then in force cut off her title to any pen,
sion under her then pending claim, and
that the action of the Government IN pay
ing the pension TO the minors was IN ac,
cordance with law. 1t logically follows
that the rejection Of this widows claim
on Dec "a, 1891, should be sustained.
"a ction affirmed"