Sunday Washington globe., 1902-03-16

See Brick. insane, II p d case 80,
January 27, ioo2) Evans misrepresenta-
tions and willful persisteucy for three
years in this unlawful scheme against
guardians, convict him Of premedtated
crime,
The reason why Evans is pensioning
$4,000 wealthy aud well.to-do widows as
dependent, although they have as high as
$4,000 in net property or have an annual
net actua income salary of from $500 to
81 900, is that he is 'robbing Peter TO pay
Paul"
He went into a collusive scheme with the
G. A. K. committee Of 1900 to defeat the
Philadelphia resolution for rating veterans.
in accordance with order I64 Of Harrison's
administration, under the new law at the
same rates, between 50 and SI2, for the same
classes of diseases as they would be rated if
pensioned under the old law This was the
requirement of the Philadelphia resolution.
When finally this amended widows law was
passed, as engineered by Evans with the
connivance of the G. A. X. committee the
newspapers pointed out that the G. A. K.
committee had been guilty OF breach of
trust, and had entirely thrown the old SOL
dier overheard at Evans dictation the act
MAY g Iooo) giving the veteran no benefit
whatever and that more claims of poor
widows would be rejected under the amend
ment limiting actual net income to $3.50
from all sources general limitatiOn) than
would be allowed by the change of law, be-
cause heretofore the law did not limit the
income generally and did exempt all her
earnings. The amendment made no change
except the limit income. II was plain that
Evans had engineered a coup against
widows with the consent of the 6. A. r.
committee in drawing up the widows
amendment; because widows with small
earnings and small income from property
would by this Joint income reach Saso actual
net above taxes and repairs 70 property, and
would be injured by the amendment by
being barred through this general limit to
income; whereas the law, before the amend
ment exempted all her earnings, no matter
how large. No person can doubt that this
was only Just limitation in a dependent
pension law, and should be strictly fol-
lowed where the actual Joint net income of
the alleged dependent exceeds $3.50 The
G. A. r. committee then saw what a trap
Evans had set for them, and they must dis
semble, and there was some blue" talk
In order to hush the matter up il was ar
ranged that the Interior Department Glitch
cock should not construe the widows Sec
tion Of the May law, but should give the
appearance of constituting il by copying the
law in the secret deciaion which was to
construe the veterans branch of the amend
ment as giving him no benefit, and that
Evans, by his own pretended construction,
should ignore the clause of the law which
prohibits pensions to wealthy widows and
should ignore the general Limitation against
income which limited all income generally
to $3.50 actual net, whether from labor OF
not; and that Evans should strike ali out
and read the law as if il had been written to
pension all widows, without regard to their
wealth, whose actual net income from
property was not in excess of $3.50, without
regard to their earnings. (See GLOBE Dec.
IS, 1901, and Jan. 40, 1902 Hitchcock did
not dare 10 publish hls decision a course
never before taken with a new law.
The deal was in plain violation of the ex-
plicit language and positive prohibitions Of
the law The law as il stood before the
amendment was an inadvertence and
travesty on dependent pension law for 1t
pensioned widows who were in business at
high salaries. No argument can reconcile
such provision with dependent law. The
widow stands on a different footing from
the veteran. He is not pensiOned because
of his dependence, but because of his ser.
vice aud disabilities. The condition of the
widows June law before this amendment
as to income, was a grave mistake OF over
sight in drawing the law. A general limi
tation on income in a dependent law is
necessity, and is not a clause discourag
ing personal efforts, because the pension
itself is too small for that No widow
would give up lucrative employment Of
q Eo, st,
a small pension of $50 per year. Such
proposition is prepOsterous with sane
widow, and only competent widows can OBJ
tain such employment
Therefore, when the widows law was
amended, Congress. supposing the limit
was in good faith, very properly put in the
general limitation on income against treat
ing these salaried women as dependent
The same IS true as to assets. A dependent
law which pensions widows worth $4,000
is not dependent law at all. The amended
widows law made no change in the word
ing as to property. The decisions and prac-
tice Of the Interior Department was to re-
ject when the property of the widow
amounted to other means of support
than her daily labor" although she had no
income therefrom. There were hundreds of
decisions holding that assets alone without
income, was a bar to pension when it
amounted to means of support" or was
susceptible of conversion into money. Wit
ness this decision: "A widow in possession
Of unincumbered real and personal property
assessed at 5000, is not without other
means of support than her daily labor"
Bishop s, P. D., 357; Dig 1897, p. 5O4.)
widow to be legally entitled to pension
under the amendment of May g. 1900, must
be, (Ist without other means of sup
port than her daily labor" and (2d) such
widow must be without an income in ex-
cess of $3.50" annually. The widow must
come within both conditions. In plain vio-
lation of these two positive requirements,
Evans is secretly pensioning wealthy wild
ows having large salaries. We say secretly,
because the instruction is given by word Of
mouth only Neither Hitchcock nor Evans
has put his signature to such instructions.
The instructions are sent around verbally
to the clerks. You may find memoranda il
the desks Of the clerks made by the clerks
themselves to disregard amount of property
and to disregard all income from salaries