Sunday Washington globe., 1902-03-30

no doubt smiled at his own cunning when
he wrote il II is on par with his adver-
tisements that tile President is about to APP
poiut him TO a place in his Cabinet, or ap-
point him an ambassador to Mexico in place
of General CLAYTON. The President ought
10 dismiss Evans for his recent attack on
General Clayton. II is insufferable for an
official to put out such an effusion against
another official under the same administra.
ton as Evans had published against Gen.
eral Clayton, and General Clayton's friends,
Mr. Remmell and Mr.. Henry Cooper, Of
Little Rock Ark. in the Morning Times
Of the goth instant, and other papers.
Evans closes that effusion against Clayton
with the following paragraph;
THE report that Mr. H. Clay Evans,
Commissioner of Pensions, will succeed
him clayton as ambassador to Mexico,
1000 salary was considerably strength.
ened yesterday. Mr.. Bvans did not deny
that he might get the place. He is anxious
to leave the position of commissioner.
(See Times Evans is an unconscionable
falsi6er of facts In the Evening Star of
same date he denied that Clayton would be
removed. Had he been reprimandedl But
he also said: I'm case the charges against
General Clayton had been sufficient to cause
removal from the ambassadorship to Mex
leo, Mr.. Evans would almost certainly have
been the man named TO succeed him"
(StGC of Goth instantly
Every day that the President continues
Commissioner Evans in the Pension Office
is a direct insult TO the veterans for which
the Republican members of Congress will
suffer loss Of votes at the elections next
November. This matter should be, and will
be, carried to the polls as a rebuke for the
course Of the President in sustaining man
of Evans proved rascality against the veter-
ans and the pension laws. Teach the Presi.
dent lesson on the supremacy of law. The
veterans should vote against the present in
cumbents in Congress as rebuke to the
party for continuing such a man in Office
over them after all the exposures made
against Evans Evans whole course and
advertisements prove him to be a blockhead
who thinks other people are as blind and
shallow pated as he is.
As an illustration of Evans unlawful
course in defrauding the claimants under
the new law, witness his ignoring the act of
March 8, 1896, passed for rerating claims
rejected under the new (or June) law.
After Assistant Secretary Davis ruled that
an application for pension under that law
!
mentioned or not in the application, Evans
continued to reject claims and refused to
consider rejected claims dc R0Vo unless a
separate claim was filed asking it, and he
cut out thousands of such because the
claimant asked il in the same paper in
which he alleged the new disability. This
was a clear violation of Daviss Instructions
Of July as, 1897, 9 P. D., p. SO. To illustrate
the injustice and illegality of the course,
take the case of the insane soldier, Simon
P. Eaves. in 10 P. D., where the guardian
forgot to allege the soldiers insanity. 1t il
astonishing how frequently the veteran
himself will omit his most important dis
ease.
This is probably due to the novelty Of
making out his FIRST claim. The practice
was based to catch these many cases. 1t is
not so frequent now as in the earlier stages
of the law hence the importance to Evans
fraudulent schemes of working them over
the most fruitful seasons for the greatest
fraud. In the case cited, Simon P. Eaves'
claim was rejected by Lochren, and the
guardian appealed and Davis reversed the
Bureau and ordered the allowance of the
claim for insanity from date Of FIRST filing.
Now Evans would not have reopeued that
claim and allowed it under the previous
ruling of Davis that all unalleged diseases
shall be proved up, as the guardian had not
filed a separate claim asking to have IL taken
up
Later the Department overruled Evans
refusal to consider these claims under act
March 8, 1896, but Evans simply resorted to
a refusal to call for any evidence. So, the
Interior Department requires Evans to call
for a widows declaration under the May
law, where he is about to reject her claim
under the June law for non-dependence
(See GLOBE Ian. S and March ~ The In
terror Department ordered him to draw all
widows claims previously rejected under
the June law for dependence, aud call
for applications under the May law of 1900
as soon as that law was passed.
Recently again, Evans has ordered all
these claims ignored unless the veteran
complains of injustice, or files evidence.
This is a new change which will take the
veterans several years to learn.
. One Of the most efficient plans for delay
ing claims is to change the practice on evil
deuce or papers. This cuts out at least half
of the class within the change for from one
to two years. These changes are always
laid with reference to large classes, although
the change is a mere matter of form and in
tended for mere delay. An examipation Of
the following cases in which the Bureau
was reversed will illustrate some of these
schemes similar to the Eaves case. (See
Hughes. P. d. 1872; Murry, 9 P. d. 2GI;
Hird, 9 P. d. 263 Sharon, P. d. az; Rees,
9 P. d. 435.) Other cases will be found in
volumes 10, H. and II of pension decisions
since Evans began his devious career
against the Civil War veterans OF these
the case of Rohn, 10 P. D., and Peters, 9 P.
D., overrule Evans on his practice of divid-
ing up disabilities for the mere purpose of
rejecting the claims under the new law