The National tribune., 1902-09-11

and he has an NJKal right to another medi
cal examipatio4 under such circumstance
prior to the adjudication and rejection o
his claim. These rights should not be de
MED, nor should testimony be ignored.
1.-The survivors of the war of the rebel
| lion are all past the meridian OF life, an,
! their ranks are being rapidly depleted
| They are now especially liable to acces
sions of disability or the occurrence OF sud
den and serious affections. When sucl
survivOr-an applicant for pension or in
crease of pensionAbecomes seriously dis
abled after his Official examination, it ma.
| work a hardship or jeOpardize his right
to refuse him another examination befor
the adjudication OF his claim. Create
care should be taken in this class o
cases"
INCREASE OF. PENSION-RE
SULTANT DISABILITY.-In the gen
eral law increase pension case of SpirO V
Bennis the claimant was in receipt of pen
sion on account of disease of left eye re
sulting in loss Of sight of same. H'
claimed increase on account of loss of sigh
of other eye as a result of pensiOned cause
The Pension Bureau rejected the claim OF
the ground that loss of sight of right ey'
was not connected with pensioned dis
ability. The decision on the appeal from
said rejection says asst Sec'y Campbell
July II, 1902: "The evidence, the history
Of the case and the pathology of the dis
ease of the eyes will sustain the appel
lant's contention.
ut seems to, the Department that it i.
not necessary in this case to determine
whether or not the right eye was affected
by the disease in the service in view OF
the fact that said eye has been certainly
since 1868 affected by an inflammatory
nropacc which could bnva hoou aouSpd nv
sympathy. The medical evidence shows
that the iritis in left eye extending to the
ciliary body, and as it is well known that
the disease under these circumstances fire.
quently becomes the starting point of a
sympathetic inflammation the probability
that such was the fact in this case is toe
strong to be denied, and his blindness must
be regarded as the result of his service
The action complained of is accordingly re-
versed and it is directed that the claim be
readjulicated and rate allowed for the
disability resulting from disease of both
eyes,"
PRESUMPTION OF
LEGALITY.-In the pension case Of the
widow of Fritz Schneider the rejection
Jan. 13, 1900 was based on the familiar
ground Of claimants inability, though
aided by a special examination, to prove
death or divorce of soldiers former wife,
and hence that she is his widow The
decision on the appeal from the rejec-
tion says asst Sec'y Campbell, May 10,
1902: 1.-THE marriage in issue on its face
was valid. 1t was regularly entered into
and the parties lived together as man and
wife for a period Of nine years, and were
known as man and wife in the communi-
ties where they resided, and, SO far as the
record discloses, no one ever called such
marriage into question until after claim
for pension was filed. 1t was then shown
that the soldier had been married in 1865,
and no positive proof Of the death or
divorce of the wife of that marriage could
be furnished by claimant or secured on
special examination.
"In this caSe Che special examination
was conducted in 1898 and 1900, 26 and
% years afterdthe disappearance of SOL
dier's first wife, ana no trace of her was
discovered. Whiieit is true that if the
soldier drove her away by inhuman con-
duct, or if she left him to accept and live
with another man. that her absence is
accounted for, still there are other ele
ments entering into the case from which
her death may be presumed in 1886, when
the marriage in issue was consummated,
and this because to- hold otherwise would
be to rob one of the strongest presump-
tions known to- the law (that of innocence)
of its force and effect.
''In the case under consideration the
claimant has established marriage to the
soldier in 1856, by the law Of Ohio, and
she lived with him as his wife until his
death, in 1895, and bore him two children.
Up to 1895 the validity of the marriage
was not questioned, until one affiant
stated the soldier had been married in
1865, and the wife of the marriage left
him 1871 or 1872, and has never been
heard from since. The special examina
ton was then conducted, and because
proof was not secured showing that the
first wife was dead or divorced in 1886,
when the marriage in issue was entered
into, the claimant was denied q pension.
This is not the law. The Department
has repeatedly held it to be the law that
in absence Of proof to the contrary, Il
solemnized in accordance with
due forms Of law is presumed to be valid.
''See Jennette Burton e P. D., 81;
Louisa G. Germain III P. D., 66); Nora
O'Brien az P. D., 32); Esther A. Palmer
Q1 P. D., 32O).
closed by the evidence in this case, it is
clear the claimant would be recognized as
the widow of the soldier in Ohio and
Michigan, and as such widow is entitled
to pension, if the other requirements of
title are established.
''The action of the Bureau from which
appeal was filed is reversed"
In the pension case of the widow of
Michael Fisher the rejection (April, 1902
was based on the ground Of claimants
inability to furnish the evidence neces-
sary to complete the claim" the particu-
lar evidence held lacking appearing to be
that required to show claimant the legal
widow of the soldier. The decision on
the appeal from said rejection says asst
Sec'y Campbell, July u, 1902:
"The Department is in doubt rs to the
real cause of rejection Of this claim. The
language Of the rejection is vague, uncer-
tain, and indefinite, and il the above cause
torney it is small wonder that confusion
has resulted. The cause of rejection
should set out what evidence was neces-
sary to complete the claim. This not hav-
ng been done the purposes of this appeal
can only be met by careful review of the
evidence in order to ascertain if all the
to title to pension have been
supplied.
'"The marriage in this case is shown to
nave been performed in the State of Texas
n accordance to legal forms, and the evil
lence shows that the parties lived to-
,ether in said State as husband and wife
'or 10 years, the soldier dying July IL,
1888. The claimant states she was mar
led and so was her husband before the
marriage in issue, but that both spouses
we're dead when said marriage was enter
ID into. There is mot scintilla of evil
ience to the contrary, and, in fact, there
s evidence in corrobOratiOn of the fact that
10Th were dead and the parties at liberty
% enter into q new contract. There is
g., A.