The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1902-12-18
DEPARTMENT NEWS.

SERVICE = ENLISTMENT AND
MgSTER-ACT OF JUNE 81. $780,
In the general law pension case of Jeffer-
eon NJ. Human it was held By the Pen.
sion Bureau that the soldier being cap
fured by the enemy before muster into
the service, and his alleged disabilities
being incurred while held a prisoner of
war, therefore his disabilities wee not in
Cured while in the military service and
are not pensionable under the &c eral law.
.Phe supplemental decision on a ,.pcai says
asst Sec'y Campbell, Sept. 20, 1902.
1.-The main issue in this case is as to
the date of commencement of service for
pensionable purposes.
Section $685. Revised Statutes, grants
q pension to-
ANY enlisted man, however employed,
II the military or naval service of the
United States, whether regu-
larry mustered or not who contracts a
disability while in the line of duty in said
eervice. Under this section muster in is
not an essential, ard the date of the mus
ter in of Human is. therefore, wholly i'm
material for the time being. The question
Is. Was he in the service? And If the
record of the War Department shows him
i. TO have been in the service, the next query
10, When did such service commence?
"Qt is again observed that the record
shows him as enlisted on Sept. z, 1862
mustered in june 30, 1868, and discharged
on July u. 1861
That enlistment as a contract is not to
be doubted; it has been SO repeatedly held
by the Supreme Court of the United
/. States. When one has enlisted, his STATUS
undergoes complete change and eli.
zen becomes soldier. Qn re Grimiey.
137 u. s., 1922 Enlistment and enroll
ment are practically synonymous terms,
SO far as the issue under consideration is
concerned, and when q man enlists be ten
ders his services as soldier i'm compliance
i. with invitations and inducements held out
by the Government. His proffered SER
vice is accepted by the Government con-
ditionally Il Winthrop on Mil. Law. 761-
100, the case being simply one of con-
ditioDal contract between an employer and
a would-be employee, in which the en-
ployer accepts the offered service for the
time being-putting off the formality of
ratifying the contract until future tune
conditioned upon certain things which
must be shown to exist on the part of the
would.be employee; If the employer, af-
ter being satisfied that those certain things
do exist. ratifies the contract. it is bind
ing from the date on which the employer
conditionally accepted the offered service.
II. in the case of soldier, he is paid from
the date of enlistment, such fact is not
per Sc conclusive that his contract with
the Government commenced on the date
OF his enlistment; yet such fact is very
strong evidence that the date of his con-
tract is identical with the date of his en-
listment
=. so far as discoverable after careful
search. it is believed that, for reasonable
purposes, the commencement of service
has been held to be that of the date of en-
listment, in general and ordinary cases,
for the past 20 years. 1t is possible that
the Department has. in some of its opn-
ions, used language that might convey the
contrary idea; but it is believed, after very
careful investigation and mature deliber-
atiOE, that such cases are rare and excep-
tioiable and against the settled opinion
of ibis Department.
The War Department, from its stand
point, does not admit that soldier Is in
the military service of the United States
prior to the date of his muster in; and
said conclusion may be correct from the
point of view of the said Department. 1t
is not for this Department to dispute it:
but such view ought not to bind this De-
partment in the matter where a soldier
claims pension, for the very cogent reason
that soldiers reasonable status is de-
scribed by acts of Congress-, the construc-
ton and application of which are vested
2 ~ law only in the Secretary of the Inter
ior. The status OF soldier as affecting
questions in other Departments is an en-
tirely different matter from that of his
pensionabie status before the Department
hef slle Interior: and the very law itself
4section 1903, r. 81 forbids to this De.
3erfment such Q conclusion as is arrived