The National tribune., 1902-01-23
NOT A SHADOW
OF A DOUBT
OF the Right of a Blind Veteran
TO His Pension.
Emphatic Language OF the Assistant Sec
retary in Reversing MIR. Evans.

tn the general law pension case of Jacob
s. Clark. the claimant was pensioned nj
$50 for total inability to perform any
manual labor by reason of disease OF eyes
piles and disease of heart resulting from
rheumatism On application FOR increase
the rating of $50 under the act Of July
IA, 1892, for disabcment requiring fire.
euent and periodical aid and attendance
of another person, was allowed. This ac-
ton was appealed from. contendlng for
the ST2 rating for disablement requiring
regular and constant aid and attendance.
The decision asst Secretary Campbell,
Nov. %, 1901) says:
That this appellant is so totally and
permanently helpless from dis
ease contracted in the service and line
of duty as to require the regular personal
aid and attendance of another person,
and that he is, consequently, as Is pro
vided by the act of March i, 1880, 'en-
titled to receive pension at the rate of
S72 per month from Dec. 13, 1899, the
date of the certificate of the
Board of Surgeons showing such degree
of disability is, in the judgment of the
Department, shown beyond the question
OF doubt. And that he is, and has been
since the date of the certificate of such
examination, for all practical purposes,
totally and permanently blind is, it is
thought. equally well established.
"The only point in the case about
which there seems to be any doubt what
ever is the question. Has the appellant
any perception of light in either eye? He
says, himself, that he has not; but he is
contradicted upon this point by DR.. AL
corn, who, as hereinbefore shown. testified
that he could distinguish light. hut that
he cannot see any object and that he
is practically blind However, the Ques-
ian IN rr.ba h.
cannot distinguish daylight from darkness
is scarcely vital point in the case. A
pan who might be sensible of the fact
that the rays of bright light were
thrown upon his eyes and yet be unable
to distinguish any object whatever can
not be said to have even the slightest de-
gree of useful vision, and must be re-
Earded as being, for all practical pur-
poses, wholly blind. As far as the sense
Of vision is concerned. he would be as
helpless as man with total atrophy of
both optic nerves or one who had had
both eye-balls enucleated.
Dr. Alcorn, whose testimony has just
been referred to, was, as heretofore
pointed out, the official expert by whom
the claimant was last examined. 1t is
deemed important to note that although
this Examiner stated in his certificate
of such examination, dated April %. 1900,
that the claimant had one two-hundredth
deposition before Special Examiner less
than. three months later that the left
eye is sightless'
In view of the facts presented and
the evidence adduced in the premises, it
is not apparent by what process of reason
Ing the Bureau reached the conclusion
that the claimant required the frequent
and periodical, though not regular and
constant, personal aid and attendance of
another person. and consequently adjudi-
Gated the claim for increase herein con-
sldered nnder the provisions of the act
eI July IL, lS92, instead of under those
of the act Of March 4, 1890.
If the provisions of the act of March
y, 1879, were taken into consideration at
all when such claim was adjudicated, it
would seem as though the Bureau thought
that the claimant had some degree of
useful vision.
THE act Of June II, 1878, provided
that all soldiers and sailors who had lost
the sight Of both eyes in the service of
the United States should receive, In lieu
OF the pension then paid TO them the
sum Of S72 per month.
''The act of March 3, 1879. as amenda-
tory of the act of June II, 1873, provides
that the said act shall be so construed
as to include all soldiers and sailors who
have become totally blind from causes oc-
CURING in the service of the United
States.
THAT loss of sight OF both eyes and
total blindness are, within the meaning OF
these statutes, identical, cannot, it is
thought, be disputed.
Sight is defined by Gould as that
sense by which the image of an object
projected upon the retina is conveyed to
the mind
Accepting this definition Of sight as
the correct one, if no image of any object
whatever is conveyed to the mind by be-
ang projected upon the retina,' is there
bot total loss Of sight or blindness? One
witness ont Of the many that have testi-
BED In this case has stated that the ap-
pellant had some perception of light. but
even be states that the latter Is 'prac-
tically blind Light, however. can hardly
be looked upon as an object but should
be regarded as the medium by which
Images of something more material are
projected upon the retina,' and thence
conveyed to or appreciated by the mind
a person with perfectly normal vision
could go into the sunlight, turn his face
toward the sun and close his eyelids tight
", yet still appreciate or recognize the
TACT that the sun was shining brightly, but
no image Of any object placed or coming
between his eyes and the sun would be
projected upon the retina nor conveyed to
the mind, and the sense Of sight would
be absent so long as the eyes remained
closed. Opacities Of the cOrnea. such as
shown In this case, would have the same
effect az closure of the eyelds.
THAT it was the intent OF Congress TO
grant pension of S12 per month to a sol
der or sailor who was so absolutely blind
az to be incapable of distinguishing he
tween daylight and darkness, and TO DENY
such rate Of pension 10 a colder or sailor
who still retained some perception Of
Hight but was otherwise equally blind or
helpless, so far as the sense of vision Is
concerned, is, in the judgment Of the De
pnrtment. not the proper construction to
be placed upon existing laws relative to
this class of cases.
1T has not been shown as a matter
Of fact however, that the appellant in
this case has any sense whatever of what
may properly be termed sight. He says.
himseii, that he can see nothing, ard
every witness that has testified in The
case sustains him in this respect, with
one exception, and this one. Dir. Alcorn,
practically contraGicted himself when he
eeposed and said. The left eye is sight
IeEE' he hQViPp frn,.i,r.. ..l,-,