The National tribune., 1903-07-16
DEPARTMENT NEWS.
Decisions of The Assistant Secre-
tary of the Interior in Pension
Claims.
DIvoRCE-ALLEGED FRAUD.

the validity of said divorce was attacked
by applicant on the ground that same was
procured by fraud and without legal no.
Pension Bureau recognizing the divorce
as valid. 1t is held asst Secretary Miller,
June 10, 1909:
.'Thc Department holds that so long
as Il decree Of divorce, prima facie valid
on its face, is iudicialiy unimpaired, it
should he accepted by the Pension Bureau
and the Department as conclusive of the
marital status of the parties, ut least
so lor:; rs the parties to the decree are
alive and the courts are omen to their re-
lief: that public policy and good admin
istrativa duty require that questions of
this nature should be left to the courts,
and that parties questioning the validity of
decree of court of general jurisdiction
over the subject-matter, colaterally, i'll
proceedings of this nature before the Bu-
reau of this Department. shouli be rele-
gated 10 the courts for their remedy. See
departmental decision in TIE case of
Cooper V. Cooper G3 Z. D., 20SD and
Powell V. Powell Gbid., 236l.'
WIDOWS DErENpENCE-AcT OF JUNE 81,
1890.
In the pension case of tie widow of
John J. Howard under the act of June
1Cbc as diittiilSu Dl luS itt VI may
8, 1860. the Pension Bureau held the
claimant not entitled on the ground that
she lis in possession of resources amply
sufficient, if prudeGtiy managed, TO secure
her Il net annual income OF more than
$3.50 The decision on appeal from this
holding says asst Secretary Miller, June
10, 1903:
when the case came before the De-
partment it was apparent at once that
claimant was Got using ordinary business
sense in the use of her property, inas-
much as she had over $4,000 in bank IL
New York at per cent. and was paying
81 per cent on $500 mortgage III Chi
cago. The papers were returned to the
Bureau il order to ascertain why claimant
did not pay off the mortgage, or SO invest
her own money that the interest on the
Chicago mortgage might not be charge.
She was cross-eXamined on this point
ami answered that Chicago mortgage was
not due and she could not pay it off.
"This claimant OWLS piece OF property,
the rental value of which is $40 per month,
and has over $1,000 in bank. This money
judicially invested should produce at
$3.50 would make her gross income
5000. Against this are charges of inter-
est of $3.50, taxes $500, making
S19O10: leaving her a net balance of
$40930 per year. Allowing 500 for re-
pairs each year, which would be excessive,
lle WUuiu SllIl nave IGllIlulli,
$309.30 annually.
..Tbe claimant contends that as she only
receives per cent. on her money in bank,
and that her tenants failed to pay rent for
a part of one year. and because her re-
pairs amounted to over $3.50 in one year,
that she does not have an actual net in
come of $3.50.
Suppose that she received no interest
on her money in bank, or that she allow
ed her house in Chicago to remain vacant!
She would derive no income at all in such
a case, yet it could not be said that she
was in such circumstances as to bring her
within the intent of the law granting
her pension.
sThis claimant has fncome-producing
property, which if reasonably cared for
would produce an income much in excess
of $3.50 per year. a, large amount of re-
pairs tending to increase the value of the
freehold, or to advance the rental value
of a house. can not be made in one year
and charged against the rents of that year
in order to bring the income down to the
legal limit These charges rightfuily
should be distributed over number of
years. Neither can a claimant in posses
sion of a large amount of money leave 1t
lying idle in bank and then allege she
has no income.
"a claimant is chargeable with fair and
reasonable results from income-prOducing
property. She is called upon to use her
money or property in such way as to
produce an income such as would natural
Iy rise from prudent use of it, and if her
actual net income is then below $3.50 she
is pensionable, otherwise not
"This claimant has means of support
in her house and money in bank, which If
conserved with reasonable care would pro-
duce more than $3.50 actual net income"
The action of the Bureau in rejecting the
claim from which the appeal was filed was
right and it is hereby affirmed
WAR DEPARTMENT RECoRD-oPINIoy
EVIDENCE.
In the pension case of the widow of
William PARCEL under the act of June q,
1880, the Pension Bureau held upon the
authority of the Record and Pension Of
flee, War Department. that the soldier
was never in the U. s. service. The de-
cision on the appeal from this holding
says asst Secretary Miller, June II,
1903:
"William PARCEL was a pepsioner under
the act of June 81, 1890, from Nov Z,
1891. to April 3, 1893. the date of his
death.
Soldiers service was not Questioned
until 1895. On May 81 of that year the
War Department submitted the following
report to the Pension Bureau:
Respectfully returned TO the Commits
sioner of Pensions. with the information
that it has been determined by this De-
partfnent that the withln-named William
PARCEL, unassigned drafted man, Ohio,
was never in the military service of the
United States, he having been rejected by
the board of examination and inspection
because of contradiction of the fiexor ten
dons of the right thigh"
"Again, in 1901. the Bureau of Pensions
applied to the War Department for in
formation, calling attention to soldiers dis
charge certificate. On May 3, 1901, this
report was rendered.:
william PARCEL, unassigned drafted
man, was not accepted into the military
service Of the United States under his
draft of June s. 1864, but was rejected
on account of a physical unftness for that
service. The discharge certificate here
with returned was improperly issued to
him and is of no value as evidence that he
was in service, since the official records
show positively to the contrary
''The claim then came to this Depart
ment on appeal. Under departmental de-
cision Of Feb. 2S, 1903, the papers were
returned to- you with instructions again
TO request information from the War De
partment why the discharge certificate
was not evidence of military service.
The War Department states that the Of
fetal records show positively that soldier
was not in the service of the United
States. The facts upon which this con-
clusion is predicated not being in evidence,
it was deemed essential that they should
be in order 10 impeach the discharge GER