The National tribune., 1903-05-14

and beyond the front in the discharge oi
| his duty, and thus lost his life. WheI
dying he may have been alone without any
person near or if any were there they were
| entire strangers and unfriendly 10 him and
he to them, and perhaps they did not even
! known his name. 1t was clearly proven rs
! to lis condition when he was left, and the
probability of his not surviving. Still, the
case hung on that technicality. and the
claim was regarded with suspicion until
the father died in destitution and want,
These curious decisions and holdings
were not confined to the Pension Office.
Here are two cases coming under The
| Quartermaster's Department.
LOYALTY UNREwARDED.
The first was loyal citizen of Blount
County, Tenn. He was a man of proni-
nence in his community, a prosperous
farmer, who never drew breath of SYM
patty for the Confederacy. but was unal-
terably and radically loyal to the Union.
He was Justice of the Peace, and
represented n loyal district in the County
Court. AS best lie could he defended the
rights and property Of his constituents
in that body many of whom were soldiers
in the Union army. He was afflicted so
that lie was not capable of bearing arms,
and yet he was so true to his convictions
that on one occasion when n raid was
threatened from the guerrillas coming
through the mountains he organized a vol
unteer company of old ncighbors like him
self and went out to meet the enemy i'll
battle.
When the Union soldiers came in, a
brigade encamped on his farm, and large
amount of forage was taken and used by
the command. He made application for
pay, but the payment was refused because
he had held Office under the Confederate
Government! Holding the Office Of JUS
tice of the Peace, which paid him perhaps
as much as $40 per year, and by holding
it he was enabled to help his loyal neigh
bors, cost him the value of large guam
titles of forage.
This same man had 4 brothcr-n-law liv-
ing a few miles away. He was also n
prosperous farmer and a good citizen. His
allegiance was at once given to the seces-
sion movement, and he was in active SYM
pathy with the Confederacy from the be-
ginning. He was not obnoxious with his
neighbors as were some, but was out
spoken and honorable in his utterances.
He was too old to enter the army, and SO
remained at home.
The Union armies came and encamped
also on his place. He took the oath of
allegiance to the United States for his
own protection when it was demanded of
him, and when it became a necessity to
do so. He was too honorable to violate
his oath, and yet his real sympathy was
well known. A large amount Of forage was
taken from him for the use of the army.
lie made application for pay, and there
was not even any hesitancy in making
the payment, because lie had taken the
oath of allegiance, when he couldn't helm
1t. Now, this payment to him was right,
and the proper thing to do. Still, why
should the loyal man, who had stood for
the Union in the darkest hours.
and who had never flnched, and because
OF THAI decided stand the oath was not
required or necessary, be denied the nav
for his stores! Is there mortal man or
woman that can tell? These cases pre-
sent one of those queer curiCsities in deci-
sions that is inexplicable