The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1903-02-19
AN INJURIOUS PROVISION.

Occasionally there crops out in pension
legislation a disposition which has the ap
pearance of desire to hamper and OBJ
struct the securing of the benefits con
ferred. by denying the beneiicares the
right to employ an attorney; making i,
necessary for them to rely upon such
gratuitOus assistance as they can secure
in the presentation and prosecution of
their claims. and doubtless resulting in
many cases in the claimants falling into
the hands of irresponsible persons who
in one way or another secure from them
as compensation amounts far in excess
% what the ordinary attorney fee would
he il the claim were prosecuted by attor-
ncys who have been regularly admitted to
practice before the Pension Bureau, and
are under the check and surveillance of
the Commissioner of Pensions.
An instance of this seeming disposition
referred to is found in the pension act of
March >. 1901. to restore the pensions of
certain remarked widows formerly pen
stoned under the general law. Sec. of
this act provides that no claim agent or
other person shall be entitled to receive
any compensation for services in making
application for pension under this act
1t is understood that some protest against
this feature was made at the time the
law was enacted. but notwithstanding the
common belief among the anti-pensiOn
press that the pension sharks are all
nj IN, fhn
sion remained unchanged, and claimants
under the law are obliged to seek such gra-
tuitous assistance as they can get. The re-
quirements of the law make the restora-
ton of the widows pension dependent
upon conditions that were not essential
in the determination of her original pen
sion title, which rather precludes any pre-
fence that all that is necessary is for the
widow to make 4 formal application for
the pension and it will be promptly award
ed her. Anyone who has had any expe-
rience in prosecuting n claim before the
Pension Bureau, even under the most
favorable conditions, knows what techni-
calities are encountered. which are often
completely discouraging to a person having
4 plain, straight case. OF course many
claimants are successful in prosecuting
their own claims, but usually require,
even then, the advice and assistance, in
some form or other, of persons better
qualified or more experienced than they
are. The great mass of claimants prefer
to and do employ attorneys, as the official
records show.
1t is noted that in n pending bill now
before the Senate, to extend the provisions
of this widows restoration act of 1901,
the same fee provision as contained in the
original law is still retained, and the COM
mittee reports are silent as to this fea-
ture, notwithstanding that serious struct-
ural defects, aside from the wrong prin-
ciple shown, have been pointed out in
proper manner. When a legislative body
or its committee deliberately interposes
provisos that have come to be well recOg-
nized as of an obstructive nature, there
is a suggestion Of lack of sincerity in
the professed desire that the bcneficiaries
of the measure shall promptly, and with
out unnecessary difficulty, or expense, re-
ceive what the law grants them.
The anti-attorney clause in the pending
bill, Fl. r. 12141, should in justice to the
claimants be stricken out and the fee law of
1884, which is satisfactory to all parties,
be made applicable to claims under the
existing law and its proposed amendment.