The National tribune., 1903-05-07

| uiluiStlatiOup anu purify Witulu Tue PRIV
ince Of the Pension Bureau to determine
but the date of commencement Of pension
under the said resolution is another mat
ter. The action Of the Bureau in com
mencing this claimants pension from the
tdate of declaration filed after the pas
sage Of the joint resolution approved July
| /, 1902, was error. This claimant has
title to pension. il at all, under the acl
Of June "a, 1890, and his right to restora
ton to the rolls must be determined in &C
cordance with the provisions of that act
} now read as though section 4716, Revised
Statutes, had never applied to it.
THE question Of continuance Of dis
ability, or other question that may arise
in the rehabilitation OF the claim. nre to
be determined in accordance with such
rules as the Commissioner Of Pensions
may prescribe.
1.-The action Of the Bureau in this case,
from which the appeal was filed, is re-
with for a rehabilitation of the claim in
conformity with this opinion"
The pension claim of the widow of Zeb-
ulOn Craig was rejected Dec. IA, 1897,
on the ground that the soldier rendered
voluntary service in the Confederate army
prior to his enlistment in the U. s. ser
vice. Subsequent to the passage of the
joint resolution Of July /, 1902, reopen
ing and reconsideration Of the claim in
view of said resolution was requested. The
claimant having remarked in the interim
between the rejection of her claim and
| the passage of the resolution, the Pen
sion Bureau held that even If she filed
a new application, which was held to be
necessary, there would be no pensionable
period, innsmuch as, in the view of the
| Bureau, the restoration could commence
only from date of application filed after
July 1, 1902. On appeal cOntending that
| claimant is entitled to restoration from
date of application prior to July l, 1902,
to the date remarriage, it is held asst
Secretary Campbell, March 16, 1909:
The joint resolution contains no grant
| of pension whatever. 1t adds no new
act of June 81. 1890, nor does it in any
| particular change or modify the existing
conditions and limitations under which a
| pension is granted by said act. 1t simply
provides that a person pensiOnable I'M
der the limitations Of said act shall not be
deprived of n pension by reason of the fact
Of his voluntary participation in the rebel
lion. But what is the pension of which
he shall not be deprived? 1t most GER
tainly is not pension granted by the joint
resolution, for it grants no pension; but,
by its express terms, applies only to n
pension granted under the act of June q,
1890, and subjects to the limitations of
of said act is that the pension thereby
granted shall commence from the date of
filing application therefor under said act,
and from no other date. Where, then.
is the authority in law for requiring an
application for pension 10 be filed under
the joint resolution of July 1, 1902, and
for commencing the pension allowed I'M
der the act of June q, 1880. only from
the date of filing such an application? 1t
most unQuestiOnably can not be derived
from the language of the joint resolu-
ton, for it makes no provision whatever
for fling such an application, nor would
lit be possible to do SO, since the joint reso
luton makes no change in the conditions
of reasonable title under the act of June
y, 1880, and there would be nothing upon
which such an application could be based.
ITO sustain the ground stated for the
refusal Of the Pension Bureau to reopen
and readjudicate the claim for pension of
this appellant would necessitate the con-
clusi0n that Notwithstanding the joint
removed and wiped out the prohibition
contained in section 4716 of the Revised
Statutes so far as the same affected her
pensionable rights, such prohibition was
still in existence and continued to consti
tute a bar to her receiving n pension I'M
der the provisions of the third section Of
the act of June q, 1890, during the period
from the date of filing her original appli-
cation for such pension in 1895 up to the
date of filing a new application subsequent
to July /, 1902. But such a conclusion
would be manifestly untenabIe under the
express language of the joint resolution.
The prohibition against the receipt of pen
sion by the appellant having been re-
moved, all her pensionable rights under
the third section of the act of June q,
1890, We're thereby vitalized and made eff
fective. Among these was her right I'M
der the terms of said act to receive 4 PEN
sion, if shown to be entitled thereto I'M
der the conditions and limitations of the
act, from date of filing her original ap-
plication therefor. The prohibition hav-
ing been removed, there is no longer a
bar to the receipt of pension by the appel
liant for any period during which she might |
be found to be entitled under the condi- !
tons and limitations of the act of June |
%, 1890.
1.-THE joint resolution of July 1, 1902,
was, in its intent, purpose, and effect, pre-
cisely similar to the acts of March 3, |
1877, Aug. l, 1892, and April IS, 1900, |
referred to. These acts. like |
the joint resolution, had the effect of re-
moving the prohibition contained in sec
ton 4716 of the Revised Statutes from |
pensions granted by laws in existence long
prior to the respective dates upon which |
they were enacted. In the administration |
of said acts. and the adjudication of |
claims for pension to which they applied,
the Pension Bureau has uniformly al
lowed such claims from the date of dis
charge of the pensioner, or from the date
of filing application, as the case may be,
in accordance with the provisions and
limitations of the particular law granting
the pension applied for and under which
the claim was made, without regard to
the date of the act removing the prohibit
ton against the payment of such pension.
and covering periods long anterior to the
passage of said acts. Why. then, should
a new and different rule be applied to
claims for pension under the act of June
p, 1890, from which the prohibition con-
tanned in section 4116 of the Revised Stat
utes has been removed by the joint resolu
ton of July 1, 1902?
1T has been contended that the Joint
of July l, 1902 was also in
some sense retrospective in its operation,
for the reason that it enabled the claim
ant for pension under the act of June ~,
1890, to receive payment of such pension
from date anterior to the date of its
enactment. But this retroactive aspect.
IT rather result, does not grow out of or
proceed from any retroactive feature of
The joint resolution itself. which merely
provides that from and after its date vol
lntary participation in the rebellion should
10 longer be bar to the payment of PEN