The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1903-05-14
DEPARTMENT NEWS.
Decisions of the Assistant Secre.
tary of the Interior in Pension
Claims.
DIVISION OF PENSION, ACT OF MARCH 3
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. CIRCUMSTANCES.

DIVISION OF PENSION, ACT OF MARCH 3,
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. CIRCUMSTANCES.
On the application of Sarah E. Doherty
for half the pension of her husband, Will
liam Doherty, the Pension Bureau held
| that the applicant was not in "necessitous
circumstances" within the meaning of the
act of March 3, 1899. On appeal this
view is sustained The decision says
| asst Sec. NJ. w. Miller, March 20, 1903
According to claimants testimony it
| appears that she is the owner of a house
valued by her at $500, but mortgaged for
500; that she sold a livery barn for
S2.0OO, and after payinS off the mortgage
had left but S, 500; that she was 80 years
of age and had earned nothing to amount
to anything from her daily labor
| "Pensioner is over a years of age, and
his means of support appears to be limit
ed to his pension of $40 per month.
The departmental decisions in refer
ence to dependent widows under the act
| Of May .. 1900, wherein it is held that
the widow designated in said act who is
without other means of support than her
daily labor and an actual net income of
not exceeding $3.50 per year is dependent
within the meaning of said act of May 9,
a wife in like financial condition is in
'necessitOus circumstances within the
meaning of the act of March 3, 1899. by
reason of the difference in the provisions
| of the two acts. Prior to the act of May
y, 1900, wife with net income of $3.50
| could not have been held to be dependent
| under the act of June 81, 1890. which pro-
vided pension for certain widows desig-
mated in the act who We're without other
| means of support than their daily labor
Eveline Holtsworth e p. D., 49,; Ange-
| lima NJ. Bishop e p. D., $50; Ann f.
Pinckley Gbed, 44G); Mary E. Hughes 40
p. D., 67-7D.
''The act of March g. 1899, contains
| no such provision in relation to depend
ence as was embraced in the act of June
p, 1880, and the amendatOry act of May
8, 1900, but provides among other condi-
tons to entitle a wife to division of her
husbands pension, that she should be
shown to be in 'necessitous circumstances
The Department is clearly of the
opinion that claimant in the possession
of $500 worth of real and personal estate
| is not in necessitous circumstances within
the meaning of the act of March 8, 1899,
her husband being over n years of age
and his means of support limited to his
pension of $40 per month.
"The action appealed from is accord
ingly affirmed"
PRISONER OF wAR-DISLOYALTY-J
RESOLUTION OF JULY 1, 1902.
The claim for pension under the act of
June q, 1890, of the widow of William
Hedgespeth was rejected on the ground
that the soldier rendered voluntary serv-
ice against the United States while pris-
oner of war;" and that the soldiers serv-
ice in the Union army after March 1,
1860 date he took the oath Of allegiance
to the Confederate States), was to all
intents and purposes second service,
and being after Jan. 1, 1865, the joint
resolution of July !, 1903, affords no re-
lief"
"There is no pretense that the soldier in
this case enlisted in the military service
of the United States after March 1, 1865.
but the Bureau holds that he reenlisted
to all intents and purposes conclusion
not warranted in any view that may be
taken of the law. Enlistment has n clear
meaning: 1t is a contract by which a
Grimley ' Gs7 6. s. 1 15a. A citizen H can ne
not become soldier to all intents and
purposes He enlists, or he does not.
Anything short of actual enlistment in
the military service fails to make of citi-
zen a soldier. The enlistment is con-
dition precedent to the status Of SOL
dier.
''The weight of the evidence in the case
shows that the soldier rejoined his COM
mand about May l. 1865 although he de-
clared he returned to his old command
about April /, 1865.
''The undisputed facts in this case are
that the soldier served nearly four years
in the military service of the United
and that he rejoined his old command,
after having served an indefinite length
of time in the Confederate army. He
served over 30 days during the war of the
rebellion, and was honorably discharged.
Under the joint resolution Of July 1, 1902,
where can there be found a legal reason
for denying the claiming widow a pension,
under the act of June %, 1890, as amend
ed by the act of May 8, 1900?
ga soldier might have had four years
service in the Confederate army, and if he
enlisted in the Union army prior to Jan.
I, 1865, he would have title to pension I'M
der the act of June %, 1890. under the
terms of the joint resolution approved
July i, 1902. What possible difference
can it make, under said resolution, that a
soldiers Confederate service was in the
middle of his military service in the army
of the United States?
''This soldiers enlistment in the mill
tary service of the United States was long
prior TO Jan. 1, 1865, and the rejoining Of
his command, after a Confederate service
in 1865, was not in any sense a reenlist-
ment.
Congress has seen fit to pass a law
pensioning a soldier Tor his widow IN
der the act of June 81. 1890, who rem
dered 90 days. service during the war of
the rebellion and who was honorably
discharged. 1t is not for the Executive
to question the propriety or policy of the
law. The duty devolves upon the EXecu-
tive branch of the Government to carry
the law into effect. giving to the language
used by the legislature its meaning, clear
ly expressed. Sutherland On Statutory
Construction, par. 4O7)
sit becomes unnecessary to enter into
any discussion of the question whether
it may be more despcable for soldier
who was serving under an enlistment in
the army of the United States to take the
oath of allegiance to the Confederate
States than for Confederate soldier to
desert his service and to enlist in the mill
tary service of the United States. Such
q discussion would be to travel outside the
issue. In the case under consideration
there are some extenuating circumstances.
but the fact remains, that even if there
were none, the soldier in thfs case is clear
ly within the terms of the joint resolution |
of July /, 1902, and his widow is en-
titled to pension under the act of June |
81, 1890. if the other essentials to title |
are established. (See cases of Mary Craig |
13 p. D., 259; and John Enfnger, ibid |
24S)
'The action of the Bureau is reversed |
and the papers are returned herewith for |
I.,,I Zoo, &c atn,, a.I