The National tribune., 1903-12-10

In the claim of Daniel Eveland for M
crease of service-pension 10 81 in accord
ance with the act of April %. 1910. the
Pension Bureau held that the increase
could date only from the act of April %
1900. and not from the date of the original
Increase of act of Jan. T. 1893. The de-
cision on appeal from this holding says
asst Sec. Miller. July %. 1903. serial
number 10):
.The sole issue under this appeal is as
to the date of commencement of increase
of pension when one claims under the act
OF April %. 1900.
.'The act of April 23. 1900. means moth
ing more nor less than this: That from
and after said date. in the claim of Il pen
sionable Mexican war survivor, the fac'
that his name was not on the roll on .Ian
3. 1893. shall not be taken into consider
alton so far as the rate to which he was
entitled is concerned: and such fact shall
not bar his right 10 SD per month under
the act of Jan. = 1893. provided he is
shown to be i'm such destitute circum-
stances that So per month is not sufficient
to provide him with the necessarles OF life.
and that he is wholly disabled from man
ual labor; and that the date of COM
mencement of such rate shall be the same
date of commencement as that under the
act of Jan. ;. 1888.
sERvICE-TERMINATIoN OF THE WAR OF
TIE REBELLION.
The appealed case of Annie. widow of
Isaiah Taylor. is important for its bearing
on the question of pensionabie service un-
der the act of June -. 1880. The de-
cision says asst See. Miller, July 81.
1903. serial number 11l:
said claim was rejected Feb. ~.
1903. an the ground that-'The soldier did
not serve 80 days during the war of the
rebellion within the meaning of the act OF
June -. 1890"
The question involved is: When did the
civil war end? Pensions are payable under
the act of June 81. 1890. TO soldiers. and
their dependents only when the soldier
served at least 10 days during the
war. The rule has been that such service
must have been part of the belligerent Op-
eraiions for the purpose of suppressing the
rebellion" There were enlistments as late
as July. 1865. under calls for troops to
suppress the rebellion: but the Pension
Department inclined from the first to hold
that pensionable service mast have been
for at least so days before the war was
ended
The decision concludes: This enlist
ment is shown. therefore. to have been in
fact n war enlistment-one made for the
purpose of suppressing the existing rebel
li0n and the prescriptions arise that ser
vice Under such enlistment was and con-
tinued to be. notwithstanding the general
cessation of hostiities iii July. 1863. war
service. The general presumption from
the fact of such cessation of hostllltes Is
overcome by the stronger particular pre-
sumption arising from the proven charac-
ter of the soldiers enlistment, and the lat
ter presumption is strengthened by the
fact that his service is shown to have
been rendered in said rebellious State
wherein he enlisted and wherein the war
STILL as stated above. subsisted.
'.The pensiOnable character and a pen
l. id of ,nda fhA 0cf
of June %, 1890. are, therefore. prima
facie or presumptively established and re-
lection of the claim is reversed"
INCREASE OF WIDOWS PENsIox-Acr OF
MARCH 80. 1856
Mary c. Herbert, pensioned under the
general law as widow of Thomas Herbert.
claimed title to the So rate provided by
act of March 10, 1856, instead of the IS
rate allowed her.
The act provides THAT from and after
the passage of this act, the rate of pension
for widows now on the pension
roll, or hereafter to be placed on the PEN
sion roll. and entitled TO receive a less
rate than hereinafter provided. shall be
$12 per month; provided that
this act shall apply only to widows who
were married to the deceased soldier or
sailor prior to its passage and TO those
who may hereafter marry prior to or dur
Ing the service of the soldier"
The decision on the appeal from the
holding of the Pension Bureau refusing the
rate claimed quotes the act and says ASST
Sec Miller, July 81, 1903, serial number
23J:
1T is sought by the appellant in this
case to give to the words the service the
same meaning that would be given to the
words ANY service of the soldier or sailor.
The is a definite article, particularizing
the subject spoken of.
THAT the word the points out partic-
ular service can readily be demonstrated
in this case when it is considered that the
sailors service after his marriage to claim
ant conferred no pensionable title on her.
He was not injured In the service nor did
he contract any disease therein.
If the subsequent service constituted all
the service the sailor rendered the claim.
under the general law. When the service
was rendered that caused the sailors death
the claimant was not his wife. -
SO far as the act under consideration is
concerned it would appear plainly that
Congress could not have had in mind a
succession of services when the law was
framed. This claimant was granted only
$S per month because her husband died OF
service causes, and her marriage TO him
took place after the passage of the act oi
March 10, 1886. If she had married q
sailor whose only service was the years
subsequent 10 her marriage she would have
have no title to pension under any law
he not dying from disability contracted in
said service. This claimant would have re
ceived the SS per month she is now draw
Ing if the sailor had never served subse
quently 10 her marriage to him. VIII,
should such subsequent service give hel
title TO S12 per month when the sailor re
ceived no disability therein and his dealt
was not caused thereby?
''The act in question simply increased
the rate of pension ito all widows excep
those named in the proviso. 1t is manifes
that Congress had no intention to increas,
the pension of a widow from So to 81:
who married a sailor after the passage 0
the act, except the service rendered by hin
had some relation to his or the widow
title to pension. Mere service in the regu
lar establishment III time of peace conl,
not give any claimant title to pension. Til
general intent of the act was to pension
widow at SO per month whose husban,
died from service causes; that is. to pen
sion woman whose husband, by reason 0
his military service, became diseased an
afterwards died from said disease, becaus
she had lost her means of support throug
said service. No reason can be given TO
pensioning a woman at all whose husban
was not disabled in the service. So in thi
case this claimant in reason can claim n
benefit because of the service of her hus
band, which resulted in no disability
-
"It will be seen that when this claiman
married the sailor he was a civilian and
,rh ra. .opli taI in