The National tribune., 1903-02-05
DEPARTMENT NEWS.

RECORD OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
TION.-In the general law pension case
of Thomas Il. Gardner, rejected on the
ground of no satisfactory evidence that in
Jury alleged was incurred in line of duty,
il is held asst Secretary Campbell, Oct.
10, 1902:
"Over the signature of John e. Sum-
mers, Surgeon in charge of the hospital
at Alexandria, Va, appears the following
in the certificate of disability for dis
charge:
81 certify that have carefully exam
ined the said Thomas L. Gardner, of Capt.
Robinson's company, and find him incapa-
BILE of performing the duties of soldier.
because of fracture of the carpal bones of
right hand, preventing the free use of the
same. Injury was received July 10, at
Alexandria, when getting on railway
train. the said private being on duty at
the time. He is unable TO obtain his sub
sistence by manuel labor one-fOurth.'
"There is n long line of Departmental
decisions to the effect that where the
record is adverse to the claimant it over
comes the presumption of prior sOundness,
and that an alleged injury was incurred
in line of duty and prevails over evidence
to the contrary, unless such evidence
amounts to positive proof.
''See cases of Isaac Williamson q P.
,. Il
Daniel Bidlake g p. D., 20; billiard
Preston g 2. D., 37G.
Thus we see that this claimant and
his witnesses are cOrrOborated by the Off
cial records, the best evidence that the al
legged injury was incurred in line of duty.
1t only remains to be ascertained # the ev-
idence submitted and secured in this case
is sufficient to overcome and impeach said
record. 1t is to be remembered that the
cpprinl fiOn took nInco IN 1901 %
years after claimant was discharged.
''The evidence submitted by those who
started this investigation is largely hear
say. They testify that at the time the
claimant injured himself it was general ru-
NOR in and about the camp that the in
jury was incurred in fight with negro.
Most of them traced their information to
Denious or Getz.
'In 1894 DeniOus, in an affidavit, re-
tracted all he had ever testified to about
claimant. The least that can be said
about such a man is that he is utterly I'M
reliable and unworthy of belief.
Some of the witnesses have gone so
far as to say that claimant was Il deserter
when he was injured. The official records
of the War Department destroy such evil
dence entirely. Witnesses have been
found who have testified that they do not
believe claimant had a pass when lie was
injured, and that in their opinion he was
not in line of duty. Others have testified
that claimant was in the habit of becom-
ing drunk in the service; still others have
testified that he was good soldier, at
tentive to duty. In short, rumor and hear
say have in this case been held sufficient
to impeach the record.
ut is not necessary to analyZe the evil
dence and point out the inconsistencies of
those who have made statements adverse
to this claimant. 1t is enough to say that
the whole evidence falls far short of the
positive end conclusive proof needed to
overcome the record.
ut is also stated in the rejection that
the certificate on which claimant was dis
charged was made up from his own state
ments. This is a conclusion not warranted
by the evidence. The presumption is that