The National tribune., 1903-02-05

tne surgeon WHO mace tNc CertiicItc So
cured his information from reliable
sources. His duty was to make it a true
record of the facts reciteo m it. The pre-
sumption that he performed his full duty
in that regard is so strong that it is not
overcome by mere probabilities.
I'm n communication to the Commits
sioner of Pensions under date of Feb. rs
1902 (opinion submitted by the Commits
sioner of Pensions, No. .. page 20H. the
Department used the following language;
The Department considers that the
only safe rule to adopt is to stand by the
record. whether it be favorable or adverse
TO Il claimant. Unless the record is
squarely attacked. and evidence is adduced
proving il contains erroneous statements
of fact. or is fraudulent. it should prevail
no matter what possibilities might be CON
JUred up from certain evidence in any
given case
In this case the evidence brought for
ward to impeach the record is vague. I'M
certain, and indefinite. Some of it is from
questionable sources. 1t is produced over
20 years after the making of said record.
L. falls far short of impea chment.
1.-The action of the Bureau from which
appeal was filed is reversed and the pa
pers are returned with instructions TO re-
store claimants name to the rolls under
the general law from date of dropping,
and 10 readjudcate the claim under the
act of June ~, 1890, as the law and facts
warrant"
MARRIAGE SUFFICIENCY OF
PROOF.-In the pension case of Mary j.
Gilliland, as widow of Francis NJ. Gill
land, rejected on the ground that the
claimant has not shown herself to be the
widow of the soldier, it is held asst
Secretary Campbell, Dec. ), 1902:
"The whole history of this officers life
shows a total disregard for the sacrcdnesS
of the marital tie, and while it is true that
in certain cases strong Prescriptions at
tach which would uphold marriage by
ceremony, notably that of the presumption
of innocence, yet such prescriptions can
rot apply in the case at bar for the reason
that his whole life, so far as matrimony
is concerned, conclusively demonstrates
that neither the moral nor legal fear of
bigamy had any effect upon this officer.
He had no regard for his matrimonial tie
with Virginia, for it appears he admitted
living with Caroline in the State of Flor
ida. He had no regard for his marital tie
with Mary j., for after living with her
some five years, and leaving her ut the end
of such period for the purpose of obtain
ing employment to support her and him
self he married Virginia A. by ceremony
within one month. Under such a show
ing and under the proof III this case that
lie had been twice married before he mar
ried Mary j., there is no reason to place
any great reliance upon the ceremonial
marriage with Mary j.. when it must be
admitted that he had had two wives prev
iously, neither of them being satisfactorily
accounted for up to the present time.
THE Department sees no reason why 1t
should interest itself further in this case,
;,,., tl,a II u
sufficient data in her possession to Show
or dsprove divorce or death of the first
two wives. She has the names of the
parties with whom the officer and his sec
ond wife lived at Cape Girardeau, Mo-,
the name and residence of the second
wife's mother, and the address of the rela-
tives. of the officer through whom she first
obtained information as 70 the officer S
marriage with his first wife.
Claimant has failed to make out n
prima facie case so far as the legality of
her marriage to the officer is concerned,
and until she does make out such case
the Department will not order another
special examination.
This appeal is based, in effect, upon
the proposition that where the Govern
ment, in pension claim, disputes the val
idity of a marriage shown 10 have been
entered into by ceremony, the burden of
proof shifts to the Government in order
to disprove the legality of rhe marriage;
opinions promulgated in several published
decisions, notably those of Jeanette Bur-
ton % z. D., 81 and Louisa c. German
Oh z. D., 66).
"This Department has never, unless
through inadvertence, ruled that pension
claimant and the Government stand in the
position toward one another in matter
of proof as plaintiff and defendant. The
Government annually appropriates i'm
mense sums of money to be used for PEN
sions, but no part of said money can be
paid for such purpose until one has shown
himself or herself entitled thereto-that
is, by proving the reasonable status.
When the necessary facts are shown I'M
der the law, but not until then, the pen
sion may be awarded. The designated Of
fcers of the Department of the Interior
are those under the law who must be sat
isfied by and pass upon the evidence, and
the said Department is the forum where
TIE merits of the case must be adjudged.
Because, however, the said Department by
its proper officers concludes that the evil
dence fails to prove claimant to be GER
tain soldiers widow, it does not follow,
neither is it fact, that the Government
is a defendant in the case; neither is it
fact that the Government is opposing, as
a contestant or otherwise, the claim of
the said alleged widow. 1t is but passing
judgment upon the evidence, which it is
required to do by law. I, should be dis
tinctly understood that the Government is
not called upon or required to prove any
thing in a pension claim, but it is for a
to prove that he or she is enti-
tied under the law.
"When the issue is one of marriage,
the Department must, the same as a judge
or jury, be governed by those rules and
laws which universally obtain in such
cases. 1t can not disregard all the evil
lence and render judgment upon its simple
ipse dixit, but the case must stand or fall
upon the evidence, weighed the same as it
would be in a court of justice and subject
to any presumption of law or fact app:ica-
BILE thereto.
when ceremonial marriage of record
is shown certain Prescriptions immedi-
itely attach that such marriage is legal
Dne; but all of these prescriptions are dis
putab!e, and fall sometimes on slight evil
lence being produced which tends to cast
doubt upon the legality of said marriage.
There is a presumption that when a cere
monial marriage is shown it is legal one,
such presumption being raised upon the
basic doctrine of innocence. But when, in
l case like the one under consideration.
nan is shown to have had, doubtless, five
wives, and three of them are known to be
living with no divorce obtained, certain
t is that the death or divorce of the other
.wO can not be assumed upon the general
,resun ption of innocence on his part If
he married Virginia A, as he did within
me month after lie left Mary j.. the ap-
lellant, there is no good reason to believe
lie would have been deferred from doing
he like so far as the appellant and the
Ormer wives were concerned; and it