The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1903-03-05

National Home-under the third provisol
OF the act of March 3. 1899. She is alsoI
entitled to one-haIf his pension owing tol
him on May 81. 1902. the date on which
she filed her last application, and accruingj
subsequent to that time, under the firsr|
proviso -nf said act.
THE Bureau actions appealed from ard
accordingly reversed, and the papers III the!
case are her, with returned for Il readjudi-|
cation of the claim in accordance with this
decision
In the case of Martha J. Haines. ap-|
pllcant for half the pension Of john
Halncs, the pensioner appealed from the|
action of the Pension Bureau in allowing
his wifes application. The decision on the|
appeal states asst Secretary Campbeli,|
Jan. -. 1909:
The evidence in this case shows that
claimant and pensioner We're married in|
1898. and that pcnSioner was convicted OF
adultery. Nov. ~. 1873. in the Court ofj
Quarter Sessions of Adams County, Pa.
Claimants refusal to live with pension-
or after said conviction is relied upon byi
pensioner To show that she. by her said
refusal TO live with him, became a de-
serter
1t becomes unnecessary TO discuss the|
conflicting testimony on the subject of
claimants refusal to live with pensioner|
subsequent to his conviction and imprison-|
ment on the charge of adultery. for. event
assuming that she so refused. it would nod
constitute her the deserter, for the reason|
that she would have been legally Justified
iii refusing TO renew the suspended MARTIAL
relations. See Scott VS.. Scott az Z. D.,
411Il2J
Pcrs:oEer admits that, having failed inI
eifectlng reconciliation with his wifeI
after his release from Imprisonment in|
1870. he left her, and has not since scent
or heard from her until he received notice|
of her application for one-half his pension.
Pensioners contention that he did not|
desert claimant. but that she was respon-|
sible for the separation, is not sustained
by the evidence. she being legally justified
IN her refusal to renew the marital rela-]
tinns suspended by her husbands convic-
ton of adultery.
The action appealed from is according
ly affirmed
LEGITIMACY-sLAyE MARRIAGE
In the pension claim of the fatherI
of Monroe Raglan, the Pension Bu-|
reau held that slaves were incompetent toI
contract valid marriage. The offspring
OF slave marriage is, therefore, iIlegiti-
mate. and the father of such offspring hasI
no title to pension as 4 dependent father,|
states asst Secretary Campbell, JAN
q. 1903: J
In this appeal il is contended that the
claimant has title under sections 41O4 and
41O5 of the Revised Statutes and the act
OF Aug. 9, 1882: that the lex loci should
govern, and that the Tennessee act of 1860
recognizes the legitimacy of children born
Of slave marriages.
Neither section 1904 nor section 41O5
nf tho RnyiSaI
tion To this claim. each of these sections
being held by the Department to apply
only Ill claims by the widows or the chill
dren OF soldiers, and not in claims by
the latter's parents. Daniel Bird, 10 Z.
d., 1O3J This claim is governed. there
fore. as proof of marriage by the act
of Aug. Z, 1SS2. providing that Il
Marriages. except such as are men,
toned in section 1905 OF the Revised Stat
ntes. shall be proven in pension claims to |
be legal marriages according to the law Of |
the place where the parties resided at the
time of marriage or at the time when the
right to pension accrued.
There appears to be no question herein
as TO the fact that the soldier was the is
sue of a slave marriage. contracted in 1874
by ceremony, and with their masters con-
sent. between this claimant and Elizabeth
Raglan. with whom the claimant lived
uHlH Htf tedtu III lSJt. tue SOiulef DeluC
born in 1916; and the claimant was al
lowed, i'll June. 1871. and June. 1885, the
soldiers arrears of pay and bounty, upon
evidence as to his paternity, copy of
which evidence is on file in this claim.
''The courts of Tennessee have held that
slave marriages We're legal and their issue
legitimate. although during slavery all the
civil consequences of marriage did not at
tach to such marriages.
This claimants marriage to the SOL
Tiers mother must. therefore, be c0nsid-
cred as of full civil effect from its date,
and as carrying with it all civil consequences
Of the marriage relation. The soldier was.
accordingly, born 'in lawful wedlock,' az
held in the case of Andrews VS.. Page, and
was legitimate; and the claimant is en-
titled to whatever benefit may attach to
that relation. for if the relation be legiti-
mate in the descending line it necessarily
must he also in the ascending line.
The action appealed from is reversed.
and You will readjudicate the claim in ac-
cOrdance with the foregoing"