The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1903-08-27

Home at Philadelphia, Pa, and that the
refusal of the Bureau to allow her one
half Of the $10.50 allowance was not er
. Tor.
The Bureau action appealed from is
accordingly affirmed"
DEPENDENT sISTER-PESsToN TITLE.
The dependent mother of Harry n
Damaree (war with SPAIN was allowed
pension from date of application to date
of remarriage. The claim on behalf OF the
minor sister of the soldier was, however
rejected on the ground that she was mot
dependent upon the soldier at the time
of his death" The decision on the appeal
from the action of the Pension Bureau
says ASST Sec'y Miller, June u. 1909:
'Tbe dependence of the mother was es.
tabiisfed by evidence and by operation OF
law, the soldier being a minor, and has
been definitely recognized by granting her
a dependent mothers pension. There is
no proof, however, of any independent de-
ipendence of the minor child, or of any
recognition on the part Of the soldier of
any obligation upon his part to contribute
to her independent support, for, as mat
ter of fact, at the time of his death, she
was child 13 years old, dependent on her
mother, or upon charity, for adequate sup
port. The query naturally arises whether
under the terms of section 4107 of Revised
Statutes the child, q sister of the soldier,
succeeds as matter of right to her moth
er's pension, where it is shown that she
has no adequate means of support, or
whether it must be shown that she had
an Independent right, not derived through
her mother, which was in allegiance during
the existence of a superior right of the
mother. In the latter case, this claimant
would not be entitled, as there is no proof
to show that soldier did contribute to her
support, or that he had recognized any
obligation on his part to do so.
The very wording of the act itself excludes
the possibility of either the father, mother
or minor children having adequate means
of support to the exclusion of the others,
and no such case could arise unless, pos
| sibly, in the case of a minor who might
have some property interests of its own,
and in the event that the parents were di-
vorced. The husband is legally bound to
aid in the support of his wife; the wife,
where she has Independent means, is like
wise legally bound to aid in the support
of her husband: and both in turn are obi
gated to support their minor children.
Under ordinary circumstances, therefore,
such as are found in this case, the depend
ence of one is proof of the dependence of
all, and a recognition of the dependence of
one by the soldier, whether the recognition
be an actual fact or whether it be con-
clusion of law, is the recognition of the
dependence of all. There is nothing in the
wording of the act which indicates that it
was intended that, as each of those who
were entitled succeeded to the right, they
should be required TO make the same pre-
fImInary proof as was required in the orig
inal claim. The act prescribes the man
ner i'll which the rights of the claimants
shall be established, and in that part re-
lating to the succession provides, in any
case said person shall have left father and
mother who are dependent on him when
by death or operation of law they are 10
longer able or entitled to take the depend
ent brothers and sisters under sixteen
years of age shall Jointly become entitled
Thus, it having once been determined that
the mother or father, as the case may be,
was dependent on the son for support,
within the meaning of this act, and the
proof further showing that the minors
had no Independent source of income, their
dependence followed as a matter Of neces-
sary consequence: and when they became
entitled by the death of their parents, or
by the death of the father and the remar-
riage of the mother, they succeeded to the
mothers or fathers right, as the case may
be, upon application and proof of rela-
tionship, and such other proofs as may be
required to negative the last proviso of
section 47O7.'
In the case under consideration, the
evidence clearly establishes that since the
death of the soldier the claimant has been
dependent on the charity Of those not le-
gally bound for her support, or during the
latter part of that period has by her own
labor earned a support. 1t does not ap-
pear that the mother, since her remar-
riage, has contributed to the chiId's sup
dnau he nviIanna mi; H.
she was financially able to do so. The Bu-
reau, therefore, erred in requiring of
claimant any proof other than that she
was without adequate means of support,
Independent of charitable contributions
and her own exertions; that she stood in
a reasonable relationship to the soldier,
and that her father was dead and her
mother was remarked.
"The action complained of is, therefore,
reversed, and the papers are returned for
action in conformity with this opinion"
INDIAN WAR PESsIoS-coSsTRUcT OF
THE ACT OF JUNE %, 1902.
The pension claim under the act of June
q, 1902, of Lewis Lawley washington
Territory Vols, 1856 was rejected by the
Pension Bureau on the ground that claim
ant having neither been mustered into the
U. S. service nor paid by the United
States, has no pensionable status under the
law. The decision on appeal from this
holding says asst Sec'y Miller, June 30,
1903:
1T will be observed that the act of
June q, 1902, extends the provisions of
the act Of July q, 1892, so as to include
those persons, who served for 80 days or
more. and were honOrabIy discharged IN
der the United States military State, Ter
ritorial, or provisional authority in
the Oregon and Washington Territory In
dian wars from 1851 to 1856, inclusive
1T must be clear to the most casual OBJ
server that if this act means anything it
means that Congress intended to provide
pension for the very class of persons who
rendered the service that this claimant did.
The act does not limit it's provisions to
those who served and were discharged
under the immediate military authority of
the United States only, but its provis-
ions clearly extend to those who served
and We're discharged under the other au-
| thorities named in the act.
The record shows that this claimant
was enlisted, mustered, and honorably
discharged by the authority specified in
the act of June 81, 1902, and that he
served more than 30 days. He therefore
comes within the provisions and meaning
| of the terms of said act The raiecti.n &c