The National tribune., 1904-05-12
~An~~ Classified Advertisements. One

benefits of the law, but it is positive, ex-
press statutory condition upon when, IN
part, the claimants title to such Dement'S
is by the law, predicated and under the
law depends, Substantially and essentially.
The law requires that she show this sol
der did not receive such bounty or gratui-
ty. and it rests with the Commissioner
and the Secretary merely to decide wheth-
er the evidence in the case satisfactorily
shows this negative fact required by the
law.
There is, in this case. not particle OF
evidence tending even to show that the
soldier ever received any bounty or gratui-
ty on account of any or all of his service
except S66.66, two-thirds of the amount
of bounty payable under the act of July
%, 1861, which portion of said amount
was paid him on his second enlistment in
accordance with the provisions of that act,
and under that act he would have been
entitled, under his first enlistment and
upon an honorable discharge therefrom, to
no more than 500.
1T is shown by the records of the Ma
tional Government that he received only
this sum of $1,000 bounty, and no more !;
and the only question in the case is whetn-
err he received any local bounty in addi-
ton As to this. there is, as stated, no
evidence whatever. There is no State,
County. municipal, or other record or evil
dence showing, or tending to show, either
that he received any local bounty or that
any local bounty was paid to anyone on
account of service in said organization in
which he enlisted. or in any other service
at that time in that State (Missouri) or
County or City. 1t is stated on slip at
tached to the brief face, the authority for
which statement is not given, that the
State of Missouri paid no bOunties. The
Acknowledgement of the State certi-
fies merely that he has no records of the
payment of bounty during the civil war !;
and the Auditor for the City of st. Louis.
where the soldiers second enlistment was
made. certifies that he also has no such
records. The claimant refers in one state
ment to a letter of the Lieutenant of the
soldiers company, in his second service,
which letters not found in the files, that
he knows nothing of any bounty to the
soldier.
ct appears from slips in the case that
the rejection is based upon the fact that
the soldier enlisted in his second service
under an assumed name and at time dur
ing the war when large sums of money
are well known 10 have been paid as
bounty. from which facts it is inferred
as probable that he received such bounty
in addition to that noted: and this infer
ence is taken to be so strong that there
must be positive evidence that no such
bounty was in fact paid him.
Neither of these facts. however, has
received any other bounty than that shown
of record. His known desertiOn from his
first service was, of itself, sufficient reason
for his assuming, on again enliStlng, an
other name. SO as to avoid discovery Of
and punishment for such desertion.
''There is no basis in the evidence for
suppOsing he assumed such name in order
to secure bounty, because it is not shown
that any bounties were paid to or received
by any in such proximity to his enlist
ment, in point of time or place Or organi-
cation, as to render it at all probable that
he received a large sum- as additional
bounty. There is no 'wellknown' fact that
members of this organization received such
sums, or that such were paid at that time
and place; all or some. at least, of which
facts should be definitely shown in order
to give rise to any particular inference
from the evidence that this soldier received
such bounty.
'The mere fact, we'll known though it
may be, that large bounties were paid gem
orally about this time of the war-the
Fall of 1S64-because of the exigencies
of the service at that period, is not alone
sufficient upon which, to base the rejection
of claim. 1t shows a possibility only,
and no, or but little, probability that such
bounty was paid in any particular case,
and each case should be thoroughly in
yestigated to determine its own facts as to
such matter.
This claimant has conformed to all re-
quirements possible for her, it seems, to
conform to, by producing evidence that
there is no State or local record showing
any payment of bounty to this soldier or
to any of his organization. Her request
for the post office addresses of comrades,
that she might secure their testimony in
her case, was denied, as appears from slip
attached to the brief face, because the
State paid no bounties.
This request might we'll have been
granted. If it were shown that others
enlisting at the same time and place re-
ceived additional bounties there would be
some basis for holding it not satisfactorily
established that he also did not receive
| such a bounty. In fact, it might have
been definitely shown that he did not re-
ceive such bounty or that he did. The fact
| that the State paid no bounties was not
| conclusive against the claimant. rather in
her favor, and there may have been boun-
| ties paid by the local. County, or NUM-
cipal organizations, although no record of
such payments be extant. The testimony
of comrades, and possibly of others, City
and County ex-oficials now living who
| were in a position to have known of the
| facts as to such bounties and as to the
circumstances of enlistment, should be Sc
cured.
"a proper and fair adjudication under
said second section of said joint resolution
would appear to require that a claimant
be called upon to furnish the affidavits OF
such comrades and ex-officials and others