The Washington times., 1905-04-18
Purging the Pension Bureau.

Commissioner has not f1inched in pun
ishing those of his subordinates who
approved ten claims for pensions
which were utterly unsupported by
law. The offenders in these cases
were all examiners of great ability, of
about twenty-five years honorable
service, and of hitherto unimpeached
faithfulness. So the ordinary diff
was much increased
Furthermore, disposition is mani
fest in many quarters to confuse the
question which these ten claims have
raised. Thus, it has been urged in
the news columns of The Times by the
commander-in-chief of the Union Vet
erans' Union that the whole matter
is "a great ado about nothing" that
il these claimants served ninety days
they are entitled to pensions; that
examiners have often denied pension
claims which ought to have been ap-
proved; and that '.if a pension had
been paid these men this Government
would not suffer as much because Of
It as has each and every one Of these
soldiers who have been denied the
pension that actually belonged to
them under the law"
Now, the offense of these examiners
has not consisted alone Of recon-
mending the award of pensions which
ought not to have been allowed Yet,
il that were the only mistake it Is
serious enough under these circum-
stances to warrant the most severe
action.
These examiners were members of
the board Of review, an organization
which exists for the purpose of safe
guarding the Government against the
very mistakes indicated by the COM
mander-in-chief of the Union Vete-
rams Union-the denial of pensions
authorized by law and the approval
of pensions not authorized by law.
According to the law, the Pension
Bureau can allow pensions only to
men who have actually served in the
armies or navies of the United States,
or in certain designated commands OF
State militia. If claim depends up
on the former service it must be sup
ported by muster-in and muster-out.
Ii on the latter-there are many other
conditions, but this is sufficient-the
claim must have been prosecuted to
a successful issue prior to July 4, 1874" :"
These claims were manifestly not
prosecuted to a successful issue be-
fore the date given. If valid, there
fore, they must depend upon actual
service in the armies of the United
States. On this point Assistant Sec
retary Reynolds decided nearly twen-
ty years ago:
Colonel McLane's Erie Regiment.
pennsylvania militia (the command from
which these ten claims came), was sole
ly a State organization, and was never
In the Federal service. and never did
any service for the Federal Govern
ment. and the members therefore there
or have no pensionable status.
So the showing of the facts and
the law is that members of court of
appeals have disregarded four warn
ings that claims submitted to them
for review were irregular: First, that
they were militia claims; second, that
they did not conform to the general
law; third. that the regiment bore
no number, as did the other COM
mands in the service of the United
States, but the special name of Col
onel McLane's Erie Regiment" and
fourth, that the members of this COM
mand have been specifically denied
pensionable status by the continued
ruling OF the department for about
twenty years.
Is 1t not a singular thing that ten
experienced eXaminers-all expert ad-
INDICATORS of pension cases-could
have made this identical mistake, ex-
traordinary as the mistake is? Is
1t not still more remarkable that all
the subordinates who passed upon
these cases also made this same mis-
take?
Several officers of the Interior De-
partment think these conditions too
remarkable for credence They think,
on the contrary, and they have proof
to support them in this belief. that
this action in passing these claims
was not mistake at all, but simple
fulfillment of explicit orders from
superiors
Slips have been found In many.
many cases, in which similar action
was ordered by officials subordinate
to the commissioner Their form
varied. but they had usually the effect
of Il will accept this testimony as
proof of service" or proof OF anything
else which seemed to be lacking The
signatures were ordinarily mere init
ials. And the effect of this practice
is that, while perhaps many veterans
have been denied pensions to which
they were entitled, it is undoubtedly
true that many have been granted