The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1923-05-10

entitled to the custody of the body,
for purposes of interment, expenses
for the transportation of the body
of the decedent to place of burial
within the continental limits Of the
United States (including the neces-
sary and reasonable expenses of an
attendant in going to and returning
from the place of burial of the de-
cedent where an attendant accompan-
iesies the body, and also the usual
charges for Transportation of the
body and any additional expenses in
respect to the character of the con-
tainer that may be incurred in order
to conform to the regulations of the
carrier and the health laws of the
state where death occurs, or of the
state through which the body will
pass) may also be paid.
The law also provides that where
veteran of any war dies after his dis
charge or resignation from the SER
vice and does not leave sufficient as
sets to meet the expense of burial and
transportation of his body, the U. S.
Veterans Bureau will pay sum not
to exceed $500 for flag to drape
the casket and also for burial expense
will pay sum not to exceed $100.
The flag, after burial, is to be given
to the next of kin of such deceased
veteran. If death occurs which such
person is receiving governmental
medical, surgical or hospital treat
ment or vocational training, the Bur-
eau shall pay, in addition to burial
expenses, actual and necessary cost
of transportation of the body, includ-
ing the preparation of the body, to
the place of burial within the con-
tinental limits of the United States.
This provision of the new act extends
the funeral expenses to a larger class
of veterans than was previously pro-
vided for.
In cases where the burial in a ma
tional cemetery is authorized, i. e.,
veteran of any war, dying after dis
charge while receiving governmental
medical, surgical, or hospital treat
ment or vocational training, and not
leaving sufficient assets to meet the
expenses of his burial, the expenses
for transportation, the necessary and
reasonable expenses of an attendent,
may be allowed under the following
conditions: (a) Such burial is desired
by the person or persons entitled to
the custody of the body for the pur-
pose of interment, (b) permission for
such burial has been received from
the proper officers having jurisdiction
ever burials in the national ceme-
terry, (c) the decent was beneficiary
of the U. S. Veterans Bureau, and
died while receiving treatment in a
Government hospital or other author
lied institution, or while receiving
training, provided by this bureau,
died from disease or injury incurred
in the military or naval service of the
United State, and (d) approval is
obtained from and all arrangements
are made with the District Manager
for the District in which death &C.
Cured.
New Ruling on Soldier Dependency
Allowances
Under a decision of the Comptrol-
Ter General recently rendered, the
U. S. Veterans Bureau will be per-
mitted to consider a class of claims
heretofore regarded as unauthorized.
BY this ruling, claims which were
made for government family allow
ance after the veterans discharge
from the service can now be consid-
cred where the person to whom it was
desired to make the allowance was
subsequently brought by law within
the permitted class of beneficaries.
In the particular case submitted by
the Veterans Bureau for decision, an
attempt was made by an enlisted
man to claim an allowance for his
aunt, who, he showed, was absolutely
dependent upon him for support. At
that time the claim was disallowed
because an aunt was not then, nor is
now, within the permitted class of
family allowance beneicaries. The
aunt involved in this case however
stood in loco PARENTS to the enlisted
man.
Following the discharge of the en-
listed man from the service, the
Sweet Bill (Section of the Act of De-
cember "a, 1919, Al Stat. 371)
amended the War Risk Insurance Act
by charging the permitted class to
whom allowances might be made to
include persons who have stood in
loco PARENTS to member of the mil
itary or naval forces at any time
prior to his enlistment or induction
for period of not less than one
year." This amendment was made
retroactive in its force to October 6,
1917. The aunt in the case ruled
| upon held such status.
In view of this retroactive provi-
sion the Comptroller has ruled that
regulation of the Veterans Bureau re-
quiring that applications for family
allowance must have been made while
the enlisted man was still in service
to form basis for a successful claim
does not apply where a subsequently
enacted law has given rights which
could not have been claimed while
the enlisted man was in service.