Year: 1876

have obtained. This case came to my


attention causually; | was not looking


tor it at all but il came before mo in


my duties on the committee. In this


case the Pension Bureau sent three


times for substantially the same cvi.


dence. How did that occur? Proba.


bly, just in this way Some man writes


to inquire why the claim has not been


disposed of, II is easier to sit down


and fill blank calling Tor more evi.


dence than il would be TO examine the


records and see il the claim was in or.


der for adjudication or not. SO the


blank is filled, and the additional copy


Of the roll and hospital record must


be made.


Now if this was an isolated case, IL


is not likely / would have come across


it among the few cases that came be-
fore me. 1 went to the Surgeon Gen.
erals Office and asked how many such
applications in one year were made
Of that Office. | received in writing
the reply that there had been more
than thirty-eight hundred, or about 2l
per cent. Now, if they were all in
the same department, this would be
avoided. There were over thirty
eight hundred applications for evidence
made of the Surgeon Generals Office
OF the War Office there we're many
more. Probably in both there were
ten thousand cases where applications
were made for new evidence, in cases
where they already had evidence on
record. Therefore, in this respect, we
see that this work would be more dill
gently done il this transfer should be
made.


Another instance of lack Of diligence.
This seems to me TO be an instance Of
fragrant wrong. If it was an isolated
instance | would not so strongly insist
upon it. But it is in the interest of
common honesty and decency that |
ask the House 10 consider another case
which l have here 1t is the case of
John Murphy. The charge made was
something like this: That the Pension
Bureau, lest it should run out of work,
was in the habit of granting q pension
below the grade 10 which the appli-
cant was entitled, in order to compel
him to make another application, and
thus there would be more cases for the
office TO work upon, and thereby the
Pension Bureau would be able to keep
its full force. That was the charge.


! inquired little into this case Of
John Murphy, which it was claimed
was one among many Of the kind. !
refer to this only as an illustration. l
have not been able TO find TO what ex.
tent this practice exists; but it exists
TO some extent, whether with the in
tent alleged cannot say. In this case
OF John Murphy, No. l05,fSl, the man
was blind. He sent in his application
to the Pension Bureau in 1867. The
action Of the Bureau was this Sep.
tember 10, 1870, he was granted pen.
sion Of sl5 per month. Prior TO that
the Surgeons certificate, dated July
2S, 1868, is, Surgeon Randall reports
disability total" That is, at the time
the pension was granted the Surgeon
had reported to the office that the ap-
plicant was totally disabled. On the
day the pension was granted it seems
the man was totally disabled he was
blind, wandering about sightless and
in darkness. Very soon after the pen
sion Of sl5 month was granted he
received notice from his attorney to
apply for an increase, and he does ap-
ply accordingly; and on the 10Th OF
December, 1870, the grade total" was
again returned. His certificate is then
increased in amount TO $40 per month,
January ii, 1871. But this is not yet
the final contamination by any means.
1t is necessary 10 call the matter up
again, and require this poor blind man
again to seek his evidence in darkness.
lie applies for an increase and he gets
1t every time. His pension is then
raised to s24 per month. That is on
the 4th OF June, 1872. First it is SIS,
then $50, and then s24,


Now, you would conclude that they
had done with this man; that the sub
Ject was about exhausted. But no,
they were not done by o
great deal They had only just COM
menced. They then sent out some
other officer OF the service; at least by |
some means they reduced his grade.
We find that on the 14th of November,
1873, his pension was reduced to s1S
per month. Thus they took another
twist at this poor blind man. You
might suppose that this was the end
Of the matter. But it is not They
increased the pension again to s24 per |
month. In accordance with notice
dated January 5, 1876, his pension is
TO s24, commencing Septem-
ber l, 1875. Thus VIC see the number
Of different changes in this pension
from the time OF its granting.


Now, Mr.. Chairman, ought this thing |
to be tolerated2 Ought an Office that |
performs its work no more diligently |
and honestly than this be permitted to |
exist under Government OF American
Ireemen who claim to be honest9 /
say that something ought to be done
and | have felt it my duty as chair
man of the committee TO bring the mat
ter to the attention Of this House and |
ask action upon it.


But the business is done negligcntly
in another way. For instance if you
Iook at the report OF the Third auditor
Of the Treasury you will find that the
amount oil money disbursed by this
Department to Army pensioners is re-