opinion merely and a manifest indisputable error in the rating can not be shown. James M. Marshall (Asst. Sec. Reynolds), 8 P. D.,

See also APPEALS; FEE; FRAUD AND MISTAKE; JURISDICTION; RECONSIDERATION; RERATING.

RESERVED LIST (NAVY).

See RETIRED OFFICERS.

RESTORATION.

1. Under section 4719, Revised Statutes, generally.

(a) Medical evidence.

(b) What is not a satisfactory accounting for failure to claim.

2. When dropping was based on unreliable testimony.

3. When original allowance is found to have been erroneous.

4. When dropped on account of disloyalty.

5. Commencement.

6. Rating.

7. Adjudication of claim.

8. Under act of June 27, 1890.

1. Under section 4719, Revised Statutes, generally.

It is not necessary, on an application to have a name restored to the pension roll, where a pensioner had been dropped because of nonclaimer of pension for three years, to show the applicant was originally entitled to the pension, but he must show (1) a satisfactory reason for his failure to claim his pension, and if he was a pensioner who was not exempt from biennial examination, also, by medical evidence, (2) continuance of his disability. Patrick Welch, alias Connally (Asst. Sec. Hawkins), 2 P. D., 328.

No money in the way of pension can be paid to any person whose name has been dropped from the roll under section 4719, Revised Statutes, until that right to receive the same be revived, and the termination of the right to receive deprives a claimant of arrears, as well as of future pension, until said right be reestablished upon certain conditions of proof. Ibid. (Asst. Sec. Bussey), 3 P. D., 126,

(a) Medical evidence.

A pensioner failed to draw pension and failed, as prescribed by section 4719, Revised Statutes, to furnish medical evidence of the continuance of his disability. The action of the office in dropping name from rolls is approved. John C. Williams (Sec. Schurz), 7 P. D. (o. s.), 104.

13201- -29

1. Under section 4719, Revised Statutes—Continued. (a) Medical evidence-Continued.

Section 4719, Revised Statutes, does not require that an applicant thereunder for restoration should furnish medical evidence as to the continuance of his disability covering the whole period during which biennial examinations were required. Frank E. Pickett (Asst. Sec. Bussey), 5 P. D., 65.

Under section 4719, Revised Statutes, evidence of a medical character as to continuance of disability is an absolute necessity in establishing a claim for restoration if claimant was originally not exempt from biennial examination. Mark G. Campbell (Asst. Sec. Reynolds), 8 P. D., 203.

(b) What is not a satisfactory accounting for failure to claim.

The claimant in this case ceased to draw her pension as widow in 1870, and made no claim therefor until 1877. During this period she lived with one Wells, but denies that a marriage ever existed: Held, That under section 4719, Revised Statutes, her application for restoration is not accompanied by evidence satisfactorily accounting for the failure to claim such pension, and the presumption that a marriage took place prevails under said section, and the rejection is affirmed. Margaret Nixon (Asst. Sec. Reynolds), 7 P. D., 171.

The alleged loss of pension certificate and discharge papers in 1882 is not a satisfactory explanation of failure to claim pension from 1870 to 1889. Mark G. Campbell (Asst. Sec. Reynolds), 8 P. D., 203.

2. When dropping was based on unreliable testimony.

When it is shown that the testimony on which a widow pensioner was dropped from the rolls for adulterous cohabitation was unreliable and inspired by malice, the pension was restored. Addie A. Crofoot (Asst. Sec. Hawkins), 1 P. D., 391.

3. When original allowance is found to have been erroneous.

If, under a claim for restoration, on reexamination of the evidence upon which the pension was originally granted, the fact is developed that the pensioned disability was not incident to the service, and that therefore the claim was improperly allowed in the first instance, the claim for restoration should be rejected. Alger J. Baldwin (Actg. Sec. Cowen), 1 P. D. (0. s.), 117.

Where, after granting pension, the testimony on which it was allowed is impeached by testimony taken on special investigation, the date of the soldier's death especially being disproved, the date of his death (if he be dead) being not

3. When original allowance is found to have been erroneous—

Continued.

shown, the action of the office declining to restore name to roll is approved. Mary M. Dougherty (Sec. Schurz), 7 P. D. (0. s.), 99.

4. When dropped on account of disloyalty.

There is no authority of law for restoring to the rolls a pensioner who is dropped therefrom under the act of February 4, 1862, relating to disloyalty. Agnes Wheeler (Sec. Cox), 7 L. B. P., 18.

The privilege of making a claim for restoration where a pensioner was dropped from the rolls under the act of February 4, 1862, on account of disloyalty, is a personal one of the pensioner's, and in case of his or her death does not descend to heirs or representatives. Executor of Ann B. Johnson (Sec. Cox), 7 L. B. P., 69.

A pensioner pensioned on account of wounds received in the war with Mexico whose name was stricken from the roll on account of his alleged disloyalty, can not have his name restored to said roll under the act of March 9, 1873, but can only have such pension restored on proof that such action was not in consonance with the facts and the law; and upon proof of such pensioner's loyalty to the Government his name must be restored to the roll from date of last receipt of pension. James A. Furley (Asst. Sec. Bussey) 3 P. D., 167.

5. Commencement.

Where a special act restoring a pensioner's name to the rolls does not specify the date of commencement, pension should be restored from date of last payment; but in cases of original pension granted by special act which does not specify the date of commencement, pension should commence from the date of the act. Margaret L. Bybee (Sec. Delano), 1 P. D. (o. s.), 161.

A widow was pensioned from the death of her husband, and remarried. The children were pensioned from the date of such remarriage, and the pension was paid until the youngest child became 16 years of age. It afterwards transpired that the remarriage of the widow was void: Held, That her pension should be restored from the date the youngest child became 16 years of age. Cyrenius Giles (Sec. Schurz), 6 P. D. (o. s.), 235. Where a party incurs a disability in one service and subsequently reenlists and deserts from another: Held, That right to pension accrued on the date of his discharge from the service in which the disability was incurred, and that when claim for restoration is established the pension should be allowed from the date his pay for military service ceased. Benjamin Robbins (Sec. Schurz), 6 P. D. (o. s.), 486.

6. Rating.

Where pensioner was receiving $8 per month for disability incurred while a soldier in the Mexican war and his name was dropped from the rolls on account of his enlistment in the Union Army during the late rebellion, the action of the office in renewing pension from date of dropping at less rate than origi nally pensioned, deducting for period he was in the second service, was not error. Barnabas Gaffney (Sec. Schurz), 6 P. D. (0. s.), 398.

Upon the restoration to the pension roll of a name unlawfully dropped therefrom, a reduction of the rate of pension for the period during which the same was so unlawfully withheld is error, unless it be clearly shown that the disability during the period in question did not entitle pensioner to the rate formerly allowed. William B. Walton (Asst. Sec. Reynolds), 8 P. D.,

19.

7. Adjudication of claim.

Where a suspended pensioner was restored at a less rate, a subsequent claim for allowance at the original rate is not a claim for increase, as contemplated in section 4698, Revised Statutes, but should be adjudicated as a claim for restoration. E. P. Shaw (Actg. Sec. Cowen), 2 P. D. (o. s.), 485.

The adjudication of a claim for restoration to a rate from which claimant had been reduced, as a claim for increase is error. Thomas Mallon (Asst. Sec. Reynolds), 8 P. D., 208.

8. Under act of June 27, 1890-Declarations.

Pension was granted under the act of June 27, 1890, and subsequently pensioner's name was dropped from the rolls. In a claim for restoration he failed to state that he had served ninety days and received an honorable discharge. Held, As sufficient data were furnished in the declaration to establish claimant's identity, that he claimed restoration on account of the same causes of disability and that the omission had been supplied in his original declaration, which was a part of the record history of the case, the declaration should be accepted as sufficient. Theodore Chircaden (Asst. Sec. Reynolds),

8 P. D., 204.

See also ACCRUED PENSION; ADULTEROUS COHABITATION; COMMENCEMENT; EVIDENCE (Certificate of disability); FRAUD AND MISTAKE.

RESULTING DISABILITY.

See INCREASE.

RETIRED OFFICERS.

1. Section 4724, Revised Statutes, application of.

2. Navy.

3. Under general law and act of June 27, 1890-widows.

4. Under acts of August 29, 1890, and March 3, 1891.

1. Section 4724, Revised Statutes, application of.

2. Navy.

Section 4724, Revised Statutes, applies only to invalid and not to service pensions. (Concurred in on submission to the Assistant Attorney-General for the Interior Department. Overrules former decision, L. B. "Qa," 98.) Theodore J. Eckerson (Asst. Sec. Hawkins) 2 P. D., 187.

On a subsequent motion, made by the Commissioner of Pensions, for a review, Secretary Vilas adhered to above holding, 2 P. D., 309.

Officers on the reserved list in the Navy continue to be officers of the Navy, as they draw pay and are subject to be put on active duty drawing full pay (8 Op. Atty. Gen. 235). Widow of James M. Watson (Sec. Teller), 9 P. D. (o. s.), 219.

When not engaged upon active duty an officer upon the retired list of the Navy may properly be regarded in the same light, for pension purposes, as if upon leave of absence or on furlough; but if such officer contract a disability while employed upon any duty to which he had been assigned by authority of law, and his death result therefrom, the right of his widow to pension should be decided, so far as the question of the origin of the death cause is concerned, irrespective of the fact that he was at the time of such origin borne upon the retired list of officers. Widow of James M. Watson (Sec.Teller), 9 P. D. (0. s.), 219.

3. Under general law and act of June 27, 1890-Widows.

While an officer on the retired list can not acquire pensionable status, nor his widow, under the general law, yet she is pensionable under the act of June 27, 1890. Citing Mary E. Gresham, 6 P. D., 84. Widow of Hamilton M. Tallman (Asst. Sec. Bussey), 6 P. D., 261.

4. Under acts of August 29, 1890, and March 3, 1891.

Section 2 of the act of August 29, 1890, and the second proviso of the first section of the act of March 3, 1891, do not bar an officer on the retired list in the Army from receiving the pension granted for any period when he was not an officer or soldier in the Army in the service of the United States. John Pulford (Asst. Sec. Reynolds), 7 P. D., 412.