Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

17. Hospital and other stewards-Continued.

of the Government, and pension should be withheld during the period of such service. Samuel Hilton (Sec. Schurz), 6 P. D. (o. s.), 317.

A soldier who, subsequent to his discharge, reenlisted as hospital steward, to perform clerical duty in the War Department, is pensionable on account of disability incurred in his first service during the period of his subsequent service in the War Department. Citing William Mulhall (January 19, 1872). Bartholomew O'Leary (Sec. Teller), 9 P. D. (o. s.), 242.

18. Pay clerk and paymaster's clerks.

A pay clerk in the Navy is an officer in the naval service. Appellant's name having been placed on the pension roll under the act of June 27, 1890, and never having been formally dropped therefrom, he is entitled to pension for such period as he was not in the military or naval service of the United States. Joseph E. Edsall (Asst. Sec. Reynolds), 7 P. D., 595.

A paymaster's clerk appointed under the authority of the act of July 5, 1838, is not an "officer" or "enlisted man" in the Army within the meaning of the act of January 29, 1887. Adhering, on reconsideration, to the decision herein of June 30, 1888. A paymaster's clerk in the Navy, however, is an "officer" of the Navy. John H. Cassin (Asst. Sec. Hawkins), 2 P. D., 376.

Adhered to on motion for reconsideration (Asst. Sec. Bussey), 4 P. D., 218.

19. Powell's Battalion.

As the records show the services rendered by the members of "Powell's Battalion" were for the purpose of protecting trains on the Oregon trail from Indians, and had no connection with the Mexican war then in progress, and were rendered subsequent to the close of active military operations in said war, said members are not pensionable under the act of January 29, 1887; although such members may have been granted a bounty-land warrant on account of such services. George E(H). Brockman (Asst. Sec. Hawkins), 1 P. D., 453. Service in Powell's Missouri Battalion does not entitle to pension under the act of January 29, 1887, as the members of that organization never were en route to Mexico or the seat of war, and were not ordered from the rendezvous for that purpose, but for an entirely different purpose. Denying motion, made by the Commissioner of Pensions, for reconsideration of case (1 P. D., 453). 2 P. D., 239.

See act of March 3, 1891, SUPPLEMENT A.

20. Privateersmen.

Privateersmen are not included in the pension law of June 7, 1832; the language of said act, "officers, noncommissioned officers, mariners, and marines who served" in the naval service, etc., being applicable to those only who were in the immediate service of the Government, and formed a part of the public naval force, and not to those who were engaged in private armed ships. Atty. Gen. Taney, 2 Op., 531.

21. Professor in Military Academy.

There is no provision of law pensioning a professor of French in the Military Academy at West Point. Although such professor belongs to the regular military establishment of the United States, he is not pensionable (nor is his widow), because he is not a commissioned officer, nor an enlisted man, nor a member of any one of the classes enumerated in section 4693, Revised Statutes. On a subsequent submission to the Attorney-General, he held that such professors are commissioned officers assimilated, by reason of pay and allowances, to the rank of colonel and lieutenant-colonel, and are pensionable accordingly, in case of disability contracted under the conditions set forth in section 4693, Revised Statutes. Widow of Hyacinthe Robert Agnel (Sec. Kirkwood), 9 P. D. (o. s.), 144; (Sec. Teller), ibid., 263.

22. Provost marshals.

A provost marshal is regarded as being in the military service of the United States, having held the rank and received the pay and emoluments of captain of cavalry, and as such must be deprived of pension during said period of service as such under section 4724, Revised Statutes. A. W. Bolenius (Sec. Schurz), 4 P. D. (o. s.), 330.

A deputy provost marshal is not an officer of the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps, and pension can not be withheld under section 4724, Revised Statutes, while holding such office. Daniel D. Muthersbough (Sec. Schurz), 6 P. D. (o. s.), 252.

A deputy provost marshal is not pensionable for disease contracted. Such officer is pensionable only under the fifth subdivision of section 4693, Revised Statutes, for disability due to any wound or injury received in the discharge of his duty. Thomas Phillips (Asst. Sec. Bussey), 5 P. D., 362.

Service as a provost-marshal, deputy provost-marshal, or enrolling officer during the late war of the rebellion, is not such military service as is contemplated by section 2 of the act of June 27, 1890; such persons having been employed in

22. Provost marshals-Continued.

the civil branch of the service are not included within the terms of said section and are not pensionable thereunder. Andrew J. Shannon (Asst. Sec. Reynolds), 7 P. D., 64.

23. Purser's clerk.

A purser's clerk is an officer of the Navy within the meaning of the act of January 29, 1887. (captain's clerk), L. B., "Za," 194. Sec. Hawkins), 2 P. D., 320.

24. Rejected recruit.

Overrules Berkely Ward Richard H. Sinton (Asst.

Where a soldier was duly enlisted, was held in company as an unexamined recruit, and was finally discharged as a rejected recruit on a surgeon's certificate of disability, it is held that although he was technically in the service from the date of his enlistment and would be pensionable for any disability incurred in line of duty subsequent thereto, yet this claimant is not pensionable on account of disease of eyes for which he was discharged, as the evidence fails to show said disease was incurred subsequent to his enlistment, but shows, on the contrary, that it existed prior thereto. Alvin Cline (Asst. Sec. Bussey), 6 P. D., 212.

25. Revenue marines.

An employee of the Treasury Department on board the U. S. revenue cutter Mahoney is not in the naval service, and is not pensionable for injuries received while so employed. Alexander W. Powell (Actg. Sec. Gorham), 3 P. D. (o. s.), 420.

Officers and seamen of the revenue cutters are pensionable only in case they contract disability while their vessel was cooperating with the Navy under orders of the President, and under no other circumstances. As the revenue cutter Mahoning was not thus cooperating in August, 1864, the date of the alleged incurrence of disability herein, this claimant is not pensionable. Alexander W. Rowell (Sec. Schurz), 6 P. D. (0. s.), 40.

[NOTE. This case is evidently the same as that in 3 P. D. (o. s.), 420, though the names of sailor and vessel differ.]

To entitle members of the Revenue Marine to pension under section 4741, Revised Statutes, they must have been in actual and not constructive cooperation with the Navy, under the President's order of June 14, 1863. Citing opinion of the Attorney-General of March 5, 1890. Sec. Bussey), 6 P. D., 137.

Louis Schaffer (Asst.

25. Revenue marines-Continued.

Vessels of the Revenue Marine were, while cooperating with the Navy by order of the President of June 14, 1863, war vessels, within the meaning of section 4693, Revised Statutes. Ibid.

The service rendered by the Revenue Marine, by order of the President of June 14, 1863, in cooperating with the Navy must, in order to entitle to pension under either section 4741, Revised Statutes, or section 4693, Revised Statutes, have been for the purpose named in said order, viz, of arresting rebel depredations on American commerce in transportation, and of capturing rebels engaged therein. Ibid.

Other than record evidence is admissible to prove the character of the service rendered by the Revenue Marine while cooperating with the Navy. Citing John G. Coney (3 P. D., 200). Ibid.

See also EVIDENCE.

Members of the Revenue-Marine Service are not entitled to pension under the act of June 27, 1890, by virtue of section 4741, Revised Statutes, but only by virtue of the second paragraph of section 4693, Revised Statutes, the vessels on which they served being construed to be "war vessels" within the meaning of said section 4693, Revised Statutes, while cooperating with the Navy under order of the President of June 14, 1863. Ibid.

Section 4741, Revised Statutes, confers no pensionable rights upon the widows, or the children or dependent relatives, of those who served in the Revenue Marine. Citing AttorneyGeneral Cushing, 7 Op., 619. Ibid.

The widows, minors, or dependent relatives of those serving in the Revenue Marine are pensionable under either sections 4702 and 4707, Revised Statutes, or under the act of June 27, 1890. Ibid.

[NOTE. So much of this decision as relates to pension under act of June 27, 1890, was overruled in the case of David Oliver, following.] Those only are pensionable under section 2 of the act of June 27, 1890, or their widows and minor children under section 3 thereof, who were regularly enlisted men or officers in the military or naval establishments of the United States. Those who served in the Revenue Marine on vessels which cooperated, by direction of the President, with the Navy, as provided in section 2757, Revised Statutes, were not in the Navy or naval establishment of the United States and are not pensionable under said act, nor their widows or minor children. Case of Louis Schaffer, 6 P. D., 137, overruled in part. David Oliver (Asst. Sec. Reynolds), 7 P. D., 597.

26. War vessels.

Captains, pilots, and engineers not regularly mustered into the military or naval service of the United States, and serving on a vessel used merely as a transport, are not entitled to pension under the law. John G. Coney (Sec. Delano), 2 P. D. (0. s.), 35.

Overruled: 3 P. D., 200.

A fireman, hired and paid by the owners of a vessel chartered by the Government for purposes of transportation, but not manned as a war vessel, is a nonenlisted man, and, therefore, nonpensionable under section 4693, Revised Statutes. James O'Neill (Asst. Sec. Bussey), 5 P. D., 157.

Claimant's husband not having been an officer or enlisted man in the Army or Navy of the United States during the war of the rebellion, she is not pensionable. The decision of the Department in the invalid claim of claimant's husband (3 P.D., 200) cited and relied upon in the appeal held not to be in point. Angeline Coney (Asst. Sec. Reynolds), 7 P. D., 390.

A pilot who served upon a war vessel of the United States during the late civil war is not required to show enlistment or muster into the United States military or naval service to entitle him to pension for disability due to wounds or injury received in the line of duty as a civilian employee as such pilot. The case of John G. Coney, engineer (3 P. D., 200), cited and approved. Charles A. Kilburn (Asst. Sec. Reynolds), 8 P. D., 233.

27. Under act of March 25, 1862.

Claimant's husband was appointed a second lieutenant of engineers in July, 1861, by General Fremont, commanding the Department of the West, and was continued in the service as of the rank of first lieutenant by General Halleck, and served as topographical engineer on the staff of Generals Fremont and Halleck, and was paid as such until the acceptance of his resignation in August, 1862. It is held that, under the act of March 25, 1862, he was regularly in the service of the United States as an officer of the Army, as contemplated by sections 4692 and 4693, Revised Statutes. Mary C. Abry (Asst. Sec. Reynolds), 8 P. D., —.

See also COMMENCEMENT; COMMISSIONS; BOUNTY LAND; EVIDENCE; HOSPITAL MATRONS; IDENTITY; INDIANS; MEXICAN WAR; MILITIA; NURSES; PAY AND PENSION; WAR VESSELS.

SERVICE PENSIONS.

See MEXICAN WAR; RETIRED OFFICERS.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »