Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

ין

1st Session.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

APRIL 16, 1874.-Ordered to be printed.

No. 283.

Mr. HAMILTON, of Texas, submitted the following

REPORT:

[To accompany bill H. R. 2679.]

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2679) granting a pension to George Dayspring, have considered the same, and make the following report :

The claimant, late a private of Company H, Fifty-fourth Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, was enrolled on the 22d day of February, 1864, to serve for three years, and discharged on the 27th March, 1865, by reason of surgeon's certificate of disability, arising from wound received in battle. Claimant received a gun-shot wound in the right shoulder, at the battle of Piedmont, Va., June 5, 1864, and, on account of the disability resulting therefrom, was admitted to the pension-roll of invalid pensioners, to date from March 27, 1865, at $8 per month.

It appears that claimant has made repeated applications to the Commissioner of Pensions for an increase of his pension, believing himself entitled to the benefits of the provisions made in the act of 1866 for class three of totally-disabled persons, and upon his application of 26th October, 1872, the Commissioner directed him to report for examination to the president of the board of examining surgeons, at Washington, D. C., during the months of November or December, 1872, at which time he was examined, and the board certified, in his case, as follows: Ball entered in front and a little below coracoid process, passed backward, and was removed from the posterior and superior third of humerus, probably injuring the bone in passing through, but slightly. Has use of joint, except in not being able to raise arm above level of shoulder; muscles of arm somewhat atrophied; of fore-arm, fine, well-nourished, and measuring one-fourth inch more than the left. Has not full use of elbow-joint; cannot flex the joint fully, but nearly so. Hand hard and calloused, showing that he uses it as freely as its fellow in manual labor. In our opinion, the aid pensioner's disability from the cause aforesaid continues at three-fourths of total. Upon the foregoing report, made on the 15th of November, 1872, the Commissioner reduced claimant's pension to $6 per month.

Since that date claimant was examined again by Dr. J. B. Bascom, examining surgeon, on September 5, 1873, whose report was as follows: Ball passing through and fracturing the head of the humerus, causing the loss of a portion of the bone, contraction of the muscles, and permanent stiffness of the shoulder joint. In my opinion, the said pensioner's disability from the cause aforesaid continues at total third grade-$18 per month.

There are no later reports found among the papers; perhaps upon a more careful examination the condition of claimant's shoulder would be

found more nearly to correspond with the description given by the board in November, 1872, because it can hardly be supposed that the Commissioner would not only refuse the increase which his alleged present condition would justify, but persist in the reduction of the former allowance to $6 per month. Besides, it seems not a little remarkable that the change in claimant's condition was so slight as to be hardly perceptible from the time he left the hospital in 1865 down to November, 1872, while from that date to September, 1873, the change, as reported, was very great.

There being no technical objections or limitations in the way of the relief asked, the committee consider the Pension Bureau the proper place to apply for such relief as his condition requires, feeling confident special relief by act of Congress is not necessary in cases of this charac ter, where the applicant is on the spot and may be examined any day.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

APRIL 16, 1874.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. CONOVER submitted the following

REPORT:

[To accompany bill S. 710.]

The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of E. Laws, chief engineer United States Navy, praying compensation as such, of which he was deprived by the act of July 25, 1866, have had the same under consideration, and submit the following report:

The act of July 25, 1866, (Stats., vol. 14, page 223,) provided that first and second assistant engineers and naval constructors should be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and that they should have pay and rank as officers in the Navy.

The petitioner sets forth that the commissions of his class, as chief engineers, are dated in 1863; that he failed once in his examination, which put him with a class where commissions dated in 1570

this and the following two classes are receiving pay as chief engineers of the second five years, with the exception of the petition giv. ing them the sum of $400 per annum more than he gets.

[ocr errors]

Having seen the same service as his classmates, it is claimed that he should receive the same pay as allowed them, and of which he appears to have been deprived by the act first cited, changing him from a warrant to a commissioned officer.

He was first examined for admittance to the service in 1857, and by warrant appointed first assistant engineer in the month of March, 1858. His second examination was for promotion, in February, 1860, and by warrant he was made a second assistant engineer on the 1st of December following. Examined for first assistant in November, 1866, and his commission dated back to the passage of the act, July 25, 1866.

He could not be dated back further in his promotion, for under the act he was commissioned instead of receiving a warrant. If he had been examined prior to the passage of the act, instead of in November of the same year, he would have received advanced pay from April, 1863, and his sea-service would have commenced from that date, which would have entitled him to the same pay when promoted as chief engineer as was given to the other members of his class, who were paid from 1865, while he, rendering the same service, only received the advanced pay from 1870.

Under a rule established by the committee, the papers have been forwarded to the Navy Department, and under date of the 8th instant the honorable Secretary recommends the relief contemplated in the bill reported.

It could not have been the intention of Congress, in the passage of the act of July 25, 1866, to take away from any warrant-officer the pay to which he would have been entitled by reason of his long and contin ued service.

In the class of 1858, which is composed of six members, the petitioner is the fifth, thus ranking one officer; and while all the class except him are paid as chief engineers from April, 1865, he has only been paid from March, 1870, under the construction given by the accounting officers to the act referred to.

The rank of the officer is not increased, and the committee think he should be allowed the same pay allowed those of the same class performing the same service.

Entertaining these views, the committee report the accompanying bill and recommend its passage.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »