statute, and though she still keeps her money at interest, using the income for her support as far as it will go. But if the mother has made a contract with a third person for her support during life she is not entitled to any pension from the date of such contract.1 Under a statute providing "that any person who is now receiving or shall hereafter receive a pension under a special act shall be entitled to receive, in addition thereto, a pension under the general law, unless the special act expressly states that the pensien granted thereby is in addition to the pension which said person is entitled to receive under the general law," a double pension will be refused.2 So one who voluntarily surrenders his pension under a special act in order to receive a larger pension to which he becomes entitled on the passage of a general act, thereby surrenders his right to the former. He cannot have both.3 V. Proof Required to Sustain Pension Claims-False Evidence.— Before the name of any person is placed upon the pension roll the pension laws require that proof of the right to the pension shall be furnished by the applicant,4 and certain penalties are imposed for false evidence, however produced.5 The mere fact that there were false statements in an application for a pension, even if they were intentionally false, is not sufficient to invalidate the pension. It must appear further that they were material and necessary in 1. United States v. Purdy, 38 Fed. Rep. 902. 2. United States v. Teller, 107 U. S. 64. Where a pension is provided for a widow for the services of her husband as an officer in the navy of the United States, by a special act of Congress, and a general act, passed the same day, provides a pension for widows of officers who have died in the naval service, such widow, having elected to take under the general law, and having taken under the same although under protest by receiving the same, did not prejudice her claim under the resolution of the same date, and cannot take under the special act. Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 497. 3. United States v. Burnett, 17 Otto (U.S.) 64. 4. United States Rev. Stat., § 4731, Pension Laws, 1890, p. 21. As soon as practicable after the receipt of the claim for a pension, application is made by the Pension Office, in army cases, to the Adjutant General and the Surgeon General of the army, for a report of the applicant's service, and evidence in regard to the disability alleged, which may appear upon the rolls and other rec18 C. of L.-19. ords in the possession of these officers. In navy cases application for such evidence is made to the proper bureau of the Navy Department. When the records of the War or Navy Departments do not furnish satisfactory evidence that the disability, on account of which the claim is made, originated in the service of the United States and in the line of duty, the claimant is required to furnish such evidence in accordance with the instructions given by the Commissioner of Pensions, compliance with which must be full and definite, and if the disability results in a wound or other injury, the nature and location of the wound or injury, time when, place where, and the manner in which it was received, whether in battle or otherwise, should be shown by the affidavit of some one who was a commissioned officer and had personal knowledge of the facts. Black's Army and Navy Pension Laws of the United States, p. 78; Pension Laws, 1890, p. 110. 5. United States Rev. Stat., § 4746. Indictment.-In an indictment for presenting for payment a false and fraudulent claim for pension moneys, it is not sufficient to allege the offense in the words of the statute. The facts 289 order to procure the pension. But it is an offense to transmit to the Commissioner of Pensions an affidavit which is false in the facts which it professes to narrate, though sworn to by a person who really existed, the person transmitting it knowing that it is false. An indictment for making a false deposition with intent to enable another to obtain payment of a fraudulent pension claim need not allege that it was ever attempted to use the deposition, or that the claim had been presented.3 Nor is it ground for quashing an indictment under the statute for aiding and procuring one to make a false affidavit for the purpose of procuring a pension, that the affidavit was in fact made before a proper officer, as the statute applies also to the offense of using a genuine instrument containing false statements, knowing them to be false with intent to defraud the United States.4 When the Commissioner of Pensions prescribes a regulation that "all evidence in a claim for pension other than the declaration may be verified before an officer duly authorized to administer oaths for general purposes," such a regulation is proper and a justice of the peace is an officer duly authorized to administer oaths within the purview of such regulation.5 VI. Payment of Pensions.-The several agents for the pay. ments of pensions are required to prepare a quarterly voucher for every person whose pension is payable at his agency and transmit the same by mail directed to the address of the pensioner named in such voucher, who, on or after the time fixed by the statute, may execute and return the same to the agency at which it was prepared, and at which the pension of such person is due and payable. Upon the receipt of such voucher, properly executed, and the identity of the person being established, and proved in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of the In terior, the agent for the payment of pensions immediately draws his check on the proper assistant treasurer, or designated depositary of the United States, for the amount due such pensioner, payable to his order, and transmits the same by mail directed to the address of the pensioner entitled thereto.6 If the pensioner dies before payment, but after the certificate is issued, the issuing of the certificate does not create a debt against the government which survives to the administrator of the pensioner. If the vouchers are signed and the drafts issued in constituting the offense should be set out with such certainty as to apprise the defendant of what is intended to be proved against him, to the end that he may prepare his defense and plead the judgment as a bar to any subsequent prosecution for the same offense. United States v. Goggin, Fed. Rep. 49; 9 Biss. (U. S.) 269. 1. United States v. Purdy, 38 Fed. Rep. 902. 2. United States v. Statts, 8 How. (U. S.) 41. 3. United States v. Rhodes, 30 Fed. Rep. 439. 4. United States v. Gowdy, 37 Fed. Rep. 332. 5. United States v. Boggs, 31 Fed. Rep. 337. 6. U. S. Rev. Stat., § 4764. See also Pension Laws, 1890. 7. Donnelly v. United States, 17 Ct. of Cl. 105. the usual course of business, the officials of the Pension Office are not guilty of negligence in failing to discover the death of the applicant prior to the issuing of the vouchers.1 So where pension drafts are paid with a forged indorsement of the name of the applicant having notice on the back that the "payee's indorsement of this check must correspond to the signature on the voucher for which the check is given," the government can, on discovering the fraud, afterwards recover the amount from one who in good faith cashed the drafts and indorsed them to the United States without returning the draft to him.2 The navy pensions are paid from the navy fund of which the Secretary of the Navy is trustee. Where the claimant applies to him for the pension and he refuses to pay on the ground that he is not an "enlisted officer," it is held that the jurisdiction. of the Secretary of the Navy is conclusive. So mandamus will not lie to compel the Secretary of the Navy to pay money out of the fund where his discretion may be exercised.R The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to strike from the pension roll the name of any person whenever it appears by proof satisfactory that such name was put upon such roll through false or fraudulent representations. This authority extends to all persons, and may be exercised upon the evidence of an ex parte report of special agents, notwithstanding the first part of the section relates wholly to soldiers of the War of 1812.8 VII. Attorney's Fees. Provision is made in pension laws for limiting the compensation of agents or attorneys for their service in procuring pensions. In order that this provision be not inoperative, a penalty is provided for receiving greater fees than those prescribed. 10 The legal fee in a claim for a pension, or for a bounty land warrant under the statute passed July 4th, 1884, is 1. United States v. Onondaga Co. Sav. Bk., 39 Fed. Rep. 259. 2. United States v. Onondaga Co. Sav. Bk., 39 Fed. Rep. 259. 3. United States Rev. Stat., §§ 4753 and 4758. 4. Rev. St., § 4756. 5. Davidson v. United States, 20 Ct. of Cl. 298. 6. Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 497; United States v. Black, 12 U. S. 40. 7. Rev. Stat., § 4739. See Pension Laws, 1890, p. 21. 8. Harrison v. United States, 20 Ct. of Cl. 122, citing United States v. Moore, 95 U. S. 763; United States v. Pugh, 99 U. S. 265; Hahn v. United States, 107 U. S. 402. 9. Rev. Stat. (U. S.), § 5485; United States v. Brown, 40 Fed. Rep. 457. 10. United States v. Marks, 2 Abb. (U.S.) 531. twenty-five dollars on contract; otherwise ten dollars payable in both cases by the United States pension agent upon the allowance of the claim.1 It is a violation of the statute which forbids any agent or attor ney, or other person instrumental in prosecuting any claim for pension, directly or indirectly to contract for, demand, receive, or retain any greater compensation for his services than the legal fee. Any scheme or contrivance by which, under the guise of a loan, a mortgage, or a gift, or other dealing, the claim agent retains more than the legal fee, is a violation of the statute. So evidence will be admitted to show that trickery was practiced to evade the statute,3 but fraud or extortion is not, however, a necessary element in the offense.4 The statute does not, however, prohibit a charge in excess of the statutory fee for services in causing the removal of a charge for desertion, nor does it forbid reimbursement for money advanced for the expenses incurred. See EXTORTION, vol. 7, p. 593. No claim agent or other person is entitled to receive any compensation for services in making application for arrears of pensions. No more than the lawful fee can be recovered even upon a quantum meruit;8 and if more has been paid it may be recovered even though paid voluntarily and understandingly,10 and no action can be maintained, even upon the promise of a third per ble for obtaining a pension is a beneficent one, and should be enforced by the courts for the protection of the soldier and his family, in such a manner as to accomplish the object in tended. Hall v. Kimmer, 61 Mich. 269, 1 Am. St. Rep. 575. Indictment.-An indictment following the language of section 5485, Rev. Stat. U. S., charging the accused with receiving an excessive fee for his services "in prosecuting a pension claim," sufficiently charges him with receiving the same "in a pension case;" the language setting forth the elements necessary to constitute the crime, and apprises the accused with reasonable certainty of the accusation against him. United States v. Wilson, 29 Fed. Rep. 286. The indictment need not state how the accused was instrumental and what he did in procuring the pension. It is also unnecessary to state that the defendant "wilfully and wrongfully" did the act charged. United States v. Koch, 21 Fed. Rep. 873. 1. Ú. S. Rev. Stat. 5485. The limitation as to pension fees, in U. S. Rev. Stat., § 5485, and Supp., § 602, does not apply to a claim under § 4718 for reimbursement out of an accrued pension by one who bore the expenses of the last sickness and bu rial of a pensioner, nor to the attorney of such claimant. United States v. Nicewonger, 20 Fed. Rep. 438. 2. United States v. Brown, 40 Fed. Rep. 457; United States v. Moyers, 15 Fed. Rep. 411. 3. United States v. Koch, 21 Fed. Rep. 73. See also United States v. Moyers, 15 Fed. Rep. 411; United States v. Rickman, 12 Fed. Rep. 486. 4. The offense of taking more than the statutory allowance is complete under U. S. Rev. Stats., § 5485, when more is demanded. United States v. Moore, 8 Fed. Rep. 686. 5. United States v. Snow, 2 Flipp. C. C. 1. 6. See Morgan v. Davis, 47 Vt. 610; Crane v. Linnues, 77 Me. 59; United States v. Hewitt, 11 Fed. Rep. 243. 7. United States Rev. St., § 4711. See St. Jan. 25, 1879, Ch. 23, § 4. 8. Morgan v. Davis, 47 Vt. 610. 9. Smith v. White, 17 Me. 332; 40 Am. Rep. 356; Hall v. Kimmer, 61 Mich. 269. 10. Ladd v. Barton, 64 N. H. 613. son, for more than the statutory fee.1 VIII. Detaining Pension.-Under the constitutional authority "to raise and support armies," Congress is authorized to enact statutes making it an offense punishable in the national courts to detain from a military pensioner any portion of a sum collected in his behalf as his pension.2 It is competent for Congress to protect the fund both before and after it reaches the hands of the pensioners; and to this end may declare the embezzlement, by a guardian, of money which came to his hands as pension money for his wards, to be a crime against the United States, and as such, punishable in the United States courts. These statutory provisions are not confined to withholding pensions authorized by the statute under which they were granted. Withholding any pension is indictable.4 Any pledge, mortgage, sale, assignment, or transfer of any right, claim or interest in any pension which may be granted is void; and any person who so pledges or receives as a pledge, mortgage, sale, assignment or transfer of any right, claim or interest in the pension or pension certificate which may be granted, or who holds the same as collateral security for any debt or promise, is guilty of a misdemeanor and liable to a penalty under the statute. Under this statute a verbal promise by a pension 1. Wolcott v. Frissel, 134 Mass. 1. 2. United States v. Fairchilds, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 74; United States v. Marks, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 531. 3. United States v. Hall, 8 Otto (U. S.) 343. 4. United States v. Chaffee, 4 Ben. (U. S.) 330. Compare United States v. Marks, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 531. 5. By the construction of the act of July 29, 1848, and of other acts of Congress, a widow to whom a pension has been granted for the services of her husband cannot pledge the certificate by anticipation to an agent employed to obtain the pension to secure to him a compensation for his services. Such a pledge, no matter to whom made, or for what purpose, is wholly void. Payne v. Woodhull, 4 Duer (N. Y.) 169. An agreement between a widow of a soldier of the Revolution entitled to a pension under the act of Congress of 1848, ch. 120, and an agent, that the latter was to receive a certain part of the pension money for his services in obtaining it, is void, and money received under such an agreement can be recovered by the pensioner in an action of assumpsit. Powell v. Jennings, 3 Jones (N. Car.) 547. But an instrument executed by H reciting that he is a pensioner of the United States, and is entitled to an addition to his pension under the act of June, 1832, and that J has undertaken, at his request and on his behalf to protect his claim to such increased pension, and promising and agreeing in consideration thereof that, in case J shall obtain such additional allowance or increase of pension, he shall receive for his services in obtaining same, onethird of the amount of such increase, etc., is held not to be a transfer. Jukur v. Hooker, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 435. Proof of Violation.-In order to con vict under the U. S. Rev. St., § 4745, imposing a penalty for wrongfully withholding a pension, it must be shown by the evidence Ist. That the person from whom it is alleged that the whole or any part of a pension is wrongfully withheld is a pensioner of the United States. 2nd. That the amount alleged to be wrongfully withheld is the whole or part of a pension or claim allowed and due such pensioner or claimant. 3rd. That the person charged with wrongfully withholding was an agent or an attorney of the pensioner, instrumental in prosecuting the pensioner's claim for pension, or, if not an agent |