John McLean, Walton v. Cotton — Opinion of the Court
“ There is no argument which can be drawn from human sympathy, to exclude grandchildren from the bounty, whether we look to the donors or to the chief recipient.Congress, from high motives of policy, by granting pensions, alleviate, as far as they may, a class of men who suffered in the military service by the hardships they endured and the dangers they encountered. ”
John McLean, Walton v. Cotton — Opinion of the Court
“ The pension is undoubtedly a bounty of the Government, and in the hands of an administrator of a deceased pensioner it would not be liable to the claims of creditors, had the acts of Congress omitted such a provision. But the legislative intent is shown to be in accordance, in this respect, with the law. But should the word children, as used in these statutes, be more restricted than when used in a will? In the construction of wills, unless there is something to control a different meaning, the word children is often held to mean grandchildren. ”
John McLean, Walton v. Cotton — Opinion of the Court
“ If the soldier had died since the 4th March, 1931, and before the passage of that act, the pension which had accrued during these periods is given by the second section to the widow, and if no widow, to the children. The act of the 7th July, 1838, extends the benefits of the third section of the act of 1836 to widows whose husbands have died since the passage of the act. The act of 19th July, 1840, enacts, in the first section, that any male pensioner dying, leaving children and no widow, the pension due shall be paid to his children, and that it shall not be considered assets of said estate. ”
