VETO MESSAGES.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 10, 1886.
To the Senate of the United States:
I have carefully considered Senate bill No. 193, entitled "An act for the relief of John Hollins McBlair," and hereby return the same without approval to the Senate, where it originated, with my objections to the same.
The object of this bill is to suspend the provisions of law regulating appointments in the Army by promotion so far as they affect John Hollins McBlair, and to authorize the President to nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint said McBlair a first lieutenant in the Army and to place him upon the retired list as of the date of April 8, 1864, with the pay of his rank from April 30, 1884.
The beneficiary named in this bill was appointed a first lieutenant in the Army, from civil life, in June, 1861, with rank from May 14, 1861.
It appears from his own testimony, afterwards taken before a retiring board, that at the time he was commissioned he was but 17 years of age.
In October, 1861, he was in the field for five days with his regiment, within which time he participated in no battle, skirmish, or engagement of any kind.
After five days spent in marching and camping he was taken sick, and after remaining in camp six or seven weeks, his illness still continuing, he was granted sick leave and came to Washington.
In June, 1862, he was put on duty in the Commissary Department at Washington and remained there until August, 1863, when he was summoned before a retiring board convened for the purpose of retiring disabled officers.
From testimony before this board it appears that the illness which caused him to leave his regiment was one not uncommon in the Army, and yielded to treatment, so that in April or May, 1862, he was completely cured.
About this time, however, he was attacked with convulsions, which were pronounced by the physicians examined before the board to be a form of epilepsy, and for this cause he was found to be incapacitated for active service.
The medical testimony, while it suggested various causes for this epileptic condition, negatives entirely any claim that these attacks were at all related to the illness which obliged this officer to abandon service with his regiment. He testified himself that he had been told he had one or two convulsions in childhood, but there is no direct testimony that he was subject to epileptic attacks before he entered the Army.
The retiring board determined upon the proof that this incapacity did not result from any incident of military service, and therefore Lieutenant McBlair was in October, 1863, retired wholly from the service with one year's pay and allowances, which is the usual action in such cases, and which was approved by the President.
But in April, 1864, the President, in a review of the case, made an order that instead of this officer being wholly retired he should be placed upon the retired list as of the date when the action of the retiring board was originally approved.
For about twenty years, and up to April 30, 1884, he remained upon the retired list and received the pay to which this position entitled him.
Quite recently, in consequence of a claim of additional pay which he made upon the Government, his status was examined by the Court of Claims, which decided that the action of the President in April, 1864, by which he sought to change the original disposition of the case upon the findings of the retiring board, was nugatory, and that ever since October, 1863, this officer had not been connected with the Army and had been receiving from the Government money to which he was not entitled.
If the bill herewith returned becomes a law, it makes valid all payments made, and if its purpose is carried out causes such payments to be resumed.
The finding of the retiring board seems so satisfactory and the merits of this case so slight in the light of the large sum already paid to the applicant, while the claims of thousands of wounded and disabled soldiers wait for justice at the hands of the Government, that I am constrained to interpose an objection to a measure which proposes to suspend general and wholesome laws for the purpose of granting what appears to me to be an undeserved gratuity.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 11, 1886.
To the Senate of the United States:
I return herewith without approval, and with a statement of my objections thereto, Senate bill No. 150, entitled "An act to quiet title of settlers on the Des Moines River lands in the State of Iowa, and for other purposes."
This proposed legislation grows out of a grant of land made to the Territory of Iowa in the year 1846 to aid in the improvement of the navigation of the Des Moines River.
The language of this grant was such that it gave rise to conflicting decisions on the part of the Government Departments as to its extent, and it was not until 1860 that this question was authoritatively and finally settled by the Supreme Court of the United States. Its decision diminished the extent of the grant to a quantity much less than had been insisted on by certain interested parties and rendered invalid the titles of parties who held, under the Territory or State of Iowa, lands beyond the limit of the grant fixed by the decision of the court.
For the purpose of validating such titles and to settle all disputes so far as the General Government was concerned, the Congress, in the year 1861, by a joint resolution, transferred to the State of Iowa all the title then retained by the United States to the lands within the larger limits which had been claimed, and then held by bona fide purchasers from the State; and in 1862 an act of Congress was passed for the same general purpose.
Without detailing the exact language of this resolution and statute, it certainly seems to be such a transfer and relinquishment of all interests in the land mentioned on the part of the United States as to relieve the Government from any further concern therein.
The questions unfortunately growing out of this grant and the legislation relating thereto have been passed upon by the United States Supreme Court in numerous cases, and as late as 1883 that court, referring to its many previous decisions, adjudged that "the act of 1862 (12 U.S. Statutes at Large, ch. 161, p. 543) transferred the title from the United States and vested it in the State of Iowa for the use of its grantees under the river grant."
Bills similar to this have been before Congress for a number of years and have failed of passage; and at least on one occasion the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate reported adversely upon a measure covering the same ground.
I have carefully examined the legislation upon the subject of this grant, and studied the decisions of the court upon the numerous and complicated questions which have arisen from such legislation, and the positions of the parties claiming an interest in the land covered by said grant, and I can not but think that every possible question that can be raised, or at least that ought to be raised, in any suit relating to these lands has been determined by the highest judicial authority in the land; and if any substantial point remains yet unsettled, I believe there is no difficulty in presenting it to the proper tribunal.
This bill declares that certain lands which nearly twenty-four years ago the United States entirely relinquished are still public lands, and directs the Attorney-General to begin suits to assert and protect the title of the United States in such lands.
If it be true that these are public lands, the declaration that they are so by enactment is entirely unnecessary; and if they are wrongfully withheld from the Government, the duty and authority of the Attorney-General are not aided by the proposed legislation. If they are not public lands because the United States have conveyed them to others, the bill is subject to grave objections as an attempt to destroy vested rights and disturb interests which have long since become fixed.
If a law of Congress could, in the manner contemplated by the bill, change, under the Constitution, the existing rights of any of the parties claiming interests in these lands, it hardly seems that any new questions could be presented to the courts which would do more than raise false hopes and renew useless and bitter strife and litigation.
It seems to me that all controversies which can hereafter arise between those claiming these lands have been fairly remitted to the State of Iowa, and that there they can be properly and safely left; and the Government, through its Attorney-General, should not be called upon to litigate the rights of private parties.
It is not pleasant to contemplate loss threatened to any party acting in good faith, caused by uncertainty in the language of laws or their conflicting interpretation; and if there are persons occupying these lands who labor under such disabilities as prevent them from appealing to the courts for a redress of their wrongs, a plain statute, directed simply to a remedy for such disabilities, would not be objectionable.
Should there be meritorious cases of hardship and loss, caused by an invitation on the part of the Government to settle upon lands apparently public, but to which no right or lawful possession can be secured, it would be better, rather than to attempt a disturbance of titles already settled, to ascertain such losses and do equity by compensating the proper parties through an appropriation for that purpose.
A law to accomplish this very object was passed by Congress in the year 1873.
Valuable proof is thus furnished, by the only law ever passed upon the subject, of the manner in which it was thought proper by the Congress at that time to meet the difficulties suggested by the bill now under consideration.
Notwithstanding the fact that there may be parties in the occupancy of these lands who suffer hardship by the application of strict legal principles to their claims, safety lies in noninterference by Congress with matters which should be left to judicial cognizance; and I am unwilling to concur in legislation which, if not an encroachment upon judicial power, trenches so closely thereon as to be of doubtful expediency, and which at the same time increases the elements of litigation that have heretofore existed and endangers vested rights.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 26, 1886.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith return Senate bill No. 349, entitled "An act for the promotion of anatomical science and to prevent the desecration of graves," without my approval.
The purpose of this bill is to permit the delivery of certain dead bodies to the medical colleges located in the District of Columbia for dissection.
Such disposition of the bodies of unknown and pauper dead is only excused by the necessity of acquiring by this means proper and useful anatomical knowledge, and the laws by which it is permitted should, in deference to a decent and universal sentiment, carefully guard against abuse and needless offense.
The measure under consideration does not with sufficient care specify and limit the officers and the parties who it is proposed to invest with discretion in the disposition of dead bodies remaining in the institutions and places mentioned in the bill. The second section indicates an intention to prevent the use of said bodies for any other purpose than the promotion of anatomical and surgical knowledge within the District of Columbia, and to secure after such use the decent burial of the remains. It declares that a bond shall be given providing for the performance of these conditions. But instead of exacting the bond from the medical colleges, to which alone, by the terms of the first section, the bodies are to be delivered, such bond is required of "every physician or surgeon before receiving such dead body."
The bill also provides that a relative by blood or marriage, or a friend, may, within forty-eight hours after death, demand that any body be buried, upon satisfying "the authorities" of the relationship claimed to the deceased.
The "authorities" to be thus satisfied should be clearly defined, and the determination of a question so important should be left with those only who will perform this duty with proper care and consideration.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, April 30, 1886.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith return without my approval Senate bill No. 141, entitled "An act to extend the provisions of the act of June 10, 1880, entitled 'An act to amend the statutes in relation to immediate transportation of dutiable goods, and for other purposes,' to the port of Omaha, in the State of Nebraska."
The statute, which was passed June 10, 1880, referred to in the title of this bill permitted certain merchandise imported at specified ports, but which was consigned to certain other ports which were mentioned by name in the seventh section of said act, to be shipped immediately after entry at the port of arrival to such destination.
The seventh section of said act contained the names of more than seventy ports or places to which imported merchandise might be thus immediately shipped. One of the places thus named is "Omaha, in Nebraska."
But it was declared in a proviso which was made a part of this section that the privilege of immediate transportation contemplated by the act should "not extend to any place at which there are not the necessary officers for the appraisement of merchandise and the collection of duties."
Because there were no such officers at Omaha the privilege mentioned was withheld from that place by the Treasury Department.
The bill submitted to me for approval provides that these privileges conferred by the act of June 10, 1880, be "extended to the port of Omaha, in the State of Nebraska, as provided for as to the ports mentioned in section 7 of said act."
I can not see that anything is gained by this legislation.
If the circumstances should warrant such a course, the authority which withholds such privileges from any of the places mentioned in the law of 1880 can confer the same without the aid of a new statute. This position is sustained by an opinion of the Attorney-General, dated in February, 1885.
If the legislation now proposed should become operative, the privileges extended to the city of Omaha would still be subject to the proviso attached to the seventh section of the law of 1880, and such newly granted privileges would be liable to immediate withdrawal by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Thus, if the design of this bill is to restore to the city named the privileges permitted by the law of 1880, it seems to be entirely unnecessary, since the power of such restoration is now fully vested in the Treasury Department. If the object sought is to bestow such privileges entirely free from the operation of the proviso above recited, the language of the bill does not accomplish that result.
I understand that the Government has not now at Omaha "the necessary officers for the appraisement of merchandise and the collection of duties," which by such proviso are necessary in order to secure to any place the advantages of immediate transportation. In the absence of such officers the proposed legislation would be nugatory and inoperative.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 8, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval a bill numbered 3019, entitled "An act to increase the pension of Abigail Smith," which bill originated in the House of Representatives.
This proposed legislation does injustice to a very worthy pensioner who was on the pension roll at the time of the passage of the law which took effect on the 19th day of March last, and by virtue of which all pensions of her class were increased from $8 to $12 per month. Under this law she became entitled to her increased pension from the date of its passage. The bill now returned allows her the same amount, but if it became a law I suppose it would supersede her claim under the previous statute and postpone the receipt by her of the increase to the date of the passage of the new law.
She would thus lose for nearly two months the increase of pension already secured to her.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 8, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without my approval House bill No. 1471, entitled "An act increasing the pension of Andrew J. Hill."
This bill doubles the pension which the person named therein has been receiving for a number of years. It appears from the report of the committee to which the bill was referred that a claim made by him for increased pension has been lately rejected by the Pension Bureau "on the ground that the claimant is now receiving a pension commensurate with the degree of disability found to exist."
The policy of frequently reversing by special enactment the decisions of the Bureau invested by law with the examination of pension claims, fully equipped for such examination, and which ought not to be suspected of any lack of liberality to our veteran soldiers, is exceedingly questionable. It may well be doubted if a committee of Congress has a better opportunity than such an agency to judge of the merits of these claims. If, however, there is any lack of power in the Pension Bureau for a full investigation, it should be supplied; if the system adopted is inadequate to do full justice to claimants, it should be corrected, and if there is a want of sympathy and consideration for the defenders of our Government the Bureau should be reorganized.
The disposition to concede the most generous treatment to the disabled, aged, and needy among our veterans ought not to be restrained; and it must be admitted that in some cases justice and equity can not be done nor the charitable tendencies of the Government in favor of worthy objects of its care indulged under fixed rules. These conditions sometimes justify a resort to special legislation, but I am convinced that the interposition by special enactment in the granting of pensions should be rare and exceptional. In the nature of things if this is lightly done and upon slight occasion, an invitation is offered for the presentation of claims to Congress which upon their merits could not survive the test of an examination by the Pension Bureau, and whose only hope of success depends upon sympathy, often misdirected, instead of right and justice. The instrumentality organized by law for the determination of pension claims is thus often overruled and discredited, and there is danger that in the end popular prejudice will be created against those who are worthily entitled to the bounty of the Government.
There has lately been presented to me, on the same day, for approval, nearly 240 special bills granting and increasing pensions and restoring to the pension list the names of parties which for cause have been dropped. To aid Executive duty they were referred to the Pension Bureau for examination and report. After a delay absolutely necessary they have been returned to me within a few hours of the limit constitutionally permitted for Executive action. Two hundred and thirty-two of these bills are thus classified:
Eighty-one cover cases in which favorable action by the Pension Bureau was denied by reason of the insufficiency of the testimony filed to prove the facts alleged.
These bills I have approved on the assumption that the claims were meritorious and that by the passage of the bills the Government has waived full proof of the facts.
Twenty-six of the bills cover claims rejected by the Pension Bureau because the evidence produced tended to prove that the alleged disability existed before the claimant's enlistment; 21 cover claims which have been denied by such Bureau because the evidence tended to show that the disability, though contracted in the service, was not incurred in the line of duty; 33 cover claims which have been denied because the evidence tended to establish that the disability originated after the soldier's discharge from the Army; 47 cover claims which have been denied because the general pension laws contain no provisions under which they could be allowed, and 24 of the claims have never been presented to the Pension Bureau.
I estimate the expenditure involved in these bills at more than $35,000 annually.
Though my conception of public duty leads me to the conclusion, upon the slight examination which I have been able to give such of these bills as are not comprised in the first class above mentioned, that many of them should be disapproved, I am utterly unable to submit within the time allowed me for that purpose my objections to the same.
They will therefore become operative without my approval.
A sufficient reason for the return of the particular bill now under consideration is found in the fact that it provides that the name of Andrew J. Hill be placed upon the pension roll, while the records of the Pension Bureau, as well as a medical certificate made a part of the committee's report, disclose that the correct name of the intended beneficiary is Alfred J. Hill.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 17, 1886.
To the Senate of the United States:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 1397, entitled "An act to establish a port of delivery at Springfield, in the State of Massachusetts."
It appears that the best reasons urged for the passage of this bill are that Springfield has a population of about 40,000, that the imports to the section of country where the city is located for the last year amounted in value to nearly $3,000,000, and that the importers at this point labored under a disadvantage in being obliged to go to New York and Boston to clear their goods, which are frequently greatly delayed.
The Government is now subjected to great loss of revenue through the intricacies of the present system relating to the collection of customs dues, and through the frauds and evasions which that system permits and invites. It is also the cause of much of the delay and vexation to which the honest importer is subjected.
I am of the opinion that the reforms of present methods which have been lately earnestly pressed upon Congress should be inaugurated, instead of increasing the number of ports where present evils may be further extended.
The bill now under consideration provides that a surveyor of customs shall be appointed to reside at said port, who shall receive a salary not to exceed $1,000 per annum.
It is quite obvious that an experienced force of employees at the ports where goods for Springfield are entered would be much better qualified to adjust the duties upon the same than the person thus proposed to be added to the vast army of Federal officials.
There are many cities in the different States having larger populations than Springfield, and fully as much entitled, upon every ground presented, to the advantages sought by this bill; and yet it is clear that the following of the precedent which the proposed legislation would establish could not fail to produce confusion and uncertainty in the adjustment of customs dues, leading to irritating discriminations and probable loss to the Government.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 24, 1886.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 2186, entitled "An act granting a pension to Louis Melcher."
This claimant enlisted on the 25th day of May, 1861, and was discharged for disability on the 16th day of August, 1861, having been in the service less than three months.
The certificate of the surgeon of his regiment, made at the time of his discharge, stated his disability to be "lameness, caused by previous repeated and extensive ulcerations of his legs, extending deeply among the muscles and impairing their powers and action by cicatrices, all existing before enlistment and not mentioned to the mustering officers at the time."
Upon this certificate, given at the time of the claimant's discharge and while he was actually under the surgeon's observation, an application for a pension was rejected by the Pension Bureau.
In the absence of anything impeaching the ability and integrity of the surgeon of the regiment, his certificate should, in my opinion, be regarded as a true statement of the condition of the claimant at the time of his discharge, though the committee's report suggests that the surgeon's skill may have been at fault when he declared that the ulcers existed before enlistment. The cicatrices showing beyond a doubt the previous existence of this difficulty would be plainly apparent upon an examination by a surgeon, and their origin could hardly be mistaken. The term of the claimant's service was not sufficiently long to have developed and healed, even imperfectly, in a location previously healthy, ulcers of the kind mentioned in the claimant's application.
My approval of this bill is therefore withheld upon the ground that I find nothing in my examination of the facts connected with the case which impeaches the value of the surgeon's certificate upon which the adverse action of the Pension Bureau was predicated.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 24, 1886.
To the Senate of the United States:
A bill which originated in the Senate, entitled "An act granting a pension to Edward Ayers," and numbered 363, is herewith returned without approval.
The person named in this bill enlisted October 3, 1861, in an Indiana regiment and was mustered out of the service December 13, 1865. He represents that he was injured in the hip at the battle of Days Gap, April 30, 1863, and for this a pension is provided for him by the bill under consideration. His application for pension has been rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that it was proved on a special examination of the case that the claimant was injured by a fall when a boy, and that the injury complained of existed prior to his enlistment.
There is not a particle of proof or a fact stated either in the committee's report or the records in the Pension Bureau, so far as they are brought to my notice, tending to show that the claimant was in hospital or under medical care a single day during the whole term of his enlistment.
The report of the committee contains the following statement:
The record evidence proves that he was in this engagement, but there is no proof from this source that he was wounded. By numerous comrades who were present it is proven that he was hurt by the explosion of a shell as claimed. It is also shown that he has been disabled ever since; and the examining surgeon specifically describes the wound, and twice verifies that he is permanently disabled. From the fact that a man was exceedingly liable to injury under the circumstances in which he was placed, and from the evidence of eyewitnesses, the committee are of opinion that he was wounded as alleged.
A wound from a shell causing the person injured to be "disabled ever since" usually results in hospital or medical treatment. Not only is there no such claim made in this case, but, on the contrary, it appears that the claimant served in his regiment two years and nearly eight months after the alleged injury, and until he was mustered out.
It is represented to me by a report from the Pension Bureau that after his alleged wound, and in May or June, 1863, the claimant deserted, and in July of that year was arrested in the State of Indiana and returned to duty without trial. If this report is correct, the party now seeking a pension at the hands of the Government for disability incurred in the service seems to have been capable of considerable physical exertion, though not very creditable, within a few weeks after he claims to have received the injury upon which his application is based.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 24, 1886.
To the Senate of the United States:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 1630, entitled "An act granting a pension to James C. Chandler."
It appears from the report of the committee to whom this bill was referred and from an examination of the official records that the proposed beneficiary first enlisted on the 27th day of August, 1861, and about nine months thereafter, on the 1st day of June, 1862, was discharged on account of disability arising from chronic bronchitis.
Notwithstanding the chronic character of his alleged disability, he enlisted again on the 3d day of January, 1864, seventeen months after such discharge.
No statement is presented of the bounty received by him upon either enlistment.
He was finally mustered out on the 19th day of September, 1865.
He first applied for a pension under the general law in May, 1869, alleging that in April, 1862, he was run over by a wagon and injured in his ankle. This accident occurred during his first enlistment; but instead of the injury having been then regarded a disability, he was discharged from such enlistment less than two months thereafter on account of chronic bronchitis.
It appears from the committee's report that his application was rejected and that another was afterwards made, alleging that the claimant had been afflicted with typhoid fever contracted in May, 1862, resulting in "rheumatism and disease of the back in region of kidneys."
This application was also rejected, on the ground that any disability that might have arisen from the cause alleged "had not existed in a pensionable degree since the date of filing the claim therefor," which was February 10, 1885.
There still remained an appeal to Congress, and probably there were not wanting those who found their interests in advising such an appeal and who had at hand Congressional precedents which promised a favorable result. That the parties interested did not miscalculate the chances of success is demonstrated by the bill now before me, which, in direct opposition to the action of the Pension Bureau, grants a pension to a man who, though discharged from enlistment for a certain alleged disability, made two applications for a pension based upon two distinct causes, both claimed to exist within two months prior to such discharge, and both different from the one upon which he accepted the same, and notwithstanding the fact that the proposed beneficiary, after all these disabilities had occurred, passed an examination as to his physical fitness for reenlistment, actually did reenlist, and served till finally mustered out at the close of the war.
If any money is to be given this man from the public Treasury, it should not be done under the guise of a pension.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 24, 1886.
To the Senate of the United States:
I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 857, entitled "An act granting a pension to Dudley B. Branch."
This claim is based upon the allegation, as appears by the committee's report, that the person named in the bill has a hernia, and that on the 9th day of June, 1862, while in the military service and in the line of duty, "in getting over a fence he fell heavily, striking a stone or hard substance, and received the hernia in his left side."
In December, 1875, thirteen and a half years thereafter, he filed an application for a pension, which was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that there was no record of the alleged hernia, and the claimant was unable to furnish satisfactory evidence of its origin in the service.
The fact is stated in the committee's report that late in the year 1863 this soldier was transferred to the Invalid Corps, and the records show that he was thus transferred for a disability entirely different from that upon which he now bases his claim. He was mustered out in September, 1864, at the end of his term of service.
I am convinced that the rejection of this claim by the Pension Bureau was correct, and think its action should not be reversed.
I suppose an injury of the description claimed, if caused by violence directly applied, is quite palpable, its effect usually immediate, and its existence easily proved. The long time which elapsed between the injury and the claimant's application for a pension may be fairly considered as bearing upon the merits of such application, while the fact that the claimant was transferred to the Invalid Corps more than a year after he alleges the injury occurred, for an entirely different disability, can not be overlooked. In the committee's report the statement is found that the beneficiary named in the bill was in two different hospitals during the year 1863, and yet it is not claimed that the history of his hospital treatment furnishes any proof of the injury upon which his claim is now based.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 25, 1886.
To the Senate of the United States:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 1998, entitled "An act for the relief of John D. Ham," which grants a pension to the party named.
The claimant alleges that he enrolled in the Army in January, 1862, and was "sworn in at his own home;" that the next day he started on horseback to go to the regiment he was to join, and that on the way his horse fell upon his left ankle, whereby he sustained an injury which entitles him to a pension.
His name is not borne upon any of the rolls of the regiment he alleges he was on his way to join.
He filed his application for pension in the Pension Bureau October 17, 1879 (seventeen years after his alleged injury), which was rejected apparently on the ground that he was not in the military service when the disability claimed was incurred.
He was drafted in 1863 and served until he was mustered out in 1865.
It is entirely clear that this claimant was not in the military service at the time he claims to have been injured; and his conduct in remaining at home until he was drafted, nearly two years afterwards, furnishes proof that he did not regard himself as in the meantime owing any military duty. These considerations, and the further facts that upon being drafted he was accepted as physically qualified for service, that he actually thereafter served a year and eight months, and that he waited seventeen years before claiming pension for his injury, in my mind present a case upon which the claimant is entitled to no relief even if charity instead of just liberality is invoked.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 25, 1886.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 1290, entitled "An act granting a pension to David W. Hamilton."
A claim for pension filed by him in November, 1879, was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that his alleged disability existed prior to his enlistment.
An examination of the records in the Adjutant-General's Office and a statement from the Pension Bureau derived from the claimant's application there for pension, with a reference to the report of the committee to whom this bill was referred, disclose the following facts:
The claimant was mustered in the service as first lieutenant in September, 1861, and as captain June 12, 1862. He is reported as present with his company until the 30th of that month. For the six months immediately following the latter date he is reported as "absent sick," and for the ten months next succeeding, and until October 27, 1863, as "absent on detached service." On the day last mentioned he tendered his resignation at Camp Morton, in the State of Indiana, to enable him to accept an appointment as captain in the Invalid Corps. He was thereupon so appointed upon account of "chronic enlargement of the spermatic cord of several years' standing, consequent upon hydrocele." He remained in the Invalid Corps until July 12, 1864, when, upon the tender of his resignation, he was discharged.
Less than four months afterwards, and on the 6th day of November, 1864, he was mustered in the service as a captain in another regiment of volunteers, and on the 17th day of November, 1865, again tendered his resignation, and was finally discharged.
Upon his application for pension under the general law, fourteen years thereafter, he admitted that he suffered from hydrocele as early as 1856, but claimed that an operation then performed for the same had given him permanent relief.
It will be seen that the claimant's term of service was liberally interspersed with sick leave, detached service, resignations, and membership in the Invalid Corps. He admits having the trouble which would naturally result in his alleged disability long before he entered the service. The surgeon upon whose certificate he was appointed to the Invalid Corps must have stated to him the character of his difficulty and that it was chronic. No application for pension was made until fourteen years after his discharge and just prior to the expiration of the time within which large arrearages might have been claimed. There is no hint of any medical testimony at all contradicting the certificate of the army surgeon made in 1863, but it is stated in the report of the committee that he can not procure medical testimony as to his soundness before entering the service because his family physician is dead. If he had filed his application earlier, it would have appeared in better faith, and it may be that he could have secured the evidence of his family physician if it was of the character he desired.
After the Pension Bureau has been in operation for a score of years since the late civil war, equipped with thousands of employees charged with no other duty except the ascertainment and adjustment of the claims of our discharged soldiers and their surviving relatives, it seems to me that a stronger case than this should be presented to justify the passage of a special act, twenty-three years after an alleged disability, granting a pension which has been refused by the Bureau especially organized for the purpose of allowing the same under just and liberal laws.
I am by no means insensible to that influence which leads the judgment toward the allowance of every claim alleged to be founded upon patriotic service in the nation's cause; and yet I neither believe it to be a duty nor a kindness to the worthy citizens for whose benefit our scheme of pensions was provided to permit the diversion of the nation's bounty to objects not within its scope and purpose.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 28, 1886.
To the Senate:
I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 1850, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Annie C. Owen."
The husband of the claimant was mustered into the service as second lieutenant December 14, 1861, and discharged October 16, 1862. It appears that he died in 1876 from neuralgia of the heart. In 1883 the present claimant filed her application for pension, alleging that her husband received two shell wounds, one in the calf of his left leg and one in his left side, on the 1st day of July, 1862, and claiming that they were in some way connected with the cause of his death.
On the records of his command there is no mention made of either wound, but it does appear that on the 8th day of July, seven days after the date of the alleged wounds, he was granted a leave of absence for thirty days on account, as stated in a medical certificate, of "remittent fever and diarrhea." A medical certificate dated August 5, 1862, while absent on leave, represents him to be at that time suffering from "chronic bronchitis and acute dysentery."
The application made for pension by the widow was rejected by the Pension Bureau February 1, 1886.
There is nothing before me showing that the husband of the claimant ever filed an application for pension, though he lived nearly fourteen years after his discharge; and his widow's claim was not made until twenty-one years after the alleged wounds and seven years after her husband's death.
If the information furnished concerning this soldier's service is correct, this claim for pension must be based upon a mistake. It is hardly possible that wounds such as are alleged should be received in battle by a second lieutenant and no record made of them; that he should seven days thereafter receive a leave of absence for other sickness, with no mention of these wounds, and that a medical certificate should be made (probably with a view of prolonging his leave) stating still other ailments, but silent as to wounds. The further facts that he made no claim for pension and that the claim of his widow was long delayed are worthy of consideration. And if the wounds were received as described there is certainly no necessary connection between them and death fourteen years afterwards from neuralgia of the heart.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 28, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval a bill originating in the House of Representatives, numbered 2145, and entitled "An act for the relief of Rebecca Eldridge."
This bill provides for the payment of a pension to the claimant as the widow of Wilber H. Eldridge, who was mustered into the service on the 24th day of July, 1862, and discharged June 21, 1865. He was pensioned at the rate of $2 per month for a slight wound in the calf of the left leg, received on the 25th day of March, 1865. There is no pretense that this wound was at all serious, and a surgeon who examined it in 1880 reported that in his opinion the wounded man "was not incapacitated from obtaining his subsistence by manual labor;" that the ball passed "rather superficially through the muscles," and that the party examined said there was no lameness "unless after long standing or walking a good deal."
On the 28th of January, 1881, while working about a building, he fell backward from a ladder and fractured his skull, from which he died the same day.
Without a particle of proof and with no fact established which connects the fatal accident in the remotest degree with the wound referred to, it is proposed to grant a pension to the widow of $12 per month.
It is not a pleasant thing to interfere in such a case; but we are dealing with pensions, and not with gratuities.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 28, 1886.
To the Senate:
I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 1253, entitled "An act granting a pension to J.D. Haworth."
It is proposed by this bill to grant a pension to the claimant for the alleged loss of sight in one eye and the impairment of the vision of the other.
From the information furnished me I am convinced that the difficulty alleged by this applicant had its origin in causes existing prior to his enlistment, and that his present condition of disability is not the result of his service in the Army.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 28, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without approval a bill which originated in the House of Representatives, numbered 1582, and entitled "An act for the relief of Eleanor C. Bangham."
The claimant in this case is the widow of John S. Bangham, who was mustered into the service of the United States as a private on the 26th day of March, 1864, and was discharged by general order June 23, 1865.
It appears that during his fifteen months of service he was sick a considerable part of the time, and the records in two of the hospitals to which he was admitted show that his sickness was epilepsy. There are no records showing the character of his illness in other hospitals.
His widow, the present claimant, filed an application for pension March 12, 1878, alleging that her husband committed suicide September 10, 1873, from the effects of chronic diarrhea and general debility contracted in the service. Upon the evidence then produced her claim was allowed at the rate of $8 a month. She remained upon the rolls until July, 1885, when a special examination of the case was made, upon which it was developed and admitted by the pensioner that the deceased soldier had suffered from epilepsy from early childhood, and that during a despondent mood following an epileptic fit he committed suicide.
Upon these facts it was determined by the Pension Bureau that the pension should not have been granted, and it was withdrawn. It was so satisfactorily proven that the disease which indirectly caused the death of the claimant's husband was not contracted in the service that, in my opinion, the conclusion arrived at on such examination should stand.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 28, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without approval bill No. 1406, which originated in the House of Representatives and is entitled "An act granting a pension to Simmons W. Harden."
The claimant mentioned in this bill enlisted as a private December 30, 1863, and was discharged May 17, 1865.
He filed an application for pension in 1866, in which he alleged that he was injured in the left side by a fall from a wagon while in the service.
In 1880 he filed another application, in which he claimed that he was afflicted with an enlargement of the lungs and heart from overexertion at a review. His record in the Army makes no mention of either of these troubles, but does show that he had at some time during his service dyspepsia and intermittent fever.
The fact that fourteen years elapsed after he claimed to have been injured by a fall from a wagon before he discovered that enlargement of the lungs and heart was his real difficulty is calculated to at least raise a doubt as to the validity of his claim.
The evidence as to his condition at the time of enlistment, as well as since, seems quite contradictory and unsatisfactory. The committee to which the bill was referred report that "the only question in the case is as to his condition at time of enlistment, and the evidence is so flatly contradictory on that point that it is impossible to decide that question."
Notwithstanding this declaration, it is proposed to allow him a pension of $16 a month, though he has survived all his ailments long enough to reach the age of 72 years.
I think upon the case presented the action of the Pension Bureau overruling his claim should not be reversed.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 1, 1886.
To the Senate:
I return herewith Senate bill No. 1441, entitled "An act granting a pension to M. Romahn."
The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted September 13, 1862, and was discharged May 24, 1865.
He filed his claim in the Pension Bureau December 5, 1882, alleging that in the winter of 1862, from being put on duty—standing guard excessively—he became afflicted with varicose veins. His army record shows no disability of any kind, though he served more than two years after the date at which he alleges his injury was incurred. His application was rejected on the ground that no record of his disability appeared and that the evidence of the same filed upon such application was insufficient.
The claim now made to Congress for relief is the same as that made to the Pension Bureau, with the allegation added that in May, 1865, his breast and shoulder were injured by a railroad accident while he was on detail duty.
If the latter-described injury really existed, it is exceeding strange that it found no place in his claim before the Pension Bureau, while the account given of the cause of his alleged varicose veins must surprise those who are at all familiar with the character of that difficulty and the routine of army service. His continued performance of military duty after he incurred this infirmity, the fact that he made no claim for pension on that account until twenty years had passed, and the unsatisfactory evidence now produced to support his allegation tend to induce the suspicion that the decision of the Pension Bureau was entirely just and that this bill is not based upon substantial merits.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 2, 1886.
To the Senate:
Senate bill No. 789, entitled "An act granting a pension to John S. Williams," is herewith returned without approval.
This claimant enlisted in 1861. He alleges that his shoulder was dislocated in 1862 while ferrying troops across a river. The records of the War Department fail to furnish any information as to the alleged injury. He served afterwards until 1865 and was discharged. His claim for pension was rejected by the Pension Bureau in 1882, twenty years after the time he fixes as the date of his injury; and after such long delay he states as an excuse for the unsatisfactory nature of his proof that the doctors, surgeons, and officers who knew him are dead.
Considering that the injury complained of is merely a dislocation of the shoulder, and in view of the other facts developed in the case, I think the Pension Bureau arrived at a correct conclusion when this claim was rejected.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 2, 1886.
To the Senate:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 327, entitled "An act granting a pension to James E. O'Shea."
From the report of the committee to whom this bill was referred I learn that the claimant enlisted in April, 1861, and was discharged in October, 1864.
He filed a claim in the Pension Bureau alleging that he received a saber wound in the head March 7, 1862, and a gunshot wound in the left leg in the autumn of the same year.
It appears upon examination of his military record that there is no mention of either disability, and that he served two years after the time he claims to have received these injuries. So far from being disabled, it is reported as an incident of his army life that in the year 1864 this soldier was found guilty of desertion and sentenced to forfeit all pay and allowances for the time he was absent.
The report of the committee, in apparent explanation of the lack of any official mention of the injuries alleged, declares that "the fact that the records of the War Department are often imperfect works great hardship to men who apply for pensions;" and his conviction of desertion and the lack of proof to sustain his allegations as to his injuries are disposed of as follows in the committee's report:
The Adjutant-General's report shows that the man was under discipline for some irregularities, but notwithstanding this and the lack of the required proof that he was wounded in the line of duty the committee are of the opinion that, situated as he was, he was very liable to and very probably did receive the wound from which he has suffered and is still suffering.
I am convinced that there exists serious difficulty on the part of the claimant instead of in the record of the War Department; that the kind of irregularity for which he was under discipline is calculated to produce a lack of confidence in his merits as a pensioner, and that the fact of his situation being such as to render him liable to receive a wound is hardly sufficient to establish his right to a soldier's pension, which is only justified by injuries actually received and affirmatively proven.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 2, 1886.
To the Senate:
I return herewith without approval Senate bill No. 1726, entitled "An act granting a pension to Augustus Field Stevens."
It appears that this claimant enlisted August 21, 1861, and was discharged on the 3d day of October, 1861, after a service of less than two months, upon a medical certificate of disability which represented him as "incapable of performing the duties of a soldier because of general debility, advanced age, unfit for service before entering."
His claim is not based upon any wound or injury, but he alleges that he contracted chronic diarrhea or dysentery while in the service. The committee to whom the bill was referred by the Senate admit that "there is a quantity of contradictory testimony, biased in about equal proportion for and against the claimant."
His claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau in 1882 and again in 1885, after a special examination concerning the facts, on the ground that the claimant had failed to show any pensionable disability contracted while he was in the service.
The medical certificate upon which he was discharged makes no mention of the disorders of which the applicant for pension now complains, but contains other statements which demonstrate that no allowance should be made to him by way of pension, unless such pension is to be openly and confessedly regarded as a mere charity, or unless the medical certificate made at the time of discharge, with the patient under observation, is to be, without any allegation to that effect, impeached.
I am not prepared either to gratuitously set at naught two determinations of the Pension Bureau, one very lately made after a special examination, and especially when the evidence produced before the committee to reverse the Bureau's action is admitted to be "contradictory" and "biased in about equal proportion for and against the claimant."
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.
To the Senate:
I return herewith Senate bill No. 226, entitled "An act granting a pension to Margaret D. Marchand," without approval.
The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of John B. Marchand, who entered the United States Navy in 1828, who was promoted to the rank of commodore in 1866, and who was placed upon the retired list in 1870. He died in August, 1875, of heart disease.
His widow filed an application for pension in 1883, claiming that his fatal disease was caused by exposure and exertion in the service during the War of the Rebellion. The application was rejected because of the inability to furnish evidence to prove that the death had any relation to the naval service of the deceased.
I am unable to see how any other conclusion could have been reached. The information furnished by the report of the committee to whom this bill was referred and derived from other data before me absolutely fails to connect the death of Commodore Marchand with any incident of his naval service.
This officer was undoubtedly brave and efficient, rendering his country valuable service; but it does not appear to have been of so distinguished a character, nor are the circumstances of his widow alleged to be such, as to render a gratuity justifiable.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.
To the Senate:
I hereby return without my approval Senate bill No. 183, entitled "An act for the relief of Thomas S. Hopkins, late of Company C, Sixteenth Maine Volunteers."
This soldier was enrolled in the Army June 2, 1862, and discharged June 30, 1865. He was sent to the Government hospital September 20, 1863, and thereupon transferred to the Invalid Corps.
He filed his declaration for a pension in November, 1880, alleging that while in the service he contracted malarial fever and chronic diarrhea, and was seized with convulsions, suffering from great general debility.
A pension of $50 a month was granted to him in June, 1881, dating from the time of filing his application, which sum he has been receiving up to the present time.
This bill proposes to remove the limitation fixed by the law of 1879 prescribing the date prior to which an application for pension must be filed in order to entitle the claimant to draw the pension allowed from the time of his discharge from the service.
If this bill should become a law, it would entitle the claimant to about $9,000 of back pension. This is claimed upon the ground that the soldier was so sick from the time of the passage of the act creating the limitation up to the date allowed him to avail himself of the privileges of the act that he could not file his claim.
I think the limitation thus fixed a very wise one, and that it should not, in fairness to other claimants, be relaxed for causes not mentioned in the statute; nor should the door be opened to applications of this kind.
The beneficiary named in this bill had fifteen years after the accruing of his claim, and before it is alleged that he was incapacitated, within which he might have filed his application and entitled himself to the back pension now applied for.
The facts here presented come so far short of furnishing a satisfactory excuse for his delay that, in my judgment, the discrimination asked in his favor should not be granted.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.
To the Senate:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 763, entitled "An act for the erection of a public building at Sioux City, Iowa."
The report of the committee of the House of Representatives to whom this bill was referred states that by the census of 1880 the population of Sioux City was nearly 8,000, and that by other enumerations since made its population would seem to exceed 23,000. It is further stated in the report that for the accommodation of this population the city contains 393 brick and 2,984 frame buildings.
It seems to me that in the consideration of the merits of this bill the necessities of the Government should control the question, and that it should be decided as a business proposition, depending upon the needs of a Government building at the point proposed in order to do the Government work.
This greatly reduces the value of statistics showing population, extent of business, prospective growth, and matters of that kind, which, though exceedingly interesting, do not always demonstrate the necessity of the expenditure of a large sum of money for a public building.
I find upon examination that United States courts are sometimes held at Sioux City, but that they have been thus far held in the county court-house without serious inconvenience and without any expense to the Government. There are actually no other Federal officers there for whom the Government in any view should provide accommodations except the postmaster. The post-office is now located in a building rented by the Government until the 1st day of January, 1889, at the rate of $2,200 per annum.
By the last report of the Supervising Architect it appears that on October 1, 1885, there were 80 new public buildings in course of construction, and that the amount expended thereon during the preceding year was nearly $2,500,000, while large appropriations are asked to be expended on these buildings during the current year.
In my judgment the number of public buildings should not at this time be increased unless a greater public necessity exists therefor than is apparent in this case.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.
To the Senate:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 206, entitled "An act to provide for the erection of a public building in the city of Zanesville, Ohio."
No Federal courts are held at Zanesville, and there are no Government officers located there who should be provided for at the public expense except the postmaster.
So far as I am informed the patrons of the post-office are fairly well accommodated in a building which is rented by the Government at the rate of $800 per annum; and though the postmaster naturally certifies that he and his fourteen employees require much more spacious surroundings, I have no doubt he and they can be induced to continue to serve the Government in its present quarters.
The public buildings now in process of construction, numbering 80, involving constant supervision, are all the building projects which the Government ought to have on hand at one time, unless a very palpable necessity exists for an increase in the number. The multiplication of these structures involves not only the appropriations made for their completion, but great expense in their care and preservation thereafter.
While a fine Government building is a desirable ornament to any town or city, and while the securing of an appropriation therefor is often considered as an illustration of zeal and activity in the interest of a constituency, I am of the opinion that the expenditure of public money for such a purpose should depend upon the necessity of such a building for public uses.
In the case under consideration I have no doubt the Government can be well accommodated for some time to come in all its business relations with the people of Zanesville by renting quarters, at less expense than the annual cost of maintaining the proposed new building after its completion.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without approval House bill No. 1990, entitled "An act granting a pension to John Hunter."
The claimant was enrolled July 20, 1864, and was discharged by expiration of his term of service July 13, 1865.
During four months of the twelve while he remained in the service he is reported as "absent sick." His hospital record shows that he was treated for intermittent fever and rheumatism. In 1879, fourteen years after his discharge, he filed his claim for a pension, alleging that in May, 1864, he received a gunshot wound in the right leg while in a skirmish. The month of May, 1864, is included in the time during which, by the record, he appears to have been absent sick and undergoing treatment for fever and rheumatism. His claim was rejected in December, 1884, on the ground that there was no record of the alleged wound and the claimant was unable, though aided by the Bureau, to prove that the injury claimed was due to the service.
The evidence recited in the report of the Congressional committee to whom this bill was referred, though it tends to show, if reliable, that when the soldier returned from his service his leg was affected, fails to show a continuous disability from that cause. It is stated that about five years ago, while the claimant was gathering dandelions, in stepping across a ditch his leg broke. The doctor who attended him states that the leg was about four weeks longer in uniting than is usual, but he is not represented as giving an opinion that the fracture had anything to do with his patient's military service.
I find no reference to his condition since his recovery from the fracture of his leg, and there seems to be no allegation of present disability either from army service or the injury sustained while gathering dandelions.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without my approval House bill No. 4002, entitled "An act granting a pension to Carter W. Tiller."
The records of the War Department show that George W. Tiller, the son of the claimant, enlisted in a Kentucky regiment on the 8th day of October, 1861, and that he deserted on the 20th day of September, 1863; that he was captured by the Confederates afterwards, but the time and circumstances are not given. On the 21st day of July, 1864, he was admitted to the Andersonville hospital, and died the same day of scorbutus.
The father filed his claim for a pension in 1877, alleging his dependence upon the deceased soldier. It is probably true that the son while in the Army sent money to the claimant, though he appears to have been employed as a policeman in the city of Louisville ever since his son's death, at a fair salary.
The claim thus made was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the claimant was not dependent upon his son.
I am entirely satisfied of the correctness of this determination, and if the records presented to me are reliable I think the fact which appears therefrom, that the death of the soldier occurred ten months after desertion and had no apparent relation to any service in the Union Army, is conclusive against the claim now made.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 3826, entitled "An act for the relief of John Taylor."
By this bill it is proposed to increase the pension of the beneficiary named to $16 a month. He has been receiving a pension under the general law, dating from his discharge in 1865. His pension has been twice already increased, once by the Pension Bureau and once by a special act passed in 1882. His wound is not such as to cause his disability to become aggravated by time. The increase allowed by this bill, when applied for at the Pension Bureau in 1885, was denied on the ground that "the rate he was receiving was commensurate with the degree of his disability, a board of surgeons having reported that he was receiving a liberal rating."
I can discover no just ground for reversing this determination and making a further discrimination in favor of this pensioner.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 5997, entitled "An act granting a pension to Elizabeth Luce."
The claimant named in this bill is the widow of John W. Luce, who entered the Army in August, 1861, and who was discharged in January, 1864, for a disability declared at the time in the surgeon's certificate to arise from "organic stricture of the urethra," which, from his statement, existed at the time of his enlistment.
Notwithstanding the admission which thus appears to have been made by him at the time of his discharge, he soon afterwards made an application for a pension, alleging that his difficulty arose from his being thrown forward on the pommel of his saddle when in the service.
Upon an examination of this claim by a special examiner, it is stated that no one could be found who had any knowledge of such an injury, and the claim was rejected.
In 1883, twenty years after the soldier alleged he was injured in the manner stated, he died, and the cause of his death was declared to be "chronic gastritis, complicated with kidney difficulty."
It is alleged that the examinations made by the Pension Bureau developed the fact that the deceased soldier was a man of quite intemperate habits.
The theory upon which this widow should be pensioned can only be that the death of her husband resulted from a disability or injury contracted or received in the military service. It seems to me that however satisfactorily the injury which he described may be established, and though every suspicion as to his habits be dismissed, there can hardly possibly be any connection between such an injury and the causes to which his death is attributed.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 4058, entitled "An act for the relief of Joel D. Monroe."
The claimant mentioned in this bill enlisted in August, 1864, and was discharged with his regiment June 4, 1865.
The record of his short military service exhibits no mention of any injury or disability; but in June, 1880, fifteen years after his discharge, he filed in the Pension Bureau a claim for a pension based upon the allegation that in December, 1864, he was injured by the falling of a tree, which struck him on his head, affecting both of his eyes. He added to this allegation the further complaint that he contracted rheumatism while in the service.
The application for a pension was rejected by the Pension Bureau because there was no record of the disabilities claimed, nor was satisfactory proof furnished that any such disabilities originated in the service.
I am so entirely satisfied with this determination of the Pension Bureau that I am constrained to withhold my approval of this bill.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 21, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 3624, entitled "An act granting a pension to Fred. J. Leese."
This claimant enlisted September 7, 1864, and was discharged June 4, 1865. During his short term of service there does not appear on the records any evidence of disability.
But in November, 1883, eighteen years after his discharge, he filed his application for a pension, alleging that in November, 1864, he contracted chronic diarrhea from exposure and severe work.
His claim has not yet been fully passed upon by the Pension Bureau, which, in my opinion, is sufficient reason why this bill should not become a law. I am also thoroughly convinced, from examination of the case, that the claimant should not be pensioned.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 21, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6897, entitled "An act granting a pension to Henry Hipple, jr."
This claimant entered the Army as a drummer August 6, 1862, and was discharged May 29, 1863.
In 1879, sixteen years after his discharge, he appears to have discovered that during his short term of military service in the inhospitable climate of Port Tobacco, within the State of Maryland, he contracted rheumatism to such an extent as to entitle him to pension, for which he then applied.
It is conceded that he received no medical treatment while in the Army for this complaint, nor does he seem to have been attended by a physician since his discharge.
Without commenting further upon the features of this case which tend to discredit it, I deem myself obliged to disapprove this bill on the ground that there is an almost complete failure to state any facts that should entitle the claimant to a pension.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 21, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without approval a bill originating in the House of Representatives, entitled "An act granting an increase of pension to John W. Farris," which bill is numbered 6136.
The claimant mentioned in this bill enlisted in the month of October, 1861, and was mustered out of the service in August, 1865.
In 1881, sixteen years after his discharge, he filed an application for a pension, alleging that he was afflicted with chronic diarrhea contracted in the Army, and in 1885 his claim was allowed, and he was granted a pension for that cause.
In September of the same year, and after this pension was granted, he filed an application for an increase of his rate, alleging that in 1884 his eyes became affected in consequence of his previous ailments and the debility consequent thereupon.
The ingenuity developed in the constant and persistent attacks upon the public Treasury by those claiming pensions, and the increase of those already granted, is exhibited in bold relief by this attempt to include sore eyes among the results of diarrhea.
I am entirely satisfied with the opinion of the medical referee, who, after examining this case in October, 1885, reported that "the disease of the eyes can not be admitted to be a result of chronic diarrhea."
On all grounds it seems to me that this claimant should be contented with the pension which has been already allowed him.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 21, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without approval House bill No. 1707, entitled "An act granting a pension to Elijah P. Hensley."
The records of the War Department show that this claimant was mustered into the Third North Carolina Regiment, but on the muster-out roll of his company he is reported to have deserted April 3, 1865, and there is no record of any discharge or disability.
In September, 1866, an order was issued from his department headquarters removing the charge of desertion against him. Thirteen days afterwards, and on the 25th day of September, 1866, he filed an application for pension, which in 1868 was granted. He drew such pension dating from 1865 until 1877, when, upon evidence that the injury for which he was pensioned was not received in the line of duty, his name was dropped from the rolls.
The pensioner appealed from this determination of the Pension Bureau to the Secretary of the Interior, who, as lately as May, 1885, rendered a decision sustaining the action of the Bureau.
I find nothing in the facts presented to me which, in my opinion, justifies the reversal of the judgment of the Bureau and the Secretary of the Interior.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 21, 1886.
To the Senate:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 2223, entitled "An act granting a pension to Elizabeth S. De Krafft."
My objection to this bill is that it is of no possible advantage to the beneficiary therein mentioned. It directs that her name be placed upon the pension roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws. The effect of such legislation would be to permit Mrs. De Krafft to draw a pension at the rate of $30 each month from the date of the approval of the bill.
On the 26th day of February, 1886, under the provisions of the general pension law, she was allowed a pension of this exact sum, but the payments were to date from November 10, 1885.
I am so thoroughly tired of disapproving gifts of public money to individuals who in my view have no right or claim to the same, notwithstanding apparent Congressional sanction, that I interpose with a feeling of relief a veto in a case where I find it unnecessary to determine the merits of the application. In speaking of the promiscuous and ill-advised grants of pensions which have lately been presented to me for approval, I have spoken of their "apparent Congressional sanction" in recognition of the fact that a large proportion of these bills have never been submitted to a majority of either branch of Congress, but are the result of nominal sessions held for the express purpose of their consideration and attended by a small minority of the members of the respective Houses of the legislative branch of Government.
Thus in considering these bills I have not felt that I was aided by the deliberate judgment of the Congress; and when I have deemed it my duty to disapprove many of the bills presented, I have hardly regarded my action as a dissent from the conclusions of the people's representatives.
I have not been insensible to the suggestions which should influence every citizen, either in private station or official place, to exhibit not only a just but a generous appreciation of the services of our country's defenders. In reviewing the pension legislation presented to me many bills have been approved upon the theory that every doubt should be resolved in favor of the proposed beneficiary. I have not, however, been able to entirely divest myself of the idea that the public money appropriated for pensions is the soldiers' fund, which should be devoted to the indemnification of those who in the defense of the Union and in the nation's service have worthily suffered, and who in the day of their dependence resulting from such suffering are entitled to the benefactions of their Government. This reflection lends to the bestowal of pensions a kind of sacredness which invites the adoption of such principles and regulations as will exclude perversion as well as insure a liberal and generous application of grateful and benevolent designs. Heedlessness and a disregard of the principle which underlies the granting of pensions is unfair to the wounded, crippled soldier who is honored in the just recognition of his Government. Such a man should never find himself side by side on the pension roll with those who have been tempted to attribute the natural ills to which humanity is heir to service in the Army. Every relaxation of principle in the granting of pensions invites applications without merit and encourages those who for gain urge honest men to become dishonest. Thus is the demoralizing lesson taught the people that as against the public Treasury the most questionable expedients are allowable.
During the present session of Congress 493 special pension bills have been submitted to me, and I am advised that 111 more have received the favorable action of both Houses of Congress and will be presented within a day or two, making over 600 of these bills which have been passed up to this time during the present session, nearly three times the number passed at any entire session since the year 1861. With the Pension Bureau, fully equipped and regulated by the most liberal rules, in active operation, supplemented in its work by constant special legislation, it certainly is not unreasonable to suppose that in all the years that have elapsed since the close of the war a majority of the meritorious claims for pensions have been presented and determined.
I have now more than 130 of these bills before me awaiting Executive action. It will be impossible to bestow upon them the examination they deserve, and many will probably become operative which should be rejected.
In the meantime I venture to suggest the significance of the startling increase in this kind of legislation and the consequences involved in its continuance.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 21, 1886.
To the Senate:
I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 1584, entitled "An act for the relief of Cornelia R. Schenck."
It is proposed by this bill to grant a pension to Mrs. Schenck as the widow of Daniel P. Schenck, who entered the military service of the United States in August, 1861, and was mustered out October 21, 1864.
The record of his service contains no mention of any disability. He died in December, 1875, of a disease called gastroenteritis, which, being interpreted, seems to denote "inflammation of the stomach and small intestines." So far as the facts are made to appear, the soldier, neither during the term of his service nor during the eleven years he lived after his discharge, made any claim of any disability.
The claim of his widow was filed in the Pension Bureau in 1885, ten years after her husband's death, and is still undetermined.
The fact that her application is still pending in that Bureau is sufficient reason why this bill should not become a law.
A better reason is based upon the entire lack of any facts shown to exist which entitle the beneficiary named to a pension.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.
To the Senate:
I return herewith without approval Senate bill No. 1192, entitled "An act granting a pension to Alfred Denny."
It appears that the claimant entered the United States military service as captain and assistant quartermaster of volunteers on the 12th day of June, 1863. After remaining in such position for less than a year he resigned to accept a civil position.
The short record of his military service discloses no mention of any accident or disability. But twenty years after his resignation, and on the 12th day of March, 1884, he reappears as an applicant for a pension, and alleges in his declaration filed in the Pension Bureau that in August, 1863, while in the line of duty, he was, by a sudden movement of the horse he was riding, thrown forward upon the horn of his saddle and thereby received a rupture in his right side, which at some time and in a manner wholly unexplained subsequently caused a rupture in his left side also.
The number of instances in which those of our soldiers who rode horses during the war were injured by being thrown forward upon their saddles indicate that those saddles were very dangerous contrivances.
I am satisfied there is not a particle of merit in this claim, and no facts are presented to me which entitle it to charitable consideration.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.
To the Senate:
I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 1400, entitled "An act granting a pension to William H. Beck."
This claimant enlisted in 1861. He reenlisted as a veteran volunteer January i, 1864, and was finally mustered out April 20, 1866. In all this time of service his record shows no medical treatment or claim of disability. Indeed, an abstract of his reenlistment January 1, 1864, shows a medical examination and perfect soundness.
Notwithstanding all this, he filed his declaration on the 4th day of April, 1879, nearly thirteen years after his discharge, alleging that in June, 1863, he incurred epilepsy, to which he has been subject since, and that his fits have been from one to ten days apart. To connect this in some way with his military service he stated that the doctor at a hospital said his epilepsy was caused "by jar to the head from heavy firing."
Six months after this alleged "jar" and his consequent epilepsy he reenlisted upon a medical certificate of perfect soundness and served more than two years thereafter.
Every conceded fact in the case negatives the allegations of his declaration, and the rejection of his claim necessarily followed.
If this disease can be caused in the manner here detailed, its manifestations are such as to leave no doubt of its existence, and it seems to me simply impossible under the circumstances detailed that there should be any lack of evidence to support the claim upon which this bill is predicated.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.
To the Senate:
I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 2005, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary J. Nottage."
The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of Thomas Nottage, who enlisted in August, 1861, and was discharged for disability September 17, 1862. The assistant surgeon of his regiment, upon his discharge, certified the cause to be "disease of the urinary organs," which had troubled him several years.
He died of consumption January 8, 1879, nearly seventeen years after his discharge, without ever having made any application for a pension.
In 1880 his widow made an application for pension, alleging that he contracted in the service "malarial poisoning, causing remittent fever, piles, general debility, consumption, and death," and that he left two children, both born after his discharge, one in 1866 and the other in 1874.
The only medical testimony which has been brought to my attention touching his condition since his discharge is that of a single physician to the effect that he attended him from the year 1873 to the time of his death in 1879. He states that the patient had during that time "repeated attacks of remittent fever and irritability of the bladder, with organic deposits;" that "in the spring of 1878 he had sore throat and cough, which resulted in consumption, of which he died."
The claim of the widow was rejected in July, 1885, on the ground that "the soldier's death was not the result of his service."
I am satisfied that this conclusion of the Pension Bureau was correct.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.
To the Senate:
I return herewith without approval Senate bill No. 342, entitled "An Act granting a pension to Marrilla Parsons, of Detroit, Mich."
No claim has ever been made for a pension in this case to the Pension Bureau, probably for the reason that there is no pretext that the beneficiary named is entitled to a pension under any general law.
Daniel P. Parsons was her stepson, who enlisted in 1861 and died of consumption on the 13th day of August, 1864.
There are no special circumstances to distinguish this case from many others whose claims might be made by stepparents, and there are no facts stated in support of the conclusion embodied in the committee's report that the soldier was taken sick from exposure incident to the service.
To depart from all rules regulating the granting of pensions by such an enactment as is proposed would establish a precedent which could not fail to cause embarrassment and perplexity.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.
To the Senate:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 1383, entitled "An act granting a pension to Harriet Welch."
The beneficiary named in this bill asks for a pension as the widow of Syreannous Welch, who was wounded in 1864 while in the service, and was pensioned therefor in 1867. In 1876 his rate of pension was increased. In 1877 he appears to have applied to have his pension again increased. It is alleged that upon such application he was directed to appear before an examining board or a surgeon at Green Bay, Wis., for examination, and in returning to his home from that place on the 7th day of September, 1877, he fell from the cars and was killed, his remains having been found on the track the next morning.
No one appears to have seen the accident, but it is claimed that he could not depend upon his wounded leg, and that it "gave way many times and caused him to fall." From this statement the inference seems to have been indulged that his death was attributable to the wound he had received thirteen years before.
The widow's claim based upon this state of facts was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the accident resulting in death was not the result of his military service, and on an appeal taken to the Secretary of the Interior from that determination the same was sustained.
Though this widow admits that prior to her marriage with the deceased soldier she had married another man whom she could only say she believed to be dead, I believe her case to be a pitiable one and wish that I could join in her relief; but, unfortunately, official duty can not always be well done when directed solely by sympathy and charity.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.
To the Senate:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 1288, entitled "An act granting a pension to Robert Holsey."
This claimant enlisted in 1862, and though he appears to have been sick on two occasions during his term of service, he remained with his company until it was mustered out in 1865.
This soldier was really sick during the time he remained in the Army, and in this respect his claim for a pension has a better origin than many that are presented. But the fact must be recognized, I suppose, that every army ailment does not necessarily result in death or disability.
In 1882, seventeen years after his discharge, this soldier filed his declaration for a pension, alleging that in 1863 he contracted intermittent fever, affecting his lungs, kidneys, and stomach.
A board of surgeons, upon an examination made in 1882, find disease of kidneys, but no indication of lung and stomach trouble; and a medical referee reported in 1885 that there had been no disease of the stomach and lungs since the filing of the claim, and that the difficulty affecting the kidneys had no relation to the sickness for which the claimant had been treated while in the Army.
I am of the opinion that a correct conclusion was reached when the application for pension in this case was denied by the Pension Bureau.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.
To the Senate:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 7979, entitled "An act granting a pension to Jackson Steward."
This claimant's application for pension is now pending in the Pension Bureau, and has been sent to a special examiner for the purpose of taking additional proof.
This I deem sufficient reason why the proposed bill should not now become a law.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.
To the Senate:
I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 2025, entitled "An act granting a pension to James Butler."
This claimant was enrolled as a private in a New Hampshire regiment August 23, 1864, but on the organization of his company, on the 12th day of September, 1864, he was discharged on account of a fracture of his leg, which happened on the 11th day of September, 1864.
It appears that before the organization of the company to which he was attached, and on the 10th day of September, he obtained permission to leave the place of rendezvous for the purpose of visiting his family, and was to return the next day. At a very early hour in the morning, either while preparing to return or actually on his way, he fell into a new cellar and broke his leg. It is said that the leg fractured is now shorter than the other.
His claim for pension was rejected in December, 1864, by the Pension Bureau, and its action was affirmed in 1871 upon the ground that the injury was received while the claimant was on an individual furlough, and therefore not in the line of duty.
Considering the fact that neither his regiment nor his company had at the time of his accident been organized, and that he was in no sense in the military service of the United States, and that his injury was received while on a visit, and not in the performance of duty, I can see no pretext for allowing a pension in this case.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without approval House bill No. 6688, entitled "An act for the relief of William Bishop."
This claimant was enrolled as a substitute on the 25th day of March, 1865. He was admitted to a post hospital at Indianapolis on the 3d day of April, 1865, with the measles; was removed to the City General Hospital, in Indianapolis, on the 5th day of May, 1865; was returned to duty May 8, 1865, and was mustered out with a detachment of unassigned men on the 11th day of May, 1865.
This is the military record of this soldier, who remained in the Army one month and seventeen days, having entered it as a substitute at a time when high bounties were paid.
Fifteen years after this brilliant service and this terrific encounter with the measles, and on the 28th day of June, 1880, the claimant discovered that his attack of the measles had some relation to his army enrollment and that this disease had "settled in his eyes, also affecting his spinal column."
This claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau, and I have no doubt of the correctness of its determination.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6266, entitled "An act granting a pension to Philip Arner."
It is conceded in the application for a pension made by this claimant that he was perfectly well prior to his enlistment, during his service, and for a year thereafter. He was discharged in July, 1864, and the proof is that he was taken seriously ill in the fall of 1865, since which time he has been troubled with lung difficulty.
He filed his application for pension in 1883. This was rejected on the ground that the sickness which produced his disability having occurred more than a year after his discharge from the Army, it can not be accepted as a result of his military service.
There is absolutely no allegation of any incident of his service which it is claimed is at all related to his sickness and disability.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6170, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary A. Van Etten."
In her declaration for a pension, filed July 28, 1885, this claimant alleges that her husband was drowned upon attempting to cross Braddocks Bay, near his residence, in the State of New York, on the 16th day of July, 1875.
It is claimed that in an effort to drive across that bay in a buggy with his young son the buggy was overturned and both were drowned. The application for pension was based upon the theory that during his military service the deceased soldier contracted rheumatism, which so interfered with his ability to save himself by swimming that his death may be fairly traced to a disability incurred in the service.
He does not appear to have been treated while in the Army for rheumatism, though some evidence is presented of his complaining of rheumatic symptoms.
He was mustered out in 1863, and though he lived twelve years thereafter it does not appear that he ever applied for a pension; and though he was drowned in 1875, his widow apparently did not connect his military service with his death until ten years thereafter.
It seems to me that there is such an entire absence of direct and tangible evidence that the death of this soldier resulted from any incident of his service that the granting of a pension upon such a theory is not justified.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 6117, entitled "An act granting a pension to James D. Cotton."
The claim for a pension in this case is on behalf of the father of Thomas Cotton, who was killed at Pittsburg Landing April 6, 1862.
The application of this claimant still remains in the Pension Bureau undetermined. The doubt in the case appears to relate to the dependence of the father upon his son at the time of his death.
This is a question which the Bureau is so well fitted to investigate and justly determine that it is, in my opinion, best to permit the same to be there fully examined.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 6753, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Alice E. Travers."
The husband of the beneficiary, John T. Travers, enlisted August 25, 1864, and was discharged June 11, 1866.
He died January 6, 1881, from the effects of an overdose of morphine which he administered himself. He was a druggist, and when suffering severely was in the habit of taking opiates for relief and sleep.
The disease from which it is said he suffered was lung difficulty, claimed to have been caused by a severe cold contracted in the service.
It does not appear that he ever applied for a pension, and the widow's claim seems to have been properly rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the soldier's death was not due to his military service.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 1816, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Ann Miller."
Hamilton Miller, the husband of the claimant, enlisted April 22, 1861, and was sent with his regiment to Camp Dennison, in the suburbs of Cincinnati.
While thus in camp, apparently before he had ever been to the front, and on the 3d of June, 1861, he obtained permission to go to the city of Cincinnati, and was there killed by a blow received from some person who appears to be unknown; but undoubtedly the injury occurred in a fight or as the result of an altercation.
It is very clear to me that the Pension Bureau properly rejected the widow's claim for pension, for the reason that the soldier was not in the line of duty at the date of his death. It is also impossible to connect the death with any incident of the soldier's military service.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 7436, entitled "An act to grant a pension to Mary Anderson."
This claimant is the widow of Richard Anderson, who at the time of his death was receiving a pension on account of chronic diarrhea contracted in the service.
On the 7th day of February, 1882, the deceased pensioner went to Sparta, in the State of Wisconsin, to be examined for an increase of his pension. He called on the surgeon and was examined, and the next morning was found beheaded on the railroad track under such circumstances as indicated suicide.
The claim of the widow was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the cause of the death of her husband was in no way connected with his military service.
His wife and family present pitiable objects for sympathy, but I am unable to see how they have any claim to a pension.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without approval House bill 576, entitled "An act for the relief of Louisa C. Beezeley."
By this bill it is proposed to grant a pension to the beneficiary named, as the widow of Nathaniel Beezeley, who was enrolled in an Indiana regiment as a farrier in September, 1861. He was discharged July 17, 1862, after having been in the hospital considerable of the short time he was connected with the Army. The surgeon's certificate on his discharge stated that it was granted by reason of "old age," he then being 60 years old.
He never made any claim for pension, but in 1877 his widow filed her declaration, stating that her husband died in 1875 from disease contracted in the service.
I am convinced that the Pension Bureau acted upon entirely satisfactory evidence when this claim was rejected upon the ground that the cause of death originated subsequent to the soldier's discharge.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 6895, entitled "An act granting a pension to Sarah Harbaugh."
The husband of this claimant enlisted August 1, 1861, and was discharged September 7, 1864. He received a gunshot wound in the left ankle in May, 1863, and died suddenly of disease of the heart October 4, 1881. He was insane before his death, but in my opinion any connection between his injury and his service in the Army is next to impossible.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without approval House bill No. 7167, entitled "An act for the relief of Mrs. Maria Hunter."
The beneficiary named in this bill, to whom it is therein proposed to grant a pension at the rate of $50 a month, on the 23d day of March, 1886, filed her application for a pension in the Pension Bureau, where it is still pending undetermined.
Although the deceased soldier held a high rank, I have no doubt his widow will receive ample justice through the instrumentality organized for the purpose of dispensing the nation's grateful acknowledgment of military service in its defense.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 3205, entitled "An act granting a pension to George W. Guyse."
The claimant filed his declaration for a pension in 1878, alleging that about the 25th day of December, 1863, he received a gunshot wound in his left knee while engaged in a skirmish.
There has been much testimony taken in this case, and a great deal of it is exceedingly contradictory. Three of the claimant's comrades, who originally testified to the receipt of the injury by him, afterwards denied that he was wounded in the service, and a portion of the evidence taken by the Bureau tends to establish the fact that the claimant cut his left knee with a knife shortly after his discharge.
An examining surgeon in November, 1884, reports that he finds "no indication of a gunshot wound, there being no physical or rational signs to sustain claimant in his application for pension."
He further reports that there "seems to be an imperfect scar near the knee, so imperfect as to render its origin uncertain, but in no respect resembling a gunshot wound."
I think upon all the facts presented the Pension Bureau properly rejected this claim, because there was no record of the injury and no satisfactory evidence produced showing that it was incurred in service and in line of duty, "all sources of information having been exhausted."
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 7401, entitled "An act granting a pension to Samuel Miller."
This man was discharged from one enlistment June 16, 1864, and enlisted again in August of that year. He was finally discharged July 1, 1865.
In 1880 he filed an application for a pension, alleging that in May, 1862, he contracted in the service "kidney disease and weakness of the back."
A board of surgeons in 1881 reported that they failed to "discover any evidence of disease of kidneys."
It will be observed that since the date when it is claimed his disabilities visited him Mr. Miller not only served out his first term of enlistment, but reenlisted, and necessarily must have passed a medical examination.
I am entirely satisfied with the rejection of this claim by the Pension Bureau.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 424, entitled "An act to pension Giles C. Hawley."
This claimant enlisted August 5, 1861, and was discharged November 14, 1861, upon a surgeon's certificate, in which he stated: "I deem him unfit to stay in the service on account of deafness. He can not hear an ordinary command."
Seventeen years after his discharge from a military service of a little more than three months' duration, and in the year 1878, the claimant filed an application for pension, in which he alleged that "from exposure and excessive duty in the service his hearing was seriously affected."
There is no doubt that his disability existed to quite an extent at least before his enlistment, and there was plenty of opportunity for its increase between the time of discharge and of his application for pension.
I am entirely satisfied that it should not be altogether charged to the three months he spent in the service.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 7222, entitled "An act granting a pension to Callie West."
I base my action upon the opinion, derived from an examination of the circumstances attending the death of the claimant's husband, that his fatal disease did not have its origin in his military service and was entirely disconnected therewith.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 6257, entitled "An act for the relief of Julia Connelly."
It is proposed by this bill to grant a pension to the beneficiary named as the widow of Thomas Connelly.
This man was mustered into the service October 26, 1861. He never did a day's service so far as his name appears, and the muster-out roll of his company reports him as having deserted at Camp Cameron, Pa., November 14, 1861.
He visited his family about the 1st day of December, 1861, and was found December 30, 1861, drowned in a canal about 6 miles from his home.
Those who prosecute claims for pensions have grown very bold when cases of this description are presented for consideration.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6774, entitled "An act granting a pension to Bruno Schultz."
The application of this claimant for a pension, which was filed a number of years ago, though at one time rejected, has been since opened for reexamination, and is now awaiting additional evidence.
In this condition of this case I think this bill should not be approved.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without approval House bill No. 7298, entitled "An act for the relief of Charles Schuler."
It is proposed by this bill to grant a pension to the person above named, who was discharged from the military service in December, 1864. He filed a declaration for a pension in the Pension Bureau in January, 1883. This application is still pending. Without referring to the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the matter should be determined by the Bureau to which it has properly been presented before special legislation should be invoked.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 7073, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary S. Woodson."
Henry Woodson, the husband of the beneficiary named, enlisted in September, 1861, and was discharged in October, 1863, on account of valvular disease of the heart.
The application for pension on behalf of his widow was filed August 5, 1881.
She concedes that she is unable to furnish any evidence of the date or the cause of her husband's death.
It appears that he left home in March, 1874, for the purpose of finding work, and neither she nor her friends have ever heard from him since. His death may naturally be presumed, and the condition of his family is such that it would be a positive gratification to aid them in the manner proposed; but the entire and conceded absence of any presumption, however weak, that he died from any cause connected with his military service seems to render it improper to place the widow's name upon the pension rolls.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 7108, entitled "An act granting a pension to Andrew J. Wilson."
It appears that this man was drafted and entered the service in February, 1865, and was discharged in September of the same year on account of "chronic nephritis and deafness."
In 1882 he filed his application for a pension, alleging that in June, 1865, from exposure, he contracted rheumatism. Afterwards he described his trouble as inflammation of the muscles of the back, with pain in the kidneys. In another statement, filed in December, 1884, he alleges that while in the service he contracted diarrhea and was injured in one of his testicles, producing a rupture.
Whatever else may be said of this claimant's achievements during his short military career, it must be conceded that he accumulated a great deal of disability.
There is no doubt in my mind that whatever ailments he may honestly lay claim to, his title to the same was complete before he entered the Army.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 7703, entitled "An act granting a pension to Anna A. Probert."
The husband of this beneficiary was pensioned in 1864. He was a druggist and apothecary at Norwalk, in the State of Ohio. Shortly before his death, in 1878, he went to Memphis for the purpose of giving his professional assistance to those suffering from yellow fever at that place. He was himself attacked by that disease, and died on the 28th day of October, 1878.
His widow has never herself applied for a pension, but a power of attorney has been filed, authorizing the prosecution of her claim by another.
That she has employed an ingenious attorney or agent is demonstrated by the fact that the bill now before me seems to be based upon the theory that Mr. Probert might have recovered from his attack of yellow fever if he had been free from the ailments for which he had been pensioned fourteen years before.
If such speculations and presumptions as this are to be indulged, we shall find ourselves surrounded and hedged in by the rule that all men entering an army were free from disease or the liability to disease before their enlistment, and every infirmity which is visited upon them thereafter is the consequence of army service.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 7162, entitled "An act granting a pension to Martha McIlwain."
R.J. McIlwain, the husband of the claimant, enlisted in 1861, and was discharged in 1862 because of the loss of his right leg by a gunshot wound. He was pensioned for this disability. He died May 15, 1883, from an overdose of morphia. It is claimed by the widow that her husband was in the habit of taking morphia to alleviate the pain he endured from his stump, and that he accidentally took too much.
The case was investigated by a special examiner upon the widow's application for pension, and his report shows that the deceased had been in the habit of taking morphia and knew how to use it; that he had been in the habit of buying 6 grains at a time, and that his death was caused by his taking one entire purchase of 6 grains while under the influence of liquor.
In any event it is quite clear that the taking of morphia in any quantity was not the natural result of military service or injury received therein.
I concur in the judgment of the Pension Bureau, which rejected the widow's claim for pension on the ground that "the death of the soldier was not due to his military service."
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without approval House bill No. 7931, entitled "An act increasing the pension of Clark Boon."
This claimant filed his declaration for pension February 3, 1874, in which he states that he lost his health while a prisoner at Tyler, Tex.
On the 19th day of October, 1874, he filed an affidavit claiming that he contracted diseases of the heart and head while in the service. In a further application, filed January 16, 1878, he abandoned his allegations as to disease, and asks for a pension on account of a gunshot wound in the left ankle. Medical testimony was produced on his behalf tending to show not only a gunshot wound, but a disease of the eyes.
A small pension was at last granted him upon the theory advanced by a board of surgeons in 1880 that it was "possible that applicant was entitled to a small rating for weakness of ankle."
A declaration was filed June 4, 1885, by which this claimant insists upon an increase of pension on account of the wound and also for disease of eyes and rheumatism.
I am entirely satisfied that all has been done in this case that the most liberal treatment demands.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without approval House bill No. 7257, entitled "An act granting a pension to James H. Darling."
This man enlisted in November, 1861, and was reported as having deserted March 5, 1862. The charge of desertion was, however, removed, and it is stated that he went to his home in Ohio at the date stated, by proper authority, where he remained sick till December, 1862, when he was discharged for disability caused "by a disease of the kidneys known as Bright's disease," from which, the physician making the certificate thought, "there was no reasonable prospect of his recovery."
The claimant filed his application for pension, alleging that in January, 1862, he contracted rheumatism.
The claim was investigated by a special examiner and rejected on the ground that the evidence produced failed to show the alleged disability was contracted in the service and in the line of duty.
A medical examination made in 1877 showed that the claimant was "a well-nourished man, 65 years old; height, 5 feet 8 inches; weight, 165 pounds." No disability was discovered, "but a general stiffness of joints, especially of legs, which he says is much aggravated in stormy, cold weather."
Another examination in 1882 found this victim of war disability with "the appearance of a hale, hearty old man—no disease that was discoverable by examination (without chemical test), except some lameness from rheumatism." His weight upon this examination is stated to be 186 pounds.
It is evident to me that this man ought not to be pensioned.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without my approval House bill No. 6372, entitled "An act to pension Charles A. Chase."
This claimant was enrolled September 6, 1864, and mustered out with his detachment June 1, 1865. His brief service contains no record of disability.
But in 1880 he filed a declaration for pension, in which he claims that by reason of exposure suffered in the service about the 20th of October, 1864, he contracted disease of the liver and kidneys.
The application for pension was denied January 9, 1884, because there was no record of the alleged diseases, and no satisfactory proof of their contraction in the Army was produced, and because of the meager and unconvincing evidence of disability found by the surgeon on an actual examination of the claimant.
I adopt these as the reasons for my action in withholding my approval of this bill.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 6192, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Norman."
The husband of this claimant was enrolled May 22, 1863, and was mustered out of the service June 1, 1866.
He was wounded in the head February 20, 1864; was treated for the same, and returned to duty September 3, 1864.
In her declaration for pension, filed in February, 1880, the claimant claims a pension because of his wound and deafness consequent therefrom, and that he died after he left the service.
In a letter, however, dated October 13, 1880, she states that her husband was drowned while trying to cross Roanoke River in December, 1868.
Her claim was rejected in 1881 on the ground that the cause of the soldier's death was accidental drowning, and was not due to his military service.
In an attempt to meet this objection it was claimed as lately as 1885, on behalf of the widow, that her husband's wound caused deafness to such an extent that at the time he was drowned he was unable to hear the ferryman, with whom he was crossing the river, call out that the boat was sinking.
How he could have saved his life if he had heard the warning is not stated.
It seems very clear to me that this is not a proper case for the granting of a pension.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without my approval House bill No. 7614, entitled "An act granting an increase of pension to Hezekiah Tillman."
This claimant, in his declaration for pension, filed in 1866, alleges that he received a gunshot wound in his right leg November 25, 1862. He was mustered out with his company September 22, 1864.
He was pensioned for the wound which he claimed to have received as his only injury.
In another declaration, filed in 1872, he alleged that in December, 1862, he was struck in his left eye by some hard substance, which destroyed the vision of that organ.
In a subsequent declaration, filed in 1878, he claimed that he received a shell wound in his left knee in November, 1863.
This latter claim has not been finally acted upon by the Pension Bureau, and I am of the opinion that with the diverse claims for injuries which have been there presented on behalf of the beneficiary named justice will be done in the case.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 6718, entitled "An act granting a pension to William H. Starr."
An application made by this claimant to the Pension Bureau is still pending there, and additional evidence has been called for, which the claim is awaiting before final decision.
I am of the opinion that the investigation there should be fully completed before special legislation is resorted to.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 7109, entitled "An act granting a pension to Joseph Tuttle."
This man claims a pension as the dependent father of Charles Tuttle, who enlisted in 1861 and was killed in action May 31, 1862.
The claimant, being, as he says, poor, took his son Charles, at the age of 9 years, and placed him in charge of an uncle living in Ohio. An arrangement was afterwards made by which the boy should live with a stranger named Betts. Upon the death of this gentleman the lad was transferred to one Captain Hill, with whom he remained until his enlistment in 1861.
It is stated that during the time he remained with Mr. Hill he sent his father $5; but the fatherly care and interest of the claimant in his son is exhibited by his statement that though the son was killed in 1862 his father was not aware of it until the year 1864.
After the exhibition of heartlessness and abandonment on the part of a father which is a prominent feature in this case, I should be sorry to be a party to a scheme permitting him to profit by the death of his patriotic son. The claimant relinquished the care of his son, and should be held to have relinquished all claim to his assistance and the benefits so indecently claimed as the result of his death.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 5995, entitled "An act granting a pension to David T. Elderkin."
This claimant enlisted August 5, 1862. From his record it appears that he was dishonorably discharged the service, to date from June 11, 1863, with a loss of all pay, bounty, and allowances.
He filed a declaration for a pension in 1882, claiming that he was wounded in the head by a shell January 1, 1863, which cut his cheek close to his right ear, causing almost total deafness.
There is conflicting evidence as to the claimant's freedom from deafness prior to enlistment, and on a special examination it was shown that he was slightly hard of hearing before enlistment. Indeed the claimant himself stated to the special examiner and also to the board of surgeons that he had been somewhat deaf from childhood.
In 1882 an examining surgeon reports that he finds no scar or evidence of wound, but his hearing is very much impaired.
The claim was rejected in 1885 on the ground that deafness existed prior to enlistment, and also because of no ratable disability by reason of alleged wound in the cheek.
I think, considering the manner of the soldier's discharge and the facts developed, that the claimant should not be pensioned.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 29, 1886.
To the Senate:
I hereby return Senate bill No. 1797, entitled "An act granting a pension to John S. Kirkpatrick."
This claimant appears to have enlisted December 10, 1861, and to have been discharged December 20, 1864. He is borne upon the rolls of his company as present up to June, 1862; in July and August, 1862, as on detached service as hospital attendant, and so reported February 28, 1863. In March and April, 1863, he is reported as present, and in May and June, 1863, as on detached service. There is nowhere in his service any record of disability.
He filed his application for a pension in 1880, in which he alleged that from hardship and exposure on a long march in New Mexico in the month of December, 1862, he contracted varicose veins in his legs.
As I understand the record given above, this claimant was on detached service from July, 1862, to February, 1863.
It will be observed that his claim is that he contracted his disability within that time, and in December, 1862. He appears also to have served for two years after the date of his alleged injury, and that he did not file his application for pension till about sixteen years afterwards.
His claim is still pending, undetermined, in the Pension Bureau, and if there is merit in it there is no doubt that he will be able to make it apparent.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 29, 1886.
To the Senate:
I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 1077, entitled "An act granting a pension to Newcomb Parker."
This claimant filed an application for a pension in the year 1880.
Before the passage of the bill herewith returned the Commissioner of Pensions, in ignorance of the action of Congress, allowed his claim under the general law. As this decision of the Pension Bureau entitles the beneficiary named to draw a pension from the date of filing his application, which, under the provisions of the special bill in his favor, would only accrue from the time of its passage, I am unwilling that one found worthy to be placed upon the pension rolls by the Bureau, to which he properly applied, should be an actual loser by reason of a special interposition of Congress in his behalf.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 2, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 473, entitled "An act granting a pension to William Boone."
There is not the slightest room for doubt as to the facts involved in this case.
No application for pension was ever made to the Pension Bureau by the beneficiary named in this bill. He enlisted in August, 1862; was in action November, 1862, and taken prisoner and at once paroled. During his parole, and at Aurora, in the State of Illinois, he took part in the celebration of the 4th day of July, 1863, and while so engaged was terribly injured by the discharge of a cannon. He is poor, and has a wife and a number of children.
These facts are derived from the report of the committee in Congress to whom the bill was referred, and from a letter written by the soldier since favorable action was had upon said bill by both Houses of Congress, which letter is now before me. In this letter he says: "I never thought of trying getting a pension until my old comrades urged me to do so."
This declaration does not in the least, I think, militate against the present application for pension, but it tends to show the ideas that have become quite prevalent concerning the facts necessary to be established in order to procure a pension by special act of Congress.
Let it be conceded that during the three months which elapsed between the soldier's enlistment and his capture and parole he was constantly in the field and bravely did his duty. The case presented is that of a brave soldier, not injured in any engagement with the enemy, but honorably captured, and by his parole placed in a condition which prevented for the time being his further active military service. He proceeded to his home or to his friends and took his place among noncombatants. Eight months afterwards he joined the citizens of the place of his sojourn and the citizens of every town and hamlet in the loyal States in the usual and creditable celebration of our national holiday. Among the casualties which unfortunately always result from such celebrations there occurred a premature discharge of a cannon, which the present claimant for pension was assisting other citizens to discharge and manage.
Whether any of those thus engaged with him were injured is not disclosed, but it is certain that the paroled soldier was very badly hurt.
I am utterly unable to discover any relation between this accident and the military service, or any reason why, if a pension is granted as proposed by this bill, there should not also be a pension granted to any of the companions of the claimant who chanced to be injured at the same time.
A disabled man and a wife and family in need are objects which appeal to the sympathy and charitable feelings of any decent man; but it seems to me that it by no means follows that those intrusted with the people's business and the expenditure of the people's money are justified in so executing the pension laws as that they shall furnish a means of relief in every case of distress or hardship.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 3, 1886.
To the Senate:
I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 365, entitled "An act for the relief of Martin L. Bundy."
By this bill it is proposed to allow in the settlement by the United States with Mr. Bundy, who was lately a paymaster in the Army, the sum of $719.47 for the forage of two horses to which he claims he was entitled while in the service, and which has never been drawn by him. The time during which it is alleged this forage was due is stated to be between July 17, 1862, and April 15, 1866.
This claimant was mustered out as paymaster on the last-mentioned date, and in 1872 a certificate was issued that, his accounts having been adjusted, they exhibited no indebtedness on his part to the United States.
Subsequently, however, and in or about the year 1879, it was discovered that by reason of a duplicate credit, which had been allowed him by mistake, he was actually indebted to the Government in the sum of $528.72.
After the fact had been made known to him the claim embodied in this bill was suggested to or invented by him, which, if allowed, will not only extinguish his indebtedness to the Government, but leave a balance due to him.
By the law and the Army Regulations the forage upon which this claim is based is or should be only allowed to those in the service who actually have and use horses in the performance of their duties.
And when thus entitled to forage it was necessary to draw it in kind or in the specific articles permitted every month, and if not thus drawn it could not afterwards be claimed. There seems to be no such thing as commutation of forage in such cases.
There is no suggestion that the claimant named in this bill had or used any horses while in the service. If he did and paid for their maintenance and at the time of the settlement of his accounts made no claim for reimbursement, he presents a case of incredible ignorance of his rights or a wonderful lack of that disposition to gain every possible advantage which is usually found among those who deal with the Government.
It is quite apparent that the claim is not valid, and the fact that it is made long after the discovery of his deficit leads to the suspicion that it is insisted on merely for the purpose of paying his debt.
Though in this particular case it would do but little more than to extinguish an indebtedness to the Government, the allowance of this claim would set a precedent which could hardly be ignored, and which, if followed, would furnish another means of attack upon the public Treasury quite as effective as many which are now in active operation.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 7018, entitled "An act granting a pension to Aretus F. Loomis."
The Commissioner of Pensions, before he became aware of the passage of this bill, directed favorable action upon the application of the claimant pending in the Pension Bureau. A certificate has been issued for the payment of a pension to him, dating from September 30, 1882.
In the interest of the claimant I therefore withhold my signature from the bill, as the pension granted by special act would only date from the time of its passage.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 1818, entitled "An act granting a pension to H.L. Kyler."
A pension was granted to the person named in this bill, dating from September, 1864, for neuralgia and disease of the eyes.
He was mustered into the service, to serve one hundred days, May 14, 1864, and mustered out September 8, 1864.
In 1880 information reached the Pension Bureau that the pensioner was treated for neuralgia and disease of the eyes at various times between the years 1859 and 1864, and this fact appearing to the satisfaction of the Bureau upon the examination which followed, the pensioner's name was dropped from the roll.
Afterwards another thorough examination of the case was made, when the pensioner was permitted to confront the witnesses against him and produce evidence in his own behalf.
It is claimed that a Dr. Saunders, who testified to treating the pensioner before his enlistment, was exceedingly unfriendly; but he was corroborated by his son and by entries on his books. Another physician, apparently disinterested, also testified to his treatment of the pensioner in 1860 for difficulties with his eyes and ears. The pensioner himself admitted that he had trouble with one of his eyes in 1860, but that he entirely recovered. Six other witnesses testified to the existence of disease of the pensioner's eyes before enlistment.
Though twelve neighbors of the pensioner testified that he was free from neuralgia and disease of the eyes before enlistment, I am of the opinion that the evidence against the pension was quite satisfactory, and that it should not be restored, as the bill before me proposes.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 3640, entitled "An act granting a pension to James T. Irwin."
This claimant enlisted in February, 1864, and was mustered out June 10, 1865. He is reported as absent sick from August 20, 1864, until mustered out. He seems to have been treated for remittent fever, chronic diarrhea, general debility, and palpitation of the heart.
In 1876 he filed a declaration for pension, alleging that at Petersburg, July 1, 1864, he contracted fever and inflammation of the eyes.
He filed an affidavit in January, 1877, in which he states that his diseased eyes resulted from diseased nerves, caused by a wound received June 18, 1864, at Petersburg, and from a consequent abscess on the back of the neck.
In an affidavit filed in July, 1878, he states that in June, 1864, in front of Petersburg, he had his gun smashed in front of his face and his eyes injured, and afterwards he had an abscess on the back of his neck, typhoid fever, and disease of the left lung.
His claim founded upon these various allegations of injury was rejected in February, 1879.
In September, 1884, a declaration was filed for a pension, alleging disease of the heart contracted at Petersburg June 16, 1864.
The claimant was examined once in 1882 and twice in 1884 by United States examining surgeons and boards, and it is stated that these examinations failed to reveal any disease or disability except disease of the eyes and an irritable heart, the result of indigestion.
An oculist who made an examination in 1884 reported that the unnatural condition of claimant's eyes was congenital and in no manner the result of injury or disease.
Upon a consideration of the very short time that the claimant was in actual service, the different claims he has made touching his alleged disability, and the positive results of medical examinations, I am satisfied this pension should not be allowed.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without my approval House bill No. 5306, entitled "An act granting a pension to Roxana V. Rowley."
The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of Franklin Rowley, who enlisted February 8, 1865, was promoted to first lieutenant March 13, 1865, and was discharged May 22, 1865, having tendered his resignation, as it is stated, on account of incompetency. His tender of resignation was indorsed by the commanding officer of his regiment as follows: "This man is wholly unfit for an officer."
It will be seen that he was in the service a little more than three months.
In 1880, fifteen years after his discharge, he applied for a pension, alleging that he contracted disease of the liver while in the service.
Upon an examination of the claim his attending physician before enlistment stated that as early as 1854 the claimant was afflicted with dyspepsia and functional disease of the liver; that he regarded him as incurable, so far as being restored to sound health was concerned, and that if he had been at home at the time when he enlisted he would have advised against it.
The testimony of this physician as to the claimant's condition after his discharge is referred to in the report of the Committee of the House to whom this bill was referred, and I do not understand that he is at all impeached. He certainly is better informed than any other person regarding the condition of the man who was his patient.
The soldier died in 1881, sixteen years after his discharge, and his widow filed her claim for pension in 1882, alleging that the death of her husband was caused by a disease of the liver contracted in the service.
Her claim was rejected in 1883 upon the ground that the disease of which her husband died existed prior to his enlistment.
I can not avoid the conclusion, upon all the facts presented, that his death was not chargeable to any incident of his brief military service.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 5021, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Margaret A. Jacoby."
A pension has been allowed on account of the disability of the claimant's husband, dating from his discharge in 1864.
The beneficiary named in this bill applied for pension in 1885, alleging that she married the soldier in 1864; that he incurred deafness and chronic diarrhea while in the service, from the combined effect of which he partially lost his mind; that on the 7th day of September, 1875, he disappeared, and that after diligent search and inquiry she is unable to learn anything of him since that time.
His disability from army service should be conceded and his death at some time and in some manner may well be presumed; but the fact that he died from any cause related to his disability or his service in the Army has no presumption and not a single particle of proof to rest upon.
With proper diligence something should be discovered to throw a little light upon this subject.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 3304, entitled "An act to restore the name of Abner Morehead to the pension roll."
The person mentioned in this bill was pensioned in November, 1867, upon the claim made by him that in 1863, from hardship and exposure incident to camp life and field duty, he contracted a fever which settled in his eyes, almost wholly destroying his sight. Afterwards his pension was increased to $15 a month, dating from December, 1867, and arrears at the rate of $8 a month from February, 1864. In 1876 the case was put in the hands of a special agent of the Pension Bureau for examination, and upon his report, showing that the claimant's disease of the eyes existed prior to enlistment, his name was dropped from the rolls.
An application for restoration was made in 1879, and a thorough examination was made by a special examiner in 1885, who reported that the testimony taken conclusively established the fact that the claimant had disease of the eyes prior to the time of enlistment, the result of a disorder which he specifically mentions, and that he was treated for the same more than a year subsequently to 1860. He adds:
There is no merit whatever in this case, and it is evident that he obtained a large sum as pension to which, he must have known he was not entitled.
The results of these examinations, instituted for the express purpose of developing the facts, and with nothing apparent to impeach them, should, I think, control as against the statements of neighbors and comrades based upon mere general observation, and not necessarily covering the period which is important to the controversy.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 4782, entitled "An act granting a pension to Elizabeth McKay."
The beneficiary named is the widow of Rowley S. McKay, who in 1862 seems to have been employed as pilot on the ram Switzerland. He seems to have been upon the rolls of two other vessels of the United States, the Covington and General Price, but was discharged by Admiral Porter in June, 1864, with loss of all pay and emoluments.
He filed an application for pension in 1870, alleging that while on duty as pilot and in action with the rebel ram Arkansas his hearing became affected by heavy firing. He also claimed that in February, 1863, while on the vessel Queen of the West, she grounded, and to escape capture he got off and floated down the river on a cotton bale, and, being in the water about three hours, the exposure caused a disease of the urinary organs; and that a few days after, while coming up the river on a transport, the boat was fired into and several balls passed through his left thigh. It seems that this claim was not definitely passed upon, but it is stated that the records failed to show that McKay was in the service of the United States at the time he alleged the contraction of disease of the urinary organs and was wounded in the thigh.
The beneficiary named in this bill never made application for pension to the Pension Bureau, but it appears that she bases her claims to consideration by Congress upon the allegation that in 1862, while her husband was acting as pilot of the ram or gunboat Switzerland, he contracted chronic diarrhea, from which he never recovered, and that he died from the effects of said disease in May, 1874.
It will be observed that among the various causes which the soldier or sailor himself alleged as the grounds of his application for pension chronic diarrhea is not mentioned.
There does not appear to be any medical testimony to support the claim thus made by the widow, and the cause of death is not definitely stated.
Taking all together, it has the appearance of a case, by no means rare, where chronic diarrhea or rheumatism are appealed to as a basis for a pension claim in the absence of something more substantial and definite.
The fact that the claim of the beneficiary has never been presented to the Pension Bureau influences in some degree my action in withholding my approval of this bill.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 3623, entitled "An act granting a pension to William H. Nevil."
This bill directs that the name of the claimant be placed upon the pension roll "subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws."
This very thing was done on the 22d day of June, 1865, and the claimant is in the receipt at the present time of the full amount of pension allowed by our pension laws as administered by the Pension Bureau.
I suppose the intention of the bill was to increase this pension, but it is not framed in such a way as to accomplish that object or to benefit the claimant in any way whatever.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 1505, entitled "An act granting a pension to William Dermody."
By the records of the War Department which have been furnished me it appears that this claimant enlisted August 19, 1861; that he deserted August 29, 1862; in November and December, 1862, he is reported as present in confinement in regimental guardhouse, to forfeit one month's pay by sentence of regimental court-martial; he is reported as having deserted again in December, 1863, but as present for duty in January and February, 1864; he reenlisted in the latter month, and was mustered out July 17, 1865, and with his company was paid up to and including July 21, 1865.
He filed a declaration for pension in 1879, alleging that he received a gunshot wound in the thigh at Trenton, N.J., July 21, 1865, and that the wound was inflicted by a member of the Invalid Corps, who was whipping a drummer boy, and the claimant interfered in behalf of the boy.
It is quite certain that the transaction took place July 23.
An examining board, in 1880, found pistol shot in thigh, but refused to give the claimant a rating, because, as they report, "from the evidence before the board there is reason to suppose that he was deserting from the barracks at Trenton July 23, 1865, and was shot by the guard."
This may not be a just suspicion or finding, but he surely was not in the service nor in the performance of any military duty at the time of the injury, nor was he engaged in such manner as to entitle him to indemnification at the hands of the Government.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 1059, entitled "An act to grant a pension to Joseph Romiser."
The Pension Bureau reports that the records of the office fail to show that an application has been filed in favor of this claimant, though it is stated in the report of the House committee that such a claim was made and rejected on the ground that the claimant was not at the time of injury in the service of the United States.
It certainly appears from the report of the committee that the beneficiary named in this bill was not in the service of the Government at such a time, and also that he had not been mustered into the service of any State military organization. It is stated that he belonged to Captain Frank Mason's company of volunteers, of Prostburg, in the State of Maryland.
Whether this company was organized for the purpose of cooperating at any time with the Union or State forces is not alleged, and it may well have been existing merely for the purpose of neighborhood protection.
Such as it was, the company was ordered in June, 1861, to proceed to Cumberland to repel a threatened attack of Confederate forces. Upon arriving at that place the men were ordered to uncap their muskets. In doing this, and through the negligence of another member of the company, whose musket was discharged, the claimant was wounded.
It does not seem to me that the facts in this case, so far as they have been developed, justify the passage of this act.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 4226, entitled "An act granting a pension to Fannie E. Evans."
The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of George S. Evans. He was a soldier in the Mexican War, and entered the Union Army in the War of the Rebellion, on the 16th day of October, 1861, as major of a California regiment. He became a colonel in February, 1863, and resigned in April of that year, to take effect on the 31st of May ensuing.
His resignation seems to have been tendered on account of private matters, and no mention was then made of any disability. It is stated in the committee's report to the House that in 1864 he accepted the office of adjutant-general of the State of California, which he held for nearly four years.
He died in 1883 from cerebral apoplexy.
In March, 1884, his widow filed an application for pension, based upon the allegation that from active and severe service in a battle with the Indians at Spanish Fort in 1863 her husband incurred a hernia, which incapacitated him for active service.
There appears to be evidence to justify this statement, notwithstanding the fact that the deceased during the twenty years that followed before his death made no claim for such disability.
But it seems to me that the effort to attribute his death by apoplexy to the existence of hernia ought not to be successful.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 2971, entitled "An act granting a pension to Francis Deming."
This claimant entered the service in August, 1861, and was discharged September 15, 1865.
His hospital record shows that during his service he was treated for various temporary ailments, among which rheumatism is not included.
He filed an application for pension in September, 1884, alleging that in August, 1864, he contracted rheumatism, which had resulted in blindness.
On an examination of his case in November, 1884, he stated that his eyesight began to fail in 1882.
There seems to be no testimony showing his condition from the time of his discharge to 1880, a period of fifteen years.
The claim that his present condition of blindness is the result of his army service is not insisted upon as a reason for granting him relief as strongly as his sad and helpless condition. The committee of the House to which this bill was referred, after detailing his situation, close their report with these words: "He served well his country in its dire need; his necessities now appeal for relief."
We have here presented the case of a soldier who did his duty during his army service, and who was discharged in 1865 without any record of having suffered with rheumatism and without any claim of disability arising from the same. He returned to his place as a citizen, and in peaceful pursuits, with chances certainly not impaired by the circumstance that he had served his country, he appears to have held his place in the race of life for fifteen years or more. Then, like many another, he was subjected to loss of sight, one of the saddest afflictions known to human life.
Thereupon, and after nineteen years had elapsed since his discharge from the Army, a pension is claimed for him upon a very shadowy allegation of the incurrence of rheumatism while in the service, coupled with the startling proposition that this rheumatism resulted, just previous to his application, in blindness. Upon medical examination it appeared that his blindness was caused by amaurosis, which is generally accepted as an affection of the optic nerve.
I am satisfied that a fair examination of the facts in this case justifies the statement that the bill under consideration can rest only upon the grounds that aid should be furnished to this ex-soldier because he served in the Army and because he a long time thereafter became blind, disabled, and dependent.
The question is whether we are prepared to adopt this principle and establish this precedent.
None of us are entitled to credit for extreme tenderness and consideration toward those who fought their country's battles. These are sentiments con|»ion to all good citizens. They lead to the most benevolent care on the part of the Government and deeds of charity and mercy in private life. The blatant and noisy self-assertion of those who, from motives that may well be suspected, declare themselves above all others friends of the soldier can not discredit nor belittle the calm, steady, and affectionate regard of a grateful nation.
An appropriation has just been passed setting apart $76,000,000 of the public money for distribution as pensions, under laws liberally constructed, with a view of meeting every meritorious case. More than $1,000,000 was added to maintain the Pension Bureau, which is charged with the duty of a fair, just, and liberal apportionment of this fund.
Legislation has been at the present session of Congress perfected considerably increasing the rate of pension in certain cases. Appropriations have also been made of large sums for the support of national homes where sick, disabled, or needy soldiers are cared for, and within a few days a liberal sum has been appropriated for the enlargement and increased accommodation and convenience of these institutions.
All this is no more than should be done.
But with all this, and with the hundreds of special acts which have been passed granting pensions in cases where, for my part, I am willing to confess that sympathy rather than judgment has often led to the discovery of a relation between injury or death and military service, I am constrained by a sense of public duty to interpose against establishing a principle and setting a precedent which must result in unregulated, partial, and unjust gifts of public money under the pretext of indemnifying those who suffered in their means of support as an incident of military service.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 4642, entitled "An act granting a pension to James Carroll."
The claimant alleges that he was wounded while in the service as a member of Company B, Third Regiment North Carolina Mounted Volunteers, while securing recruits for the regiment at Watauga, N.C., January 25, 1865.
The records of the War Department develop the fact that the name of this man is not borne upon any roll of the company to which he claims to belong.
He stated in his application that he was sworn in by one George W. Perkins, who, it appears, was a private in said company, and that Perkins was with him at the time he was shot.
This is undoubtedly true, and that the claimant was injured by a gunshot is also probably true. He was not, however, at the time regularly in the United States service, but this objection might in some circumstances be regarded as technical. The difficulty is that the fact that he was creditably employed in a service of benefit to the country is not satisfactorily shown. He gives two accounts of the business in which he was engaged, and Mr. Perkins's explanation of the manner in which the two were occupied is somewhat different still.
Carroll's claim, presented to the Pension Bureau, was rejected upon the ground that there was no record of his service on file; but in his testimony he stated that Perkins was wounded on the same occasion as himself, and that he (Perkins) was then a pensioner on account thereof.
The records of the Pension Bureau show that Perkins was pensioned in 1873 on account of three wounds received at the time and place of Carroll's injury.
It also appears that his name was dropped from the rolls in 1877 on the ground that his wounds were not received in the line of duty.
After an investigation made at that time by a special examiner, he reported that Perkins and Carroll had collected a number of men together, who made their headquarters at the home of Carroll's mother and were engaged in plundering the neighborhood, and that on account of their depredations they were hunted down by home guards and shot at the time they stated.
If this report is accepted as reliable, it should of course lead to the rejection of the claim for pension on the part of Mr. Carroll.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 3043, entitled "An act granting a pension to Lewis W. Scanland."
The claimant filed his declaration for a pension in 1884, alleging that he contracted chronic diarrhea while serving in a company of mounted Illinois volunteers in the Black Hawk War.
The records show that he served from April 18, 1832, to May 28, in the same year.
He was examined by a board of surgeons in 1884, when he was said to be 75 years old. In his examination he did not claim to have diarrhea for a good many years. On the contrary, he claimed to be affected with constipation, and said he had never had diarrhea of late years, except at times when he had taken medicine for constipation.
I am inclined to think it would have been a fortunate thing if in this case it could have been demonstrated that a man could thrive so well with the chronic diarrhea for fifty-two years as its existence in the case of this good old gentleman would prove. We should then, perhaps, have less of it in claims for pensions.
The fact is, in this case there is no disability which can be traced to the forty days' military service of fifty-four years ago, and I think little, if any, more infirmity than is usually found in men of the age of the claimant.
Entertaining this belief, I am constrained to withhold my signature from this bill.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 5414, entitled "An act granting a pension to Maria Cunningham."
The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill enlisted January 29, 1862, and was discharged January 20, 1865.
He applied for a pension in 1876, alleging a shell wound in the head. His claim was rejected on the ground that there appeared to be no disability from that cause. No other injury or disability was ever claimed by him, but at the time of his examination in 1876 he was found to be sickly, feeble, and emaciated, and suffering from an advanced stage of saccharine diabetes.
His widow filed an application for a pension in 1879, alleging that her husband died in December, 1877, of spinal disease and diabetes, contracted in the service.
Her claim was rejected because evidence was not furnished that the cause of the soldier's death had its origin in the military service.
There seems to be an entire absence of proof of this important fact.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 4797, entitled "An act granting a pension to Robert H. Stapleton."
This claimant filed an application for pension in the Pension Bureau in 1883, alleging that while acting as lieutenant-colonel of a New Mexico regiment, on February 21, 1862, the tongue of a caisson struck him, injuring his left side. A medical examination made in 1882 showed a fracture of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh ribs of the left side.
If these fractures were the result of the injury alleged, they were immediately apparent, and the delay of twenty-one years in presenting the claim for pension certainly needs explanation.
Claims of this description, by a wise provision of law, must, to be valid, be prosecuted to a successful issue prior to the 4th day of July, 1874.
The rank which this claimant held presupposes such intelligence as admits of no excuse on the ground of ignorance of the law for his failure to present his application within the time fixed by law.
The evidence of disability from the cause alleged is weak, to say the most of it, and I can not think that such a wholesome provision of law as that above referred to, which limits the time for the adjustment of such claims, should be modified upon the facts presented in this case.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 5550, entitled "An act to provide for the erection of a public building at Duluth, Minn."
After quite a careful examination of the public needs at the point mentioned I am entirely satisfied that the public building provided for in this bill is not immediately necessary.
Not a little legislation has lately been perfected, and very likely more will be necessary, to increase miscalculated appropriations for and correct blunders in the construction of many of the public buildings now in process of erection.
While this does not furnish a good reason for disapproving the erection of other buildings where actually necessary, it induces close scrutiny and gives rise to the earnest wish that new projects for public buildings shall for the present be limited to such as are required by the most pressing necessities of the Government's business.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 2043, entitled "An act to place Mary Karstetter on the pension roll."
The husband of this beneficiary, Jacob Karstetter, was enrolled June 30, 1864, as a substitute in a Pennsylvania regiment, and was discharged for disability June 20, 1865, caused by a gunshot wound in the left hand.
A declaration for pension was filed by him in 1865, based upon this wound, and the same was granted, dating from June in that year, which he drew till the time of his death, August 21, 1874.
In 1882 his widow filed her application for pension, alleging that he died of wounds received in battle. The claim was made that he was injured while in the Army by a horse running over him.
There is little or no evidence of such an injury having been received; and if this was presented there would be no necessary connection between that and the cause of the soldier's death, which was certified by the attending physician to be gastritis and congestion of the kidneys.
I can hardly see how the Pension Bureau could arrive at any conclusion except that the death of the soldier was not due to his military service, and the acceptance of this finding, after an examination of the facts, leads me to disapprove this bill.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 5394, entitled "An act granting a pension to Sallie Ann Bradley."
The husband of this proposed beneficiary was discharged from the military service in 1865, after a long service, and was afterwards pensioned for gunshot wound.
He died in 1882. The widow appears to have never filed a claim for pension in her own right.
No cause is given of the soldier's death, but it is not claimed that it resulted from his military service, her pension being asked for entirely because of her needs and the faithful service of her husband and her sons.
This presents the question whether a gift in such a case is a proper disposition of money appropriated for the purpose of paying pensions.
The passage of this law would, in my opinion, establish a precedent so far-reaching and open the door to such a vast multitude of claims not on principle within our present pension laws that I am constrained to disapprove the bill under consideration.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 5603, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Catherine McCarty."
The beneficiary is the widow of John McCarty, of the First Missouri Regiment of State Militia Volunteers, who died at Clinton, Mo., April 8, 1864.
The widow filed her claim in 1866, alleging that her husband died while in the service from an overdose of colchicum.
The evidence shows without dispute that on the day previous to the death of the soldier a comrade procured some medicine from the regimental surgeon and asked McCarty to smell and taste it; that he did so, and shortly afterwards became very sick and died the next morning.
It is quite evident that the deceased soldier did more than taste this medicine.
Although it would be pleasant to aid the widow in this case, it is hardly fair to ask the Government to grant a pension for the freak or gross heedlessness and recklessness of this soldier.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without my approval House bill No. 6648, entitled "An act for the relief of Edward M. Harrington."
It appears that this claimant was enrolled as a recruit December 31, 1863, and mustered in at Dunkirk, N.Y. He remained at the barracks there until March, 1864, when he was received at the Elmira rendezvous. From there he was sent to his regiment on the 7th day of April, 1864.
He was discharged June 15, 1864, upon a surgeon's certificate of disability, declaring the cause of discharge to be epilepsy, produced by blows of violence over the hypochondrial region while in the service, producing a deformity of sternum.
The claimant filed an application for pension in June, 1879, and in that and subsequent affidavits he alleged that while in barracks at Dunkirk, N.Y., and about the 9th day of January, 1864, and in the line of duty, he was attacked by one Patrick Burnes, who struck him upon the head and stamped upon and kicked him, breaking his collar bone and a number of ribs, causing internal injury and fits, the latter recurring every two weeks.
It is hardly worth while considering the character of these alleged injuries or their connection with the fits with which the claimant is afflicted.
I am entirely unable to see how the injuries are related to the claimant's army service.
The Government ought not to be called upon to insure against the quarrelsome propensities of its individual soldiers, nor to compensate one who is worsted in a fight, or even in an unprovoked attack, when the cause of injury is in no way connected with or related to any requirement or incident of military service.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 7, 1886.
To the Senate of the United States:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 2281, entitled "An act granting to railroads the right of way through the Indian reservation in northern Montana."
The reservation referred to stretches across the extreme northern part of Montana Territory, with British America for its northern boundary. It contains an area of over 30,000 square miles. It is dedicated to Indian occupancy by treaty of October 17, 1855, and act of Congress of April 15, 1874. No railroads are within immediate approach to its boundaries, and only one, as shown on recent maps, is under construction in the neighborhood leading in its direction. The surrounding country is sparsely settled, and I have been unable to ascertain that the necessities of commerce or any public exigencies demand this legislation, which would affect so seriously the rights and interests of the Indians occupying the reservation.
The bill is in the nature of a general right of way for railroads through this Indian reservation. The Indian occupants have not given their consent to it, neither have they been consulted regarding it, nor is there any provision in it for securing their consent or agreement to the location or construction of railroads upon their lands. No routes are described, and no general directions on which the line of any railroad will be constructed are given.
No particular organized railway company engaged in constructing a railroad toward the reservation and ready or desirous to build its road through the Indian lands to meet the needs and requirements of trade and commerce is named. The bill gives the right to any railroad in the country, duly organized under the laws of any Territory, of any State, or of the United States, except those of the District of Columbia, to enter this Indian country, prospect for routes of travel, survey them, and construct routes of travel wherever it may please, with no check save possible disapproval by the Secretary of the Interior of its maps of location, and no limitation upon its acts except such rules and regulations as he may prescribe.
This power vested in the Secretary of the Interior might itself be improvidently exercised and subject to abuse.
No limit of time is fixed within which the construction of railroads should begin or be completed. Without such limitations speculating corporations would be enabled to seek out and secure the right of way over the natural and most feasible routes, with no present intention of constructing railroads along such lines, but with the view of holding their advantageous easements for disposal at some future time to some other corporation for a valuable consideration. In this way the construction of needed railroad facilities in that country could be hereafter greatly obstructed and retarded.
If the United States must exercise its right of eminent domain over the Indian Territories for the general welfare of the whole country, it should be done cautiously, with due regard for the interests of the Indians, and to no greater extent than the exigencies of the public service require.
Bills tending somewhat in the direction of this general character of legislation, affecting the rights of the Indians reserved to them by treaty stipulations, have been presented to me during the present session of Congress. They have received my reluctant approval, though I am by no means certain that a mistake has not been made in passing such laws without providing for the consent to such grants by the Indian occupants and otherwise more closely guarding their rights and interests; and I hoped that each of those bills as it received my approval would be the last of the kind presented. They, however, designated particular railroad companies, laid down general routes over which the respective roads should be constructed through the Indian lands, and specified their direction and termini, so that I was enabled to reasonably satisfy myself that the exigencies of the public service and the interests of commerce probably demanded the construction of the roads, and that by their construction and operation the Indians would not be too seriously affected.
The bill now before me is much more general in its terms than those which have preceded it. It is a new and wide departure from the general tenor of legislation affecting Indian reservations. It ignores the right of the Indians to be consulted as to the disposition of their lands, opens wide the door to any railroad corporation to do what, under the treaty covering the greater portion of the reservation, is reserved to the United States alone; it gives the right to enter upon Indian lands to a class of corporations carrying with them many individuals not known for any scrupulous regard for the interest or welfare of the Indians; it invites a general invasion of the Indian country, and brings into contact and intercourse with the Indians a class of whites and others who are independent of the orders, regulations, and control of the resident agents.
Corporations operating railroads through Indian lands are strongly tempted to infringe at will upon the reserved rights and the property of Indians, and thus are apt to become so arbitrary in their dealings and domineering in their conduct toward them that the Indians become disquieted, often threatening outbreaks and periling the lives of frontier settlers and others.
I am impressed with the belief that the bill under consideration does not sufficiently guard against an invasion of the rights and a disturbance of the peace and quiet of the Indians on the reservation mentioned; nor am I satisfied that the legislation proposed is demanded by any exigency of the public welfare.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 9, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 524, entitled "An act granting a pension to Daniel H. Ross."
An application for pension was filed in the Pension Bureau by the beneficiary named in this bill, and considerable testimony was filed in support of the same. I do not understand that the claim has been finally rejected. But however that may be, the claimant died, as I am advised, on the 1st day of February last. This, of course, renders the proposed legislation entirely inoperative, if it would not actually prejudice the claim of his surviving widow. She has already been advised of the evidence necessary to complete the claim of her husband, and it is not at all improbable that she will be able to prosecute the same to a successful issue for her benefit.
At any rate, her rights should not be in the least jeopardized by the completion of the legislation proposed in this bill.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 9, 1886.
To the Senate:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 856, entitled "An act to provide for the erection of a public building in the city of Dayton, Ohio."
It is not claimed that the Government has any public department or business which it should quarter at Dayton except its post-office and internal-revenue office. The former is represented as employing ten clerks, sixteen regular and two substitute letter carriers, and two special-delivery employees, who, I suppose, are boys, only occasionally in actual service. I do not understand that the present post-office quarters are either insufficient or inconvenient. By a statement prepared by the present postmaster it appears that they are rented by the Government for a period of ten years from the 15th day of October, 1883, at an annual rent of $2,950, which includes the cost of heating the same.
The office of the internal-revenue collector is claimed to be inadequate, but I am-led to believe that this officer is fairly accommodated at an annual rental of $900. It is not impossible that a suggestion to change the area of this revenue district may be adopted, which would relieve any complaint of inadequacy of office room.
With only these two offices to provide for, I am not satisfied that the expenditure of $150,000 for their accommodation, as proposed by this bill, is in accordance with sound business principles or consistent with that economy in public affairs which has been promised to the people.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 10, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 5546, entitled "An act for the erection of a public building at Asheville, N.C."
If the needs of the Government are alone considered, the proposed building is only necessary for the accommodation of two terms of the United States court in each year and to provide an office for the clerk of that court and more commodious quarters for the post-office.
The terms of the court are now held in the county court room at Asheville at an expense to the Government of $50 for each term; the clerk of the court occupies a room for which an annual rent of $150 is paid, and the rent paid for the rooms occupied by the post-office is $180 each year.
The postmaster reports that four employees are regularly engaged in his office, which is now rated as third class.
I have no doubt that the court could be much more conveniently provided for in a new building if one should be erected; but it is represented to me that the regular terms held at Asheville last only two or three weeks each, though special terms are ordered at times to clear the docket. It is difficult to see from any facts presented in support of this bill why the United States court does not find accommodations which fairly answer its needs in the rooms now occupied by it. The floor space furnished for the terms of the Federal court is stated to be 75 by 100 feet, which, it must be admitted, provides a very respectable court room.
It is submitted that the necessity to the Government of a proper place to hold its courts is the only consideration which should have any weight in determining upon the propriety of expending the money which will be necessary to erect the proposed new building.
The limit of its cost is fixed in the bill under consideration at the sum of $80,000, but the history of such projects justifies the expectation that this limit will certainly be exceeded.
I am satisfied that the present necessity for this building is not urgent, and that something may be gained by a delay which will demonstrate more fully the public needs, and thus better suggest the style and size of the building to be erected.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 30, 1886.
To the Senate:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 63, entitled "An act to authorize the construction of a highway bridge across that part of the waters of Lake Champlain lying between the towns of North Hero and Alburg, in the State of Vermont."
On the 20th day of June, 1884, a bill was approved and became a law having the same title and containing precisely the same provisions and in the exact words of the bill herewith returned.
The records of the War Department indicate that nothing has been done toward building the bridge permitted by such prior act. It is hardly possible that the bill now before me is intended to authorize an additional bridge between the two towns named, and I have been unable to discover any excuse or necessity for new legislation on the subject.
I conclude, therefore, that Congress in passing this bill acted in ignorance of the fact that a law providing for its objects and purposes was already on the statute book.
My approval of the bill is withheld for this reason and in order to prevent an unnecessary and confusing multiplicity of laws.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 30, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without my approval House bill No. 1391, entitled "An act to provide for the erection of a public building at Springfield, Mo."
It appears from the report of the committee of the House of Representatives to which this bill was referred that the city of Springfield is in a thriving condition, with stores, banks, and manufactories, and having, with North Springfield, which is an adjoining town, about 20,000 inhabitants.
No Federal courts are held at this place, and apparently the only quarters which the Government should provide are such as are necessary for the accommodation of the post-office and the land-office located there.
The postmaster reports that six employees are engaged in his office.
The rooms used as a post-office are now furnished the Government free of expense, and the rent paid for the quarters occupied as a land-office amounts to $300 annually.
Upon the facts presented I am satisfied that the business of the Government at this point can be well transacted for the present without the construction of the proposed building.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 31, 1886.
To the Senate:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 2160, entitled "A bill granting a pension to Mary J. Hagerman."
The husband of this proposed beneficiary enlisted in 1861 and was wounded by a gunshot, which seriously injured his left forearm. In 1864 he was discharged; was afterwards pensioned for his wound, and died in August, 1884.
Dr. Hageman, who attended the deceased in his last illness, testifies that he was called to attend him in August, 1884; that he was sick with typhomalarial fever, and that upon inquiry he (the physician) found that it was caused by hard work or overexertion and exposure. He was ill for about ten days.
The application of his widow for pension was rejected in 1885 on the ground that the fatal disease was not due to military service.
I am unable to discover how any different determination could have been reached.
To grant a pension in this case would clearly contravene the present policy of the Government, and either establish a precedent which, if followed, would allow a pension to the widow of every soldier wounded or disabled in the war, without regard to the cause of death, or would unjustly discriminate in favor of the few thus receiving the bounty of the Government against many whose cases were equally meritorious.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 31, 1886.
To the Senate:
I herewith return without my approval Senate bill No. 1421, entitled "An act granting a pension to William H. Weaver."
The claimant named in this bill enlisted August 12, 1862, and was mustered out of service June 12, 1865. During his service he was treated in hospital for diarrhea and lumbago, and in the reports for May and June, as well as July and August, 1864, he is reported as absent sick.
He filed his application for pension in November, 1877, alleging that in March, 1863, he contracted measles, and in May, 1864, remittent fever, and that as a result of the two attacks he was afflicted with weakness in the limbs and eyes. He made statements afterwards in support of his application that he was also troubled in the service with rheumatism and diarrhea.
The case was examined by several special examiners, from which, as reported to me, it appeared from the claimant's admission that he had sore eyes previous to his enlistment, though he claimed they were sound when he entered the Army.
A surgeon who made an examination in March, 1881, reported that he could not find any evidence whatever of disease of the eyes, and nothing to corroborate the claimant's assertion that he was suffering from rheumatism, piles, or diarrhea.
Another surgeon, who examined the claimant in 1879, reported that he found the eyelids slightly granulated, producing some irritation of the eyeball and rendering the eyes a little weak, and that he found no other disability.
In 1882 a surgeon who made an examination reported that he discovered indications that the claimant had suffered at some time with chronic ophthalmia, but that in his opinion his eyes did not disable him in the least, and that the claimant was well nourished and in good health.
The report of the committee to whom this bill was referred in the Senate states that six special examinations have been made in the case and that two of them were favorable to the claim.
The trouble and expense incurred by the Pension Bureau to ascertain the truth and to deal fairly by this claimant, and the entire absence of any suspicion of bias against the claim in that Bureau, ought to give weight to its determination.
The claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau in July, 1885, upon the ground that disease of the eyes existed prior to enlistment and that the evidence failed to show that there had existed a pensionable degree of disability, since discharge, from diarrhea or rheumatism.
It will be observed that this is not a case where there was a lack of the technical proof required by the Pension Bureau, but that its judgment was based upon the merits of the application and affected the very foundation of the claim.
I think it should be sustained; and its correctness is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the claimant continued in active service for more than a year after his alleged sickness, that after filing his claim he added thereto allegations of additional disabilities, and that he made no application for pension until more than twelve years after his discharge.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 31, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 3363, entitled "An act granting a pension to Jennette Dow."
The husband of the claimant enlisted August 7, 1862; received a gunshot wound in his left knee in September, 1863, and was mustered out with his company June 10, 1865. He was pensioned for his wound in 1878 at the rate of $4 per month, dating from the time of his discharge, which amount was increased to $8 per month from June 4, 1880. The pensioned soldier died December 17, 1882, and in 1883 his widow, the claimant, filed an application for pension, alleging that her husband's death resulted from his wound. Her claim was rejected in 1885 upon the ground that death was not caused by the wound.
The physician who was present at the time of the death certifies that the same resulted from apoplexy in twelve hours after the deceased was attacked.
It also appears from the statement of this physician that the deceased was employed for years after his discharge from the Army as a railroad conductor, and that at the time of his death he had with difficulty reached his home. He then describes as following the attack the usual manifestations of apoplexy, and adds that he regards the case as one of "hemiplegia, the outgrowth primarily of nerve injury, aggravated by the life's calling, and eventuating in apoplexy as stated."
Evidence is filed in the Pension Bureau showing that after his discharge he was more or less troubled with his wound, though one witness testifies that he railroaded with him for fifteen years after his injury. I find no medical testimony referred to which with any distinctness charges death to the wound, and it would be hardly credible if such evidence was found.
I am sure that in no case except in an application for pension would an attempt be made in the circumstances here developed to attribute death from apoplexy to a wound in the knee received nineteen years before the apoplectic attack.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 31, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 9106, entitled "An act granting a pension to Rachel Barnes."
William Barnes, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted in the United States infantry in February, 1838, and was discharged February 24, 1841.
In 1880 he applied for a pension, alleging that while serving in Florida in 1840 and 1841 he contracted disease of the eyes. He procured considerable evidence in support of his claim, but in 1882, and while still endeavoring to furnish further proof, he committed suicide by hanging.
The inference that his death thus occasioned was the result of despondency and despair brought on by his failure to procure a pension, while it adds a sad feature to the case, does not aid in connecting his death with his military service.
That this was the view of the committee of the House to whom the bill was referred is evidenced by the conclusion of their report in these words:
And while your committee do not feel justified under the law as at present existing in recommending that the name of the widow be placed upon the pension roll for the purpose of a pension in her own right as widow of the deceased soldier and by reason of the soldier's death, they do think that she should be allowed such pension as, had her husband's claim been favorably determined on the day of his decease, he would have received.
And yet the bill under consideration directs the Secretary of the Interior to place this widow's name on the pension roll and to "pay her a pension as such widow from and after the passage of this act, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws."
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 31, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 8336, entitled "An act granting an increase of pension to Duncan Forbes."
The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted, under the name of Alexander Sheret, January 7, 1862, in the Regular Army, and was discharged January 8, 1865.
He applied for a pension in 1879, alleging that he was wounded in his right breast December 31, 1862, and in his right ankle September 20, 1863. He was pensioned in 1883, dating from January 9, 1865, for the ankle wound, but that part of his claim based upon the wound in his breast was rejected upon the ground that there was no record of the same and the testimony failed to show that such a wound had its origin in the service.
Though the lack of such a record is sufficiently accounted for, I am convinced that, conceding both the wounds alleged were received, this pensioner has been fairly and justly treated.
It appears from the allegations of his application to the Pension Bureau that after the wound in his breast, in December, 1862, he continued his service till September, 1863, when he was wounded again in the ankle, and that with both wounds he served until his discharge in January, 1865. It also appears from the records that after his discharge from the. Army, and on the 3d day of February, 1865, he enlisted as landsman in the United States Navy, and served in that branch of the service for three years.
A medical examination in May, 1885, disclosed the appearance of a gunshot wound in the right breast, which is thus described:
The missile struck the seventh rib of right side and glanced off, leaving a horizontal scar 2-1/4 inches long and one-half inch wide, deeply depressed and firmly adherent.
I credit this claimant with being a good soldier, and I am willing to believe that his insistence upon a greater pension than that already allowed by the Pension Bureau, under liberal general laws, enacted for the benefit of himself and all his comrades, is the result of the demoralization produced by ill-advised special legislation on the subject.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 4, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 5389, entitled "An act granting a pension to Ann Kinney."
This beneficiary applied for a pension in 1877 as the widow of Edward Kinney, alleging that he died September 5, 1875, from the effects of a wound received in the Army. He enlisted November 4, 1861, and was discharged July 28, 1862, on account of a gunshot wound in his left elbow, for which wound he was pensioned in the year 1865.
A physician testifies that the pensioned soldier's death was, in his opinion, brought on indirectly by the intemperate use of intoxicating liquors, and that he died from congestion of the brain.
The marshal of the city where he resided states that on the day of the soldier's death he was called to remove him from a house in which he was making a disturbance, and that finding him intoxicated he arrested him and took him to the lockup and placed him in a cell. In a short time, not exceeding an hour, thereafter he was found dead. He further states that he was addicted to periodical sprees.
Another statement is made that the soldier was an intemperate man, and died very suddenly in the city lockup, where he had been taken by an officer while on a drunken spree.
This is not a pleasant recital, and as against the widow I should be glad to avoid its effect. But the most favorable phase of the case does not aid her, since her claim rests upon the allegation that her husband was subject to epileptic fits and died from congestion of the brain while in one of these fits. Even upon this showing the connection between the fits and the wound in the elbow is not made apparent.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 4, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 8556, entitled "An act granting a pension to Abraham Points."
This soldier enlisted August 11, 1864, and was mustered out June 28, 1865.
He was treated during his short term of service for "catarrhal," "constipation," "diarrhea," "jaundice," and "colic."
He filed an application for pension in 1878, alleging that some of his comrades in a joke twisted his arm in such a manner that the elbow joint became stiffened and anchylosed, and that his eyes became sore and have continued to grow worse ever since. There is no record of either of these disabilities.
The application was denied upon the ground, as stated in the report from the Pension Bureau, that the claim "was specially examined, and it was shown conclusively, from the evidence of neighbors and acquaintances of good repute and standing, that the alleged disabilities existed at and prior to claimant's enlistment."
I am satisfied from an examination of the facts submitted to me that this determination was correct.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 4, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 3551, entitled "An act granting a pension to George W. Cutler, late a private in Company B, Ninth New Hampshire Volunteers."
This claimant enlisted July 12, 1862, and was discharged June 22, 1863, for disability resulting from "scrofulous ulceration of the tibia and fibula of right leg; loss of sight of left eye."
He made a claim for pension in 1865, alleging an injury while loading commissary stores, resulting in spitting of blood, injury to lungs, and heart disease.
This claim was rejected August 31, 1865.
In 1867 he again enlisted in the United States infantry, and was discharged from that enlistment March 29, 1869, for disability, the certificate stating that—
He is unfit for military service by reason of being subject to bleeding of the lungs. He was wounded, while in the line of his duty in the United States Army, at Fredericksburg, Va., December 13, 1862. Said wound is not the cause of his disability.
Afterwards, and in the year 1879, he filed affidavits claiming that he was wounded by a minie ball at the battle of Fredericksburg, December 13, 1862, and was injured by falling down an embankment.
In 1883 he filed an affidavit in which he stated that the disability for which he claims a pension arose from injuries received in falling down a bank at Fredericksburg and being tramped on by troops, causing a complication of diseases resulting in general debility.
The statement in the certificate of discharge from his second enlistment as to the wound he received by a minie ball at Fredericksburg was of course derived from his own statement, as it was related to a prior term of service.
The records of the Adjutant-General's Office furnish no evidence of wounds or injury at Fredericksburg.
The injury alleged at first as a consequence of loading commissary stores seems to have been abandoned by the claimant for the adoption of a wound at Fredericksburg, which in its turn seems to have been abandoned and a fall down a bank and trampling upon by troops substituted.
Whatever injuries he may have suffered during his first enlistment, and to whatever cause he chooses at last to attribute them, they did not prevent his reenlistment and passing the physical examination necessary before acceptance.
The surgeon of the Ninth New Hampshire Volunteers, in which he first enlisted, states that he remembers the claimant well; that he was mustered and accepted as a recruit in spite of his (the surgeon's) protest; that he was physically unfit for duty; that he had the appearance of impaired health, and that his face and neck were marked by one or more deep scars, the result, as the claimant himself alleged, of scrofulous abscesses in early youth. He expresses the opinion that he is attempting to palm off these old scars as evidence of wounds received, and that if he had been wounded as he claimed he (the surgeon) would have known it and remembered it.
It is true that whenever in this case a wound is described it is located in the jaw, while some of the medical testimony negatives the existence of any wound.
The contrariety of the claimant's statements and the testimony and circumstances tend so strongly to impeach his claim that I do not think the decision of the Pension Bureau should be reversed and the claimant pensioned.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 4, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without my approval House bill No. 7234, entitled "An act granting a pension to Susan Hawes."
The beneficiary named in this bill is the mother of Jeremiah Hawes, who enlisted in February, 1861, in the United States artillery, and was discharged in February, 1864. He filed a claim for pension in 1881, alleging that in 1862, by the premature discharge of a cannon, he sustained paralysis of his right arm and side. In 1883, while his claim was still pending, he died.
He does not appear to have made his home with his mother altogether, if at all. For some years prior to his death and at the time of its occurrence he was an inmate, or had been an inmate, of a soldiers' home in Ohio.
But whatever may be said of the character of any injuries he may have received in the service or of his relations to his mother, the cause of his death, it seems to me, can not possibly upon any reasonable theory be attributable to any incident of his military service.
It appears that in July, 1883, while the deceased was on his way from Buffalo, where he had been in a hospital, to the soldiers' home in Ohio, he attempted to step on a slowly moving freight train, and making a misstep a wheel of the car passed over his foot, injuring it so badly that it was deemed necessary by two physicians who were called to amputate the foot. An anaesthetic was administered preparatory to the operation, but before it was entered upon the injured man died, having survived the accident but two hours.
The physicians who were present stated that in their opinion death was due to heart disease.
The above account of the death of the soldier is derived from a report furnished by the Pension Bureau, and differs somewhat from the statement contained in the report of the House Committee on Invalid Pensions as related to the intention of the physicians to amputate the injured foot and their administration of an anaesthetic. But the accident and the death two hours thereafter under the treatment of the physicians are conceded facts.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 4, 1886.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 1584, entitled "An act for the relief of Mrs. Aurelia C. Richardson."
Albert H. Fillmore, the son of the beneficiary mentioned in this bill, enlisted in August, 1862, and died in the service of smallpox, May 20, 1865.
His father having died some time prior to the soldier's enlistment, his mother in 1858 married Lorenzo D. Richardson. It is stated in the report upon this case from the Pension Bureau that the deceased did not live with his mother after her marriage to Richardson, and that there is no competent evidence that he contributed to her support after that event.
At the time of the soldier's death his stepfather was a blacksmith, earning at about that time, as it is represented, not less than $70 a month, and owning considerable property, a part of which still remains to him.
While in ordinary cases of this kind I am by no means inclined to distinguish very closely between dependence at the date of the soldier's death and the date of proposed aid to a needy mother, I think the circumstances here presented, especially the fact of nonresidence by the son with his mother since her second marriage, do not call for a departure from the law governing claims based upon dependence.
GROVER CLEVELAND.