A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Volume 8, part 3: Grover Cleveland, First Term

by Grover Cleveland

VETO MESSAGES.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, April 4, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill 2477, entitled "An act for the relief of Nathaniel McKay and the executors of Donald McKay."

It is proposed by this bill to allow the beneficiaries named therein to present to the Court of Claims for determination certain demands made by them against the Government on account of the construction of two ironclad monitors called the Squando and the Nauset and a side-wheel steamer called the Ashuelot.

The contracts for building these vessels were made early in 1863. It was agreed that they should be completed within six or eight months. It was also provided in these contracts that the Government "should have the privilege of making alterations and additions to the plans and specifications at any time during the progress of the work, as it may deem necessary and proper," and that if said alterations and additions should cause extra expense to the contractors the Government would "pay for the same at fair and reasonable rates."

It thus appears that the time allowed for the completion of these vessels was with the assent of the contractors made exceedingly short; that notwithstanding this fact they consented to permit such alterations of plans as must almost necessarily prolong the time, fixing no limit to such extension, and that in the same breath they fix their measure of compensation for such alterations and an extended time consequent thereon at "a fair and reasonable rate" for the extra expense caused thereby.

Almost immediately upon the beginning of their work alterations and changes were made in the original plans for these vessels, and they were repeated and continued to such a degree that the completion of the vessels was delayed many months.

In the latter part of the year 1864 and early in the year 1865 payments in excess of the contract price were made by the Navy Department to the contractors under the provisions of the contract above recited. The contract price for the Squando was $395,000. The contractors claimed extra compensation amounting to $337,329.46, and there was allowed $194,525.70. The contract price of the Nauset was $386,000, the extra compensation claimed was $314,768.93, and the amount allowed $192,110.98. The contract price of the side-wheel steamer Ashuelot was $275,000, the extra compensation claimed was $81,447.50, and the amount allowed was $22,415.92. The different sums as thus adjusted were received by the contractors in settlement of their claims for extra expense, and receipts in full were given by them to the Government.

A number of other contractors had done like work for the Government and claimed to have demands growing out of the same for extra compensation.

Evidently with the view of investigating and settling these claims, on the 9th day of March, 1865, the Senate passed the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to organize a board of not less than three persons, whose duty it shall be to inquire into and determine how much the vessels of war and steam machinery contracted for by the Department in the years 1862 and 1863 cost the contractors over and above the contract price and allowance for extra work, and report the same to the Senate at its next session; none but those that have given satisfaction to the Department to be considered.

This board was appointed by the Secretary of the Navy on the 25th day of May, 1865, and consisted of a commodore, a chief engineer, and a paymaster in the Navy. Its powers were broad and liberal, and comprehended an inquiry touching all things that made up "the cost to the contractors" of their work in excess of the contract price and allowances for extra work.

The board convened on the 6th day of June, 1865, and sat continuously until the 23d day of December following, and made numerous awards to contractors. The parties mentioned in the bill now under consideration were notified on the 9th and 15th days of June, 1865, to prepare and submit testimony to the board in support of their claims, and they repeatedly signified their intention to do so.

Donald McKay was the contractor for the construction of the monitor Nauset and the steamer Ashuelot. The proceedings of the board show that on the 11th day of August, 1865, he notified the board that the only claim he made for loss was on the hull, boiler, and machinery of the Ashuelot, which he would be prepared to present in about six weeks.

Neither of these parties presented any statement to the board, and no claim of theirs was passed upon.

On the 2d day of March, 1867, an act was passed directing the Secretary of the Navy to investigate the claims of all contractors for building vessels of war and steam machinery for the same under contracts made after May 1, 1861, and before January 1, 1864. He was by said act required "to ascertain the additional cost which was necessarily incurred by each contractor in the completion of his work by reason of any changes or alterations in the plans and specifications required and delays in the prosecution of the work occasioned by the Government which were not provided for in the original contract." It was further provided that there should be reported to Congress a tabular statement of each case, which should contain "the name of the contractor, a description of the work, the contract price, the whole increased cost of the work over the contract price, and the amount of such increased cost caused by the delay and action of the Government as aforesaid, and the amount already paid the contractor over and above the contract price."

Under this act Commodore J.A. Marchand, Chief Engineer J.W. King, and Paymaster Edward Foster, of the Navy, were designated by the Secretary of the Navy to make the investigation required. These officers on the 26th day of November, 1867, made a report of their proceedings, which was submitted to the Senate with a tabulated statement of all the claims examined by them and their findings thereon.

It appears by this report that the claims of the beneficiaries mentioned in the bill herewith returned were examined by the board, and that nothing was found due thereon under the terms of the law directing their examination.

These claims have frequently been before Congress since that time. They have been favorably reported and acted upon a number of times, and have also been more than once strongly condemned by committees to whom they were referred.

A resolution was passed in 1871 by the Congress referring these and other claims of a like character to the Court of Claims for adjudication, but it was vetoed by the President for reasons not necessarily affecting the merits of the claims.

The case of Chouteau vs. The United States, reported in Fifth Otto, page 61, which arose out of the contract to build a vessel called the Etlah, appears to present the same features that belong to the claims here considered. It is stated in the report of the House committee on this bill that "the Squando and Nauset were identical in the original plans and the changes and alterations thereon with the Etlah and Shiloh, built in St. Louis;" and yet the Supreme Court of the United States distinctly decided in the Etlah case that the only pretext for further compensation should be sought for in the contract, where the contractor had evidently been content to provide for all the remedy he desired.

It seems, then, that the contractors mentioned in this bill, after entering into contracts plainly indicating that changes of plans and consequent delay in their work were in their contemplation, availed themselves of the remedy which they themselves had provided, and thereupon received about 50 per cent in the case of two of these vessels of the contract price for extra work, giving the Government a receipt in full. When soon thereafter opportunity was offered them to make further claim of as broad a nature as they could desire, they failed to do so, and one of them disclaimed any right to recover on account of one of the vessels, though all are now included in the present bill. In 1867 the claims were fully examined under a law of Congress and rejected, and the Supreme Court in an exactly similar case finds neither law nor equity supporting them.

If it be claimed that no compensation has been yet allowed solely for the increase in the price of labor and material caused by delay in construction, it is no hardship to say that as the contractors made provision for change of plans and delay they must be held to have taken the risk of such rise in price and be satisfied with the provision they have made against it. Besides, much of the increase in the price of labor and material is included in the extra cost which has already been reimbursed to them.

But the bill does not provide that these contractors shall be limited in the Court of Claims to a recovery solely for loss occasioned by increase of the cost of labor and material during the delay caused by the Government. By the terms of the proposed act the court is directed to ascertain the additional cost necessarily incurred in building the vessels by reason of any changes or alterations in the plans and specifications and delays in the prosecution of the work. This, it seems to me, would enable these contractors to open the whole question of compensation for extra work.

It hardly seems fair to the Government to permit these claims to be presented after a lapse of twenty-three years since a settlement in full was made and receipts given, after the opportunity which has been offered for establishing further claims if they existed, and when, as a consequence of the contractor's neglect, the Government would labor under great disadvantages in its defense.

I am of the opinion, in view of the history of these claims and the suspicion naturally excited as to their merit, that no injustice will be done if they are laid at rest instead of being given new life and vigor in the Court of Claims.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 16, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 445, entitled "An act granting a pension to Laura A. Wright."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of Charles H. Wright, who was pensioned for a gunshot wound received in the military service of the United States on the 19th day of September, 1864. He continued in the receipt of such pension until June 25, 1884, when he committed suicide by hanging.

It is alleged on behalf of his widow that the pain caused by his wound was so great that it caused temporary insanity, under the influence of which he destroyed himself.

There is not a particle of proof that I can discover tending to show an unsound mind, unless it be the fact of his suicide. He suffered much pain at intervals. He was a farmer in comfortable circumstances, and according to the testimony of one of the physicians, filed in support of the widow's claim, his health was good up to the time of his death, except for the wound and its results. The day before his death he was engaged in work connected with his farming occupation, though he complained of pain from his wound. Early the next morning, still complaining, as it is alleged, of his wound, he went out, declaring he was going out to milk, and not returning in due time, upon search his body was found and his self-destruction discovered. This was nearly twenty years after the deceased received his wound, and there is not a suggestion of any act or word of his in all that time indicating insanity. It seems to me it can hardly be assumed in such circumstances that the insanity and death of the soldier resulted from pain arising from his wound, merely because no other explanation can be given. In numerous cases of suicide no cause or motive for self-destruction is discovered.

We have within our borders thousands of widows living in poverty, and some of them in need, whose dead husbands fought bravely and well in defense of the Government, but whose deaths were not occasioned by any incident of military service. In these cases the wife's long vigil at the bed of wasting disease, the poverty that came before the death, and the distressing doubt and uncertainty which darkened the future have not secured to such widows the aid of our pension laws.

With these in sight the bounty of the Government may without injustice be withheld from one whose soldier husband received a pension for nearly twenty years, though all that time able to labor, and who, having reached a stage of comfortable living, made his wife a widow by destroying his own life.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 16, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return herewith without approval Senate bill No. 809, entitled "An act granting a pension to Betsey Mannsfield."

It is proposed to grant a pension to the beneficiary named in this bill as the mother of Franklin J. Mannsfield, who enlisted as a private April 27, 1861, and died in camp of disease on the 14th day of November, in the same year. His mother filed an application for pension in June, 1882.

The testimony filed in the Pension Bureau discloses the following facts:

At the time of the death of the soldier the family, besides himself, consisted of three persons—his father and mother and an unmarried sister. They owned and resided upon a homestead in Wisconsin comprising 293 acres, 20 of which were cleared, the balance being in timber, all unencumbered. The assessed valuation was $1,170, the real value being considerably more. The father was a farmer and blacksmith, healthy and able-bodied, and furnishing a comfortable support, but shortly after the soldier's death he began to drink and his health began to fail. Upon the marriage of the daughter he deeded her 50 acres of the land. He became indebted, and from time to time sold portions of his homestead to pay debts; but in 1882, at the time the mother's application for pension was filed, there still remained 110 acres of land, valued at about $3,300, 40 acres of which was mortgaged in 1880 for $600. Since 1879 the farm had been rented, except 8 or 10 acres reserved for a residence for the family. They owned two cows, and the rent averaged about $125 a year.

This was the condition of affairs as late as 1886, when the claim of the mother for a pension was, after investigation, rejected by the Pension Bureau, and it is supposed to be substantially the same now.

It also appears that a son, born since the soldier's death, and upward of 18 years of age, resides with his parents and furnishes them some assistance.

The claimant certainly was not dependent in the least degree upon the soldier at the time of his death, and she did not file her claim for pension until nearly twenty-one years thereafter.

Though the lack of dependence at the date of the soldier's death is sufficient to defeat a parent's claim for pension under our laws, I believe that in proper cases a relaxation of rules and a charitable liberality should be shown to parents old and in absolute need through default of the help which, it may be presumed, a son would have furnished if his life had not been sacrificed in his country's service.

But it seems to me the case presented here can not be reached by any theory of pensions which has yet been suggested.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 16, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return herewith without approval Senate bill No. 549, entitled "An act granting a pension to Hannah R. Langdon."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill entered the military service of the United States as assistant surgeon in a Vermont regiment on the 7th day of October, 1862, and less than six months thereafter tendered his resignation, based upon a surgeon's certificate of disability on account of chronic hepatitis (inflammation of the liver) and diarrhea.

On the 12th day of June, 1880, more than seventeen years after his discharge, he filed a claim for pension, alleging chronic diarrhea and resulting piles. He was allowed a pension in January, 1881, and died of consumption on the 24th day of September, in the same year.

Prior to the allowance of his claim for pension he wrote to the Bureau of Pensions a full history of his disability as resulting from chronic diarrhea and piles, and in that letter he made the following statement:

I have had no other disease, except last September (1880) I had pleurisy and congestion of my left lung.

From other sources the Bureau derived the information that the deceased had suffered an attack of pleuro-pneumonia on his left side, and that his recovery had been partial.

In December, 1880, he was examined by two members of the board of surgeons at Burlington, Vt., of which board he was also a member, and the following facts were certified:

For the past fifteen years claimant has practiced his profession in this city, and has up to within a year or a year and a half of this date shown a vigor and power of endurance quite equal to the labor imposed upon him by the popular demand for his services. About a year ago he evinced symptoms of breaking down, cough, emaciation, and debility.

These results—"breaking down, cough, emaciation, and debility"—are the natural effects of such an attack as the deceased himself reported, though not made by him any ground of a claim for pension, and it seems quite clear that his death in September, 1881, must be chargeable to the same cause.

His widow, the beneficiary named in this bill, filed her claim for pension December 5, 1881, based upon the ground that her husband's death from consumption was due to the chronic diarrhea for which he was pensioned. Upon such application the testimony of Dr. H.H. Atwater was filed, to the effect that about 1879 he began to treat the deceased regularly for pleuro-pneumonia, followed by abscesses and degeneration of lung tissue, which finally resulted in death, and that these diseased conditions were complicated with digestive affections, such as diarrhea, dyspepsia, and indigestion. Another affidavit of Dr. Atwater, made in 1886, will be found in the report upon this bill made by the House Committee on Invalid Pensions.

The claimant's application for a pension was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the cause of her husband's death was not shown to have been connected in any degree with the disease on account of which he was pensioned or with his military service.

I am entirely satisfied that this determination was correct.

I am constrained to disapprove the bill under consideration, because it is thus far our settled and avowed policy to grant pensions only to widows whose husbands have died from causes related to military service, and because the proposed legislation would, in my opinion, result in a discrimination in favor of this claimant unfair and unjust toward thousands of poor widows who are equally entitled to our sympathy and benevolence.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 18, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 258, entitled "An act for the relief of Major Daniel N. Bash, paymaster, United States Army."

The object of this bill is to release Paymaster Bash from all liability to the Government for the loss by theft of $7,350.93, which was intrusted to him for the payment of United States troops at various posts, one of which was Fort McKinney, in Wyoming Territory.

He started from Cheyenne Depot, accompanied by his clerk, D.F. Bash. Before starting he attempted to procure an iron safe in which he could deposit the money which he should have in his possession during his absence, but was unable to do so. It is alleged that it is customary for paymasters in such cases to be furnished with safes by the Government.

On the 17th day of March, 1887, Major Bash arrived at Douglas, Wyoming Territory, having in his possession $350.93, which was a balance left in his hands after making previous payments on the way. At Douglas he received by express $7,000, $250 of which were in silver. He was met here by an escort consisting of a sergeant and private soldier, who had been sent from Fort McKinney, and who were under orders to report to the paymaster at Douglas and to act as guard from that place to Fort McKinney.

Another unsuccessful attempt having been made at Douglas to obtain a safe or treasure box in which to carry the money, the same was put in a leather valise as the best thing that could be done in the circumstances. The money was first handed by the paymaster to his clerk, and by the clerk put in the valise and handed to the sergeant of the escort. There is evidence that the sergeant was told not to permit it to be out of his sight. Immediately after supper at Douglas the entire party entered the stage and proceeded upon their journey, the sergeant carrying the valise. Major Bash asserts that he said to the sergeant, "You must take good care of the valise; it contains the money."

The next morning, on the 18th day of March, the party arrived at Dry Cheyenne. When the paymaster went in to breakfast at that place, he found all the party at the breakfast table. After breakfast he walked out to the stage, the sergeant going at the same time. He asked him what he had done with the valise, and received the reply that it was in the stage. He then said to the sergeant, "You ought to have brought it in with you; you should take better care of that valise." The valise was then examined and the money was found untouched.

Pursuing their journey, the party arrived at Antelope Springs, Wyoming Territory, at half past 10 o'clock the same morning. The paymaster alleges that he asked the sergeant if he should take dinner there, and that, being answered in the negative, he remarked to him that he might then stay at the stage; that he then went to the stage station, leaving the two soldiers and the clerk at the stage; that he remained at the station warming himself a short time, finding there three citizens, one of whom he afterwards learned was Parker, the thief; that he left the room in which he had been warming himself and went to the dining room, passing along the front of the house, and as he did so noticed the stage standing there with no one near it except a stock tender; that on reaching the dining room he found his entire party at the table; that he looked "pretty sharp" at the sergeant, as he was surprised to see him there, but as he was just eating his pie he (the paymaster) said nothing to him; that not more than a minute after that the sergeant and driver got up and went out; that three or four minutes after they went out they rushed back and said that the valise had been taken.

It was found that the valise and money had been taken by Parker, who had mounted a horse and ridden away. He was pursued so closely that revolver shots were exchanged between the sergeant, who was badly mounted, and the thief. The sergeant alleged that he could have shot Parker if he had been provided with a gun instead of a revolver.

The facts in relation to this subject were developed upon a court of inquiry called for that purpose; and much of the above recited is derived from the evidence of Major Bash himself, taken upon such inquiry.

The following is the finding of the court concerning the conduct of the paymaster in the premises:

That Major Daniel N. Bash, paymaster, United States Army, did not give such direct and detailed orders to the members of the escort as to the manner in which they should guard the public money in his (Bash's) possession while en route to Fort McKinney as the importance of the matter required, and that he did not take the proper and necessary pains to see that any orders which he had given on this subject were duly obeyed.

This finding defines a case of negligence which renders the paymaster liable for the loss of these funds. But a number of army officers, including the members of the court of inquiry, suggest that the paymaster thus found at fault should be relieved from responsibility. This is much the fashion in these days.

It is said that a safe should have been provided; that the paymaster had the right to rely upon the fidelity and efficiency of the escort, and that the two men furnished him as an escort were unintelligent and negligent; that they should have been armed with guns instead of pistols, and that the instructions given to the escort by the paymaster were sufficient to acquit him of culpable neglect.

It seems to me that the omissions of care on the part of this officer are of such a nature as to render much that is urged in his favor irrelevant. He had the charge of this money. It was his care, vigilance, and intelligence which were the safeguards of its protection. If he had as full an appreciation as he indicates of the importance of having a safe, he must have known that in its absence additional care and watchfulness on his part were necessary, whatever his escort or his clerk might do.

But notwithstanding all this he seemed quite content to leave this large sum of money in the hands of those sent to him, not to have the custody of his funds, but to guard him from violence and robbery. On the very morning of the day the theft was committed he had found fault with the sergeant for leaving the money in the stage while he took breakfast, and had said to him that he (the sergeant) ought to have brought it in with him. He here furnishes his own definition of the kind of care which should have been taken of the money—the sergeant "ought to have brought it in with him;" and this suggests the idea that it would have been quite consistent with his duty, and perhaps not much beneath his dignity, if he had taken it in himself. (Chief Paymaster Terrell, in a letter favoring leniency, states that the coin could not have weighed less than 15 pounds.)

It must certainly be conceded that what then took place plainly warned him that to insure the safety of this money he must either take personal charge of it or he must at least be sure that those to whom he surrendered it were watchful and vigilant. And yet when, a few hours later, on the same day, upon arriving at Antelope Springs, he was informed by the sergeant that he did not propose to take dinner there, the paymaster almost casually said to him, "Then you stay at the stage," and he himself went to a room at the station to warm himself. When, as he went from there to the dining room, he passed the stage and saw no one near it except a stock tender, a very conservative idea of duty and care would have induced him to stop at the stage and ascertain the condition of affairs. If he had done so, he probably would have found the money there, and could have taken it in with him or watched it until some of his party came out from dinner. Instead of doing this, he himself went to the dining room, and indicated his surprise at seeing the sergeant there by looking at him sharply. However, as he was just eating his pie, nothing was said.

It is not improbable that the thief waited for the clerk and escort, and lastly the paymaster himself, to enter the dining room before venturing to take, entirely unmolested, the valise containing the money. When it is considered that after finishing his pie the sergeant came out to the stage so nearly the exact moment of the theft that, though badly mounted, he was able to approach near enough in pursuit of the fleeing thief to exchange revolver shots with him, it is quite apparent that the loss might have been prevented if the paymaster had remained a short time by the stage when he saw it unprotected, or had taken the valise in with him, or promptly diverted the attention of the sergeant from his pie to the money which all had abandoned.

When, therefore, it is said that this loss can be charged in any degree to the neglect or default of the Government, it is answered that the direct and immediate cause of the loss was the omission on the part of this paymaster of the Government, in whose custody these funds were placed, of the plainest and simplest acts of prudence and care.

The temptation is very strong to yield assent to the proposition for the relief of a citizen from liability to the Government arising from conduct not absolutely criminal; but the bonds and the security wisely exacted by the Government from its officers to insure proper discharge of public duty will be of very limited value if everything is to be excused except actual dishonesty.

I am thoroughly convinced that the interests of the public would be better protected if fewer private bills were passed relieving officials, upon slight and sentimental grounds, from their pecuniary responsibilities; and the readiness with which army officers join in applications for the condonation of negligence on the part of their army comrades does not tend, in my opinion, to maintain that regard for discipline and that scrupulous observance of duty which should characterize those belonging to their honorable profession.

I can not satisfy myself that the negligence made apparent in this case should be overlooked.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 21, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 823, entitled "An act granting a pension to Hannah C. De Witt."

An act the precise duplicate of this was passed at the present session of the Congress, and received Executive approval on the 10th day of March, 1888. Pursuant to said act the name of the beneficiary mentioned in the bill herewith returned has been placed upon the pension rolls. The second enactment is of course entirely useless, and was evidently passed by mistake.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 21, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 418, entitled "An act granting a pension to William H. Brokenshaw."

The history of the military service of the beneficiary mentioned in this bill, as derived from the records of the War Department, shows that he was received at draft rendezvous at Jackson, Mich., on the 25th day of March, 1865; that he was sent to the Twenty-fourth Regiment of Michigan Volunteers on the 29th day of the same month, and that he was present with his command, without any record of disability, from that date until the 30th day of June, 1865, when he was mustered out with his company. It will thus be seen that he was in the service a few days more than three months, just at the close of the war. It is not alleged that he did any actual fighting.

In 1883 he filed an application for pension, alleging that on the evening of the 25th of March, 1865, being the day he was received at rendezvous, he was injured in his ribs while getting into his bunk by three other recruits, who were scuffling in the room and who jumped upon him or crushed him against the side of his bunk.

An examination upon such application made in 1884 tended to show an injury to his ribs, but the claim was rejected upon the ground that no injury was incurred in the line of duty. It must be conceded that upon the claimant's own showing he was not injured as an incident to military service.

Aside from this objection, it is hardly possible that an injury of this kind, producing the consequences which it is alleged followed its infliction, could have been sustained by this soldier and not in the least interrupted the performance of his military service, though such service was very short and probably not severe. When with this it is considered that eighteen years elapsed between the date of the alleged injury and the soldier's application for pension, I am satisfied that no injustice will be done if the disposition made of this case by the Pension Bureau is allowed to stand.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 21, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4633, entitled "An act granting a pension to Morris T. Mantor."

The records in this case show that the beneficiary named in this bill enlisted on the 25th day of February, 1864, and that he was mustered out July 18, 1865.

It is also shown that though he was reported sick a considerable part of his period of service there is no mention of any trouble with his eyes.

In the year 1880 he filed an application for pension, alleging dropsy and disease of his eyes, caused by an explosion of ammunition.

The case was examined in 1882 and 1883, and was again specially examined very thoroughly and critically in 1885.

The evidence thus secured seemed to establish the fact that the claimant's eyes were sore for many years before enlistment, and that their condition before that date, during his service, and after his discharge did not materially differ. It also appeared that no pensionable disability from dropsy had existed since the filing of his application.

On these grounds the application was rejected, and I am convinced such action was entirely justified.

The reported conduct of the claimant on the last examination and his attempts to influence witnesses in their testimony add weight to the proposition, quite well established by the proof, that his claim to a pension lacks merit.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 24, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5247, entitled "An act granting a pension to William H. Brimmer."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted September 5, 1864, as a wagon master, and was discharged on the 30th day of May, 1865. There is no record of any disability during his short service.

In February, 1888, nearly twenty-three years after his discharge, he filed an application for a pension, alleging that in the fall of 1864 he was made to carry sacks of corn, which produced a weakness of the walls of the abdomen, resulting in rupture. In an affidavit filed upon said application the claimant testifies that he said nothing about his injury or disability to anyone while in the service and can furnish no evidence except his own statement.

The first and only medical evidence presented touching this claim is that of Dr. Reynolds, who examined him in 1880 or 1881, who then came to the conclusion that the claimant was suffering from an incomplete hernia, which a few months thereafter developed in the right groin. From this examination and testimony no hint is furnished that the injury was due to military service, nor any intimation that it might be.

In February, 1888, a medical examination was made under direction of the Pension Bureau, when it was found that the claimant had the general appearance of being healthy and well nourished, but that he had a small uncomplicated inguinal hernia on the right side, which was easily retained.

I can not believe upon the facts presented that an injury of the character alleged could have been sustained in the service and still permitted the performance of all the duties of wagon master for months thereafter, remaining undeveloped for so many years, and that there should now be such a lack of testimony connecting it with any incident of military service.

I believe the rejection of this claim was right and just upon its merits.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 24, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill 6908, entitled "An act granting a pension to William P. Witt."

The beneficiary named in the bill was enrolled for one hundred days' service on the 13th day of July, 1864, and was mustered out on the 16th day of November, in the same year. The record shows that he was reported present on all rolls until he was mustered out.

He filed a claim for pension in 1884, alleging that he incurred chronic diarrhea, liver disease, rheumatism, and a disease of the head affecting his hearing during his military service. Two comrades testify to his being sick and being in the hospital to such an extent as to wholly discredit his presence with his company. A physician testifies that he prescribed for him some time in the month of November, 1864, for liver disease and jaundice, to which rheumatism supervened, confining him six weeks or more.

There seems to be a complete hiatus of any medical or other evidence concerning his physical condition from that time until nearly twenty years thereafter, in July, 1884, when he was examined, and it was found that he had impaired hearing in both ears, but no symptoms of rheumatism, and that his liver was normal.

Without further detailing particulars, the entire complexion of this case satisfies me that the claimant contracted no pensionable disability during his one hundred days of service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 24, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4550, entitled "An act granting a pension to Chloe Quiggle, widow of Phillip Quiggle."

The husband of the beneficiary named enlisted February 11, 1865, and was discharged September 27, 1865. The records show that he was reported August 31, 1865, as "absent, confined in post prison at Chattanooga since August 18, 1865."

He filed a claim for pension June 25, 1880, alleging that after a march from Chattanooga to a point 1-1/2 miles distant and back he upon his return drank some water, which produced diarrhea, since which time he had been troubled also with disease of kidneys and rheumatism.

He died in September, 1882, and the claim then pending on his behalf was completed by his widow. After a special examination the claim for diarrhea was, on the 21st day of April, 1887, allowed from September 28, 1865, to January 1, 1870, when it was shown that any disability from this cause ceased. The claim for disease of kidneys and rheumatism was rejected upon the ground that no such disabilities were shown to be due to military service.

The widow filed a claim on her own behalf August 27, 1883, alleging the death of the soldier from the results of prostration by heat while marching near Nashville, Tenn., and also from disease of kidneys, rheumatism, and chronic diarrhea.

It is reported to me that the evidence taken during a special examination of this case established that before and after enlistment the soldier was addicted to the excessive use of intoxicating liquors.

One physician stated to the examiner that shortly after the soldier's discharge he found him suffering from disease of kidneys and from rheumatism and diarrhea, but that he concluded the disease of the kidneys had been coming on for a year; that it could not have been caused by a sunstroke a few weeks previously, and that the diseases were of longer standing than that.

Another physician who attended the soldier during his last illness testified that he did not know that he suffered from any disease until the summer of 1882; that he found him suffering from retention of urine, and that the difficulty rapidly developed into an acute attack of Bright's disease; that no indications of rheumatism were found, but that the disease progressed steadily and was a well-marked case of Bright's disease of the kidneys. He also testified that the origin of the disease was no doubt recent, though possibly it might have existed in a low form for some years.

A medical examination in May, 1882, developed no disease of the kidneys.

It seems to me that all the reliable testimony in the case tends to show beyond a doubt that the soldier's death was not due to any incident of his military service. I do not find that the medical testimony given by his neighbors makes a suggestion that it was, and upon all the facts I am of the opinion that the pension which has been already allowed was a liberal disposition of the case.

The beneficiary named in this bill is aged, and it would certainly be a gratification to grant her relief; but the question is whether we do well to establish a precedent for the allowance of claims of this character in the distribution of pension funds.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 30, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 465, entitled "An act granting a pension to William Sackman, sr."

The beneficiary named in this bill served from December 24, 1861, to February 29, 1864, in the Fifth Regiment of the Missouri Militia Cavalry.

He was discharged on the day last named for disability. His certificate of discharge states his disability as follows:

Palpitation of the heart and defective lungs, the disability caused by falling off his horse near Fredericktown, Mo., while intoxicated, on detached service, in the month of September, 1862. Not having done any duty since, a discharge would benefit the Government and himself.

It appears that a claim for pension was filed in the year 1881, in which the claimant alleged that—

At Fredericktown, Mo., about the 10th or 12th of April, 1863, he had three ribs broken by falling from his horse while surrounded by guerrillas.

It will be seen that while the certificate of discharge mentions a fall in September, 1862, no allusion is made to any fracture of ribs, while the claimant alleges such an injury occurred in April, 1863.

In 1885 the surgeon who made the medical certificate attached to the discharge, in answer to an inquiry made by the Commissioner of Pensions, says:

I have to state that I remember the case very distinctly. I made the examination in person, and was thoroughly acquainted with the case. I read the statement on which the application for discharge was based to the man, and he consented to have the papers forwarded as they read. The application for pension is fraudulent and should not be allowed.

I have omitted references made to the habits of the soldier by this medical officer.

Of course much reliance should be placed upon these statements made by an officer whose business it was to know the exact facts, and who made his certificate at a time when such facts were fresh in his mind. There is no intimation that the surgeon who made the statement referred to was inimical to the soldier or influenced by any unjust motive.

The attempt to impeach the record thus made is based upon affidavits made by a number of the soldier's comrades, who testify to his character and habits, and only three of whom speak of an injury to the soldier caused by falling from his horse. Two of these affiants allege that they were with the claimant on detached duty when his horse took fright and ran away with him, injuring him so that he could not rise and get on his horse without assistance. So far as these affidavits are before me, no date of this occurrence is given, nothing is said as to the character of the injuries, and no reference is made to the condition of the soldier at the time. The third affiant, who speaks of an injury, says that it occurred while on duty on the march from Pilot Knob to Cape Girardeau, in the year 1862 or 1863, and that it was caused by the soldier's being thrown from his horse. He says further that the soldier was not intoxicated at that time.

No mention is made that I can discover of any fracture of the ribs except in the claimant's application for pension made in 1881, seventeen years after his discharge, and in a report of an examining surgeon made in 1882.

With no denial of the soldier's condition, as stated by the surgeon, on the part of the only parties who claim to have been present at the time of the injury, I can not satisfy myself, in view of the other circumstances surrounding this case, that the allegations contained in the claimant's discharge are discredited.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 30, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 838, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Sullivan."

On the 1st day of July, 1886, an act was approved which is an exact copy of the one herewith returned. In pursuance of that act the beneficiary's name was placed upon the pension rolls.

A second law for the same purpose is of course unnecessary.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 1, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 19, entitled "An act for the relief of H.B. Wilson, administrator of the estate of William Tinder, deceased."

The purpose of this bill is to refund to the estate of William Tinder the sum of $5,000, which was paid to the Government by his administrator in June, 1880, upon the following facts:

In 1876 two indictments were found against one Evans, charging him with passing counterfeit money. In May, 1878, he was tried upon one of said indictments and the jury failed to agree. Thereupon the prisoner entered into two recognizances in the sum of $5,000 each, with W.R. Evans and William Tinder as sureties, conditioned for the appearance of the prisoner Evans at the next term of the court, in November, 1878, for trial upon said indictment. Before that date, however, the prisoner fled the country and failed to appear according to the condition of his bond. In the meantime William Tinder died and H.B. Wilson was appointed his administrator.

Suits were brought upon the two bail bonds, and, the liability of the sureties not being admitted, the suits were tried in March, 1880, resulting in two judgments in favor of the United States and against the surety Evans and the estate of Tinder for $5,000 each and the costs.

Soon thereafter an application was made by the administrator of the estate of William Tinder for relief, and an offer was made by him to pay $5,000 and the costs in compromise and settlement of the liability of said estate upon said two judgments.

These judgments were a preferred claim against the estate, which was represented to be worth sixteen or eighteen thousand dollars. The other surety, Evans, was alleged to be worthless, and it was claimed that neither the administrator of the Tinder estate nor his attorneys had known the whereabouts of the indicted party since his flight, and that some time would elapse before certain litigation in which the estate was involved could be settled and the claims against it paid.

It was considered best by the officers of the Government to accept the proposition of the administrator, which was done in June, 1880. The sum of $5,099.06, the amount of one of said judgments, with interest and costs, was paid into the United States Treasury, and the estate of Tinder was in consideration thereof released and discharged from all liability upon both of said judgments.

Thus was the transaction closed, in exact accordance with the wishes and the prayer of the representative of this estate and by the favor and indulgence of the Government upon his application. There was, so far as I can learn, no condition attached, and no understanding or agreement that any future occurrence would affect the finality of the compromise by which the Government had accepted one-half of its claim in full settlement.

It appears that in 1881 the party indicted was arrested and brought to trial, which resulted in his conviction; and apparently for this reason alone it is proposed by the bill under consideration to open the settlement made at the request of the administrator and refund to him the sum which he paid on such settlement pursuant to his own offer.

I can see no fairness or justice to the Government in such a proposition. I do not find any statement that the administrator delivered the prisoner to the United States authorities for trial. On the contrary, it appears from an examination made in the First Comptroller's Office that he was arrested by the marshal on the 25th day of May, 1881, who charged and was paid his fees therefor. And if the administrator had surrendered the prisoner to justice it would not entitle him to the repayment of the money he has paid to compromise the two judgments against him.

The temptation to relieve from contracts with the Government upon plausible application is, in my opinion, not sufficiently resisted; but to refund money paid into the public Treasury upon such a liberal compromise as is exhibited in this case seems like a departure from all business principles and an unsafe concession that the interests of the Government are to be easily surrendered.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 3, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4534, entitled "An act for the relief of Emily G. Mills."

The object of this bill is to provide a pension for the beneficiary named therein as the widow of Oscar B. Mills, late a second assistant engineer, retired, in the United States Navy. The deceased was appointed an acting third assistant engineer in October, 1862, and in 1864 he was promoted to the place of second assistant engineer.

It is supposed that while in active service he did his full duty, though I am not informed of any distinguished acts of bravery or heroism. In February, 1871, he was before a naval retiring board, which found that he was incapacitated for active service on account of malarious fever, contracted in 1868, and recommended that he be allowed six months' leave of absence to recover his health.

In December, 1871, he was again examined for retirement, and the board found that he was not in any way incapacitated from performing the duties of his office. The next year, in 1872, another retiring board, upon an examination of his case, found that he was "laboring under general debility, the effect of intermittent fever acting upon an originally delicate constitution," and he was thereupon placed upon the retired list of the Navy.

On the 10th day of August, 1873, he was accidentally shot and killed by a neighbor, who was attempting to shoot an owl.

As long as there is the least pretense of limiting the bestowal of pensions to disability or death in some way related to the incidents of military and naval service, claims of this description can not consistently be allowed.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 1406, entitled "An act to provide for the sale of certain New York Indian lands in Kansas."

Prior to the year 1838 a number of bands and tribes of New York Indians had obtained 500,000 acres of land in the State of Wisconsin, upon which they proposed to reside. In the year above named a treaty was entered into between the United States and these Indians whereby they relinquished to the Government these Wisconsin lands. In consideration thereof, and, as the treaty declares, "in order to manifest the deep interest of the United States in the future peace and prosperity of the New York Indians," it was agreed there should be set apart as a permanent home for all the New York Indians then residing in the State of New York, or in Wisconsin, or elsewhere in the United States, who had no permanent home, a tract of land amounting to 1,824,000 acres, directly west of the State of Missouri, and now included in the State of Kansas—being 320 acres for each Indian, as their number was then computed—"to have and to hold the same in fee simple to the said tribes or nations of Indians by patent from the President of the United States."

Full power and authority was also given to said Indians "to divide said lands among the different tribes, nations, or bands in severalty," with the right to sell and convey to and from each other under such rules and regulations as should be adopted by said Indians in their respective tribes or in general council.

The treaty further provided that such of the tribes of these Indians as did not accept said treaty and agree to remove to the country set apart for their new homes within five years or such other time as the President might from time to time appoint should forfeit all interest in the land so set apart to the United States; and the Government guaranteed to protect and defend them in the peaceable possession and enjoyment of their new homes.

I have no positive information that any considerable number of these Indians removed to the lands provided for them within the five years limited by the treaty. Their omission to do so may have been owing to the failure of the Government to appropriate the money to pay the expense of such removal, as it agreed to do in the treaty.

It is, however, stated in a letter of the Secretary of the Interior dated April 6, 1878, contained in the report of the Senate committee to whom the bill under consideration was referred, that in the year 1842 some of these Indians settled upon the lands described in the treaty; and it is further alleged in said report that in 1846 about two hundred more of them were removed to said lands.

The letter of the Secretary of the Interior above referred to contains the following statement concerning these Indian occupants:

From death and the hostility of the settlers, who were drawn in that direction by the fertility of the soil and other advantages, all of the Indians gradually relinquished their selections, until of the Indians who had removed thither from the State of New York only thirty-two remained in 1860.

And the following further statement is made:

The files of the Indian Office show abundant proof that they did not voluntarily relinquish their occupation.

The proof thus referred to is indeed abundant, and is found in official reports and affidavits made as late as the year 1859. By these it appears that during that year, in repeated instances, Indian men and widows of deceased Indians were driven from their homes by the threats of armed men; that in one case at least the habitation of an Indian woman was burned, and that the kind of outrages were resorted to which too often follow the cupidity of whites and the possession of fertile lands by defenseless and unprotected Indians.

An agent, in an official letter dated August 9, 1859, after detailing the cruel treatment of these occupants of the lands which the Government had given them, writes:

Since these Indians have been placed under my charge, which was, I think, in 1855, I have endeavored to protect them; but complaint after complaint has reached me, and I have reported their situation again and again; and I hope that it will not be long when the Indians who are entitled to land under the decision of the Indian Office shall have it set apart to them.

The same agent, under date of January 18, 1860, referring to these Indians, declares:

These Indians have been driven off their land and claims upon the New York tract by the whites, and they are now very much scattered and many of them are very destitute.

It was found in 1860 that of all the Indians who had prior to that date selected and occupied part of these lands but thirty-two remained, and it seems to have been deemed but justice to them to confirm their selections by some kind of governmental grant or declaration, though it does not appear that any of them had been able to maintain actual possession of all their selected lands against white intrusion. Thus certain special commissioners appointed to examine this subject, under date of May 29, 1860, make the following statement:

In this connection it may be proper to remark that many of the tracts so selected were claimed by lawless men who had compelled the Indians to abandon them under threats of violence; but we are confident that no serious injury will be done to anyone, as the improvements are of but little value.

On the 14th day of September, 1860, certificates were issued to the thirty-two Indians who had made selections of lands and who still survived, with a view of securing to them such selections and at the same time granting to them the number of acres which it was provided they should have by the treaty of 1838. These certificates were made by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and declared that in conformity with the provisions of the treaty of 1838 there had been assigned and allotted to the person named therein 320 acres of the land designated in said treaty, which land was particularly described in said certificates, which concluded as follows:

And the selection of said tract for the exclusive use and benefit of said reserve, having been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, is not subject to be alienated in fee, leased, or otherwise disposed of except to the United States.

In a letter dated September 13, 1860, from the Indian Commissioner to the agent in the neighborhood of these lands reference is made to the conduct of white intruders upon the same, and the following instructions were given to said agent:

In view of these representations and the fact that these white persons who are in possession of the land are intruders, I have to direct that you will visit the New York Reserve in Kansas at your earliest convenience, accompanied by those Indians living among the Osages to whom said lands have been allotted, with a view to place them in possession of the lands to which they are entitled; and if you should meet with any forcible resistance from white settlers you will report their names to this office, in order that appropriate action may be taken in the premises, and you will inform them that if they do not immediately abandon said lands they will be removed by force. When you shall have given the thirty-two Indians peaceable possession of their lands, or attempted to do so and have been prevented by forcible resistance, you will make a report of your action to this Bureau.

The records of the Indian Bureau do not disclose that any report was ever made by the agent to whom these instructions were given.

In 1861 and 1862 mention was made by the agents of the destitute condition of these Indians and of their being deprived of their lands, and in these years petitions were presented in their behalf asking that justice be done them on account of the failure of the Government to provide them with homes.

In the meantime, and in December, 1860, the remainder of the reserve not allotted to the thirty-two survivors was thrown open to settlement by Executive proclamation. Of course this was followed by increased conflict between the settlers and the Indians. It is presumed that it became dangerous for those to whom lands had been allotted to attempt to gain possession of them. On the 4th day of December, 1865, Agent Snow returned twenty-seven of the certificates of allotment which had not been delivered, and wrote as follows to the Indian Bureau:

A few of these Indians were at one time put in possession of their lands. They were driven off by the whites; one Indian was killed, others wounded, and their houses burned. White men at this time have possession of these lands, and have valuable improvements on them. The Indians are deterred even asking for possession. I would earnestly ask, as agent for these wronged and destitute people, that some measure be adopted by the Government to give these Indians their rights.

An official report made to the Secretary of the Interior dated February 16, 1871, gives the history of these lands, and concludes as follows:

These lands are now all or nearly all occupied by white persons who have driven the Indians from their homes—in some instances with violence. There is great necessity that some relief should be afforded to them by legislation of Congress, authorizing the issue of patents to the allottees or giving them power to sell and convey.

In this way they will be enabled to realize something from the land, and the occupants can secure titles for their homes.

Apparently in the line of this recommendation, and in an attempt to remedy the condition of affairs then existing, an act was passed on the 19th day of February, 1873, permitting heads of families and single persons over 21 years of age who had made settlements and improvements upon and were bona fide claimants and occupants of the lands for which the thirty-two certificates of allotments were issued to enter and purchase at the proper land office such lands so occupied by them, not exceeding 160 acres, upon paying therefor the appraised value of said tracts respectively, to be ascertained by three disinterested and competent appraisers, to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, who should report the value of such lands, exclusive of improvements, but that no sale should be made under said act for less than $3.75 per acre.

It was further provided that the entries allowed should be made within twelve months after the promulgation by the Secretary of the Interior of regulations to carry said act into effect, and that the money arising upon such sales should be paid into the Treasury of the United States in trust for and to be paid to the Indians respectively to whom such certificates of allotment had been issued, or to their heirs, upon satisfactory proof of their identity, at any time within five years from the passage of the act, and that in default of such proof the money should become a part of the public moneys of the United States.

It was also further provided that any Indian to whom any certificate of allotment had been issued, and who was then occupying the land allotted thereby, should be entitled to receive a patent therefor.

Pursuant to this statute these lands were appraised. The lowest value per acre fixed by the appraisers was $3.75, and the highest was $10, making the average for the whole $4.90 per acre.

It is reported that only eight pieces, containing 879.76 acres of land taken from six of these Indian allotments, were sold under this statute to the settlers thereon, producing the sum of $4,058.06, and that the price paid in no case was less than $4.50 per acre.

It is proposed by the bill under consideration to sell the remainder of this allotted land to those who failed to avail themselves of the law of 1873 for the sum of $2.50 per acre.

Whatever may be said of the effect of the action of the Indian Bureau in issuing certificates of allotment to individual Indians as it relates to the title of the lands described therein, it was the only way that the Government could perform its treaty obligation to furnish homes for any number of Indians less than a tribe or band; and if these allotments did not vest a title in these individual Indians they secured to them such rights to the lands as the Government was bound to protect and which it could not refuse to confirm if it became necessary by the issuance of patents therefor.

These rights are fully recognized by the statute of 1873, as well as by the bill under consideration.

The right and power of the Government to divest these allottees of their interests under their certificates is so questionable that perhaps it could only be done under the plan proposed, through an estoppel arising from the acceptance of the price for which their allotted lands were sold.

But whatever the effect of a compliance with the provisions of this bill would be upon the title of the settlers to these lands, I can see no fairness or justice in permitting them to enter and purchase such lands at a sum much less than their appraised value in 1873 and for hardly one-half the price paid by their neighbors under the law passed in that year.

The occupancy upon these lands of the settlers seeking relief, and of their grantors, is based upon wrong, violence, and oppression. A continuation of the wrongful exclusion of these Indians from their lands should not inure to the benefit of the wrongdoers. The opportunities afforded by the law of 1873 were neglected, perhaps, in the hope and belief that death would remove the Indians who by their appeals for justice annoyed those who had driven them from their homes, and perhaps in the expectation that the heedlessness of the Government concerning its obligations to the Indians would supply easier terms. The idea is too prevalent that, as against those who by emigration and settlement upon our frontier extend our civilization and prosperity, the rights of the Indians are of but little consequence. But it must be absolutely true that no development is genuine or valuable based upon the violence and cruelty of individuals or the faithlessness of a government.

While it might not result in exact justice or precisely rectify the wrong committed, it may well be that in existing circumstances the interests of the allottees or their heirs demand an adjustment of the kind now proposed. But their lands certainly are worth much more than they were in 1873, and the settlers, if they are not subjected to a reappraisement, should at least pay the price at which the lands were appraised in that year.

If the holders of the interests of the allottees have such a title as will give them a standing in the courts of Kansas, I do not think they need fear defeat by being charged with improvements under the occupying claimants' act, for it has been decided in a case to be found in the twentieth volume of Kansas Reports, at page 374, that—

Neither the title nor possession of the Indian owner, secured by treaty with the United States Government, can be disturbed by State legislation; and the occupying claimants' act has no application in this case.

And yet the delay, uncertainty, and expense of legal contests should be considered.

I suggest that any bill which is passed to adjust the rights of these Indians by such a general plan as is embodied in the bill herewith returned should provide for the payment by the settlers within a reasonable time of an appraised value, and that in case the same is not paid by the respective occupants that the lands be sold at public auction for a price not less than the appraisement.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 9, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4357, entitled "An act to erect a public building at Allentown, Pa."

The accommodation of the postal business is the only public purpose for which the Government can be called on to provide, which is suggested as a pretext for the erection of this building. It is proposed to expend $100,000 for a structure to be used as a post-office. It is said that a deputy collector of internal revenue and a board of pension examiners are located at Allentown, but I do not understand that the Government is obliged to provide quarters for these officers.

The usual statement is made in support of this bill setting forth the growth of the city where it is proposed to locate the building and the amount and variety of the business which is there transacted; and the postmaster in stereotyped phrase represents the desirability of increased accommodation for the transaction of the business under his charge.

But I am thoroughly convinced that there is no present necessity for the expenditure of $100,000 for any purpose connected with the public business at this place.

The annual rent now paid for the post-office is $1,300.

The interest, at 3 per cent, upon the amount now asked for this new building is $3,000. As soon as it is undertaken the pay of a superintendent of its construction will begin, and after its completion the compensation of janitors and other expenses of its maintenance will follow.

The plan now pursued for the erection of public buildings is, in my opinion, very objectionable. They are often built where they are not needed, of dimensions and at a cost entirely disproportionate to any public use to which they can be applied, and as a consequence they frequently serve more to demonstrate the activity and pertinacity of those who represent localities desiring this kind of decoration at public expense than to meet any necessity of the Government.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7715, entitled "An act for the relief of Georgia A. Stricklett."

By the terms of this bill a pension is allowed to the beneficiary above named, whose husband died on the 21st day of July, 1873. It appears from the records that he was mustered into the service to date from October 10, 1863, to serve for one year. It is alleged in the report of the committee of the House who reported this bill that he was wounded with buckshot in the face and head by bushwhackers, when on recruiting service, on the 23d day of July, 1863. If these dates are correct, he was wounded before he entered the service; but this fact is not made the basis of the disapproval of the widow's application for relief. There seems, however, to be no mention of any such injury during his term of service, though he is reported sick much of the time when present with his regiment, and is reported as once in hospital for a disease which, to say the least of it, can not be recognized as related to the service.

The soldier himself made no application for pension.

A physician testifies that he was present on the 21st day of July, 1873, when the soldier died; that he examined the body after death, and to the best of his knowledge such death was caused partially by epilepsy, and that the epilepsy was the result of "wounds about the face and head received during his service during the war."

Another physician testifies that the soldier applied to him for treatment in 1868, and that his disability was the development of confirmed epilepsy, and he expresses the opinion that this was due to a wound from a buckshot. This physician, while not giving epilepsy as the cause of death, says that "had he lived to die a natural death he certainly would have died an insane epileptic."

The report speaks of his death by "an accidental shot."

The truth appears to be that he was killed by a pistol shot in an altercation with another man.

Unless it shall be assumed that the epilepsy was caused by the buckshot wound spoken of, and unless a pension should be allowed because, if the soldier had not been killed in an altercation, he might have soon died from such epilepsy, this bill is entirely devoid of merit.

Surely no one will seriously propose that a claim for pension should rest upon a conjecture as to what would have caused death if it had not occurred in an entirely different way.

The testimony of the physician who testified in this case that death was caused partially by epilepsy suggests the extreme recklessness which may characterize medical testimony in applications for pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 18, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 2282, entitled "An act to pension Mrs. Theodora M. Piatt."

The deceased husband of the beneficiary named in this bill served faithfully and well in the volunteer service, and after his discharge as major entered the Regular Army and was on the retired list at the time of his death, which occurred on the 17th day of April, 1885. At that time he seems to have been engaged in the practice of the law at Covington, Ky.

He does not appear to have contracted any distinct and definite disability in his army service, though his health and strength were doubtless somewhat impaired by hardship and exposure.

It is conceded that he committed suicide by shooting himself with a pistol.

A coroner's inquest was held and the following verdict was returned:

Benjamin M. Piatt came to his death from a pistol bullet through the brain, fired from a pistol in his own hand, with suicidal intent, while laboring under a fit of temporary insanity, caused by morbid sensitiveness of wasted opportunities and constantly brooding over imaginary troubles and financial difficulties.

It is said in support of his widow's claim for pension that, being lame as a result, in part at least, of his military service, he, by reason of such lameness, fell from a staircase a few months before his death, the injury from which affected his mind, causing insanity, which in its turn resulted in his suicide.

Much interest is manifested in this case, based upon former friendship and intimacy with the deceased and kind feeling and sympathy for his widow. I should be glad to respond to these sentiments to the extent of approving this bill, but it is one of the misfortunes of public life and official responsibility that a sense of duty frequently stands between a conception of right and a sympathetic inclination.

The verdict returned upon the coroner's inquest, founded upon a friendly examination of all the facts surrounding the melancholy death of this soldier, made at the time of death and in the midst of his neighbors and friends, both by what it contains and by what is omitted, together with the other facts developed, leads me to the conclusion that if a pension is granted in this case no soldier's widow's application based upon suicide can be consistently rejected.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 18, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5545, entitled "An act granting a pension to Nancy F. Jennings."

William Jennings, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted in October, 1861, and was discharged June 24, 1862, upon a surgeon's certificate of disability, the cause of disability being therein stated as "hemorrhoids."

He never applied for a pension, and died in 1877 of apoplexy.

In the report of the committee which reported this bill the allegation is made that the deceased came home from the Army with chronic diarrhea and suffered from the same to the date of his death.

The widow filed a claim for pension in 1878, which was rejected on the ground that the fatal disease (apoplexy) was not due to military service nor the result of either of the complaints mentioned.

If we are to adhere to the rule that in order to entitle the widow of a soldier to a pension the death of her husband must be in some way related to his military service, there can be no doubt that upon its merits this case was properly disposed of by the Pension Bureau.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 18, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval a joint resolution, which originated in the House of Representatives, "authorizing the use and improvement of Castle Island, in Boston Harbor."

This island is separated from the mainland of the city of Boston by a channel over one-half mile wide. Fort Independence is located on the island, and it is regarded by our military authorities as quite important to the defense of the city.

The proposition contained in the joint resolution is to permit the city of Boston, through its park commissioners, to improve and beautify this island in connection with a public park to be laid out in the city, with the intention of joining the mainland and the island by the construction of a viaduct or causeway across the water now separating the same.

It is quite plain that the occupancy of this island as a place of pleasure and recreation, as contemplated under this resolution, would be entirely inconsistent with military or defensive uses. I do not regard the control reserved in the resolution to the Secretary of War over such excavations, fillings, and structures upon the island as may be proposed as of much importance. When a park is established there, the island is no longer a defense in time of need.

This scheme, or one of the same character, was broached more than four years ago, and met the disapproval of the Secretary of War and the Engineer Department.

I am now advised by the Secretary of War, the Chief of Engineers, and the Lieutenant-General of the Army, in quite positive terms, that the resolution under consideration should not, for reasons fully stated by them, become operative.

I deem the opinions of these officers abundant justification for my disapproval of the resolution without further statement of objections.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 18, 1888.

To the Senate.

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1064, entitled "An act for the relief of L.J. Worden."

This bill directs the Postmaster-General to allow to L.J. Worden, recently the postmaster at Lawrence, Kans., the sum of $625 paid out by him as such postmaster for clerk hire during the period from July 1, 1882, to June 30, 1883.

The allowances to these officers for clerk hire and other like expenses are fixed in each case by the Post-Office Department and are paid out of an appropriation made in gross to cover them all. The excess of receipts for box rents and commissions over and above the salary of the postmaster is adopted by law as the maximum amount of such allowances in each case, and within that limit the amount appropriated is apportioned by the Post-Office Department to the different offices according to their needs.

The allowances to the Lawrence post-office for the year ending June 30, 1883, was $3,100. This was fully its proportion of the appropriation made by Congress for that year, and as much as was in most cases given to other offices of the same grade. In September, 1882, during the first quarter of the year in question, the postmaster made application for an increase of his allowances, which was declined, and a similar application in December of the same year was also declined. The reason given for noncompliance with this request in both cases was a lack of funds. It is the rule to make only such allowances in any year as can be paid from the appropriation made for that period.

No further application for increase of allowances was made by Mr. Worden until March, 1884, when the same were increased $300 for the year, to date from the 1st day of January preceding.

It was found at that time, after a full and fair investigation by the Department, which had in hand abundant funds for an increase of these allowances, that notwithstanding the increase of business at this post-office, $300 added to the allowances for the year from July 1, 1882, to June 30, 1883, was sufficient; and yet more than twice that sum is added by the bill under consideration to the allowances for the year last named.

Forty-four postmasters have submitted vouchers, amounting to nearly $9,000, for clerk hire during that year in excess of allowances; but they were all rejected, and I understand have not been insisted upon.

I assume that the Post-Office Department in 1884 dealt justly and fairly by the postmaster at Lawrence, and upon this theory, if he should be reimbursed any expenditure for a previous year, the demand he now makes is excessive.

But the cases should be exceedingly rare in which postmasters are awarded any more than the allowances made by the Department officers. They have the very best means of ascertaining the amount necessary to meet the demands of the service in any particular case, and it certainly may be assumed that they desire to properly accommodate the public in the matter of postal facilities. When the appropriation is sufficient, the decision of the Department should be final; and when the money in hand does not admit of adequate allowances, postmasters should only be reimbursed money voluntarily expended by them when recommended by the Postmaster-General.

Any other course leads to the expenditure of money by postmasters for work which they should do themselves and to the employment of clerks which are unnecessary. The least encouragement that they may be repaid such expenditure by a special appropriation would dangerously tend to the substitution of their judgment for that of the Department and to the relaxation of wholesome discipline.

I think, when the application of Mr. Worden for an increase in his allowances was twice declined for any cause during the year covering his present demand, that if he made personal expenditures for clerk hire, and especially if he did so without the encouragement of the Department, they were made at his own risk. It appears, too, that the amount of his claim is larger than can be justified in any event.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

The time allowed the Executive by the Constitution for the examination of bills presented to him by Congress for his action expired in the case of the bill herewith returned on Saturday, May 19. The Senate adjourned or took a recess on Thursday afternoon, May 17, until to-day, the 21st of May.

On the day of said recess or adjournment the above message, disapproving said bill and accompanying its return to the Senate, where it originated, was drawn, and on May 18 was engrossed and signed. On Saturday, the 19th of May, the Senate not being in session, the message and the bill were tendered to the Secretary of the Senate, who declined to receive them, and thereupon they were on the same day tendered to the President of the Senate, who also declined to receive the same, both of these officials claiming that the return of said bill and the delivery of said message could only properly be made to the Senate when in actual session.

They are therefore transmitted as soon as the Senate reconvenes after its recess, with this explanation.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[May 22 the Senate proceeded, as the Constitution prescribes, to reconsider the said bill returned by the President of the United States with his objections, pending which it was ordered that the said bill and message be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. No action was taken.]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 88, entitled "An act granting a pension to Sally A. Randall."

Antipas Taber enlisted in the War of 1812 and was discharged in the year 1814. There is no claim made that he received any injury in the Army or that his death, which happened long after his discharge, was in the slightest degree related to his military service. It does not appear that he ever made any application for a pension or was ever upon the pension rolls. He died at Trinidad, in the island of Cuba, April 11, 1831, leaving as his widow the beneficiary mentioned in this bill. About twenty-two years after his death, and in February, 1853, she married Albert Randall, and twenty years thereafter, in October, 1873, Randall died, leaving her again a widow.

It is alleged in the report of the committee in the House to which this bill was referred that Mrs. Randall is a worthy woman, 75 years of age, in needy circumstances, with health much impaired, and that the petition for her relief was signed by prominent citizens of Norwich, Conn., where she now resides.

All this certainly commends her case to the kindness and benevolence of the citizens mentioned, and the State of Connecticut ought not to allow her to be in needy circumstances.

It seems to me, however, that it would establish a bad precedent to provide for her from the Federal Treasury. From the statement of her present age she must have been born during the time of her first husband's enlistment. She knew nothing of his military service except as the same may have been detailed to her. Her first widowhood had no connection with any incident or condition of health traceable to such service, and her second husband, with whom she lived for twenty years, never entered the military service of the Government.

I do not see how the relief proposed can be granted in this case without an unjustifiable departure from the rules under which applications for pension should be determined.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 879, entitled "An act granting a pension to Royal J. Hiar."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted November 11, 1861, in the First Regiment of Michigan Engineers and Mechanics. He is reported as absent without proper authority from May 24, 1862, to January 15, 1863, when he was discharged by reason of varicose veins of the left leg and thigh, claimed to have existed before enlistment.

He filed a claim for pension August 30, 1876, alleging disease of the right side and hip, due to typhoid pneumonia, contracted while repairing a hospital tent in March, 1862.

There is no record of this disease. The proof he furnishes of the same is extremely slight, though he was furnished ample opportunity. The disability of which he complains has no natural relation to the sickness he claims to have had during his service, but is quite a natural result of "an injury while logging," to which some of the witnesses examined in a special examination of the case attribute it.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5234, entitled "An act granting a pension to Cyrenius G. Stryker."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted for nine months in September, 1862, and was discharged June 27, 1863.

His enlistment was in Company A, Thirtieth New Jersey Regiment. The bill proposes to pension him as "a private in Company A, Thirtieth Regiment New York Volunteers."

He alleges that he was pushed or fell from the platform of a car in which he was transported to Washington after enlistment and injured his spine. On the claim which he presented to the Pension Bureau in June, 1879, repeated medical examinations failed to reveal any disability from the cause alleged, and after a special examination his claim was rejected because, with the assistance of such special examination, the claimant did not prove the origin of alleged injury in service and the line of duty or a pensionable degree of disability therefrom since discharge.

The evidence now offered in support of this claim appears to have reference to a time long anterior to its rejection by the Pension Bureau in 1886, and does not impeach the finding of the Bureau that at the latter date there existed no pensionable disability.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 3579, entitled "An act granting a pension to Ellen Shea."

This beneficiary is an old lady and a widow. Her son, Michael Shea, enlisted in January, 1862. The records show that he was sick on one or two occasions during his service. He is also reported as a deserter and absent without leave and in arrest and confinement fully as often as he was sick. He was discharged January 20, 1865.

No application for a pension has been made on his behalf. The mother filed a claim for pension in July, 1884, alleging that her son contracted a fever in the service which resulted in insanity, which was the cause of his death on the 10th day of March, 1884.

He was killed by a snow slide in the State of Colorado. The only hint that his death was in any way connected with the service is the suggestion that not having the proper use of his mind he wandered away and was killed.

His mother now lives in Chicago and, I suppose, lived there at the time of her son's death. There is very little evidence offered of any unsoundness of mind, and his death occurring at Woodstock, Colo., it is hardly to be supposed that he wandered that far. And as tending to show that unsoundness of mind had nothing to do with his death it may be mentioned that an attorney having the mother's application for pension in charge withdrew from the case in October, 1884, for the reason that, having made inquiries at the place where the soldier was killed, he found that his death was caused by a snow slide, and that he was informed that a number of other persons lost their lives at the same time.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8164, entitled "An act granting a pension to William H. Hester."

It is claimed that the beneficiary named in this bill was injured by sand blowing in his eyes during a sand storm while in the service in the year 1869, resulting in nearly if not quite total blindness.

It is conceded in the report of the committee to which this bill was referred in the House that the claim for pension made by this man to the Pension Bureau was largely supported by perjury and forgery; but the criminality of these methods is made to rest upon three rogues and scoundrels who undertook to obtain a pension for the soldier, and it is stated by the committee as their opinion that the claimant himself was innocent of any complicity in the crimes committed and attempted.

I have quite a full report of the papers filed and proceedings taken in relation to the claim presented to the Pension Bureau, and I am sorry that I can not agree with the committee of the House as to the merits of the application now made or the good faith and honesty of the beneficiary named in the bill herewith returned.

Among the facts presented I shall refer to but one or two touching the conduct of the claimant himself.

Upon his examination, under oath, by a special examiner, he stated that he was brought to Washington to further his claim by a man named Miller, one of the rascally attorneys spoken of in the committee's report; that Miller was to pay his expenses while in Washington, and was to receive one-third of the money paid upon the claim.

This is not the conduct of a man claiming in good faith a pension from the Government.

He further stated under oath that his eyes became affected about January 15, 1869, by reason of a sand storm; that the sand blew into them and cut them all to pieces; that he was thereafter hardly able to see or get around and wait on himself, and that Edward N. Baldwin took care of him in his tent.

This Mr. Baldwin was found by the special examiner and testified that he knew the claimant and served in same regiment and bunked with him; that he never knew of the sand storm spoken of by Hester; that he never knew that he had sore eyes in the service; that he (Baldwin) did not take care of him when he was suffering with sore eyes, and that he never knew of Hester being sick but once, and that was when he had eaten too much. He was shown an affidavit purporting to be made by him and declared the entire thing to be false and a forgery.

I believe this claim for pension to be a fraud from beginning to end, and the effrontery with which it has been pushed shows the necessity of a careful examination of these cases.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 6609, entitled "An act for the relief of Sarah E. McCaleb."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill was wounded in the head at the battle of Fort Donelson on the 15th day of February, 1862. He served thereafter and was promoted, and was discharged June 30, 1865.

He died by suicide in 1878.

He never applied for a pension.

The suggestion is made that the wound in his head predisposed him to mental unsoundness, but it does not appear to be claimed that he was insane.

I can not believe that his suicide had any connection with his army service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4580, entitled "An act granting a pension to Farnaren Ball."

In the report of the committee to which this bill was referred the name of this beneficiary is given as "Farnaren Ball," and in a report from the Pension Bureau it is insisted that the correct name is "Tamezen Ball."

Her son, Augustus F. Coldecott, was pensioned for disease of the lungs up to the time of his death, which occurred June 2, 1872.

The cause of his death was an overdose of laudanum, and whether it was taken by mistake or design is uncertain.

The mother is not entirely destitute, deriving an income, though small, from the interest upon a mortgage given to her upon a sale of some real estate.

The proofs with which I have been furnished fail to satisfy me that the Government should grant a pension on account of death produced by a self-administered narcotic in the circumstances which surround this case.

As a general proposition I see nothing unjust or unfair in holding that if a pensioner is sick and through ignorance or design takes laudanum without the direction or regulation of a physician the Government should not be held responsible for the consequences.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 26, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 339, entitled "An act for the relief of J.E. Pilcher."

This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the party named therein the sum of $905, being the amount of one bond of $100 and $805 in paper money of the Republic of Texas.

It is directed, however, that this money be paid out of the Texas indemnity fund.

This fund was created under a law passed on the 28th day of February, 1855, appropriating the sum of $7,750,000 to pay certain claims against the Republic of Texas. By the terms of said law a certain time was fixed within which such claims were to be presented to the Treasury Department.

Between the passage of said act and the year 1870 the sum of $7,648,786.73 was paid upon said claims, leaving of the money appropriated an unexpended balance of $101,213.27.

This balance was on the 30th day of June, 1877, carried to the surplus fund and covered into the Treasury, pursuant to section 5 of chapter 328 of the laws of 1874.

Thus since that date it seems there has been no Texas indemnity fund, nor is there any such fund now from which the money mentioned in the bill herewith returned can be paid.

In this condition of affairs the proposed law could not be executed and would be of no possible use.

If the claims mentioned are such as should be paid by the United States, there appears to be no difficulty in making an appropriation for their payment from the general funds of the Government. I notice an item to meet a similar claim was inserted in a deficiency bill passed on the 7th day of July, 1884.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 28, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 347, entitled "An act to provide for the erection of a public building in the city of Youngstown, Ohio."

By the census of 1880 the population of Youngstown appears to be 15,435. It is claimed by those urging the erection of a public building there that its population has nearly doubled since that date. The amount appropriated in the bill herewith returned is $75,000. There does not seem to be any governmental purpose to which such a building could be properly devoted except the accommodation of the post-office.

I have listened to an unusual amount of personal representation in favor of this bill from parties whose desires I should be glad to meet on this or any other question; but none of them have insisted that there is any present governmental need of the proposed new building even for postal purposes. On the contrary, I am informed that the post-office is at present well accommodated in quarters held under a lease which does not expire, I believe, until 1892. A letter addressed to the postmaster at Youngstown containing certain questions bearing upon the necessity of a new building failed to elicit a reply. This fact is very unusual and extraordinary, for the postmaster can almost always be relied upon to make an exhibit of the great necessity of larger quarters when a new public building is in prospect.

The fact was communicated to me early in the present session of the Congress that the aggregate sum of the appropriations contained in bills for the erection and extension of public buildings which had up to that time been referred to the House Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds was about $37,000,000.

Of course this fact would have no particular relevancy if all the buildings asked for were necessary for the transaction of public business, as long as we have the money to pay for them; but inasmuch as a large number of the buildings proposed are unnecessary and their erection would be wasteful and extravagant, besides furnishing precedents for further and more extended reckless expenditures of a like character, it seems to me that applications for new and expensive public buildings should be carefully scrutinized.

I am satisfied that the appropriation of $75,000 for a building at Youngstown is at present not justified.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 28, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1237, entitled "An act granting a pension to Anna Mertz."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of Charles A. Mertz, who served in the Army as captain from April, 1862, to June, 1863, when he resigned on account of impaired health. It is stated in the committee's report that after his return from the Army he worked occasionally at his trade, though subject to attacks of very severe diarrhea, accompanied with acute catarrhal pains in the head and face, which he constantly attributed to his army service.

It is alleged that he had several times taken morphine, under medical advice, to allay pain caused by these attacks.

He did not apply for a pension.

On the 1st day of December, 1884, more than twenty-one years after his discharge from the Army, he died from an overdose of morphine self-administered, for the purpose, it is claimed, of alleviating his suffering.

I do not think that in this case the death of the soldier was so related to his military service as to entitle his widow to a pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 28, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 820, entitled "An act granting a pension to David A. Servis."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted August 14, 1862, and was discharged June 8, 1865.

It is alleged that about the month of January, 1863, a comrade, by way of a joke, put powder into a pipe which the beneficiary was accustomed to smoke and covered it with tobacco, so that when he lighted it the powder exploded and injured his eyes. The report of the Senate committee states that it does not appear that "any notice was taken of this wanton act of his tent mate."

There is no mention of any disability or injury in the record of the soldier's service. He seems to have served nearly two years and a half after the injury. He filed an application for a pension in May, 1885, more than twenty-two years thereafter.

Whatever may be the extent of the injury sustained, in regard to which the evidence is apparently quite meager, I can not see that it was such a result of military service as to entitle the applicant to a pension.

The utmost liberality to those who were in our Army hardly justifies a compensation by way of pension for injuries incurred in sport or pastime or as the result of a practical joke.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 28, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 835, entitled "An act for the relief of Elisha Griswold."

The beneficiary named in this bill, which awards him a pension, enlisted in January, 1864, and was discharged February 12, 1866.

His claim for pension, as developed in the report of the Senate Committee on Pensions, is based upon the allegation that in January, 1866, he fell from a swing which had been put up in the building occupied as a barrack and struck on his head and shoulder.

The committee report in favor of the bill upon the grounds that the soldier was injured "while engaged in recreation" and that "such recreation is a necessary part of a soldier's life."

The beneficiary filed an application in January, 1880, and in support of such application he filed on the 16th day of July, 1886, an affidavit in which he testifies that at the time of the injury he was in prison at San Antonio, Tex., upon charges the character of which he could not ascertain, and that the swing from which he fell was erected by himself and others for pastime and exercise.

It will be seen that the injury complained of is alleged to have been sustained less than a month before his discharge. There is, however, no record of any disability.

His claim based upon this injury was, in my opinion, properly rejected as having no connection with his military service, and I think the facts in his case as herein detailed do not justify the award of a pension to him by special enactment.

On the 23d day of March, 1888, after the introduction of the bill herewith returned, the beneficiary, apparently having abandoned the claim upon which the bill is predicated, filed another application for a pension in the Pension Bureau, alleging that he contracted diarrhea and malarial poisoning in the service. This application is still pending.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 29, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 1275, entitled "An act for the erection of a public building at Columbus, Ga., and appropriating money therefor."

The city of Columbus, Ga., is undoubtedly a thriving, growing city. The only present necessity for a public building there is for the accommodation of its post-office. It is stated in the report of the House committee that the gross revenues of the office for the year ending June 30, 1887, were $16,700. The postmaster, in a letter upon the subject, makes the following statement:

I estimate the gross receipts at $17,500 for the fiscal year ending March 31, which will be an increase of nearly 7 per cent over last year's receipts.

There are nine persons employed in the post-office at present, including the postmaster. The present quarters are leased by the Government at an annual rent of $900. The postmaster represents that his accommodations are not adequate or convenient, and that instead of a space of 1,900 square feet, which he now has, he should be provided with 2,500 square feet.

The population of the city in 1880 was 10,123. It is claimed that it is now about 20,000.

In my opinion the facts presented do not exhibit the necessity of the expenditure of $100,000 to afford the increased room for the post-office which may be desirable. I believe a private person would erect a building abundantly sufficient for all our postal needs in that city for many years to come for one-third of that sum.

Business prudence and good judgment seem to dictate that the erection of the proposed building should be delayed until its necessity is more manifest, and so that it can be better determined what expenditure for such a purpose will be justified by the continued growth of the city and the needs of the Government.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 5, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 4467, entitled "An act for the erection of a public building at Bar Harbor, in Maine."

The entire town within which Bar Harbor is situated contained in 1880 1,639 inhabitants, as appears by the census of that year.

There is no pretense that there is any need of a public building there except to accommodate the post-office.

This is a third-class office, and the Government does not pay the rent for offices of that class. The gross receipts of the office for the year ended June 30, 1887, are reported by the Postmaster-General at $5,337. The postmaster reports that he employs five clerks in the summer and three in the winter. The fact that Bar Harbor is a place of very extensive summer resort makes its population exceedingly variable, and during a part of the year it is quite likely that the influx of pleasure seekers may make a more commodious post-office desirable, though there does not seem to be much complaint of present inconvenience.

The postmaster pays a rent of $500 per annum for his present quarters.

The amount appropriated by the bill is quite moderate, being only $25,000, but the postmaster expresses the opinion that a proper site alone would cost from twenty to thirty thousand dollars.

I am decidedly of the opinion that if a public building is to be erected at this place, of which at present there appears to be no necessity, it should be done under a system which will not give the post-office and the postmaster there an advantage over others of their class.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 5, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 1394, entitled "An act authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase additional ground for the accommodation of Government offices in Council Bluffs, Iowa."

A new public building at Council Bluffs will be completed in a short time. The ground upon which it is located has a frontage of 192 feet and a depth of 106 feet and 10 inches. The proposition is to add 30 feet to its depth. The act under which this building has been thus far constructed provides that the ground purchased therefor shall be of such dimensions as to leave the building unexposed to fire by an open space of at least 40 feet, including streets and alleys. The building is located on land now belonging to the Government sufficient in size to comply with this provision, and in point of fact more than the open space required is left on all sides of the same. There is no pretense that any enlargement of the building is necessary or contemplated.

The report of the committee to which this bill was referred in the House simply states that "the grounds on which said building is situated are inadequate for its proper accommodation and safety."

If this is so, I can see no reason why additional ground should not be purchased for "the proper accommodation and safety" of a large proportion of the public buildings completed and in process of erection, since the provision that there shall exist 40 feet of open space on all sides is, I think, contained in all the bills authorizing their construction. In this view the proposed legislation would establish a very bad precedent.

It is provided in the bill that the additional 30 feet mentioned shall be purchased for a sum not to exceed $10,000. The adjoining 106 feet and 10 inches, located on the corner of two streets, were purchased in the year 1882 by the Government for $15,000. The permission to purchase this addition at a price per foot greatly in excess of that already owned by the Government seems so unnecessary, except to benefit the owner, that I am of the opinion it should not be granted.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 5, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 739, entitled "An act granting a pension to Johanna Loewinger."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill enlisted June 28, 1861, and was discharged May 8, 1862, upon a surgeon's certificate of disability. He was pensioned for chronic diarrhea. He died July 17, 1876. A coroner's inquest was held, who found by their verdict that the deceased came to his death "from suicide by cutting his throat with a razor, caused by long-continued illness."

This inquest was held immediately after the soldier's death, and it appears that the case was fully investigated, with full opportunities to discover the truth. Upon the verdict found, in the absence of insanity caused by any disability, it can hardly be claimed that his death was caused by his military service. The attempts afterwards to impeach this verdict and introduce another cause of death do not seem to be successful.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 12, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1772, entitled "An act for the relief of John H. Marion."

It is proposed by this bill to relieve the party named therein from an indebtedness to the Government amounting to $1,042.45, arising from the nonfulfillment of a contract made by him in 1884 with the Government, by which he agreed to furnish for the use of the Quartermaster's Department a quantity of grama hay.

The contractor wholly failed to furnish the hay as agreed, and thereupon the Government, pursuant to the terms of the contract, obtained the hay in other quarters, paying therefor a larger sum by $1,042.45 than it would have been obliged to pay the contractor if he had fulfilled his agreement. This amount was charged against the contractor.

It is alleged that the crop of the particular kind of hay which was to be furnished under the contract failed the season in which it was to be supplied on account of drought, and that thus performance became impossible on the part of the contractor.

Between individuals no injustice could be claimed if the contractor in such circumstances should be held to have taken the chances of the crop; and if an equitable adjustment should be suggested in such a case as is here presented it would hardly be asked that the party suffering from the default or failure of the other should sustain all the loss.

It seems that the contractor was the proprietor of a newspaper in Arizona, and that he did some printing for the Government besides agreeing to furnish hay to the Quartermaster's Department. After the ascertainment of the loss to the Government arising out of the hay transactions, certain accounts for printing presented by the contractor were credited against the amount of such loss charged against him. In this way his debt to the Government has been reduced more than $700. The proposed legislation would cause to be paid to the contractor the sums so retained for printing and to relieve him from the remainder of the Government's claims.

Inquiry at the Quartermaster-General's Office fails to substantiate the allegation that there is any understanding when such contracts are made that their performance is to be at all relaxed by the failure of the crop.

There really seems to be no good reason why the contractor should not make good the entire loss consequent upon his default. If, however, strict rights are to be relinquished and the liberality of the Government invoked, it should not be taxed beyond the limit of sharing the loss with the delinquent. This result would be accomplished by discharging the remainder of the contractor's debt after crediting the bills for printing above referred to.

The Government is obliged in the transaction of its business to make numerous contracts with private parties, and if these contracts are to be of any use or protection they should not be lightly set aside on behalf of citizens who are disappointed as to their profitable nature or their ability to perform them.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 12, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1017, entitled "An act granting a pension to Stephen Schiedel."

The beneficiary named in this bill served in the First Regiment Missouri Light Artillery from October 24, 1861, to October, 1864. There is no record of any injury or disability while in the service.

In March, 1880, sixteen years after his discharge, he filed an application for a pension, alleging that about June, 1862, while carrying logs to aid in building quarters, a log slipped and fell upon a lever, which flew up and struck him, injuring his back and shoulder.

He furnished the testimony of two witnesses tending to support his statement of the manner in which he was injured, but upon investigation this evidence was found to be unreliable.

Medical examinations failed to disclose any disability from the cause alleged, but do tend to show that he was disabled since his discharge by an injury to his right hand and arm and some rheumatic trouble.

It is not claimed that he incurred any disability from rheumatism while in the Army. It appears distinctly that he was wounded in the right wrist and arm while firing a cannon at the village of Hamburg, Erie County, N.Y., on the 4th day of July, 1866. The doctor who testifies to this injury and who dressed the wound negatives any other illness before the accident.

Even if he has, since his discharge, suffered from rheumatism, he does not claim that this was incurred in the Army. He bases his right to a pension entirely upon an injury which he particularly describes, and which the medical examination does not sustain. It will be observed, too, that he continued his military service for two years and four months after the date of his alleged injury. It seems hardly possible that he could have done this if he had been injured in the manner he alleges.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 18, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 3959, entitled "An act granting a pension to Dolly Blazer."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill was apparently a good soldier and was confined for a time in a Confederate prison. He was mustered out of the service in June, 1865, and never applied for a pension.

He died in 1878, leaving as survivors his widow and several children, two of whom are alleged to be still under 16 years of age.

The cause of the soldier's death was yellow fever. There is in my mind no doubt of this fact, and the attempt to establish any other cause of death, if successful, would go far toward fixing a precedent for the rejection of all evidence which stood in the way of a claim for pension.

The bill herewith returned is disapproved for the reason that the death of the soldier had no relation to his military service, and I do not think there should be a discrimination in favor of this applicant and against many thousands of widows fully as well entitled.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 18, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5522, entitled "An act for the relief of Elijah Martin."

By this bill it is proposed to increase the pension now paid to the beneficiary therein named, who was a soldier in the War of 1812, from $8 to $20 per month.

Prior to May 22, 1888, an application was made for reimbursement of the expenses attending the last sickness and burial of this pensioner, and on the day mentioned such application was transmitted to the proper auditing officer for adjustment.

I have no other information of the death of this soldier, but as his age is stated in the report of the House committee to be 87 years, and as there can hardly be a mistake as to the identity of the person named in the application mentioned, I am satisfied that the beneficiary has died since the introduction of the bill for his relief.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 488, entitled "An act granting a pension to Elizabeth Burr."

It is proposed by this bill to grant a pension to the beneficiary therein named as the widow of William Burr, who enlisted for one hundred days in 1864 and was discharged on the 3d day of September in that year.

He is reported as present on all roll calls during his service. He died April 7, 1867, of dropsy, never having made any application for a pension.

His widow filed an application for pension in 1880, thirteen years after the soldier's death, alleging that the disease of which he died, claimed to be dropsy, was contracted in the service.

The claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the dropsy causing his death was not due to his military service, but that he was subject to the same before his enlistment.

I am perfectly satisfied that the rejection upon the ground claimed was correct.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1957, entitled "An act granting a pension to Virtue Smith."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of David M. Smith (incorrectly named David W. Smith in the bill), who served as a bugler in a Minnesota regiment from August 22, 1862, to September 28, 1862, in a campaign against the Sioux Indians.

He received a gunshot wound in the right elbow, for which in 1867 he was granted a pension of $6 a month, which was very soon thereafter increased to $8, and in August, 1875, said pension was further increased to $10 a month, which he received to the date of his death.

He died in the city of Washington on the 22d day of January, 1880.

He obtained a position in the Second Auditor's Office of the Treasury Department in 1864, and worked steadily there until about six months before his death.

Medical examinations had from time to time up to 1877 seem to have found him in excellent physical condition except the wound in his right elbow, which caused stiffness, and an injury to his left forearm not received in the Army.

In 1879 he was examined by a physician of this city who stands among the best in the profession, and found in the last stages of consumption, and this physician declares he died from that cause. A female physician certified that the cause of death was "wounds in the Army."

The pensioner was 64 years old at the time of his death.

I am perfectly satisfied from the medical testimony and from other facts connected with this case that the death of the husband of the beneficiary was in no manner related to his military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 3016, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary F. Harkins."

The husband of this beneficiary was discharged from the military service in 1865, and was pensioned for a gunshot wound in the right foot at the rate of $6 per month.

He died in 1882, seventeen years after his discharge, "from rupture of the heart, caused by the bursting and parting of the fibers of the right ventricle."

The claim is now made that the death was the result of the wound in the foot.

An application to the Pension Bureau was rejected on the ground that the death cause was not the result of the wound.

I am satisfied that this was a just conclusion.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 600, entitled "An act increasing the pension of Mary Minor Hoxey."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill was, while on military duty, wounded in the left hand and afterwards in the thigh. He was pensioned in 1871 on account of these wounds, and in 1879 was allowed arrearages from time of his discharge. He died in December, 1881, of consumption, being at that time in the receipt of a pension at the rate of $17 per month.

In 1884 his widow was allowed a pension at the same rate, with $2 a month each for two minor children. The children have now attained the age of 16 years, but the widow still receives the pension awarded to her, which is the same as that allowed to all widows of her class.

I discover no reason of any substance why this pension should be increased, and if it should be done it would only be a manifestation of unjust favoritism.

I can not forget the thousands of poor widows with claims superior to this beneficiary, but with no interested friends to push their claims for increase of pension, who would be discriminated against if this proposed bill becomes a law.

It seems to me that there is a chance to do injustice by unfair caprice in fixing the rates of pension, as well as by refusing them altogether when they should be granted.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8281, entitled "An act for the relief of Lieutenant James G.W. Hardy."

It is proposed by this bill to award a pension to the beneficiary above named.

In the month of January, 1864, he was on recruiting service in the State of Indiana. On the 15th day of that month he was traveling between Indianapolis and Lafayette in a railroad car, and he alleges that he raised a window of the car to obtain air, and placed his arm on the window sill, when it was struck by something from the outside and one of the bones of his arm broken.

In February, 1865, he resigned on account of disability caused by the accident above mentioned, the medical certificate then stating that he had a fracture of the right humerus of ten months' standing which had not been properly adjusted.

He made an application for a pension to the Pension Bureau, which was rejected.

Although it is stated in a general way that he was traveling on business connected with his recruiting service at the time of his injury, he has given no information as to the precise purpose of his journey; and it is conceded that he was guilty of such negligence that he had no right of action against the railroad company.

It also appears by the medical certificate upon which his resignation was permitted that the fracture, not necessarily serious, was never properly treated. It seems, too, that he remained in the service ten months after the injury.

I am unable to discover why a pension should be granted in this case, unless the Government is to be held as an insurer of the safety of every person in the military service in all circumstances and at all times and places.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8174, entitled "An act granting a pension to Ellen Sexton."

The husband of the beneficiary served in the Union Volunteer Army from October, 1862, to June, 1864, having been during the last seven months of his service in the Veteran Reserve Corps. He was discharged for a disability which, to say the least of it, certainly had no relation to his military service, unless the Government is to be held responsible for injury arising from vicious indulgence.

He died in the city of Cork, Ireland, May 29, 1875, of consumption, certified by the health authorities there to have been of seven years' duration.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 2215, entitled "An act granting a pension to Charles Glamann."

This beneficiary served in an Illinois regiment from September, 1864, to July, 1865, and his record shows no injury or sickness except an attack of remittent fever.

He filed a claim for pension in 1880, alleging that he was struck accidentally with a half brick by a comrade and injured in his left arm.

There is no doubt that whatever disability he thus incurred was the result of a personal altercation between himself and the man who threw the brick.

The extent to which the power to grant pensions by special act has been made to cover all sorts of claims is illustrated by the fact that, in the light of many pensions that have been allowed, this case, though presenting an absurd claim, does not appear to be much out of the way. The effect of precedent as an inducement to increase and expand claims and causes for pensions is also shown by the allegation in the report of the House committee, as follows:

Your committee and Congress have, however, frequently relaxed the rule, and granted pension for injuries and disabilities incurred in such circumstances.

I believe that if the veterans of the war knew all that was going on in the way of granting pensions by private bills they would be more disgusted than any class of our citizens.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 26, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 845, entitled "An act granting a pension to the widow of John A. Turley."

The husband of this beneficiary belonged to a Kentucky regiment of volunteers, and in 1863, having been in camp and on leave of absence, he and others of the regiment embarked on a steamboat, in charge of a lieutenant, to be taken to Louisville, whither they had been ordered.

While on the steamboat an altercation arose between two of the soldiers, and the deceased interfered to prevent, as is alleged, an affray. By so doing he was pushed or struck by one of the parties quarreling and fell upon the deck of the boat, striking his head against a plank, thus receiving a fatal injury.

It is quite clear to me that the death of this soldier was not the result of his military service. His presence on the boat was in the line of duty, but he had no charge of the rest of the men and was in no degree responsible for them, and whether he should be in any way implicated in the dispute which occurred was a matter entirely within his own control and determined by his own volition. If he had refrained from interference, he would have saved himself and performed to the utmost his military duty.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 432, entitled "An act for the relief of Joel B. Morton."

Calvin Morton, the son of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted in the volunteer infantry in 1861, and after his discharge again enlisted in the United States cavalry, from which he was discharged in 1867.

It is alleged by his father that he was killed in the battle with the Indians at Little Big Horn, called the "Custer massacre," June 25, 1876.

His name does not appear in any record of the soldiers engaged in that battle. The casualty records of the affair are reported as very complete, but they contain no mention of any soldier of that name.

His father claims in his application before the Pension Bureau to have had a letter from his son in the fall of 1875, dated at some place in the Black Hills, stating that he was a lieutenant in the army under General Custer, but that the letter was lost. He also alleges that he read an account of the massacre in a newspaper, the name of which he has forgotten, and that his son was there mentioned as among the slain.

The report of the House committee states that the only evidence of the death of this soldier is found in a letter of Anderson G. Shaw, who writes that he was present on the field of the battle mentioned when the killed were buried, and that one of the burial party called a corpse found there Morton's. It is further claimed that the description of this body agreed with that given by the father of his son.

Considering the complete list of the casualties attending this battle now in the War Department, it must be conceded that the death of the son of the beneficiary is far from being satisfactorily established.

The claim of the father is still pending in the Pension Bureau, and perhaps with further effort more information on the subject can be obtained.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 43, entitled "An act granting a pension to Polly H. Smith."

John H. Smith, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted in the Regular Army in 1854 and served until the year 1870.

In 1868 a fistula developed, which was probably the result of quite continuous riding in the saddle. In 1870 he was placed upon the retired list as first lieutenant on account of the incapacity arising from such fistula.

In September, 1885, fifteen years after his retirement, he died suddenly at Portland, Oreg., of heart disease, while attempting to raise a trunk to his shoulder.

I can not see how the cause of death can be connected with his service or with the incapacity for which he was placed upon the retired list.

The application made by the widow for a pension is still pending before the Pension Bureau, and I understand that she or her friends prefer taking the chance of favorable consideration there to the approval of this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1547, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Ann Dougherty."

A large share of the report of the Senate committee to which this bill was referred, and which report is adopted by the committee of the House, as is usual in such cases, consists of a petition signed by Mary Ann Dougherty, addressed to the Congress, in which she states that she resides in Washington, having removed here with her husband in 1863 from New Jersey; that shortly after their arrival in this city her husband, Daniel Dougherty, returned to New Jersey and enlisted in the Thirty-fourth Regiment New Jersey Volunteers; that she obtained employment in the United States arsenal making cartridges, and that while so engaged she was injured by an explosion.

She also states that she had a young son killed by machinery in the navy-yard, and that at the grand review of the Army after the close of the war another son, 6 years old, was stolen by an officer of the Army and has not been heard of since. She further says that her husband left his home in 1865 and has not been heard of since, and that she believes he deserted her on account of her infirmities.

It is alleged in the report that she received a pension as the widow of Daniel Dougherty until it was discovered that he was alive, when her name was dropped from the rolls.

The petition of this woman is indorsed by the Admiral and several other officers of the Navy and a distinguished clergyman of Washington, certifying that they know Mrs. Dougherty and believe the facts stated to be true.

There is no pretense made now that this beneficiary is a widow, though she at one time claimed to be, and was allowed a pension on that allegation. Her present claim rests entirely upon injuries received by her when she was concededly not employed in the military service. If the pension now proposed is allowed her, it will be a mere act of charity.

Her husband, Daniel Dougherty, is now living in Philadelphia, and is a pensioner in his own right for disability alleged to have been incurred while serving in the Thirty-fourth New Jersey Volunteers. Of this fact this beneficiary has been repeatedly informed; and yet she states in her petition that her husband deserted her in 1865 and has not been heard of since.

It is alleged in the Pension Bureau that in 1878 she succeeded in securing a pension as the widow of Daniel Dougherty through fraudulent testimony and much false swearing on her part.

The police records of the precinct in which she has lived for years show that she is a woman of very bad character, and that she has been under arrest nine times for drunkenness, larceny, creating disturbance, and misdemeanors of that sort.

It happens that this claimant, by reason of her residence here, has been easily traced and her character and untruthfulness discovered. But there is much reason to fear that this case will find its parallel, in many that have reached a successful conclusion.

I can not spell out any principle upon which the bounty of the Government is bestowed through the instrumentality of the flood of private pension bills that reach me. The theory seems to have been adopted that no man who served in the Army can be the subject of death or impaired health except they are chargeable to his service. Medical theories are set at naught and the most startling relation is claimed between alleged incidents of military service and disability or death. Fatal apoplexy is admitted as the result of quite insignificant wounds, heart disease is attributed to chronic diarrhea, consumption to hernia, and suicide is traced to army service in a wonderfully devious and curious way.

Adjudications of the Pension Bureau are overruled in the most peremptory fashion by these special acts of Congress, since nearly all the beneficiaries named in these bills have unsuccessfully applied to that Bureau for relief.

This course of special legislation operates very unfairly.

Those with certain influence or friends to push their claims procure pensions, and those who have neither friends nor influence must be content with their fate under general laws. It operates unfairly by increasing in numerous instances the pensions of those already on the rolls, while many other more deserving cases, from the lack of fortunate advocacy, are obliged to be content with the sum provided by general laws.

The apprehension may well be entertained that the freedom with which these private pension bills are passed furnishes an inducement to fraud and imposition, while it certainly teaches the vicious lesson to our people that the Treasury of the National Government invites the approach of private need.

None of us should be in the least wanting in regard for the veteran soldier, and I will yield to no man in a desire to see those who defended the Government when it needed defenders liberally treated. Unfriendliness to our veterans is a charge easily and sometimes dishonestly made.

I insist that the true soldier is a good citizen, and that he will be satisfied with generous, fair, and equal consideration for those who are worthily entitled to help.

I have considered the pension list of the Republic a roll of honor, bearing names inscribed by national gratitude, and not by improvident and indiscriminate almsgiving.

I have conceived the prevention of the complete discredit which must ensue from the unreasonable, unfair, and reckless granting of pensions by special acts to be the best service I can render our veterans.

In the discharge of what has seemed to me my duty as related to legislation, and in the interest of all the veterans of the Union Army, I have attempted to stem the tide of improvident pension enactments, though I confess to a full share of responsibility for some of these laws that should not have been passed.

I am far from denying that there are cases of merit which can not be reached except by special enactment, but I do not believe there is a member of either House of Congress who will not admit that this kind of legislation has been carried too far.

I have now before me more than 100 special pension bills, which can hardly be examined within the time allowed for that purpose.

My aim has been at all times, in dealing with bills of this character, to give the applicant for a pension the benefit of any doubt that might arise, and which balanced the propriety of granting a pension if there seemed any just foundation for the application; but when it seemed entirely outside of every rule in its nature or the proof supporting it, I have supposed I only did my duty in interposing an objection.

It seems to me that it would be well if our general pension laws should be revised with a view of meeting every meritorious case that can arise. Our experience and knowledge of any existing deficiencies ought to make the enactment of a complete pension code possible.

In the absence of such a revision, and if pensions are to be granted upon equitable grounds and without regard to general laws, the present methods would be greatly improved by the establishment of some tribunal to examine the facts in every case and determine upon the merits of the application.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8291, entitled "An act granting a pension to Julia Welch."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill served in the Army from December, 1863, to May, 1866.

He never filed an application for pension, and died February 24, 1880, of inflammation of the lungs.

The claim filed by his widow for pension alleged that her husband suffered from chronic diarrhea and disease of the heart and lungs as results of his army service.

The claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that they soldier died from an acute disease which bore no relation to any complaint contracted in the Army.

I think the action of the Bureau was correct.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7907, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Ann Lang."

The husband of this beneficiary was wounded in the nose on the 1st day of June, 1864, and was mustered out of the service July 8, 1865. He was pensioned on account of this wound and died February 21, 1881. Prior to his death he had executed a declaration claiming pension also for rheumatism, but the application was not filed before he died.

The cause of his death was dropsy. The widow filed her claim for pension in 1884, which was rejected on the ground that the soldier's fatal disease was not the result of his military service.

A physician of good repute, who appears to have attended him more than any other physician for a number of years prior to his death, gives an account of rheumatic ailments and other troubles, and states that about a year and a half before he died he had a liver trouble which resulted in dropsy, which caused his death. He adds that the soldier was a man who drank beer, and at times to excess, and that he drank harder toward the last of his life. He further states that he is unable to connect the liver trouble with his rheumatism, and could not give any other reason for it except his long use of beer and liquor, and if that was not the cause it greatly aggravated it; that he had cautioned him about drinking, and at times he heeded the advice.

An appeal was taken from the action rejecting the claim and the case was submitted to the medical referee of the Pension Bureau, who decided upon all the testimony that the soldier's fatal disease (dropsy) was due to disease of the liver, which was not a sequence of rheumatism and was the result of excessive use of alcoholic stimulants.

It will be observed that no claim is made that death in any way resulted from the wound for which a pension had been allowed, and that even if rheumatism was connected with the death its incurrence in the Army had never been established.

I am satisfied that this case was properly disposed of by the Pension Bureau.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9184, entitled "An act granting a pension to William M. Campbell, jr."

This beneficiary was not enrolled in the service of the United States until August 5, 1862. Previous to that time he had been a member of the same regiment in which he was so enrolled, and was in the service of the State of Kentucky.

He alleges that in the month of February, 1862, he was vaccinated with impure virus and in the same month contracted mumps. He claims that as a result of these troubles he has been afflicted with ulcers and other serious consequences.

It is perfectly clear that at the time these disabilities were incurred, if they were incurred, the claimant was not in the military service of the United States.

The records show that he deserted September 16, 1862, a little more than a month after he was mustered into the United States service; that he was arrested April 25, 1864, one year and seven months after his desertion; that he was restored to duty by general court-martial with loss of pay and allowances during absence (the time lost by desertion to be made good), and that he was mustered out July 16, 1865.

This enactment seems neither to have law nor meritorious equity to support it.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8807, entitled "An act granting a pension to Harriet E. Cooper."

The husband of this beneficiary served as a major in an Illinois regiment from September 3, 1862, to April 1, 1863, when his resignation was accepted, it having been tendered on account of business affairs.

He was pensioned for rheumatism from April, 1863, and died October 3, 1883.

It is admitted on all hands that Major Cooper drank a good deal, but the committee allege that they can not arrive at the conclusion that death was attributable to that cause.

There is some medical testimony tending to show that death was caused from rheumatism, but one physician gives it as his opinion that death resulted from rheumatism and chronic alcoholism.

The physician who last attended the soldier testifies that the cause of death was chronic alcoholism. This should be the most reliable of all the medical testimony, and taken in connection with the conceded intemperate habits of the deceased and the fact, that the brain was involved, it satisfies me that the rejection of the widow's claim by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the cause of death was mainly intemperance was correct.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1888.

To the House of Representatives;

I return without approval House bill No. 6431, entitled "An act for the relief of Van Buren Brown."

The beneficiary named in this bill was discharged from the Army September 11, 1865.

He filed an application for pension in the Pension Bureau May 19, 1883, alleging chronic diarrhea, rheumatism, spinal disease the result of an injury, and deafness.

His claim was very thoroughly examined and reopened and examined again after rejection, and rejected a second time.

The case is full of uncertainty and contradiction. Without discussing these features, I am entirely satisfied that a pension should not be allowed, for the reason, among others, that three careful medical examinations made in 1883, 1884, and 1886 failed to disclose any pensionable disability.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 367, entitled "An act granting a pension to Nathaniel D. Chase."

This beneficiary enlisted September 3, 1863. The records show that he was admitted to a hospital March 3, 1864, with a disease of a discreditable nature and by no means connected with the military service, and that he was discharged from the Army May 20, 1864, upon a certificate of paralysis of left arm, which came on suddenly February 20, 1864, and that the cause was unknown, but believed not to be incident to the service.

He filed an application for a pension in June, 1864, alleging paralysis of the left arm from causes unknown to him.

This claim was not prosecuted at that time, and the claimant reenlisted in January, 1865, and served until September 5, 1865, without any evidence of disability appearing upon the records.

He renewed his claim in 1870, stating that he was first taken with a pain in his left arm about March 1, 1864, and that it became partially paralyzed.

It will be observed that thus far in his application he gives no explanation of the incurrence of his disability which leads to the belief that it was related to his service.

In a letter dated May 31, 1864, his captain states that he can but think that the disability of the claimant was the result of his folly and indiscretion, and that he feels it his duty to decline giving him a certificate.

In 1880 the claimant stated the cause of his disability was an injury to his arm while expelling a soldier from a railroad train at Augusta, Me., he acting as provost guard at the time. Upon this allegation the case was reopened at the Pension Bureau.

In reply to a letter from the Bureau the captain of claimant's company stated that he had no knowledge of such an injury. The same officer, in a letter dated February 25, 1887, expresses the belief that the disability of the applicant, if any existed, was caused by the injudicious use of mercurial medicine self-administered for venereal disease contracted at Augusta, Me., in January, 1864, and that such was the rumor among his comrades when he was sent to the hospital.

I can not believe that an injury was sustained such as was specified by the applicant in 1880 and that nothing was said of it either in the claim made in 1864 or in 1870. In the absence of this or some other definite cause consistent with an honest claim we are left in the face of some contrary evidence to guess that his arm was injured in the service.

The application of this beneficiary is still pending in the Pension Bureau awaiting further information.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 16, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9520, entitled "An act for the relief of Mary Fitzmorris."

It is proposed by this bill to pension the beneficiary named therein, as the widow of Edmund Fitzmorris, under the provisions and limitations of the general pension laws. The name of the beneficiary is already upon the pension roll, and she is now entitled to receive precisely the sum as a pensioner which is allowed her under this bill.

As her application to the Pension Bureau was quite lately favorably acted upon, it is supposed this special bill for her relief was passed by the Congress in ignorance of that fact.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 16, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 121, entitled "An act granting a pension to Tobias Baney."

This soldier was enrolled on the 28th day of February, 1865, and was discharged on the 31st day of January, 1866.

He filed an application for a pension in 1878, which was supplemented by statements from time to time, not always in exact agreement, but alleging uniformly that during his service, fixing the date at one time as in January, 1866, and at another time as in November, 1865, he was attacked in the city of Washington by palpitation of the heart, which increased after his discharge and resulted in disability. After a careful special examination by the Pension Bureau the claim was rejected upon the ground that origin of disability in the service and line of duty had not been shown, nor that the same existed for some time after discharge.

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted shortly before the surrender of the Confederate forces, and it appears did little, if anything, more than garrison duty. He does not seem to have suffered any of the exposures usually incident to a soldier's service, and, as I understand his claim, does not himself give any instance of exposure or exertion from which his difficulty arose.

There is no record of any sickness or disability during the time he was in the Army nor any satisfactory proof that he was suffering with any ailment at the time of his discharge. His own statement, which some of the proof taken tends to show is not entirely reliable, goes no further than to claim that during his term of service his difficulty began.

On appeal from the rejection of the beneficiary's claim the case was thoroughly examined at the Interior Department and the rejection affirmed.

I am entirely satisfied that the case was properly determined.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 16, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 470, entitled "An act granting a pension to Amanda F. Deck."

The husband of this beneficiary was pensioned for a gunshot wound in his right shoulder which he received in 1864 in a battle with Indians.

The report of the committee to which the bill was referred states nothing concerning the death of the soldier and gives no information as to the date or cause of the same, and the recommendation that a pension should be given the widow is based upon the service and injury of the soldier and the circumstances of the beneficiary.

No claim was filed in the Pension Bureau on behalf of the widow. This perhaps is accounted for by the fact that information is lodged in that Bureau to the effect that the deceased soldier died on the 21st day of September, 1883, "from a pistol ball fired by Luther Cultor."

If he was killed in a personal encounter, as the report of his death would seem to indicate, I am unable to see how his death can be in any way attributed to his military service or his widow be justly pensioned therefor.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 17, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1613, entitled "An act granting an increase of pension to John F. Ballier."

This pensioner is now receiving the full amount of pension allowed for total disability to ex-soldiers of his rank.

Inasmuch as the bill herewith returned limits any increase to the rate fixed by law for cases of total disability, it appears to accomplish nothing of benefit to the beneficiary therein named.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 17, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5913, entitled "An act granting a pension to Thomas Shannon."

This beneficiary enlisted on the 31st day of May, 1870, in the Tenth Regiment of United States Infantry.

On the 4th day of July, 1872, he was upon leave at the city of Rio Grande, in the State of Texas. Some of the citizens were celebrating the day, and one of them had a can of powder in his hand which, according to the report of the accident, "was about to explode." The soldier endeavored to knock the can from the hand of the person who held it, when the powder exploded, severely injuring the soldier and necessitating the amputation of his right forearm.

Though this was a most unfortunate accident, it is quite plain that it had no connection with the military service.

To grant a pension in such a case would establish a precedent in the appropriation of money from the public Treasury which I can hardly think we should be justified in following.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 17, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9174, entitled "An act granting a pension to Woodford M. Houchin."

The beneficiary named in this bill was enrolled September 18, 1861 and discharged December 17, 1864.

He filed a claim for pension in the Pension Bureau December 22, 1876, alleging that he had a sore or ulcer on his left leg "which existed in a small way prior to enlistment," but was aggravated and enlarged by the exposures of the service.

This claim was rejected in 1877 on the ground that the disability existed prior to enlistment.

In September, 1879, he filed another application for pension, alleging a disability arising from an affection of his right eye caused by an attack of measles in September, 1861, and also again alleging ulcerated varicose veins of his left leg.

In October, 1886, the rejection of the claim for ulcerated varicose veins was adhered to and the added claim for disease of the eyes was rejected on the ground that it was not incurred in the service and line of duty.

On appeal from the action of the Pension Bureau to the Secretary of the Interior the rejection of the claim was sustained.

The claimant stated in support of his application that about three months before he enlisted a little yellow blister appeared on his left leg, which made a small sore, which existed when he enlisted; that while he was in Central America with General Walker he received a wound in the temple from a musket ball, and that he had also before enlistment been sick with the dropsy.

The case was very thoroughly examined by officers of the Pension Bureau, and a great mass of testimony was taken from numerous witnesses. Three brothers of the claimant testified to the existence of all the disabilities before his enlistment, and two of them stated facts which go far toward accounting for such disabilities in a way very discreditable to the claimant. Many other witnesses, with good opportunities of knowledge on the subject, testified to the same effect.

While testimony of a different character was also given, tending to establish the theory that the disabilities alleged were at least to some extent attributable to military service, the overwhelming weight of proof seems to establish that whatever disabilities exist are the result of disease contracted by vicious habits, and that such disabilities had their origin prior to enlistment.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 17, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8078, entitled "An act granting a pension to Theresa Herbst, widow of John Herbst, late private Company G, One hundred and fortieth Regiment of New York Volunteers."

John Herbst, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted August 26, 1862. He was wounded in the head at the battle of Gettysburg, July 2, 1863. He recovered from this wound, and on the 19th day of August, 1864, was captured by the enemy.

After his capture he joined the Confederate forces, and in 1865 was captured by General Stoneman while in arms against the United States Government. He was imprisoned and voluntarily made known the fact that he formerly belonged to the Union Army. Upon taking the oath of allegiance and explaining that he deserted to the enemy to escape the hardship and starvation of prison life, he was released and mustered out of the service on the 11th day of October, 1865.

He was regularly borne on the Confederate muster rolls for probably nine or ten months. No record is furnished of the number of battles in which he fought against the soldiers of the Union, and we shall never know the death and the wounds which he inflicted upon his former comrades in arms.

He never applied for a pension, though it is claimed now that at the time of his discharge he was suffering from rheumatism and dropsy, and that he died in 1868 of heart disease. If such disabilities were incurred in military service, they were quite likely the result of exposure in the Confederate army; but it is not improbable that this soldier never asked a pension because he considered that the generosity of his Government had been sufficiently taxed when the full forfeit of his desertion was not exacted.

The greatest possible sympathy and consideration are due to those who bravely fought, and being captured as bravely languished in rebel prisons.

But I will take no part in putting a name upon our pension roll which represents a Union soldier found fighting against the cause he swore he would uphold, nor should it be for a moment admitted that such desertion and treachery are excused when it avoids the rigors of honorable capture and confinement.

It would have been a sad condition of affairs if every captured Union soldier had deemed himself justified in fighting against his Government rather than to undergo the privations of capture.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 26, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1447, entitled "An act granting a pension to Bridget Foley."

Joseph F. Foley, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted on the 22d day of August, 1862, and was discharged February 13, 1863, for disability which was certified to arise from chronic rheumatism contracted prior to enlistment.

He appears to have been sick with rheumatism a large part of the time he was in the service, and because of that fact never reached a point nearer the front than the city of Washington.

He died May 13, 1873, of consumption.

His widow filed in 1884 a declaration executed by the deceased shortly before his death, in which he alleged that he was first attacked with rheumatism at Capitol Hill, in the District of Columbia, in October, 1862. The soldier never applied for a pension.

It is strenuously disputed that he had this complaint before enlistment. However this may be, it is certain that he died of consumption, and I can find no proof that this disease was contracted in the service or had any relation thereto.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 26, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2644, entitled "An act granting the right of way to the Fort Smith, Paris and Dardanelle Railway Company to construct and operate a railroad, telegraph, and telephone line from Fort Smith, Ark., through the Indian Territory, to or near Baxter Springs, in the State of Kansas."

This bill grants a right of way 100 feet in width, with the use of adjoining lands for stations and other purposes, through the eastern part of that portion of the Indian Territory occupied by the Cherokee Indians under a treaty with the United States.

By the terms of the treaty concluded between the Government and the Cherokee Nation in 1866 these Indians expressly granted a right of way through their lands "to any company or corporation which shall be duly authorized by Congress to construct a railroad from any point north to any point south, and from any point east to any point west of, and which may pass through, the Cherokee Nation."

There are excellent reasons why this clause in the treaty should be construed as limiting the railroads which should run through these lands, at least without further permission of the Indians, to only one from north to south and one other from east to west.

It is evident, however, that the Congress has either not so interpreted this provision of the treaty or has determined that it should be disregarded, for there have been six or seven railroads constructed or authorized through these lands by the permission of the Government.

It has become very much the custom to grant these rights of way through Indian lands and reservations merely for the asking. They have been duplicated to such an extent that rival roads are found struggling for the advantage of a prior Congressional grant or for the possession of a contested route through these reservations.

I believe these indiscriminate grants to railroads permitting them to cross the lands occupied by the Indians, if not in absolute violation of their treaty rights, are dangerous to the success of our Indian management.

While maintaining their tribal condition they should not be easily subjected to the disturbance and the irritation of such encroachments. When they have advanced sufficiently for the allotment of their lands in severalty, they should be permitted, as a general rule, to enjoy and cultivate all the land set apart to them, and not discouraged by the forced surrender of a part of it for railroad purposes. In the solution of the problem of their civilization by allotments of land they need the land itself, and not compensation for its appropriation by others. They can not be expected to understand this process in any other way than an indication that their tenure is uncertain and the assurance that they shall hold their allotted land for cultivation a delusion.

It is not necessary in the treatment of this subject to insist that in no case should a railroad be permitted to cross Indian reservations. There may be valid public reasons why in some cases this should be allowed. Important lines of through travel should not be always obstructed or defeated by a refusal of such permission. But I think there should be shown in every case a justification in the public interest or in furtherance of general growth and progress, or at least in a plain local necessity or convenience, before such grants are made.

It seems to me also that the consent of the Indians for the passage of railroads through their land should, as a general rule, be required; that the means of determining the compensation to be made for land taken should be just and definite and easy of application; that the route of the proposed road should be as particularly described as is possible; that a reasonable time should be fixed for the construction of the road, and in default of such construction that the grant should be declared null and void without legislation or judicial action, and that in all cases the rights and interests of the Indians should be carefully considered.

The bill under consideration grants to the railroad company therein named the right to construct its road over substantially the same route described in a law already passed permitting the Kansas City, Fort Scott and Gulf Railway Company to build its road through this reservation. No necessity or good reason is apparent why these two roads should be built upon the same line.

The bill makes no provision for gaining the consent of the Indians occupying these lands. The Cherokee Nation of Indians have their local laws and legislation, and are quite competent to pass upon this question. They have heretofore shown their interest in such subjects, I am informed, by protesting against some of the grants which have been made for the construction of railroads through their lands.

The bill provides for the taking of lands held by individual occupants and the manner of fixing the compensation therefor; but it is declared that when any portion of the land taken by the company shall cease to be used for the purposes for which it is taken the same shall revert to the nation or tribe from which the same shall have been taken. There is no provision that in any case land taken from individual occupants shall revert to them.

In the fifth section of the bill it is provided that the railroad company shall pay to the Secretary of the Interior, for the benefit of the particular nation or tribe through whose lands its line may be located, in addition to other compensation, the sum of $50.

It was, of course, intended to declare that this sum should be paid for every mile of road built through Indian lands, but it is not so expressed. I am by no means certain that the context will aid this omission, which is quite palpable, when that part of the bill is compared with others of the same character. In any event, this is a provision which should be free from all doubt.

There is no time limited in the bill within which the proposed road through the reservation shall be completed, and consequently no forfeiture fixed for noncompletion. The nearest approach to it is found in a clause providing that the company shall build at least 50 miles of its road in the Indian Territory within three years from the passage of the act, or the rights granted shall be forfeited as to that portion not built. The length of the proposed route through the Cherokee lands appears to be considerably over 100 miles, and it is plain that there is no sufficient guaranty in the bill that the entire road will be built within any particular time. There is no forfeiture and no limitation for the completion of the road if 50 miles is built within three years, and there may be some doubt how far the forfeiture would extend in case of a failure to finish the 50 miles within the time specified.

I believe these grants to railroads should be sparingly made; that when made they should present better reasons for their necessity and usefulness than are apparent in this case, and that they should be guarded and limited by provisions which are not found in the bill herewith returned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 3, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 3008, entitled "An act for the relief of P.A. Leatherbury."

This bill provides that the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the person above named the sum of $601.27, being the amount paid by him to Lucy Roberts on two pension checks which were afterwards recalled and canceled.

The committee of the House to whom this bill was referred report that—

The Department discovered, after the issuing of the checks, that the claim for pension was fraudulent, but not until after the purchase, in the ordinary course of business, by Mr. Leatherbury paying $601.27 therefor and giving his due bill for the balance, which balance he refused to pay after ascertaining that the check was repudiated by the Government.

Lucy Roberts, a colored woman, filed a claim for pension in 1868, alleging that she was the widow of Nelson Roberts, who died in the military service in 1865.

Her claim was allowed in 1876, and two checks, numbered 6863 and 6864, aggregating $1,301.27, were issued on account of said pension. Before payment of the checks information was received which caused an investigation by the Pension Bureau as to the honesty of the claim for pension. This investigation established its utterly fraudulent character, and thereupon the checks were canceled and the woman's name was dropped from the pension rolls.

Certain important facts are reported to me from the Pension Bureau as having been developed upon the investigation.

It appears that one Thomas had undertaken to act for the claimant in procuring her pension under an agreement that he should have $300 if successful. Mr. Leatherbury was a notary, postmaster, and claim agent, and acted as notary and general assistant to Thomas and the claimant, who was employed at Leatherbury's house. In the month of July, 1876, the same month the claim for pension was allowed, the woman Roberts was indicted for larceny, the complaining witness being Mr. Leatherbury. Shortly after the issue of the checks the woman disappeared, and it is reported that certain indications suggested that both Leatherbury and Thomas were not entirely ignorant of her whereabouts nor completely disconnected with her disappearance. The checks were obtained from Thomas by Leatherbury, he paying, as he alleges, to Thomas the fee of $300 which had been agreed upon. The checks remained in Leatherbury's possession until they were delivered by him to the special agent of the Pension Bureau upon the investigation. He claimed in his deposition that he considered that what money he had let the woman have and the goods she had obtained at his store while she worked for him, and the $300 which he had advanced to Thomas, her agent, justified him in holding her indebted to him in the sum of $600, and that he held the checks as security for the same, admitting that there was still $700 in her favor, written acknowledgment of which he had placed in the hands of his wife. He further stated that rather than gain notoriety in the matter he would return the checks to the special agent, but he trusted that the Government would pay him the $600 which he had sunk in the transaction.

The woman testified that she did take some goods from Leatherbury at his store at his suggestion, after the arrival of the checks and before she left, about August 16, 1876, which purchases amounted to no more than $100, and that he also advanced her $100; that he made no further payment and wrote to her that he had to give up the checks, and that she never indorsed the checks nor authorized anyone to do so.

Both Leatherbury and Thomas disclaimed any knowledge of the fraudulent character of the claim; but the fraudulent claimant lived in the house of one of them and he was assisting in procuring her claim to be allowed, while the other made an unlawful agreement for a liberal compensation for his services if the claim succeeded. The woman was indicted at the instance of Leatherbury at about the time of the issuance of the checks and fled, but if she is to be believed Leatherbury wrote to her during her absence. After her disappearance he ventures to pay to Thomas his illegal fee and takes possession of the checks. He considers that she owes him $600, and the bill under consideration gives him $601.27, the exact amount of the checks less $700.

Someone with more intelligence than this ignorant colored woman concocted the scheme to gain this fraudulent pension; and the circumstances point so suspiciously toward Thomas and Leatherbury, the claim of the latter upon the Government is infected with so much illegality, and the amount of his advances is arrived at so loosely that in my opinion he should not at this late day be relieved.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 7, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1870, entitled "An act granting the use of certain lands in Pierce County, Washington Territory, to the city of Tacoma, for the purpose of a public park."

It is proposed by this bill to permit the appropriation for a public park of a certain military reservation containing 635 acres, which was set apart for military and defensive purposes the 22d day of September, 1866.

The establishment of this reservation was strongly recommended by high military authority, and its preservation and maintenance have since that time been also urged by the same authority.

At this time, when the subject of national defense is much discussed, I can not account for the apparent willingness to grant, or permit to be used for other purposes, Government lands reserved for military uses.

I judge from an expression in the letter of the Chief of Engineers, made a part of the report of the committee of the House to which this bill was referred, that its original purpose was to absolutely transfer this reservation to the city of Tacoma. The Chief of Engineers suggested an amendment to the bill providing that the mere permission to use this land for a park should be granted, "and that this permission be given with the full understanding that the United States intends to occupy the lands or any part of them for military or other purposes whenever its proper officials see fit to order the same, and without any claim for compensation or damage on the part of said city of Tacoma."

Instead of adopting the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers the provision of the bill limiting the extent of the use of this land declares—

That the United States reserves to itself the fee and the right forever to resume possession and occupy any portion of said lands for naval or military purposes whenever in the judgment of the President the exigency arises that should require the use and appropriation of the same for the public defense or for such other disposition as Congress may determine, without any claim for compensation to said city for improvements thereon or damages on account thereof.

The expediency of granting any right to the occupancy of this land is, in my opinion, very doubtful. If it is done, it should be in the form of a mere license, revocable at any time, for the purposes used by the officers to which its use and disposition are now subject.

It seems to me that if any use of this land is given to the city of Tacoma it should be with the proviso suggested by the Chief of Engineers, instead of the indefinite and restricted one incorporated in the bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 9, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8761, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Anna Butterfield."

It is proposed by this bill to pension the beneficiary therein named as the "dependent mother of James A.B. Butterfield, late a sergeant in the Second Illinois Cavalry,"

The records show that the son of this beneficiary enlisted in the regiment mentioned in August, 1861, and was mustered out August 13, 1864. No claim is made in any quarter that he incurred the least disability during this service, and there is no dispute in regard to the date of enlistment or discharge, nor does there seem to be any definite claim that he again entered the military service.

The report of the committee states that his mother is advised that after his discharge her son still remained in the service of the Government and was killed by an explosion on board of the steamer Sultana, in April, 1865.

Her claim for pension is now pending in the Pension Bureau awaiting testimony, which seems to be entirely wanting, to support the allegation that at the time of his death the deceased was in the service of the Government in any capacity.

This evidence ought not to be difficult to obtain. Though the mother seems to have saved something, from which she draws a small income, her advanced age and the honorable service of her son would make the allowance of a pension in her case, upon any fair and plausible justification, very gratifying.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 9, 1888.:

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 2140, entitled "An act granting a pension to Eliza Smith."

The husband of this beneficiary was a second lieutenant in an Indiana regiment, and was discharged from the service in April, 1864. It is proposed in the bill herewith returned to pension the beneficiary as the widow of a first lieutenant.

The deceased was pensioned for a gunshot wound in his left arm under the general law, and his pension was increased by a special act in 1883.

He died away from home at a hotel in Union City, Ind., on the 18th day of December, 1884, and it was determined at the time, and is still claimed, that his death was the result of an overdose of morphine self-administered.

It is represented that at times the wound of the deceased soldier was very painful and that he was in the habit of taking large doses of morphine to alleviate his suffering.

Two days before his death he was at the house of one Moore, in Union City; he complained of pain, and asked for a dose of morphine, but it does not appear that he obtained it.

On the same day he went to a hotel in the same town and remained there until his death. On the second evening after his arrival there he complained of asthma and pain in his arm, and retired about 9 o'clock p.m. In the afternoon of the next day the door of his room was forced open, and he was found prostrate and helpless, though able to talk. Medicine was administered, but he soon died.

His family physician testified that the deceased did not suffer from asthma; that when his wound was suppurating he had difficulty in breathing, and that at such times he was in the habit of taking morphine in large doses, and that at times he was intemperate, especially when suffering from his wound.

It seems to me it would establish a very bad precedent to allow a pension upon the facts developed in this case.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 9, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7510, entitled "An act granting a pension to Stephen A. Seavey."

This beneficiary served in a Maine regiment from November 11, 1861, to August 17, 1862, when he was discharged upon a surgeon's certificate of epilepsia and melancholia. The surgeon further stated in his certificate that the soldier had been unfit for duty for sixty days in consequence of epileptic fits, occurring daily, and requiring the constant attendance of two persons during the past thirty days.

In 1879 he applied for a pension, alleging that he incurred a sunstroke on July 20, 1862. This was within the sixty days during which he was unfit for duty and also within the thirty days during which he required the constant attendance of two persons.

He succeeded in securing a pension, and drew the same until December, 1885, when information was received at the Pension Bureau which caused an examination of the merits of the case.

This examination developed such facts as led the Pension Bureau to the conclusion that the condition of the soldier was then identical with that before enlistment and that his disability existed before he entered the service. His name was accordingly dropped from the rolls.

The object of the bill herewith returned is to restore the pensioner to the rolls.

An examination of the facts satisfies me that the act of the Pension Bureau in dropping this name from the pension rolls was entirely correct and should not be reversed.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 9, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 6307, entitled "An act granting a pension to Sarah A. Corson."

Joshua Corson, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted in August, 1862, for nine months, was wounded by a ball which passed through the lower part of each buttock, and was discharged June 29, 1863. He was pensioned for his wound, and died December 12, 1885.

The cause of death is stated to have been femoral hernia by a physician who attended him shortly before his death. The official record of his death attributes it to a malignant tumor.

The widow filed a claim for pension in 1886, but furnished no evidence showing when or how the hernia originated. No disability of this description is shown by any service record, nor was it ever claimed by the soldier. It is stated in the report of the committee of the House of Representatives to whom this bill was referred that the hernia first made its appearance about four years prior to the soldier's death.

The claim of this beneficiary for pension was rejected by the Pension Bureau upon the ground that there was no possible connection between the soldier's wounds and the hernia from which he died.

I am forced to the conclusion that the case was properly disposed of, and base my disapproval of the bill herewith returned upon the same ground.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 9, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 3521, entitled "An act granting a pension to Manuel Garcia."

From the records it appears that the beneficiary named in this bill enlisted as a substitute August 6, 1864, and was transferred to the Eighth New Jersey Volunteers; that he is reported absent sick, and never joined his regiment, and was discharged from a hospital July 2, 1865.

He filed a claim for pension March 4, 1880, alleging that in October, 1864, at Alexandria, Va., he became lame in both legs, and that subsequently his eyes became inflamed. His hospital record shows that he was treated for pneumonia.

The board of examining surgeons in 1883 found no such evidence of varicose veins, which seems to be the disability claimed, as would justify a rating, and there appears to be no proof of the existence of any disability between the date of discharge and the year 1867.

The application of this beneficiary is still pending in the Pension Bureau awaiting any further proof which may be submitted in its support.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 149, entitled "An act granting a pension to Rachael Barnes."

The husband of this beneficiary served in the Regular Army of the United States from February 24, 1838, to February 24, 1841.

In 1880 he applied for a pension, alleging that he contracted disease of the eyes during the year 1840 while serving in Florida.

Pending the examination of his application, and on the 24th day of March, 1882, he committed suicide by hanging. His widow filed a claim for pension, alleging that he died of insanity, the result of disease of the head and eyes. Her claim was rejected on the ground that his insanity, forty-one years after discharge from the service, had no connection with his military service.

In July, 1886, a special act was passed granting a pension to the widow, which met with Executive disapproval.

At the time the soldier committed suicide he was 68 years old. Upon the facts I hardly think insanity is claimed. At least there does not appear to be the least evidence of it, unless it be the suicide itself. It is claimed, however, and with good reason, that he had become despondent on account of the delay in determining his application for a pension and because he supposed that important evidence to establish his claim which he expected would not be forthcoming. It is very likely that this despondency existed and that it so affected the mind of this old soldier that it led to his suicide. But the fact remains that he took his own life in a deliberate manner, and that the affection of his eyes, which was the disability claimed, was not in a proper sense even the remote cause of his death.

I confess that I have endeavored to relieve myself from again interposing objections to the granting of a pension to this poor and aged widow. But I can not forget that age and poverty do not themselves justify gifts of public money, and it seems to me that the according of pensions is a serious business which ought to be regulated by principle and reason, though these may well be tempered with much liberality.

I can find no principle or plausible pretext in this case which would not lead to granting a pension in any case of alleged disability arising from military service followed by suicide. It would be an unfair discrimination against many who, though in sad plight, have been refused relief in similar circumstances, and would establish an exceedingly troublesome and dangerous precedent.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8574, entitled "An act granting a pension to Sallie T. Ward, widow of the late W.T. Ward."

The husband of this beneficiary served about nine months in the Mexican War. He entered the service as a brigadier-general in 1861, and served through the War of the Rebellion with credit, and was wounded in the left arm on the 15th day of May, 1864.

For this wound he was pensioned according to his rank, and received such pension until his death, at the age of 70 years, which occurred October 12, 1878.

The cause of his death was brain disease, and it seems not to be seriously claimed that it had any relation to his wound.

His widow is now in receipt of the pension provided for those of her class by the Mexican pension law.

If this bill becomes a law, I am unable to see why, in fairness and justice, the widow of any officer of the grade of General Ward should not be allowed $50 a month, the amount proposed by this bill to be paid his widow, regardless of any other consideration except widowhood and the rank of the deceased husband.

The bill herewith returned, while fixing the monthly amount to be absolutely paid to the beneficiary, does not make the granting of the pension nor payment of the money subject to any of the provisions of the pension laws nor make any reference to the Mexican service pension she is now receiving. While it is the rule under general laws that two pensions shall not be paid to the same person, inasmuch as the widow is entitled to the pension she is now receiving upon grounds different from those upon which the special bill was passed, and no intention is apparent in the special bill that the other pension should be superseded, it may result that under the peculiar wording of this bill she would be entitled to both pensions.

The beneficiary filed a claim for pension in the Pension Bureau in 1884, which is still pending, awaiting evidence connecting the death of the soldier with his wound.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 490, entitled "An act granting a pension to George W. Pitner."

It appears from the records that the beneficiary named in this bill entered the military service in June, 1863, and was discharged in March, 1866. He was treated while in the Army in the months of December, 1864, and January, 1865, for conjunctivitis.

He filed a claim for pension in 1886, alleging that he had a sunstroke in 1865, and that while at work in a basement in the year 1881 he fell into a well which was open near him and received serious injuries, resulting in the amputation of his right foot and also disability of his left foot. He attributes his fall to vertigo, consequent upon or related to the sunstroke he suffered in the Army.

The claim was rejected on the ground that the evidence taken failed to connect the disabilities for which a pension was claimed with army service.

Whatever may be said of the incurrence of sunstroke in the Army, though he fixes it as after the date of his only medical treatment during his service, and whatever may be said of the continuance of vertigo consequent upon the sunstroke for sixteen years, I find no proof that at the time he fell he was afflicted with vertigo, unless it be his own statement; and whatever disability naturally arose from sunstroke does not appear by him to have been deemed sufficient to induce him to apply for a pension previous to his fall.

In any event there seems to be no satisfactory evidence that anything which occurred in his army service was the cause of his fall and consequent injury.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9034, entitled "An act granting a pension to Lydia A. Heiny."

The husband of this beneficiary served in an Indiana regiment from August, 1861, to March, 1864, when he reenlisted as a veteran volunteer and served as a private and teamster to July 20, 1865, when he was discharged.

There is no record of any disability, and he never applied for a pension.

On the 12th day of December, 1880, in leaving a barber shop at the place where he resided, he fell downstairs and died the next day from the injuries thus received.

His widow filed an application for a pension in the year 1885, alleging that her husband contracted indigestion, bronchitis, nervous debility, and throat disease in the Army, which were the cause of his death.

The claim was rejected upon the ground that the death of the soldier was not due to an injury connected with his military service.

While there has been considerable evidence presented tending to show that the deceased had a throat difficulty which might have resulted from army exposure, the allegation or the presumption that it caused his fatal fall, it seems to me, is entirely unwarranted.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9344, entitled "An act granting a pension to James C. White."

The records of the War Department show that this beneficiary enlisted in a Kentucky regiment September 29, 1861. On the muster roll of April 30, 1862, he is reported as absent. On the roll of August 31, 1863, he is mentioned as having deserted July 19, 1862. His name is not borne on subsequent muster rolls until it appears upon those of January and February, 1864, with the remark that he returned February, 1864, and that all pay and allowances were to be stopped from July 19, 1862, to February 5, 1864. It appears that he deserted again on the 18th of December, 1864, and that his name was not borne upon any subsequent rolls.

Naturally enough, there does not appear to be any record of this soldier's honorable discharge.

It seems that this man during the time that he professed to be in the service earned two records of desertion, the first extending over a period of nearly a year and a half and the other terminating his military service.

He filed a claim for pension on the 4th day of August, 1883, alleging that he contracted piles in December, 1861, and a hernia in April, 1862.

A medical examination in 1883 revealed the nonexistence of piles and the presence of hernia.

The fact of the incurrence of any disability at all in the service is not satisfactorily established, and the entire case in all its phases appears to be devoid of merit.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9183, entitled "An act granting a pension to William P. Riddle."

The records of the War Department show that the beneficiary named in this bill was enrolled October 4, 1861, in the Fifth Kentucky Regiment of Cavalry, and was mustered into the service on the 31st day of March, 1862.

From that time to April 30, 1862, he is reported absent sick. On the rolls for four months thereafter, ending August 31, 1862, he is reported as absent and deserted. His name is not borne on any subsequent rolls.

He did not file an application for pension until April, 1879, when the act granting arrears was in force. He then claimed that he contracted pneumonia February 15, 1862; that about a month after he was sent home, and was under medical treatment for two years; that he returned about May 1, 1864, and was discharged about May 15, 1864, but that his discharge papers were lost.

Though he has furnished some evidence in support of the claim that he was sick at about the time alleged and that he returned to the Army after an absence of two years, no record proof of any kind is furnished of an honorable discharge at any time.

He has been informed that the record of his desertion in the War Department will be investigated with a view to its correction if he will furnish direct proof that it is erroneous. No such proof has been supplied, and the case has not been finally acted upon in the Pension Bureau.

It does not seem to me that this case in its present condition should receive favorable consideration.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9126, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Caroline G. Seyfforth."

The husband of this beneficiary served as contract surgeon in the United States Army from September 12, 1862, to August 17, 1865, and was stationed at Portsmouth Grove Hospital, in Rhode Island.

He never filed a claim for pension, and died July 21, 1874, of congestion of the liver. His widow filed an application for pension in 1882, alleging that her husband's death was caused by blood poisoning contracted while dressing the wound of a patient in January, 1863. There is proof that he suffered from blood poisoning.

The record of death states its cause as congestion of the liver, but the certificate was not signed. A young doctor named Adams, a friend and pupil of the deceased, seems to have been more than any other the attendant physician, but he appeared to think that one of three other doctors had actual charge of the case. These physicians, named, respectively, Sullivan, Dana, and Sargent, agreed that Adams had charge of the case and that they were consulting surgeons in the last illness.

Dr. Adams testified before a special examiner that from intimate association he knew that the deceased was subject to kidney disease and other symptoms of bad health from discharge to his death; that as he had lost a part of one hand from blood poisoning in the Army, he always supposed his subsequent troubles were referable to that cause; that he believed the cause of death was albuminuria, and that his liver was also affected. He further expresses the opinion that the death was the culmination of the disorders which affected him from the time of his discharge from the service.

Dr. Sullivan deposed that he knew the deceased well from about 1869, and never had any reason to think him the subject of blood poisoning or its results. He further says that he was called in consultation at the last illness of the deceased and diagnosed his trouble as liver disease, due to the patient's habits of intemperance.

Dr. Dana testified that he knew the deceased well from the time of his discharge; that he was called to consult in his case with young Dr. Adams a few days before the death occurred; that he took a general view of the case and considered that the trouble was due to habits of intemperance.

Dr. Sargent deposed that he knew the deceased well and knew that he had lost a part of his hand, as alleged, from septic poisoning in the Army, though he was not aware that the poisoning had left any other effect; that the deceased had several spells of alcoholism after the war; that he had heard him complain of his kidneys, but attributed his troubles to his excesses.

Other evidence suggested the same cause for sickness and death spoken of by these physicians, but there seems to be an almost entire absence of evidence connecting the death with service in the Army.

I am of the opinion that a case is not presented in any of its aspects justifying a pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 6193, entitled "An act for the relief of Edson Saxberry."

The beneficiary named in this bill filed a declaration for a pension in 1879, alleging that in 1863 he bruised his leg, which became very sore, and when it began to heal his eyes became sore.

The evidence taken upon a careful examination of this application seems to establish, by the admission of the applicant and by other evidence, the correctness of the position taken by the Pension Bureau in rejecting the claim, that whatever disability was incurred existed before enlistment and was in no manner attributable to military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 2233, entitled "An act granting a pension to Bernard Carlin."

By this bill it is proposed to pension the beneficiary therein named as of Company A, Fourteenth Regiment of Missouri Volunteer Infantry.

It seems that he served in the company and regiment named, but that he also served in Company A, Sixty-sixth Illinois Regiment, and it is claimed that while in the latter service exclusively he received the injuries for which a pension is claimed.

His application is still pending in the Pension Bureau, and the papers pertaining to the same are now in the hands of an examiner for special examination.

I think this should be completed before a special act is passed, and I understand this to be in accordance with a general rule adopted by Congress and its pension committees. This is certainly the correct course to be pursued in this case, in view of the failure to state in the special bill the regiment and company to which the soldier belonged at the time of the incurrence of disability. This can be corrected by the Pension Bureau if the claim is found meritorious.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith a joint resolution which originated in the Senate, and is numbered 17, providing for the printing of additional copies of the United States map of the edition of 1886, prepared by the Commissioner of Public Lands.

This resolution directs that 7,500 of these maps shall be printed at a rate not exceeding $1.35 each; that 2,000 of said maps shall be for the use of the Senate, 4,000 for the use of the House of Representatives, 500 for the Commissioner of the Land Office, and that 1,000 be mounted and sold at the price of $1.50 each. The sum of $10,125 is appropriated to pay the expense of the publication of said maps.

The propriety and expediency of this appropriation, to be applied so largely by the two branches of Congress, should be left to legislative discretion.

I believe, however, that through inadvertence the duplication of the edition of these maps issued in 1886 has been directed by this joint resolution instead of the edition of 1887.

The map of 1886 was published at a cost of $1.25 per copy.

The map of 1887 will very soon be issued at a cost of $1 per copy, and the publishers have offered to print an enlarged edition at the rate of 95 cents for each map. This map will be later, more correct, more valuable in every way, and cheaper than that issued the previous year.

Upon these facts I return the joint resolution without approval, in the belief that the Congress will prefer to correct the same by directing the publication of the latest, best, and cheapest map, and reducing the amount appropriated therefor.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 14, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2653, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Curtin."

The husband of this beneficiary was mustered into the military service October 8, 1862, was wounded in the right arm, and was discharged September 3, 1863.

He was pensioned for his wound to the time of his death, September 17, 1880.

The physician attending him in his last illness testified that the deceased was in the last stages of consumption when pneumonia intervened and caused his death.

I do not understand that this physician gives the least support to the theory that the wound for which this soldier was pensioned was in the slightest degree connected with his death, and there seems to be nothing in the case to justify the conclusion that such was the fact.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 14, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1076, entitled "An act granting a pension to the widow of John Leary, deceased."

This bill does not give the name of the intended beneficiary, but merely directs that the name of the widow of John Leary, late first sergeant in Battery F, Third Artillery, United States Army, be placed upon the pension roll, and that she be paid the sum of $20 per month.

John Leary first enlisted in the Regular Army July 26, 1854, and reenlisted in August, 1859. He was slightly wounded July 1, 1862, and appears to have been discharged March 25, 1863, on account of syphilitic iritis. In April, 1863, he entered the general service and acted as a clerk in the Adjutant-General's Office until April 1, 1864, when he was discharged.

Neither he nor his widow ever filed a claim in the Pension Bureau, but an application on behalf of his minor children was filed in 1882.

The soldier died on the 8th day of December, 1872, of pneumonia, and his widow remarried in 1876.

The application on behalf of the children was denied on the ground that the death of the soldier was not due to any cause arising from his military service. The youngest child will reach the age of 16 in September, 1888.

It is stated in the report of the Senate committee to whom this bill was referred that the second husband, to whom this widow was married in 1876, is now dead, and it is proposed to pension her as the widow of John Leary, her first husband, at the rate of $20 per month.

In the unusual cases when a widow has been pensioned on account of the death of her first husband, notwithstanding her remarriage, which forfeited her claim under the general law, it has been well established that she was again a widow by the death of her second husband, that beyond all controversy the death of the first husband was due to his military service, and such advanced age or disability has been shown on the part of the widow as prevented self-support.

In this case the name of the widow is not in the bill; there is hardly room for the pretense that her first husband's death was due to his military service, her age is given as over 40 years, and $20 a month is allowed her; being considerably more than is generally allowed in cases where a widow's right is clear, with no complications of second marriage, and her necessities great.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 14, 1888.

To the Senate:.

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1762, entitled "An act granting a pension to Benjamin A. Burtram."

The beneficiary named in this bill was mustered into the military service November 26, 1861; he was reported present until February 28, 1862, and was discharged for disability July 26, 1862.

The medical certificate of the disability of this soldier was made by the senior surgeon of a hospital in Louisville, Ky., and stated that the soldier had been disabled for sixty days; that his lungs were affected with tubercular deposits in both, and that there was some irregularity in the action of the heart; that he was of consumptive family, his mother, brother, and two sisters having died of that disease according to his and his father's account.

It is of course supposed that this certificate was based upon an examination of the patient, though both he and his father seem to have supplemented such an examination with statements establishing a condition and history which operated to bring about a discharge.

I do not find, however, either as the result of examinations or statements, any other trouble or disability alleged than those mentioned above.

But in 1879, seventeen years after the soldier's discharge, and during the period when arrearages of pensions were allowed on such applications, he filed a claim for pension, in which he alleged that about December 1, 1861, while unloading gun boxes, he incurred a rupture, and that in January, 1862, he was taken with violent pains in left arm and side, causing permanent disability.

It will be observed that the time of the incurrence of these disabilities is fixed as quite early in the very short military service of this soldier; and it certainly seems that, though short, his term of service was sufficiently long to develop such disabilities as he claims to have incurred to such an extent that they neither would have escaped in the succeeding July the examination of the surgeon nor the mention of the soldier.

A medical examination which followed the application for pension in 1879 disclosed a large scrotal hernia, but no discoverable trouble of left arm and side.

A special examination of the case was made and a large amount of testimony taken. Without giving it in any detail as it is reported to me, I fail to find in it reasonably satisfactory proof that the disabilities upon which he now bases his claim for a pension were incurred in the military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 22, 1888.

To the Senate.

I return without approval Senate bill No. 3038, entitled "An act for the relief of P.E. Parker."

Mr. Parker was a surety with six other persons upon an official bond given by one Franklin Travis, a collector of internal revenue, which bond was dated on the 9th day of May, 1867. A few years after that the collector became a defaulter to the Government for something over $27,000. Suit was commenced against the sureties upon the bond, and the defense was presented in their behalf that by reason of the imposition of new duties and responsibilities upon the collector after the execution of the bond his sureties were released. Judgment, however, passed against them, and the property of the beneficiary named in this bill was sold upon said judgment for the sum of $2,366.95. But only $1,793.16 of such amount was paid into the United States Treasury, the remainder having been applied to the payment of fees and expenses.

After the application of this sum to the payment of the judgment a bill was passed by the Congress relieving all these sureties from liability upon the bond. It appears that the amount above stated was all the money collected thereupon. The grant of the relief of these sureties by the Congress apparently was the same interposed by them to the suit in which the judgment was recovered.

The present bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the surety Parker the sum of $2,336.95, the entire amount for which his property was sold, though the Senate committee to which the bill was referred reported in favor of reducing this sum to $1,793.16, the amount actually received by the United States upon its indebtedness.

It seems to me that the action of Congress in relieving these sureties was generous in the extreme, and if money was to be refunded which was apparently legally recovered and collected it should not exceed the amount the Government actually received. The Government is in no default and should be put to no expense in refunding the small sum recovered on account of the defalcation of its officer whose good conduct this beneficiary guaranteed. I think it would better subserve public interests if no further relief should be granted than that already afforded.

There is another fact reported to me which deprives this surety of any equitable claim for further relief. It appears from an examination of this matter that the man who is now attempting to be reimbursed this money from the Government Treasury commenced a suit against his cosureties for this identical money on the ground of their liability with him, and that he actually collected from two of them in such suit the sum of $1,747.16.

If this is true, it is speaking mildly of the claim he now makes against the Government to say that it should not have been presented.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 22, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2616, entitled "An act granting a pension to James E. Kabler."

This beneficiary enlisted August 10, 1862. He is reported as absent sick for November and December, 1862; present for January and February, 1863; on the rolls for March and April he is reported as deserted, and for May and June as under arrest. On the 17th of September, 1863, after having been in the service a little over a year, he was mustered out with his company with the remark "absent without leave and returned to duty with loss of fifty-two days' pay by order of General Boyle." The charge of desertion does not appear to have been removed.

He filed a claim for pension in 1870 on account of quinsy alleged to have been contracted about December 7, 1862, with some evidence to support the claim. Three medical examinations fail to establish the existence of this disease in a pensionable degree, and it is reported to me from the Pension Bureau that in March, 1882, the family physician of the beneficiary stated that though he had practiced in his family for eight or nine years he had no recollection of treating him for quinsy or any other disease.

It seems to me that neither the service nor the alleged disability of this beneficiary are of a meritorious character.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 22, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2370, entitled "An act granting a pension to Sarah C. Anderson and children under 16 years of age."

William H. Anderson, the husband and the father of the beneficiaries named in this bill, enlisted on the 27th day of August, 1862, and is reported as sick or absent a large part of his short term of service. He was discharged April 23, 1863, to date November 5, 1862, on a surgeon's certificate of disability for "tertiary syphilis, with ulcerated throat and extensive nodes on the tibia of both legs."

He never filed an application for pension. He was admitted to an insane asylum in September, 1883, suffering with epilepsy, chronic diarrhea, and dementia, and died of pneumonia on the 26th day of February, 1884.

His symptoms and troubles after his discharge, so far as they are stated, are entirely consistent with the surgeon's certificate of disability given at the time of his discharge, and there seems to be an entire lack of testimony connecting in any reasonable way his death with any incident of his military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 22, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2206, entitled "An act granting a pension to David H. Lutman."

The beneficiary named in this bill was pensioned in 1885 on account of spinal irritation, the result of measles.

In 1886 he filed a claim for increase of pension, alleging rheumatism, and the board of examining surgeons at Cumberland, Md., upon an examination, found no evidence of spinal irritation or rheumatism, and he was dropped from the pension rolls on the ground that the disability for which he was pensioned had ceased to exist.

He afterwards filed medical and lay testimony tending to show that he suffered from disease of the back, legs, and arms, and he was thereupon, and on the 8th day of October, 1886, again examined by the board of examining surgeons at Hagerstown, Md., who reported as follows:

We have stripped him, and find a splendid specimen, square built from the ground up, muscles well developed, his appearance indicative of perfect health. No curvature of spine, disease or irritation of spinal cord; no atrophy of any muscles or evidence of weakness. No impairment of motion anywhere.

If there is any value to be placed upon the reports of these examining boards, the refusal of the Pension Bureau to restore this beneficiary to the rolls was fully justified; and this is not a proper case, in my opinion, for interference with that determination.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 22, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 645, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Margaret B. Todd."

This bill does not describe the beneficiary as related to any soldier of the war, but from other data it is found that she is the widow of Frank G. Todd, who served as a private in the One hundred and eighteenth Volunteer Infantry from July, 1863, to May, 1864, when he was transferred to the Navy. It appears that he served in the Navy from May 13, 1864, until April 10, 1866. He died in January, 1878, from exhaustion, as stated by the physicians who attended him.

There is scarcely a particle of satisfactory evidence showing his condition from the time of his discharge to 1871, and there is almost an entire lack of proof showing a connection between his death and any incident of his service. The widow in her application to the Pension Bureau for a pension states that she has children who were born in 1870, 1871, and 1878.

There seems to be no record of any disability during the husband's service in the Army, and the only mention of disability while in the Navy is an entry on the 30th day of May, 1864, showing that he was admitted to treatment for "syphilis secondary."

The widow's claim is still pending in the Pension Bureau.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 22, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1542, entitled "An act granting a pension to John W. Reynolds."

The bill describes this beneficiary as being "late of the One hundred and fifty-seventh Ohio Volunteer Infantry."

He filed a claim in 1872 that he was a deputy United States provost-marshal for the Twelfth Ohio district from October, 1864, to March, 1865, and that in December, 1864, while ascending a stairway to arrest two deserters who had been drafted, a barrel of cider was rolled down upon him, by which he was severely injured.

The claim having been rejected on the ground that the claimant was not entitled to a pension as a civil employee of the Government, he afterwards, and in January, 1888, informed the Bureau that he was drafted in November, 1864, while serving as assistant deputy provost-marshal, and was sworn in and reserved for home duty, and was discharged from the One hundred and fifty-first Ohio Volunteers. The records of the War Department show that John W. Reynolds served in the One hundred and fifty-first Ohio Regiment from May 2, 1864, to August 27, 1864.

It is perfectly apparent that this beneficiary was injured while acting as a deputy assistant provost-marshal, arresting deserters for the pay and rewards allowed him, and that his injuries were not at all connected with actual military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 22, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 2088, entitled "An act for the relief of W.S. Carpenter."

This bill appropriates the sum of $126.26 to be paid to the beneficiary named therein for his salary as an employee in the Railway Mail Service from the 3d day of October until the 20th day of November, 1882.

Mr. Carpenter was employed as a railway postal clerk at a salary of $800 per annum. He abandoned his route about the 2d day of October, 1882, without any leave of absence or explanation at the time, leaving his work in charge of one Jones, another railway postal clerk. He appears to have been paid for all the work he did, unless it be for two or three days in October, for which he apparently makes no claim.

There is nothing in the Post-Office Department showing that the absence of Carpenter was claimed to be on account of sickness, though there are a number of communications relating to the case.

The regulations of the Department permit the performance of the duties of a postal clerk by an associate in case of sickness, but never without the written permission of the division superintendent after an arrangement between the parties in writing, signed by them and filed with the superintendent.

Among a number of communications from Railway Mail Service officials relating to the conduct of Carpenter, all tending in the same direction, there is a letter from the chief clerk of the Railway Mail Service at Peoria, Ill., under whose immediate supervision Mr. Carpenter performed service, written to the superintendent of the sixth division of said service at Chicago, and dated November 16, 1882, containing the following statement:

I desire to call your attention to the case of W.S. Carpenter, Gilman and Springfield R.P.O., as follows: October 10 he was requested to appear at the post-office at Springfield, Ill., for examination on Illinois scheme. I went to Springfield for the purpose of examining him, but he failed to put in an appearance. Upon my return home I found a letter from him stating that he did not expect to remain in the service, hence his failure to report for examination; and, furthermore, that he would send in his resignation to your office by the first of the following week. This he had not done the 12th instant. He has not been on duty but two days since October 1. He left the run in charge of Mr. Jones, of the same line, telling him he did not know when he would return, and for Jones to keep up the run. He has no leave of absence, either verbally or otherwise. What his motives are for conducting himself in this manner I can not imagine. I have written him on the subject, but can not hear from him. When in Springfield the 3d instant, I requested the postmaster there to not pay Carpenter for October until he received notice to do so. I then notified you of the facts in the matter. I would respectfully recommend that Carpenter be relieved from further duty and a successor be appointed. He is of no account at the best; he has no interest in the work, and should be removed. I would also recommend that he be paid for but the two days' run in the month of October.

Four days after the date of this letter Mr. Carpenter was notified that an order had been issued discontinuing his pay and services.

These facts stated present the case of an employee of the Government abandoning his duties without leave or notice, in direct violation of rules, and claiming compensation for work done in his absence by another employee whose entire services were due the Government.

To allow a claim so lacking in merit would endanger discipline and invite irregularity and loose methods in a very important branch of the public service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 27, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 2524, entitled "An act for the relief of Clement A. Lounsberry."

This bill appropriates the sum of $1,214.51 to reimburse him for clerk hire and fuel and lights in excess of allowances made to him by the Post-Office Department while he was postmaster at Bismarck, in the Territory of Dakota.

Seven hundred and fifty dollars of this sum is appropriated on account of clerk hire paid out from April 1, 1881, to June 30, 1882, and $464.51 for lights and fuel from July 1, 1883, to September 30, 1885.

As a general rule the allowances made by the Post-Office Department in these cases ought not to be interfered with. But sometimes a sudden rush of settlement in a locality, or some other cause, will so increase unexpectedly the need of clerks to distribute and handle the mails that the employment of more than have been provided for is absolutely necessary.

I am inclined to think the item for clerk hire in this bill should be so regarded. This was the only appropriation included in the bill presented in the Forty-eighth Congress in behalf of this postmaster upon which a favorable committee report was made and which was not unfavorably spoken of by the Department.

But it does not follow that the other item for fuel and lights should be allowed. I think it should not, on the grounds that the amount was fixed by the Department upon full examination, that there is no special reason shown why the postmaster should have exceeded the expenditures allowed, and that to give the least encouragement to postmasters that these allowances would be upon their application revised and increased by Congress would lead to demoralization in the service.

It appears that the allowance made to this officer for fuel and lights was increased October 1, 1883, and although the claim now made on this account embraces the period from July 1, 1883, to September, 1885, nothing was asked for fuel or lights in the bill presented to Congress for this beneficiary's relief in 1884.

It should not have been tacked upon the bill now presented.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 27, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 288, entitled "An act for the erection of a public building at Sioux City, Iowa."

On the 19th day of June, 1886, I was constrained to disapprove a bill embracing the same subject covered by the bill herewith returned. Further investigation on the second presentation of the matter fails to convince me that $150,000 should be expended at present for the erection of a public building at Sioux City.

From all the representations that are made in an effort to show the necessity for this building I gather that the only two purposes for which the Government should furnish quarters at this place are a term of the United States court not specially crowded with business and the post-office, which, though perhaps crowded, I am sure can get on very well for a time without a larger public building.

As far as the court is concerned, it was agreed when a term was located there in 1882 that it might be held in the county building, which from the description furnished me seems to be entirely adequate for the purpose and very well arranged. The term held in October, 1887, was in session for nine days.

I am decidedly of the opinion that if a public building is to be located at Sioux City it had better be delayed until a better judgment can be formed of its future necessity and proper size.

I see some of the parties interested have such confidence in the growth and coming needs of the place that in their opinion the work ought not to be entered upon with a less appropriation than $500,000.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 1, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9363, entitled "An act granting a pension to Edwin J. Godfrey."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted on the 27th day of May, 1861, in a New Hampshire regiment, and less than three months thereafter was discharged on a surgeon's certificate of his disability occasioned by "disease of heart existing prior to enlistment."

In 1881, twenty years after discharge, the beneficiary applied to the Pension Bureau for a pension, and alleged that his disease of the heart was the result of fatigue and overheating at Bull Run, Virginia, July 21, 1861.

If the heart disease of which the discharged soldier complained in 1861, and which the claimant of a pension in 1881 alleged still continued, could have been caused by fatigue and overheating in the only battle of his brief service, it seems to me that its manifestations and symptoms a month afterwards could not have been mistaken for such as belonged to a much longer continuance of the disease.

I am fully satisfied that the surgeon was not mistaken who made the certificate upon which the beneficiary was discharged, and that his military service is not properly chargeable with any disability he may have incurred.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 1, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5155, entitled "An act granting a pension to John S. Bryant."

The man for whom this pension is proposed never, so far as I can learn, did a single day's actual military service at the front, nor ever left in such service the State in which he was enlisted.

He enlisted December 7, 1863, in a Maine regiment; on the 16th day of the same month he is marked as a deserter, having failed to report after leave of absence; December 31, 1863, he is reported sick in hospital at Augusta, Me.; January 26, 1864, he is marked as having deserted from Camp Keyes, at Augusta, Me.

He was discharged January 14, 1865, for disability occasioned, as the surgeon's certificate declares, "by a fall from a wagon while at home on a furlough, December 22, 1863." The certificate continues as follows:

Never has done a day's duty. Is utterly worthless and unfit for the Veteran Reserve Corps.

After his discharge the second charge of desertion was removed, and the first charge does not seem to be serious. But he was injured while home on a furlough, his regiment still being in camp within the State of his residence; and although there are cases in which it seems not improper that pensions should be granted for injuries sustained during furlough and before actual return to duty, this does not appear to me to be one of them.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 6, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 2507, entitled "An act granting a pension to Russel L. Doane, of Peck, Sanilac County, Mich."

It is proposed by this bill to pension the beneficiary therein named as the dependent father of the late Demster Doane, late Company D, Thirty-fifth New York Volunteers.

The only information I have concerning this case is furnished by the report of the committee of the House to whom the bill was referred. There is nothing alleged in the report except that Demster Doane, who was a second lieutenant in the company and regiment named, died at Peck, Mich., on the 22d day of September, 1881, and that the deceased up to the time of his death supported his father, the claimant, who is now over 81 years of age, incapable of manual labor, and destitute of the means of support.

There is no intimation that the death of the son sixteen years after the close of the war was caused or in any way related to his military service. I do not understand that it has ever been claimed that a parent should be pensioned for the death of a son who had been in the Army unless his death could be traced in some way to his army service.

While this case is probably one where the exercise of generosity would be pleasant and most timely to the recipient, I can not think that such a precedent should be established.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9372, entitled "An act granting a pension to John Dean."

The beneficiary named in this bill was mustered into the service of the United States February 25, 1863. He never went to the front, but while in camp at Staten Island, on the 21st day of April, 1863, was granted a pass for forty-eight hours, and on account of sickness did not again rejoin his company or regiment. The charge of desertion made against him has been removed. The Surgeon-General's report shows that he was treated at quarters on Staten Island in April, 1863, for syphilis, rheumatism, and debility.

He was admitted to Charity Hospital, Blackwells Island, New York Harbor, August 5, 1863, and discharged November 18, 1863. He was admitted to the Ladies' General Hospital in New York December 1, 1863, and was discharged from the service for disability April 7, 1864.

The discharge was granted, as stated by the surgeon of volunteers in charge of the hospital, "because of sloughing of both corneas from inflammation contracted while absent without leave, having received a forty-eight-hour pass from his regiment April 15, 1863, then stationed on Staten Island. He lost his sight in August, 1863, while absent without leave. Unfit for Invalid Corps. Admitted to this hospital December 1, 1863. Not a case for pension."

A claim for pension was filed by the beneficiary at the Pension Bureau in March, 1877, alleging that on or about April 1, 1863, he suffered from chronic rheumatism and sore eyes, occasioned by exposure and illness contracted in camp.

It will be observed that no affection of the eyes is mentioned in the record of his treatment in quarters.

The claimant was examined by the New York City board of surgeons in June, 1878, and no rheumatism was found to exist. He is now blind, and while his case is certainly a pitiable one I am forced to the belief that the conclusions reached in 1879 upon his application, that his disease was contracted while absent without leave and that his disability was due to syphilis, were correct.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 217, entitled "An act granting a pension to C.T. Maphet."

This beneficiary enlisted August 1, 1863, and was discharged January 27, 1865, for disability.

The commander of the post certifies:

This soldier says that he was first affected with the present disease, conjunctivitis, in the spring of 1862, since which time his eyes have never been well, and for a great portion of the time since enlistment he has been unfit for duty.

The certificate of the surgeon is as follows:

Incapacitated by reason of long-standing conjunctivitis of both eyes, attended with partial opacity of the cornea. Disability existed prior to enlistment, consequently soldier is ineligible to the Veteran Reserve Corps.

The beneficiary filed no application for pension until April, 1883.

Notwithstanding some evidence of soundness prior to enlistment, it seems to be quite well established that the trouble with his eyes was not the result of his military service, but existed before enlistment.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5503, entitled "An act granting a pension to Charles Walster."

This case has been very exhaustively examined by the Pension Bureau upon the application for a pension filed there by the beneficiary named in this bill. Upon a review of the evidence taken it appears to be well established that any disability of the beneficiary heretofore existing was no attributable to his military service.

In addition to this a board of pension surgeons, as late as July, 1886, determined, after a thorough medical investigation, that no pensionable disability existed.

It thus appears that even if this bill were approved there could be no rating, and the legislation would be of no advantage to the beneficiary named.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 333, entitled "An act granting a pension to Catharine Bussey."

It does not appear that the husband of this beneficiary ever applied for a pension. He was discharged from the Volunteer Army on the 9th day of December, 1864, after a service of more than three years.

He was found dead on a railroad track on the 11th day of June, 1870, apparently having been struck by a passing train.

It is claimed that the deceased suffered a sunstroke while in the Army, which so affected his mind that he wandered upon the railroad track and was killed in a fit of temporary insanity.

Though it would be gratifying to aid his widow, I do not think these facts are proven or can be assumed.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5525, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Jane Potts."

The husband of this beneficiary enlisted in 1861 and was mustered out of the service in April, 1865.

He was taken prisoner by the enemy and endured for a long time the hardship of prison life.

He never applied for a pension, though undoubtedly his health suffered to some extent as the result of his imprisonment.

The beneficiary married the soldier in 1871.

He conducted his business affairs, managed his farm, and accumulated property up to the year 1880, when by a decree of court he was adjudged insane, caused by sickness as far as was known, and that his disease was hereditary.

It also appears that his mother and sister had periods of insanity.

He committed suicide in 1882 by drowning.

The beneficiary, his widow, filed a claim for pension in 1885, claiming that the insanity which caused him to commit suicide resulted from the hardships of prison life.

Upon this application the facts of the case have been thoroughly examined. Two witnesses indicate that domestic trouble was the cause of the soldier's suicide. Another says that his wife (the beneficiary) was a pretty rough woman—a hard talker—and that the soldier often consulted him about the matter, and said it was hard to live with her. This witness adds that he does not believe that the soldier would have committed suicide if she had not abused him till he could not longer endure it.

The special examiner, in summing up the proof, says in his report:

The general opinion in the community is to the effect that his wife drove him to commit suicide rather than to live with or to obtain a divorce from her. Her reputation is that of a virago.

This kind of evidence, while not perhaps determining the case, reconciles me to the conclusion, which seems inevitable from other facts developed, that the military service and prison experience of the deceased were in no manner connected with his death.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7717, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Catharine Reed."

The husband of this beneficiary served in the Army from July 25, 1862, to October 16, 1862, when he was discharged for disease of the lungs. He was pensioned for hernia and disease of the lungs.

On the 23d day of November, 1880, while working in a sawmill, a piece of board was thrown from a buzz saw and struck him in the groin, causing a wound from which he died two days afterwards.

It is impossible to connect this injury and the resulting death with the disability for which he was pensioned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4855, entitled "An act granting a pension to Jacob Newhard."

The records show that this beneficiary was mustered into the service August 20, 1862, as a lieutenant; that on the return for November, 1862, he is reported as "absent without leave—left hospital at Louisville." He was treated for hemorrhoids in the hospital at Nashville from December 12 to December 23, 1862, when, having served a few days more than four months, he tendered his resignation upon the ground of disability and procured the following surgeon's certificate, upon which his resignation was based:

Lieutenant Jacob Newhard having applied for a certificate upon which to ground a resignation, I do hereby certify that I have carefully examined this officer and find him suffering from hemorrhoids, * * * and in consequence thereof is, in my opinion, unfit for duty. I further declare my belief that he will not be fit for the duties of a soldier in any future time, having already been afflicted twelve years, as he asserts.

On the 14th day of February, 1880, nearly eighteen years after his resignation, the beneficiary filed his claim for pension based upon hemorrhoids, the result of diarrhea and fever.

He denied upon this application that he was unsound prior to enlistment, and filed evidence to support his denial. One of the witnesses, a surgeon, who testified to incurrence of disability in the service, on a special examination stated that he so testified, having satisfied himself of the fact by personal interviews with the beneficiary.

I do not think in the circumstances surrounding this case that the beneficiary should at this late day be permitted to impeach and set aside the medical certificate procured by himself and containing his own statements, upon which he secured exemption from further military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 13, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 6371, entitled "An act granting a pension to Jesse M. Stilwell."

On the 6th day of May, 1885, twenty years after this beneficiary was discharged from the Army, he filed an application in the Pension Bureau for a pension, alleging that in December, 1863, one year and eight months before his discharge, a comrade assaulted him with a stick while he was sitting in front of his tent preparing for bed and injured his back. He alleged that the assault was unprovoked and unexpected.

The claim was rejected upon the facts stated, upon the ground that any injury incurred was not the result of military duty.

Unless the Government is to be held as an insurer against injuries suffered by anyone in the military service, no matter how incurred, and also as guarantor of the good and peaceable behavior toward each other of the soldiers at all times and under all circumstances, this is not a proper case for the allowance of a pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 24, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8310, entitled "An act provide for the disposal of the Fort Wallace Military Reservation, in Kansas."

This bill provides that a portion of this reservation, which is situated in the State of Kansas, shall be set apart for town-site purposes, and may be entered by the corporate authorities of the adjoining city of Wallace.

The second section of the bill permits the Union Pacific Railroad Company to purchase within a limited time a certain part of the military reservation, which is particularly described, at the rate of $30 per acre.

I am informed that this privilege might, by reason of a faulty description of the lands, enable the railroad company to purchase at the price named property in which private parties have interests acquired under our laws.

It is evident that the description of the land which the railroad company is allowed the option of purchasing should be exact and certain for the interest of all concerned.

Section 4 of the bill grants a certain portion of the military reservation heretofore set apart by the military authorities as a cemetery to the city of Wallace for cemetery purposes.

There should, in my opinion, be a provision that no bodies heretofore interred in this ground should be disturbed, and that when the same is no longer used as a cemetery it should revert to the Government.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 24, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I am unable to give my assent to a joint House resolution No. 14 and entitled "Joint resolution to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to certify lands to the State of Kansas for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts," and I therefore return the same with a statement of my objections thereto.

By an act of Congress passed July 2, 1862, certain public lands were granted to such of the several States as should provide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts.

Under the terms of this act the State of Kansas was entitled to 90,000 acres of land, subject, however, to the provisions of said statute, which declared that when lands which had been raised to double the minimum price, in consequence of railroad grants, should be selected by a State such lands should be computed at the maximum price and the number of acres proportionately diminished.

Of the lands selected by the State of Kansas, and which have been certified, 7,682.92 acres were within certain limits of a railroad grant, and had therefore been raised to the double minimum in price, so that the number of acres mentioned and thus situated really stood for double that number of acres in filling the grant to which the State of Kansas was entitled.

It is now claimed that after the selection of these lands the route of said railroad was abandoned and another one selected, and that in consequence thereof such lands included within its first location were reduced to the minimum price and restored to public market at that rate. It is supposed upon these allegations that justice and equity require that an additional grant should now be made to the State of Kansas from the public lands equal to the number of acres selected within the limits of the first railroad location.

But an examination discloses that the joint resolution is predicated upon an entire misunderstanding of the facts.

The lands heretofore mentioned as amounting to more than 7,000 acres, selected by the State of Kansas, and charged at double that amount because their price had been raised to the double minimum in consequence of their being within a railroad location, have all except 320 acres remained either in the new or old railroad location up to the present time, and if now vacant would be held by the Government at the double minimum price.

It seems clear to me that the State of Kansas has been granted all the public land to which it can lay any legal or equitable claim under the law of 1862.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 10, 1888.

To the Senate.

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 2201, entitled "An act for the relief of Laura E. Maddox, widow and executrix, and Robert Morrison, executor, of Joseph H. Maddox, deceased."

An act of Congress approved July 2, 1864, provided among other things that the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President, might authorize agents "to purchase for the United States any products of States declared in insurrection, at such price as should be agreed on with the seller, not exceeding the market price thereof at the place of delivery."

Under the authority of said act the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President, prescribed rules and regulations to govern the transactions thus permitted, and appointed one H.A. Risley an agent to act for the United States in making such purchases.

On or about the 13th day of November, 1864, said Risley entered into a written contract with Joseph H. Maddox and two other parties, whereby the latter agreed to sell and deliver to Risley as such agent, at Norfolk or New York, 6,000 boxes of tobacco, 350 barrels of turpentine, and 700 barrels of rosin. It was also agreed that all products transported under the contract should be consigned to said Risley as agent and shipped on a Government transport, or, if not so shipped, should be in the immediate charge of an agent of Risley's, whose compensation and expenses should be paid by the sellers. Said products were to be sold in New York or Baltimore under Risley's direction, and one-fourth of the proceeds, after deducting certain expenses, costs, and charges, were to be retained for the United States and three-fourths paid to Maddox and his associates. It was expressly provided in said contract as follows:

Nothing in this contract contained shall be construed as incurring any liability on behalf of the United States.

It appears that Maddox, very soon after the contract was made, acquired all the interest of his associates therein.

The President of the United States signed an order or permit for the transportation of the goods, in fulfillment of the contract, and for the passage of the parties selling such goods through the Federal military lines, the permit declaring, however, that such transportation and passage should be "with strict compliance with the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, and for the fulfillment of said contract with the agent of the Government."

Maddox and his associates were not at the time the contract was entered into the owners of any of the property they agreed to sell and deliver; but it is alleged that Maddox, as one of the parties to the contract and as assignee of his co-contractors, purchased 4,042 boxes of tobacco, worth at that time more than $735,000, for the purpose of fulfilling this contract.

The tobacco was purchased by him within the rebel lines in the State of Virginia. A part of it, he charges, was forcibly taken by the military forces of the Government and converted to its use or destroyed while being transported to its destination, and the remainder of it, having been detained in storage at Richmond, Va., was afterwards appropriated to the use of the United States or was destroyed in the fires at Richmond upon the capture of the city by the United States forces in 1865.

An action predicated upon the contract with Risley was brought by Maddox in the Court of Claims to recover the value of this property, but it was held by the court that the contract was void.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States the decision of the Court of Claims was affirmed, upon the ground, as had been previously decided by said court, that under the law, the Treasury regulations, and the Executive orders concerning the purchase of products of insurrectionary States a purchasing agent of the Government had no authority to negotiate with anyone in relation to the purchase of such products unless at the time of the negotiation the party either owned or controlled them; that neither the law nor the regulations for its execution protected a speculation wherein the products to be sold were to be procured by the contractor within the rebel lines after the contract was made; that private citizens were prohibited from trading at all in the insurrectionary districts, and that the object of the law and the regulations to carry it into effect was to encourage the insurgents themselves to bring their products to agents of the Government.

With this adverse decision all chance of recovery upon legal grounds of before the courts was dissipated. But recourse to Congress still remained. As appears from a memorandum furnished in support of this bill, the alleged equities of the case were presented to the Forty-second, the Forty-third, the Forty-fourth, the Forty-fifth, the Forty-sixth, the Forty-eighth, and the Forty-ninth Congresses. Two adverse and more than two favorable committee reports have been made upon the claim. No bill for the relief of the claimant has, however, passed Congress until the present session, when a favorable condition seems to have presented itself.

The bill herewith returned empowers and directs the accounting officers of the Treasury to settle and pay to the representatives of Maddox the amount found due him on account of the loss and damage he sustained by the seizure by our military forces of the tobacco purchased by him under the agreement referred to, excluding, however, the tobacco destroyed by fire in the city of Richmond, and provides that said claim shall be determined upon the evidence taken and now on file in the office of the clerk of the United States Court of Claims and the War Department and any other competent evidence.

I fail to appreciate the equities which entitle this claimant to further hearing.

Every intelligent man should be charged with the knowledge that as a general rule commercial intercourse with the enemy is entirely inconsistent with a state of war, and that the law of 1864 had for its object the encouragement of the insurgents themselves to bring their products to us, and not the authorization of persons to roam through the insurrectionary districts and purchase their products on speculation.

Even if the claimant did not understand these conditions, he certainly knew that his contract was based upon a statute; that the agent with whom he was contracting was a creature of statute, and that such statute and certain regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury made thereunder regulated the right and limited the action of all the parties to said contract. These things sufficiently appear from the very terms of the contract and the permit signed by the President. The privileges and liberties contained in this permit are expressly granted "with strict compliance with regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury."

If before or after entering into this contract the claimant had examined these regulations, he would have found that they provided that "commercial intercourse with localities beyond the lines of actual military occupation by the United States forces is absolutely prohibited."

He would have also found that such regulations expressly provided that the power of the agent of the Government to make contracts should be founded upon the statement that the contractor then owned or controlled the products for which he contracted. And yet the permit of the President, which so completely put the claimant upon inquiry as to what he might or might not do, seems now to be relied upon as the source of equities in his favor, and is pressed into his service under the guise of a sanction of his unlawful proceedings.

Besides the general knowledge the claimant should have possessed of the commercial disabilities consequent upon a state of war, and the information afforded him by his contract and permit, a proclamation of the President publicly issued September 24, 1864,[17] furnished abundant notice of the kind of trading which would be permitted.

The property for which compensation is asked constitutes a part only of that agreed to be furnished. None of it ever reached the possession of the agent of the Government, but, as I understand the case, was at the time of its seizure or destruction still in the territory of the enemy and in rebellious possession. If in the circumstances detailed it was treated by our military forces in like manner as other property in the same situation, there would seem to be no hardship in holding that the contractor assumed this risk as one arising from his unauthorized and, if successful, his profitable venture.

Not being satisfied that there are any especial equities which entitle this claim to more consideration than many others where equities might be claimed in behalf of those who long ago violated our nonintercourse laws, I am unwilling to sanction a precedent which if followed might substantially work a repeal of these laws, regarded necessary and expedient by those charged with legislation during the War of the Rebellion, and who had in full view all the necessities of that period.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 12, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 3276, entitled "An act granting restoration of pension to Sarah A. Woodbridge."

The first husband of this beneficiary, Anson L. Brewer, was an additional paymaster in the Army, and died February 2, 1866, from injuries received in an explosion of a steamer.

His widow, the beneficiary, was pensioned at the rate of $25 a month from the date of heir husband's death until October 21, 1870, when she remarried, becoming the wife of Timothy Woodbridge.

Two children, who were minors at the time she was pensioned, became 16 years of age in April, 1870, and July, 1874, respectively.

Upon the remarriage of the beneficiary her pension stopped under the law.

It is now proposed to restore her to the pension roll, notwithstanding the fact that her second husband is still alive.

Many cases have occurred in which pensions have been awarded by special acts to the widows of soldiers who, having remarried, were a second time made widows and rendered destitute by the death of their second husbands. I have not objected to such charitable legislation.

But I think this is the first time that it has been proposed to grant a pension after such remarriage when the second husband still survives.

It seems to me that such a precedent ought not to be established. If in pension legislation we attempt to determine the cases of this description in which the second husband can not or does not properly maintain the soldier's widow whom he has married, we shall open the door to much confusion and uncertainty, as well as unjust discrimination.

I am glad to learn from a statement contained in the committee's report that this beneficiary, though in a condition making the aid of a pension very desirable, has a small income derived from property inherited from her mother.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 12, 1888.

To the Senate:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 1044, entitled "An act authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to state and settle the account of James M. Willbur with the United States and to pay said Willbur such sum of money as may be found due him thereon."

The claim mentioned in this bill grows out of alleged extra work done by the claimant in the construction of the post-office and court-house building in the city of New York.

The United States, in September, 1874, entered into a contract with Messrs. Bartlett, Robbins & Co. by which they agreed to furnish and put in place certain wrought and cast iron work and glass for the illuminated tiling required for the said building according to certain specifications and schedules which formed a part of said contract. The work was to be of a specified thickness and the contractors were to be paid for the same at certain rates per superficial foot. The approximate estimate for the entire work was specified at $35,577.56. Samples of the tiling to be put in were submitted to the Supervising Architect and accepted by him.

In August, 1874, the claimant entered into an agreement in writing with Bartlett, Robbins & Co. to do this work as subcontractor for them at certain prices for each superficial foot of said tiling put in place.

In neither contract was the weight of the tiling mentioned.

The work was, under the contract with Messrs. Bartlett, Robbins & Co., completed, and after such completion and the measurement of the work the said firm of Bartlett, Robbins & Co. were paid by the Government the sum of $35,217.57, in full satisfaction of their contract with the United States.

It appears that after the completion of the work the claimant gave notice to the Government that he had a claim against Bartlett, Robbins & Co., growing out of said work, for the sum of $8,744.44, and requested that payment be withheld from said firm until his claim against them was adjusted.

The fact that said claim had been made having been communicated by the Supervising Architect to Bartlett, Robbins & Co., on the 22d day of August, 1876, they responded to the Supervising Architect as follows:

SIR: We inclose copy of our account against Willbur and the Illuminated Tiling Company and a copy of Willbur's assignment to the Tile Company, which includes a copy of his agreement with us; and when the Department settles the measurement of the work the items in the contract will show just what the amount is, and, as we have repeatedly assured him, he will have all the measurements the Government gives us.

If anyone has cause of complaint in this case it is us. Four times the work came to a stand, or nearly so, and our Mr. B. was compelled to go to New York and stay until it was moving again, charging his expenses, by Willbur 's request, and finally it had to be finished by others, etc. We know this does not interest you particularly, as you do not know him in the matter, but there has been so much willful misrepresentation we thought silence might be misconstrued.

It is charitable to think Willbur must be crazy.

Very respectfully, yours,

BARTLETT, ROBBINS & CO.

In an opinion of the Solicitor of the Treasury concerning this claim, dated November 30, 1883, I find a statement that on the 20th day of October, 1876, a paper was filed by the attorneys of the claimant in which his claim for extra work and material in performing his contract was alleged to be $21,857.94. It is further stated that this claim was hastily drawn by one of Willbur 's attorneys and without consultation with him.

On or about the 20th day of March, 1877, Mr. Willbur himself filed a statement of such extra work and material, in which he claimed for the same the sum of $42,685.20.

Another statement made by Willbur, in February, 1878, presents a claim on account of the same matters amounting to $47,159.62.

This claim, so variously stated, is based upon the allegation that tiling and frames of greater thickness than were required by the contract were put in the building. Although it is insisted by the claimant that these thicker tiles and frames were directed to be put in, or at least accepted by the person having charge of the construction of the building for the Government, I hardly think it will be seriously contended that the claimant has any legal claim against the United States.

But, with a view of discovering whether, upon equitable grounds, the claimant should be paid anything by the Government for glass and iron of greater thickness than its contract with Bartlett, Robbins & Co. required, and which had been put in its building by their subcontractor, the Secretary of the Treasury in 1884 appointed a committee of three persons to examine and report upon this claim of Willbur's, "with a view of determining what portion, if any, it is proper for the Government to pay."

On the 24th day of January, 1885, this committee made a report by which they determined that there should be paid to the claimant on account of the matters alleged the sum of $1,214.90.

This report was based upon the measurements, examinations, and estimates of two experts, one selected by the claimant and the other by the committee. The report was transmitted to the House of Representatives by the Secretary of the Treasury and an appropriation asked to pay the amount awarded.

But Mr. Willbur was not satisfied, and on the 6th day of January, 1885, addressed a communication to the Secretary of the Treasury in which this passage occurs:

I shall insist on a remeasurement of the entire work, as this is vital to my claim. The excess which I furnished can only be ascertained by weight instead of by measuring the thickness of the plates and frames.

At the second session of the Forty-ninth Congress, and early in 1886, this claim was before the Senate Committee on Claims, and at the instance of the committee this work was again examined by experts, who came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to the sum of $45,615.67 for the extra work which he had performed and materials furnished.

It is only alleged that the glass tiling and frames actually put in the building were slightly thicker than those required by the contract, and this alleged increased thickness seems to be fairly represented in a general way by the claim that some of the glass and frames which were required to be 1 inch thick were actually put in 1 inch and a quarter thick.

Upon this statement it must be admitted that the sum above stated as the value of this extra thickness is somewhat startling. In the language of the report upon this bill by the Supervising Architect, "a claim of $47,159.02 for such slight excess on work the price of which was $35,217.57 is hardly entitled to consideration."

The claim, as well as the award of the experts last named, reach their astonishing proportions by the application of weights to the question in the following manner: A certain area is measured. A square foot of the tiling actually put in is weighed, and a square foot of the tiling required by the contract is also weighed. Both these weights are multiplied by the area. The lesser aggregate weight is deducted from the greater, and the difference is divided by the weight of a square foot of the lightest tiling, thus reducing it to square feet of such lightest tile. These square feet are multiplied by the price agreed to be paid by the contract for each superficial foot, and an item of extra work is determined. Thus additional weight in constructed and finished tiling is converted, as far as price and measurement are concerned, into finished tile, which more than doubles the quantity actually laid down.

This can not be right. And yet the bill herewith returned directs the Secretary of the Treasury to settle this claim for extra work upon the basis of the report of the experts who have adopted this mode of adjustment; or, if not satisfied with their report, he shall within thirty days from the passage of the act cause a reweighing of said material to be made by two sworn experts, one to be appointed by him and one by the claimant, and a third to be appointed by these two in case they can not agree. The bill further provides that he shall then pay to said Willbur the difference of excess in weight and superficial measurement as found by said experts between the illuminated tiling and frames furnished and that contracted for at the contract prices for such work and material.

There are features of this claim which suggest suspicion as to its merit. In any view of the matter, I regard the claimant as seeking equitable relief. He is not entitled to dictate the rule by which his claim is to be adjusted, and he should be quite satisfied if the officers of the Government charged with the settlement of such matters are permitted by the Congress to afford equitable relief according to such rules and methods as are best calculated to reach fair results.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 15, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 3306, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary K. Richards."

The beneficiary named in this bill applied for a pension on the 14th day of November, 1878, and the same was rejected in April, 1879. Her claim has lately been reexamined, and since the passage of the bill herewith returned she has been allowed a pension by the Pension Bureau, it having been there determined that the former rejection was a manifest error.

With this action of the Pension Bureau I entirely concur.

I therefore venture, notwithstanding the persistent misrepresentations of my action in similar cases, to disapprove this bill, upon the ground that this deserving beneficiary will receive under the action of the Pension Bureau a much larger sum than she would if such action was superseded by the enactment of the proposed special statute in her behalf.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 15, 1888.

To the Senate

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 3208, entitled "An act granting a pension to William S. Bradshaw."

The beneficiary mentioned in this bill was mustered into the military service as first lieutenant on the 28th day of October, 1861.

About eight months afterwards, and in June, 1862, he resigned from the service, his resignation being based upon a surgeon's certificate which he procured, and which is as follows:

William S. Bradshaw having applied for a certificate to accompany his resignation, I do hereby certify that I have carefully examined this officer and find that his disease is of a chronic pleuritic character, contracted (previous to his entering the service) four years since from an injury received in shoeing a fractious horse, in consequence of which he was laid up for a number of weeks with a severe attack of pleuritis; that he has never been able to endure severe labor since; that since entering the service active drilling or marching has invariably developed severe pleuritic pains about his chest and underneath his sternum, rendering him totally unfit for duty.

It is entirely evident that the statements contained in this certificate are of such a nature that they must have almost entirely been communicated to the surgeon by the officer himself. It will be observed that there is an absolute lack of any intimation that his disabilities were attributable in their origin to army service, and he surely can not ask us to believe that a man with the intelligence fitting him to be a commissioned officer in the Army, and having this certificate in his possession, did not know what it contained.

It furnished the reason for his honorable discharge in the dark days of his country's need and operated as an exemption from further military service.

And yet in September, 1883, more than twenty-one years after his dis; charge, he applied to the Pension Bureau for a pension, alleging lameness of breast and back, contracted in the service.

After an examination of all the facts I can not believe that this is a case in which a pension should be granted.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 16, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7657, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Woodworth, widow of Ebenezer F. Woodworth."

The husband of this beneficiary enlisted October 1, 1861. On the rolls of his company for May and June, 1862, he is reported as a deserter, and the report is the same on the muster-out roll of his regiment, dated October 24, 1864.

An effort was made on the application by the beneficiary for pension to the Pension Bureau to attribute the charge of desertion to the unfriendliness and injustice of the soldier's captain, and an unsuccessful effort was made to have the charge removed from the record by the Adjutant-General.

The soldier, therefore, is still recorded as a deserter from camp near Farmington, Miss., since March 12, 1862.

The application of the widow to the Pension Bureau in 1867 states that her husband was missing at Hamburg, Tenn., May 7, 1862, and not having since been heard from is supposed to be dead.

The captain of the company testifies that the soldier was employed with the ambulance corps, and that for misconduct he (the captain) ordered him to his company and censured him; that very soon after that the soldier was absent at roll call and was marked as absent without leave; that in a day or two after that a member of a detail returned to camp from Hamburg Landing and reported that he had seen the soldier there and had been told by him that "he was off and would never go back." Thereupon he was dropped from the roll as a deserter.

Various theories are presented to account for the soldier's absence in other ways than by desertion, some of his comrades going so far as to express the opinion that he was murdered at the instigation of his captain. None of these theories, however, seem to be more than conjectures with various degrees of plausibility.

If the question of desertion could be solved favorably to the beneficiary, another difficulty immediately arises from the fact that there is absolutely no proof of death except the soldier's long absence without knowledge of his whereabouts; and if his death could be presumed the cause of it and whether connected at all with military service are matters regarding which we have no information whatever.

I am unable to see how a case in such a situation can be considered a proper subject for favorable pension legislation.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 16, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 10661, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Sophia Vogelsang."

The husband of this beneficiary was severely wounded in the military service of the United States, and in consequence of said wound his left leg was amputated. This was in 1862. In January, 1863, another amputation was performed higher up above the knee. He appears at that time to have been living, or at least was treated, at Detroit, Mich. He was pensioned at the rate of $30 per month at the time of his death, which occurred at Louisville, Ky., where he appears to have then resided, on the 21st day of July, 1885.

The beneficiary filed a claim for pension in November, 1885, alleging that her husband died of gangrene.

There does not, however, seem to be a particle of evidence establishing that cause of death. On the contrary, the report received at the Pension Bureau of his death attributes it to sunstroke, and this does not seem to be directly questioned.

The report of the House committee to whom this bill was referred proceeds upon the theory that death was caused from the use of opium to allay the pain of the wound. This theory is presented upon the alleged opinion of the surgeon living in Detroit, who made the second amputation in 1863. He says that the pain of the wound obliged the soldier to take morphine. But it does not appear that he observed the case for a long time preceding death. Instead of his giving an opinion that the disability and morphine produced death, he says, as it is reported to me, after describing the condition of the limb previous to its amputation in 1863 and immediately thereafter:

According to my opinion, said disability and the constant use of morphia in consequence of it may have been the cause of his death.

This and the statement of a druggist in Louisville that he sold him morphine to alleviate pain, and of two different persons with whom he boarded at that city in 1885 to the same effect, is all the evidence that I can discover tending in the least to hint that the death of the pensioner resulted from any cause but sunstroke, which really stands as the undisputed cause of death.

The allegation in the committee's report that the beneficiary's claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that her husband's death proceeded from the use of morphine is erroneous. The cause of rejection is stated to be "that the death cause (sunstroke) was not the result of the soldier's military service."

We are not, therefore, left to the consideration of the question whether death from the use of morphine to allay pain can be charged to the disability incurred, for if death resulted from sunstroke it will hardly be claimed that it was in any way related to such disability.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 16, 1888

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 6201, entitled "An act granting a pension to John Robeson."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted August 8, 1862, and was discharged for disability on the 21st day of November, 1862, after a service of a little more than three months.

In the certificate of disability upon which his discharge was granted the captain of the beneficiary's company states that "he has been unfit for duty for sixty days; that the soldier represents that he has not done efficient service since enlistment by reason of phthisic, from which he has suffered since childhood, but has grown worse since entering the service."

The surgeon of the regiment states in said certificate that "the soldier has asthma, with which he has been afflicted from his infancy."

Upon this certificate, based necessarily so far as his previous condition is concerned, this man procured his discharge after doing but very slight service.

He filed an application for pension in the Pension Bureau in October, 1879, basing his claim upon the allegation that he contracted asthma in September, 1862, about a month after he entered the service.

Two special examinations were had in his case, and his statement was taken in each.

On the first examination he said he could not account for the statements of his captain and surgeon, unless they arose from a remark he made that he had phthisic when he was small.

On the second he accounted for the statements of the captain and surgeon by saying that he felt very sick and feared that he could not live if he remained in the service; that he was suffering with jaundice as well as asthma; and having been told that he could not be discharged on account of jaundice, but could on account of asthma, he asked the captain to tell the surgeon that he had known him to have asthma before enlistment. He also says that he procured others to tell the same story.

On these examinations there was the usual negative testimony produced of certain parties who knew the claimant before enlistment and did not know that he was afflicted. This is balanced by the evidence of others, who testify that the claimant had asthma before enlistment.

Upon consideration of the character of the ailment, the testimony upon the two examinations, and the conduct of the beneficiary and his own admissions, I can not escape the conviction that whatever disability he had at the date of discharge he had when he enlisted, and that his claim was properly rejected by the Pension Bureau.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 16, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9106, entitled "An act granting a pension to Peter Liner."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted as a sergeant in the Regular Army in 1871, and he alleges that he served a previous term of enlistment, commencing in 1866.

While on a march from one post to another on the frontier, in September, 1874, the beneficiary was severely wounded by the bursting of a gun, necessitating the amputation of three of his fingers.

The reports of this occurrence develop the fact that the gun which burst in his hands was a shotgun, and that the accident happened while the beneficiary was hunting "for his own pleasure or benefit."

His wound was a severe one, and the injured man was probably a good and faithful soldier, but it seems quite clear to me that it would be extending the pension theory to an unwarrantable limit to hold the Government responsible for such an accident.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 16, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 10563, entitled "An act granting a pension to William S. Latham."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted in August, 1862. The rolls for March and April, 1863, report him a deserter, but it having been ascertained that sickness was the cause of his failure to return to his regiment at the end of a furlough granted to him, upon which failure the charge of desertion was based, he was restored to his company and the charge of desertion removed.

All this is stated in the report of the committee to which this bill was referred.

But it is not mentioned in said report that he was again furloughed on the 17th day of August, 1863, and, failing to return at the end of his furlough, one month thereafter, again became a deserter, but was not so reported until October 8, 1863.

He was arrested January 1, 1864, but there appears to be no record of his trial or his restoration.

He filed a claim for pension in the Pension Bureau in January, 1870, and he was informed twice during the year 1888 that no favorable action could be taken until the charge of desertion had been removed.

On application to the Adjutant-General that officer, on the 21st day of February, 1888, declined to remove said charge of desertion.

The claim is still pending before the Pension Bureau.

I do not suppose that the Congress is prepared to go so far in special pension legislation as to grant pensions to those against whom charges of desertion appear of record.

In the belief that the fact of the second desertion above mentioned was overlooked by the Congress, and because the application for pension in this case is still pending in the Pension Bureau, where complete justice can still be done, I am constrained to withhold my approval of this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 16, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 2472, entitled "An act granting a pension to Lydia A. Eaton."

The husband of this beneficiary was pensioned for chronic rheumatism, at the rate of $4 a month, up to the date of his death, August 4, 1884.

The beneficiary filed a claim for pension on the 2d day of September, 1884.

The cause of her husband's death was cystitis, which, being interpreted, is inflammation of the bladder.

The claim of the beneficiary was rejected on the ground that the fatal disease was not due to army service, and I fail to discover how any other conclusion can be reached.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 17, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 10342, entitled "An act granting a pension to John Dauper."

This beneficiary enlisted April 24, 1861, and was discharged August 28, 1861, four months after enlistment.

He filed a claim for pension in September, 1879, alleging as cause of disability diarrhea and disease of the stomach, liver, kidneys, and bladder.

None of these ailments were established satisfactorily as originating in the soldier's brief service, and as constituting disabilities after discharge.

The claim was therefore rejected by the Pension Bureau, and this action appears to be entirely justified upon the facts presented.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 17, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 11005, entitled "An act granting a pension to Ester Gaven."

This act provides that the beneficiary shall be placed upon the pension roll as the widow of Bernard Gaven, and the report of the committee to whom this bill was referred throughout speaks of her as bearing that relation to the soldier.

She filed a claim in the Pension Bureau for a pension on the 31st day of January, 1881, as the mother of Bernard Gaven.

This claim is still pending, and though evidence that the death of the soldier had any relation to his military service is entirely lacking and some other difficulties are apparent, the case may still be made out in the Pension Bureau. If it is, the beneficiary can be put upon the pension roll in her true character as mother of the soldier, instead of widow, as erroneously stated in the bill herewith returned.

Upon the merits as the case now stands, and because of the mistake in describing the relationship of the beneficiary, this bill, I think, should not become a law.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 17, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 10504, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Hooper."

The husband of this beneficiary was first lieutenant in the volunteer service from December 7, 1861, to February 28, 1862, a little over two months, when he resigned. His resignation was based upon a medical certificate in which it is stated that "this officer is unfit for duty on account of chronic pleuritis and pulmonary consumption, from which he has suffered for the past four months."

This certificate is dated February 14, 1862.

The soldier filed a claim in 1871 alleging typhoid fever resulting in paralysis, and that the fever was contracted in the latter part of February, 1862.

The soldier died January 17, 1884, of paralysis.

The beneficiary filed a claim for pension November 17, 1887, claiming that her husband died of disease contracted in the service.

The claims have been specially and thoroughly examined. The testimony does not establish any disease or disability in the service other than those stated in the certificate procured by him when he resigned, but it does tend to establish that about April 17, 1862, after his resignation, the soldier was sick with typhoid fever, and that afterwards he suffered from partial paralysis, which increased and finally caused his death.

I make no reference to the fact stated in the committee's report suggesting the idea that the courage of the deceased soldier had been questioned further than to correct the allegation of the report that either his or his widow's claim for pension has been rejected for cowardice. It appears from the record furnished to me that they were rejected on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to connect the death cause or disability with the soldier's military service.

I am unable to see what other conclusion could be reached in the face of the soldier's own statements, as contained in the medical certificate furnished him and elsewhere made, and upon consideration of the other facts in the case.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 17, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4820, entitled "An act granting a pension to Ellen Kelley."

The husband of this beneficiary was granted a furlough to go home and vote on the 31st day of October, 1864. On his way there he was severely injured by a railroad collision, and there does not seem to be a particle of doubt that the injuries thus sustained caused his death.

Upon these facts this does not seem to be a proper case for the granting of a pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 17, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 11222, entitled "An act granting a pension to Elizabeth Heckler."

The husband of this beneficiary was pensioned for asthma, and there is no doubt of the propriety of such pension, nor is there doubt upon the evidence that this affection continued up to the time of his death.

But he died of acute inflammation of the bladder and chronic enlargement of prostate gland. There is no proof that these causes of death were in the least complicated with the difficulty for which the deceased was pensioned, or any other trouble which was the result of military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 17, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4102, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary A. Carr."

The husband of this beneficiary served in the Army from November 5, 1863, to June 15, 1865. He made a claim for pension for injury to his left ankle, caused by being thrown from a horse while in the service, and some time after his death a pension was allowed upon his claim, at the rate of $4 per month, commencing at the date of his discharge and ending at the date of his death.

He died on the 16th day of March, 1877, of apoplexy, and his widow filed a claim for pension on her own behalf in March, 1885, based upon the allegation that the injury for which her husband was pensioned was the cause of his death.

I can not upon the facts of this case arrive at a conclusion different from the Pension Bureau, where it was determined that the death of the soldier could not be accepted as having been caused by the injury to his ankle.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 17, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 11332, entitled "An act granting a pension to Eliza S. Glass."

The husband of this beneficiary was in the military service from December 28, 1863, to April 27, 1864, a period of four months. He was discharged at the last-mentioned date for disability, the surgeon stating in the certificate his trouble to be "chronic hemorrhoids and rheumatism, both together producing lameness of back; unfit for Invalid Corps." The captain of the soldier's company in the same certificate states:

During the last two months said soldier has been unfit for duty fifty-four days in consequence of chronic rheumatism, owing to spinal affections and sprains received before entering the service, and made worse by drilling in double quick.

He filed a claim for pension December 24, 1879, more than fifteen years after discharge, in which he claimed that on the 15th day of January, 1864, he received an injury to his back by slipping and falling upon the ground.

After a thorough examination this claim was rejected on the ground that his disability existed prior to enlistment.

The beneficiary filed a claim for pension December 3, 1885, alleging the death of the soldier April 26, 1885. This claim was also rejected, on the ground that the death causes, "nervous prostration and spinal trouble," were not due to the service.

Both of these cases were appealed to the Secretary of the Interior, and in the decision of said appeals it is stated that upon an application for a discharge from the service the soldier first set up an injury to his back from a fall while on drill; that the regimental surgeon refused to entertain this proposition; that the next day the soldier returned, and upon the representations of himself and his captain that his trouble dated back of the alleged accident upon drill and was chronic the certificate for discharge was made out, and pursuant thereto his discharge was granted.

I am of the opinion that, considering the cause of death and all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, the certificate of discharge which the soldier himself procured to be made out should stand as stating the true origin of his disability; and if the certificate was set aside and all the facts tending to support it were disregarded, the cause of death would still, in my opinion, appear to be disconnected with military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[!-- H2 anchor --]