The bill now under consideration provides that the action of the examining board above recited "be set aside and declared null and void." It also authorizes the President "to appoint the beneficiary to the office to which he would have been promoted but for said action and to retire him in that grade as of the date he was wholly retired."
The authority attempted by the bill to be given to the President to thus make an appointment to the office of paymaster in the Navy without the interposition of the Senate appears to be inadmissible under that clause of the Constitution which only permits the President to appoint certain officers "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."
The bill provides for the immediate retirement of the beneficiary. He is now but 47 years old, thus lacking fifteen years of the time when he would be entitled to retirement on account of age. There is no suggestion that he is physically incapacitated. On the contrary, when he was examined for promotion a medical board certified that he was physically qualified to perform all his duties at sea, and the candidate himself not only certified to the same thing, but further declared that he was "free from all bodily ailments." If this condition continues and if he should be restored to the Navy at all, he should be sent to duty on the active list instead of being retired. On the facts as presented he would seem to be out of place among those who, though still compensated by the Government, have been on account of age, long and honorable service, or disabilities incurred in the discharge of duty relieved from further activity.
A careful investigation of the facts submitted to the examining board and a consideration of all the statements made on behalf of the beneficiary named in the bill utterly fail, in my opinion, to justify the impeachment of the findings and determination of the board.
I have no doubt malicious feeling growing out of domestic difficulties entered into the affair and gave impetus to the search after inculpating evidence, but facts were nevertheless established beyond any reasonable doubt which abundantly uphold these findings.
I feel obliged to disapprove the bill herewith returned because I believe the power to appoint a paymaster in the Navy ought not, under the Constitution, be conferred upon the President alone; because if the beneficiary were restored to the Navy there would be no justice or propriety in placing him upon the retired list, and because upon the merits of the case I am of the opinion the judgment of the examining board ought not to be reversed.
GROVER CLEVELAND.