GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 763, entitled "An act for the erection of a public building at Sioux City, Iowa."

The report of the committee of the House of Representatives to whom this bill was referred states that by the census of 1880 the population of Sioux City was nearly 8,000, and that by other enumerations since made its population would seem to exceed 23,000. It is further stated in the report that for the accommodation of this population the city contains 393 brick and 2,984 frame buildings.

It seems to me that in the consideration of the merits of this bill the necessities of the Government should control the question, and that it should be decided as a business proposition, depending upon the needs of a Government building at the point proposed in order to do the Government work.

This greatly reduces the value of statistics showing population, extent of business, prospective growth, and matters of that kind, which, though exceedingly interesting, do not always demonstrate the necessity of the expenditure of a large sum of money for a public building.

I find upon examination that United States courts are sometimes held at Sioux City, but that they have been thus far held in the county court-house without serious inconvenience and without any expense to the Government. There are actually no other Federal officers there for whom the Government in any view should provide accommodations except the postmaster. The post-office is now located in a building rented by the Government until the 1st day of January, 1889, at the rate of $2,200 per annum.

By the last report of the Supervising Architect it appears that on October 1, 1885, there were 80 new public buildings in course of construction, and that the amount expended thereon during the preceding year was nearly $2,500,000, while large appropriations are asked to be expended on these buildings during the current year.

In my judgment the number of public buildings should not at this time be increased unless a greater public necessity exists therefor than is apparent in this case.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 206, entitled "An act to provide for the erection of a public building in the city of Zanesville, Ohio."

No Federal courts are held at Zanesville, and there are no Government officers located there who should be provided for at the public expense except the postmaster.

So far as I am informed the patrons of the post-office are fairly well accommodated in a building which is rented by the Government at the rate of $800 per annum; and though the postmaster naturally certifies that he and his fourteen employees require much more spacious surroundings, I have no doubt he and they can be induced to continue to serve the Government in its present quarters.

The public buildings now in process of construction, numbering 80, involving constant supervision, are all the building projects which the Government ought to have on hand at one time, unless a very palpable necessity exists for an increase in the number. The multiplication of these structures involves not only the appropriations made for their completion, but great expense in their care and preservation thereafter.

While a fine Government building is a desirable ornament to any town or city, and while the securing of an appropriation therefor is often considered as an illustration of zeal and activity in the interest of a constituency, I am of the opinion that the expenditure of public money for such a purpose should depend upon the necessity of such a building for public uses.

In the case under consideration I have no doubt the Government can be well accommodated for some time to come in all its business relations with the people of Zanesville by renting quarters, at less expense than the annual cost of maintaining the proposed new building after its completion.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 1990, entitled "An act granting a pension to John Hunter."

The claimant was enrolled July 20, 1864, and was discharged by expiration of his term of service July 13, 1865.

During four months of the twelve while he remained in the service he is reported as "absent sick." His hospital record shows that he was treated for intermittent fever and rheumatism. In 1879, fourteen years after his discharge, he filed his claim for a pension, alleging that in May, 1864, he received a gunshot wound in the right leg while in a skirmish. The month of May, 1864, is included in the time during which, by the record, he appears to have been absent sick and undergoing treatment for fever and rheumatism. His claim was rejected in December, 1884, on the ground that there was no record of the alleged wound and the claimant was unable, though aided by the Bureau, to prove that the injury claimed was due to the service.

The evidence recited in the report of the Congressional committee to whom this bill was referred, though it tends to show, if reliable, that when the soldier returned from his service his leg was affected, fails to show a continuous disability from that cause. It is stated that about five years ago, while the claimant was gathering dandelions, in stepping across a ditch his leg broke. The doctor who attended him states that the leg was about four weeks longer in uniting than is usual, but he is not represented as giving an opinion that the fracture had anything to do with his patient's military service.

I find no reference to his condition since his recovery from the fracture of his leg, and there seems to be no allegation of present disability either from army service or the injury sustained while gathering dandelions.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without my approval House bill No. 4002, entitled "An act granting a pension to Carter W. Tiller."

The records of the War Department show that George W. Tiller, the son of the claimant, enlisted in a Kentucky regiment on the 8th day of October, 1861, and that he deserted on the 20th day of September, 1863; that he was captured by the Confederates afterwards, but the time and circumstances are not given. On the 21st day of July, 1864, he was admitted to the Andersonville hospital, and died the same day of scorbutus.

The father filed his claim for a pension in 1877, alleging his dependence upon the deceased soldier. It is probably true that the son while in the Army sent money to the claimant, though he appears to have been employed as a policeman in the city of Louisville ever since his son's death, at a fair salary.

The claim thus made was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the claimant was not dependent upon his son.

I am entirely satisfied of the correctness of this determination, and if the records presented to me are reliable I think the fact which appears therefrom, that the death of the soldier occurred ten months after desertion and had no apparent relation to any service in the Union Army, is conclusive against the claim now made.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 3826, entitled "An act for the relief of John Taylor."

By this bill it is proposed to increase the pension of the beneficiary named to $16 a month. He has been receiving a pension under the general law, dating from his discharge in 1865. His pension has been twice already increased, once by the Pension Bureau and once by a special act passed in 1882. His wound is not such as to cause his disability to become aggravated by time. The increase allowed by this bill, when applied for at the Pension Bureau in 1885, was denied on the ground that "the rate he was receiving was commensurate with the degree of his disability, a board of surgeons having reported that he was receiving a liberal rating."

I can discover no just ground for reversing this determination and making a further discrimination in favor of this pensioner.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5997, entitled "An act granting a pension to Elizabeth Luce."

The claimant named in this bill is the widow of John W. Luce, who entered the Army in August, 1861, and who was discharged in January, 1864, for a disability declared at the time in the surgeon's certificate to arise from "organic stricture of the urethra," which, from his statement, existed at the time of his enlistment.

Notwithstanding the admission which thus appears to have been made by him at the time of his discharge, he soon afterwards made an application for a pension, alleging that his difficulty arose from his being thrown forward on the pommel of his saddle when in the service.

Upon an examination of this claim by a special examiner, it is stated that no one could be found who had any knowledge of such an injury, and the claim was rejected.

In 1883, twenty years after the soldier alleged he was injured in the manner stated, he died, and the cause of his death was declared to be "chronic gastritis, complicated with kidney difficulty."

It is alleged that the examinations made by the Pension Bureau developed the fact that the deceased soldier was a man of quite intemperate habits.

The theory upon which this widow should be pensioned can only be that the death of her husband resulted from a disability or injury contracted or received in the military service. It seems to me that however satisfactorily the injury which he described may be established, and though every suspicion as to his habits be dismissed, there can hardly possibly be any connection between such an injury and the causes to which his death is attributed.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4058, entitled "An act for the relief of Joel D. Monroe."

The claimant mentioned in this bill enlisted in August, 1864, and was discharged with his regiment June 4, 1865.

The record of his short military service exhibits no mention of any injury or disability; but in June, 1880, fifteen years after his discharge, he filed in the Pension Bureau a claim for a pension based upon the allegation that in December, 1864, he was injured by the falling of a tree, which struck him on his head, affecting both of his eyes. He added to this allegation the further complaint that he contracted rheumatism while in the service.

The application for a pension was rejected by the Pension Bureau because there was no record of the disabilities claimed, nor was satisfactory proof furnished that any such disabilities originated in the service.

I am so entirely satisfied with this determination of the Pension Bureau that I am constrained to withhold my approval of this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 21, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 3624, entitled "An act granting a pension to Fred. J. Leese."

This claimant enlisted September 7, 1864, and was discharged June 4, 1865. During his short term of service there does not appear on the records any evidence of disability.

But in November, 1883, eighteen years after his discharge, he filed his application for a pension, alleging that in November, 1864, he contracted chronic diarrhea from exposure and severe work.

His claim has not yet been fully passed upon by the Pension Bureau, which, in my opinion, is sufficient reason why this bill should not become a law. I am also thoroughly convinced, from examination of the case, that the claimant should not be pensioned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 21, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6897, entitled "An act granting a pension to Henry Hipple, jr."

This claimant entered the Army as a drummer August 6, 1862, and was discharged May 29, 1863.

In 1879, sixteen years after his discharge, he appears to have discovered that during his short term of military service in the inhospitable climate of Port Tobacco, within the State of Maryland, he contracted rheumatism to such an extent as to entitle him to pension, for which he then applied.

It is conceded that he received no medical treatment while in the Army for this complaint, nor does he seem to have been attended by a physician since his discharge.

Without commenting further upon the features of this case which tend to discredit it, I deem myself obliged to disapprove this bill on the ground that there is an almost complete failure to state any facts that should entitle the claimant to a pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 21, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I hereby return without approval a bill originating in the House of Representatives, entitled "An act granting an increase of pension to John W. Farris," which bill is numbered 6136.

The claimant mentioned in this bill enlisted in the month of October, 1861, and was mustered out of the service in August, 1865.

In 1881, sixteen years after his discharge, he filed an application for a pension, alleging that he was afflicted with chronic diarrhea contracted in the Army, and in 1885 his claim was allowed, and he was granted a pension for that cause.

In September of the same year, and after this pension was granted, he filed an application for an increase of his rate, alleging that in 1884 his eyes became affected in consequence of his previous ailments and the debility consequent thereupon.

The ingenuity developed in the constant and persistent attacks upon the public Treasury by those claiming pensions, and the increase of those already granted, is exhibited in bold relief by this attempt to include sore eyes among the results of diarrhea.

I am entirely satisfied with the opinion of the medical referee, who, after examining this case in October, 1885, reported that "the disease of the eyes can not be admitted to be a result of chronic diarrhea."

On all grounds it seems to me that this claimant should be contented with the pension which has been already allowed him.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 21, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 1707, entitled "An act granting a pension to Elijah P. Hensley."

The records of the War Department show that this claimant was mustered into the Third North Carolina Regiment, but on the muster-out roll of his company he is reported to have deserted April 3, 1865, and there is no record of any discharge or disability.

In September, 1866, an order was issued from his department headquarters removing the charge of desertion against him. Thirteen days afterwards, and on the 25th day of September, 1866, he filed an application for pension, which in 1868 was granted. He drew such pension dating from 1865 until 1877, when, upon evidence that the injury for which he was pensioned was not received in the line of duty, his name was dropped from the rolls.

The pensioner appealed from this determination of the Pension Bureau to the Secretary of the Interior, who, as lately as May, 1885, rendered a decision sustaining the action of the Bureau.

I find nothing in the facts presented to me which, in my opinion, justifies the reversal of the judgment of the Bureau and the Secretary of the Interior.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 21, 1886.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2223, entitled "An act granting a pension to Elizabeth S. De Krafft."

My objection to this bill is that it is of no possible advantage to the beneficiary therein mentioned. It directs that her name be placed upon the pension roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws. The effect of such legislation would be to permit Mrs. De Krafft to draw a pension at the rate of $30 each month from the date of the approval of the bill.

On the 26th day of February, 1886, under the provisions of the general pension law, she was allowed a pension of this exact sum, but the payments were to date from November 10, 1885.

I am so thoroughly tired of disapproving gifts of public money to individuals who in my view have no right or claim to the same, notwithstanding apparent Congressional sanction, that I interpose with a feeling of relief a veto in a case where I find it unnecessary to determine the merits of the application. In speaking of the promiscuous and ill-advised grants of pensions which have lately been presented to me for approval, I have spoken of their "apparent Congressional sanction" in recognition of the fact that a large proportion of these bills have never been submitted to a majority of either branch of Congress, but are the result of nominal sessions held for the express purpose of their consideration and attended by a small minority of the members of the respective Houses of the legislative branch of Government.

Thus in considering these bills I have not felt that I was aided by the deliberate judgment of the Congress; and when I have deemed it my duty to disapprove many of the bills presented, I have hardly regarded my action as a dissent from the conclusions of the people's representatives.

I have not been insensible to the suggestions which should influence every citizen, either in private station or official place, to exhibit not only a just but a generous appreciation of the services of our country's defenders. In reviewing the pension legislation presented to me many bills have been approved upon the theory that every doubt should be resolved in favor of the proposed beneficiary. I have not, however, been able to entirely divest myself of the idea that the public money appropriated for pensions is the soldiers' fund, which should be devoted to the indemnification of those who in the defense of the Union and in the nation's service have worthily suffered, and who in the day of their dependence resulting from such suffering are entitled to the benefactions of their Government. This reflection lends to the bestowal of pensions a kind of sacredness which invites the adoption of such principles and regulations as will exclude perversion as well as insure a liberal and generous application of grateful and benevolent designs. Heedlessness and a disregard of the principle which underlies the granting of pensions is unfair to the wounded, crippled soldier who is honored in the just recognition of his Government. Such a man should never find himself side by side on the pension roll with those who have been tempted to attribute the natural ills to which humanity is heir to service in the Army. Every relaxation of principle in the granting of pensions invites applications without merit and encourages those who for gain urge honest men to become dishonest. Thus is the demoralizing lesson taught the people that as against the public Treasury the most questionable expedients are allowable.

During the present session of Congress 493 special pension bills have been submitted to me, and I am advised that 111 more have received the favorable action of both Houses of Congress and will be presented within a day or two, making over 600 of these bills which have been passed up to this time during the present session, nearly three times the number passed at any entire session since the year 1861. With the Pension Bureau, fully equipped and regulated by the most liberal rules, in active operation, supplemented in its work by constant special legislation, it certainly is not unreasonable to suppose that in all the years that have elapsed since the close of the war a majority of the meritorious claims for pensions have been presented and determined.

I have now more than 130 of these bills before me awaiting Executive action. It will be impossible to bestow upon them the examination they deserve, and many will probably become operative which should be rejected.

In the meantime I venture to suggest the significance of the startling increase in this kind of legislation and the consequences involved in its continuance.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 21, 1886.

To the Senate:

I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 1584, entitled "An act for the relief of Cornelia R. Schenck."

It is proposed by this bill to grant a pension to Mrs. Schenck as the widow of Daniel P. Schenck, who entered the military service of the United States in August, 1861, and was mustered out October 21, 1864.

The record of his service contains no mention of any disability. He died in December, 1875, of a disease called gastroenteritis, which, being interpreted, seems to denote "inflammation of the stomach and small intestines." So far as the facts are made to appear, the soldier, neither during the term of his service nor during the eleven years he lived after his discharge, made any claim of any disability.

The claim of his widow was filed in the Pension Bureau in 1885, ten years after her husband's death, and is still undetermined.

The fact that her application is still pending in that Bureau is sufficient reason why this bill should not become a law.

A better reason is based upon the entire lack of any facts shown to exist which entitle the beneficiary named to a pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.

To the Senate:

I return herewith without approval Senate bill No. 1192, entitled "An act granting a pension to Alfred Denny."

It appears that the claimant entered the United States military service as captain and assistant quartermaster of volunteers on the 12th day of June, 1863. After remaining in such position for less than a year he resigned to accept a civil position.

The short record of his military service discloses no mention of any accident or disability. But twenty years after his resignation, and on the 12th day of March, 1884, he reappears as an applicant for a pension, and alleges in his declaration filed in the Pension Bureau that in August, 1863, while in the line of duty, he was, by a sudden movement of the horse he was riding, thrown forward upon the horn of his saddle and thereby received a rupture in his right side, which at some time and in a manner wholly unexplained subsequently caused a rupture in his left side also.

The number of instances in which those of our soldiers who rode horses during the war were injured by being thrown forward upon their saddles indicate that those saddles were very dangerous contrivances.

I am satisfied there is not a particle of merit in this claim, and no facts are presented to me which entitle it to charitable consideration.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.

To the Senate:

I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 1400, entitled "An act granting a pension to William H. Beck."

This claimant enlisted in 1861. He reenlisted as a veteran volunteer January i, 1864, and was finally mustered out April 20, 1866. In all this time of service his record shows no medical treatment or claim of disability. Indeed, an abstract of his reenlistment January 1, 1864, shows a medical examination and perfect soundness.

Notwithstanding all this, he filed his declaration on the 4th day of April, 1879, nearly thirteen years after his discharge, alleging that in June, 1863, he incurred epilepsy, to which he has been subject since, and that his fits have been from one to ten days apart. To connect this in some way with his military service he stated that the doctor at a hospital said his epilepsy was caused "by jar to the head from heavy firing."

Six months after this alleged "jar" and his consequent epilepsy he reenlisted upon a medical certificate of perfect soundness and served more than two years thereafter.

Every conceded fact in the case negatives the allegations of his declaration, and the rejection of his claim necessarily followed.

If this disease can be caused in the manner here detailed, its manifestations are such as to leave no doubt of its existence, and it seems to me simply impossible under the circumstances detailed that there should be any lack of evidence to support the claim upon which this bill is predicated.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.

To the Senate:

I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 2005, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary J. Nottage."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of Thomas Nottage, who enlisted in August, 1861, and was discharged for disability September 17, 1862. The assistant surgeon of his regiment, upon his discharge, certified the cause to be "disease of the urinary organs," which had troubled him several years.

He died of consumption January 8, 1879, nearly seventeen years after his discharge, without ever having made any application for a pension.

In 1880 his widow made an application for pension, alleging that he contracted in the service "malarial poisoning, causing remittent fever, piles, general debility, consumption, and death," and that he left two children, both born after his discharge, one in 1866 and the other in 1874.

The only medical testimony which has been brought to my attention touching his condition since his discharge is that of a single physician to the effect that he attended him from the year 1873 to the time of his death in 1879. He states that the patient had during that time "repeated attacks of remittent fever and irritability of the bladder, with organic deposits;" that "in the spring of 1878 he had sore throat and cough, which resulted in consumption, of which he died."

The claim of the widow was rejected in July, 1885, on the ground that "the soldier's death was not the result of his service."

I am satisfied that this conclusion of the Pension Bureau was correct.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.

To the Senate:

I return herewith without approval Senate bill No. 342, entitled "An Act granting a pension to Marrilla Parsons, of Detroit, Mich."

No claim has ever been made for a pension in this case to the Pension Bureau, probably for the reason that there is no pretext that the beneficiary named is entitled to a pension under any general law.

Daniel P. Parsons was her stepson, who enlisted in 1861 and died of consumption on the 13th day of August, 1864.

There are no special circumstances to distinguish this case from many others whose claims might be made by stepparents, and there are no facts stated in support of the conclusion embodied in the committee's report that the soldier was taken sick from exposure incident to the service.

To depart from all rules regulating the granting of pensions by such an enactment as is proposed would establish a precedent which could not fail to cause embarrassment and perplexity.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1383, entitled "An act granting a pension to Harriet Welch."

The beneficiary named in this bill asks for a pension as the widow of Syreannous Welch, who was wounded in 1864 while in the service, and was pensioned therefor in 1867. In 1876 his rate of pension was increased. In 1877 he appears to have applied to have his pension again increased. It is alleged that upon such application he was directed to appear before an examining board or a surgeon at Green Bay, Wis., for examination, and in returning to his home from that place on the 7th day of September, 1877, he fell from the cars and was killed, his remains having been found on the track the next morning.

No one appears to have seen the accident, but it is claimed that he could not depend upon his wounded leg, and that it "gave way many times and caused him to fall." From this statement the inference seems to have been indulged that his death was attributable to the wound he had received thirteen years before.

The widow's claim based upon this state of facts was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the accident resulting in death was not the result of his military service, and on an appeal taken to the Secretary of the Interior from that determination the same was sustained.

Though this widow admits that prior to her marriage with the deceased soldier she had married another man whom she could only say she believed to be dead, I believe her case to be a pitiable one and wish that I could join in her relief; but, unfortunately, official duty can not always be well done when directed solely by sympathy and charity.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1288, entitled "An act granting a pension to Robert Holsey."

This claimant enlisted in 1862, and though he appears to have been sick on two occasions during his term of service, he remained with his company until it was mustered out in 1865.

This soldier was really sick during the time he remained in the Army, and in this respect his claim for a pension has a better origin than many that are presented. But the fact must be recognized, I suppose, that every army ailment does not necessarily result in death or disability.

In 1882, seventeen years after his discharge, this soldier filed his declaration for a pension, alleging that in 1863 he contracted intermittent fever, affecting his lungs, kidneys, and stomach.

A board of surgeons, upon an examination made in 1882, find disease of kidneys, but no indication of lung and stomach trouble; and a medical referee reported in 1885 that there had been no disease of the stomach and lungs since the filing of the claim, and that the difficulty affecting the kidneys had no relation to the sickness for which the claimant had been treated while in the Army.

I am of the opinion that a correct conclusion was reached when the application for pension in this case was denied by the Pension Bureau.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.

To the Senate:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 7979, entitled "An act granting a pension to Jackson Steward."

This claimant's application for pension is now pending in the Pension Bureau, and has been sent to a special examiner for the purpose of taking additional proof.

This I deem sufficient reason why the proposed bill should not now become a law.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1886.

To the Senate:

I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 2025, entitled "An act granting a pension to James Butler."

This claimant was enrolled as a private in a New Hampshire regiment August 23, 1864, but on the organization of his company, on the 12th day of September, 1864, he was discharged on account of a fracture of his leg, which happened on the 11th day of September, 1864.

It appears that before the organization of the company to which he was attached, and on the 10th day of September, he obtained permission to leave the place of rendezvous for the purpose of visiting his family, and was to return the next day. At a very early hour in the morning, either while preparing to return or actually on his way, he fell into a new cellar and broke his leg. It is said that the leg fractured is now shorter than the other.

His claim for pension was rejected in December, 1864, by the Pension Bureau, and its action was affirmed in 1871 upon the ground that the injury was received while the claimant was on an individual furlough, and therefore not in the line of duty.

Considering the fact that neither his regiment nor his company had at the time of his accident been organized, and that he was in no sense in the military service of the United States, and that his injury was received while on a visit, and not in the performance of duty, I can see no pretext for allowing a pension in this case.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 6688, entitled "An act for the relief of William Bishop."

This claimant was enrolled as a substitute on the 25th day of March, 1865. He was admitted to a post hospital at Indianapolis on the 3d day of April, 1865, with the measles; was removed to the City General Hospital, in Indianapolis, on the 5th day of May, 1865; was returned to duty May 8, 1865, and was mustered out with a detachment of unassigned men on the 11th day of May, 1865.

This is the military record of this soldier, who remained in the Army one month and seventeen days, having entered it as a substitute at a time when high bounties were paid.

Fifteen years after this brilliant service and this terrific encounter with the measles, and on the 28th day of June, 1880, the claimant discovered that his attack of the measles had some relation to his army enrollment and that this disease had "settled in his eyes, also affecting his spinal column."

This claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau, and I have no doubt of the correctness of its determination.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6266, entitled "An act granting a pension to Philip Arner."

It is conceded in the application for a pension made by this claimant that he was perfectly well prior to his enlistment, during his service, and for a year thereafter. He was discharged in July, 1864, and the proof is that he was taken seriously ill in the fall of 1865, since which time he has been troubled with lung difficulty.

He filed his application for pension in 1883. This was rejected on the ground that the sickness which produced his disability having occurred more than a year after his discharge from the Army, it can not be accepted as a result of his military service.

There is absolutely no allegation of any incident of his service which it is claimed is at all related to his sickness and disability.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6170, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary A. Van Etten."

In her declaration for a pension, filed July 28, 1885, this claimant alleges that her husband was drowned upon attempting to cross Braddocks Bay, near his residence, in the State of New York, on the 16th day of July, 1875.

It is claimed that in an effort to drive across that bay in a buggy with his young son the buggy was overturned and both were drowned. The application for pension was based upon the theory that during his military service the deceased soldier contracted rheumatism, which so interfered with his ability to save himself by swimming that his death may be fairly traced to a disability incurred in the service.

He does not appear to have been treated while in the Army for rheumatism, though some evidence is presented of his complaining of rheumatic symptoms.

He was mustered out in 1863, and though he lived twelve years thereafter it does not appear that he ever applied for a pension; and though he was drowned in 1875, his widow apparently did not connect his military service with his death until ten years thereafter.

It seems to me that there is such an entire absence of direct and tangible evidence that the death of this soldier resulted from any incident of his service that the granting of a pension upon such a theory is not justified.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 6117, entitled "An act granting a pension to James D. Cotton."

The claim for a pension in this case is on behalf of the father of Thomas Cotton, who was killed at Pittsburg Landing April 6, 1862.

The application of this claimant still remains in the Pension Bureau undetermined. The doubt in the case appears to relate to the dependence of the father upon his son at the time of his death.

This is a question which the Bureau is so well fitted to investigate and justly determine that it is, in my opinion, best to permit the same to be there fully examined.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 6753, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Alice E. Travers."

The husband of the beneficiary, John T. Travers, enlisted August 25, 1864, and was discharged June 11, 1866.

He died January 6, 1881, from the effects of an overdose of morphine which he administered himself. He was a druggist, and when suffering severely was in the habit of taking opiates for relief and sleep.

The disease from which it is said he suffered was lung difficulty, claimed to have been caused by a severe cold contracted in the service.

It does not appear that he ever applied for a pension, and the widow's claim seems to have been properly rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the soldier's death was not due to his military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 1816, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Ann Miller."

Hamilton Miller, the husband of the claimant, enlisted April 22, 1861, and was sent with his regiment to Camp Dennison, in the suburbs of Cincinnati.

While thus in camp, apparently before he had ever been to the front, and on the 3d of June, 1861, he obtained permission to go to the city of Cincinnati, and was there killed by a blow received from some person who appears to be unknown; but undoubtedly the injury occurred in a fight or as the result of an altercation.

It is very clear to me that the Pension Bureau properly rejected the widow's claim for pension, for the reason that the soldier was not in the line of duty at the date of his death. It is also impossible to connect the death with any incident of the soldier's military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 7436, entitled "An act to grant a pension to Mary Anderson."

This claimant is the widow of Richard Anderson, who at the time of his death was receiving a pension on account of chronic diarrhea contracted in the service.

On the 7th day of February, 1882, the deceased pensioner went to Sparta, in the State of Wisconsin, to be examined for an increase of his pension. He called on the surgeon and was examined, and the next morning was found beheaded on the railroad track under such circumstances as indicated suicide.

The claim of the widow was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the cause of the death of her husband was in no way connected with his military service.

His wife and family present pitiable objects for sympathy, but I am unable to see how they have any claim to a pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I hereby return without approval House bill 576, entitled "An act for the relief of Louisa C. Beezeley."

By this bill it is proposed to grant a pension to the beneficiary named, as the widow of Nathaniel Beezeley, who was enrolled in an Indiana regiment as a farrier in September, 1861. He was discharged July 17, 1862, after having been in the hospital considerable of the short time he was connected with the Army. The surgeon's certificate on his discharge stated that it was granted by reason of "old age," he then being 60 years old.

He never made any claim for pension, but in 1877 his widow filed her declaration, stating that her husband died in 1875 from disease contracted in the service.

I am convinced that the Pension Bureau acted upon entirely satisfactory evidence when this claim was rejected upon the ground that the cause of death originated subsequent to the soldier's discharge.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 6895, entitled "An act granting a pension to Sarah Harbaugh."

The husband of this claimant enlisted August 1, 1861, and was discharged September 7, 1864. He received a gunshot wound in the left ankle in May, 1863, and died suddenly of disease of the heart October 4, 1881. He was insane before his death, but in my opinion any connection between his injury and his service in the Army is next to impossible.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 7167, entitled "An act for the relief of Mrs. Maria Hunter."

The beneficiary named in this bill, to whom it is therein proposed to grant a pension at the rate of $50 a month, on the 23d day of March, 1886, filed her application for a pension in the Pension Bureau, where it is still pending undetermined.

Although the deceased soldier held a high rank, I have no doubt his widow will receive ample justice through the instrumentality organized for the purpose of dispensing the nation's grateful acknowledgment of military service in its defense.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 3205, entitled "An act granting a pension to George W. Guyse."

The claimant filed his declaration for a pension in 1878, alleging that about the 25th day of December, 1863, he received a gunshot wound in his left knee while engaged in a skirmish.

There has been much testimony taken in this case, and a great deal of it is exceedingly contradictory. Three of the claimant's comrades, who originally testified to the receipt of the injury by him, afterwards denied that he was wounded in the service, and a portion of the evidence taken by the Bureau tends to establish the fact that the claimant cut his left knee with a knife shortly after his discharge.

An examining surgeon in November, 1884, reports that he finds "no indication of a gunshot wound, there being no physical or rational signs to sustain claimant in his application for pension."

He further reports that there "seems to be an imperfect scar near the knee, so imperfect as to render its origin uncertain, but in no respect resembling a gunshot wound."

I think upon all the facts presented the Pension Bureau properly rejected this claim, because there was no record of the injury and no satisfactory evidence produced showing that it was incurred in service and in line of duty, "all sources of information having been exhausted."

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7401, entitled "An act granting a pension to Samuel Miller."

This man was discharged from one enlistment June 16, 1864, and enlisted again in August of that year. He was finally discharged July 1, 1865.

In 1880 he filed an application for a pension, alleging that in May, 1862, he contracted in the service "kidney disease and weakness of the back."

A board of surgeons in 1881 reported that they failed to "discover any evidence of disease of kidneys."

It will be observed that since the date when it is claimed his disabilities visited him Mr. Miller not only served out his first term of enlistment, but reenlisted, and necessarily must have passed a medical examination.

I am entirely satisfied with the rejection of this claim by the Pension Bureau.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 424, entitled "An act to pension Giles C. Hawley."

This claimant enlisted August 5, 1861, and was discharged November 14, 1861, upon a surgeon's certificate, in which he stated: "I deem him unfit to stay in the service on account of deafness. He can not hear an ordinary command."

Seventeen years after his discharge from a military service of a little more than three months' duration, and in the year 1878, the claimant filed an application for pension, in which he alleged that "from exposure and excessive duty in the service his hearing was seriously affected."

There is no doubt that his disability existed to quite an extent at least before his enlistment, and there was plenty of opportunity for its increase between the time of discharge and of his application for pension.

I am entirely satisfied that it should not be altogether charged to the three months he spent in the service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 7222, entitled "An act granting a pension to Callie West."

I base my action upon the opinion, derived from an examination of the circumstances attending the death of the claimant's husband, that his fatal disease did not have its origin in his military service and was entirely disconnected therewith.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 6257, entitled "An act for the relief of Julia Connelly."

It is proposed by this bill to grant a pension to the beneficiary named as the widow of Thomas Connelly.

This man was mustered into the service October 26, 1861. He never did a day's service so far as his name appears, and the muster-out roll of his company reports him as having deserted at Camp Cameron, Pa., November 14, 1861.

He visited his family about the 1st day of December, 1861, and was found December 30, 1861, drowned in a canal about 6 miles from his home.

Those who prosecute claims for pensions have grown very bold when cases of this description are presented for consideration.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6774, entitled "An act granting a pension to Bruno Schultz."

The application of this claimant for a pension, which was filed a number of years ago, though at one time rejected, has been since opened for reexamination, and is now awaiting additional evidence.

In this condition of this case I think this bill should not be approved.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 7298, entitled "An act for the relief of Charles Schuler."

It is proposed by this bill to grant a pension to the person above named, who was discharged from the military service in December, 1864. He filed a declaration for a pension in the Pension Bureau in January, 1883. This application is still pending. Without referring to the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the matter should be determined by the Bureau to which it has properly been presented before special legislation should be invoked.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 7073, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary S. Woodson."

Henry Woodson, the husband of the beneficiary named, enlisted in September, 1861, and was discharged in October, 1863, on account of valvular disease of the heart.

The application for pension on behalf of his widow was filed August 5, 1881.

She concedes that she is unable to furnish any evidence of the date or the cause of her husband's death.

It appears that he left home in March, 1874, for the purpose of finding work, and neither she nor her friends have ever heard from him since. His death may naturally be presumed, and the condition of his family is such that it would be a positive gratification to aid them in the manner proposed; but the entire and conceded absence of any presumption, however weak, that he died from any cause connected with his military service seems to render it improper to place the widow's name upon the pension rolls.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7108, entitled "An act granting a pension to Andrew J. Wilson."

It appears that this man was drafted and entered the service in February, 1865, and was discharged in September of the same year on account of "chronic nephritis and deafness."

In 1882 he filed his application for a pension, alleging that in June, 1865, from exposure, he contracted rheumatism. Afterwards he described his trouble as inflammation of the muscles of the back, with pain in the kidneys. In another statement, filed in December, 1884, he alleges that while in the service he contracted diarrhea and was injured in one of his testicles, producing a rupture.

Whatever else may be said of this claimant's achievements during his short military career, it must be conceded that he accumulated a great deal of disability.

There is no doubt in my mind that whatever ailments he may honestly lay claim to, his title to the same was complete before he entered the Army.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 7703, entitled "An act granting a pension to Anna A. Probert."

The husband of this beneficiary was pensioned in 1864. He was a druggist and apothecary at Norwalk, in the State of Ohio. Shortly before his death, in 1878, he went to Memphis for the purpose of giving his professional assistance to those suffering from yellow fever at that place. He was himself attacked by that disease, and died on the 28th day of October, 1878.

His widow has never herself applied for a pension, but a power of attorney has been filed, authorizing the prosecution of her claim by another.

That she has employed an ingenious attorney or agent is demonstrated by the fact that the bill now before me seems to be based upon the theory that Mr. Probert might have recovered from his attack of yellow fever if he had been free from the ailments for which he had been pensioned fourteen years before.

If such speculations and presumptions as this are to be indulged, we shall find ourselves surrounded and hedged in by the rule that all men entering an army were free from disease or the liability to disease before their enlistment, and every infirmity which is visited upon them thereafter is the consequence of army service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7162, entitled "An act granting a pension to Martha McIlwain."

R.J. McIlwain, the husband of the claimant, enlisted in 1861, and was discharged in 1862 because of the loss of his right leg by a gunshot wound. He was pensioned for this disability. He died May 15, 1883, from an overdose of morphia. It is claimed by the widow that her husband was in the habit of taking morphia to alleviate the pain he endured from his stump, and that he accidentally took too much.

The case was investigated by a special examiner upon the widow's application for pension, and his report shows that the deceased had been in the habit of taking morphia and knew how to use it; that he had been in the habit of buying 6 grains at a time, and that his death was caused by his taking one entire purchase of 6 grains while under the influence of liquor.

In any event it is quite clear that the taking of morphia in any quantity was not the natural result of military service or injury received therein.

I concur in the judgment of the Pension Bureau, which rejected the widow's claim for pension on the ground that "the death of the soldier was not due to his military service."

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 7931, entitled "An act increasing the pension of Clark Boon."

This claimant filed his declaration for pension February 3, 1874, in which he states that he lost his health while a prisoner at Tyler, Tex.

On the 19th day of October, 1874, he filed an affidavit claiming that he contracted diseases of the heart and head while in the service. In a further application, filed January 16, 1878, he abandoned his allegations as to disease, and asks for a pension on account of a gunshot wound in the left ankle. Medical testimony was produced on his behalf tending to show not only a gunshot wound, but a disease of the eyes.

A small pension was at last granted him upon the theory advanced by a board of surgeons in 1880 that it was "possible that applicant was entitled to a small rating for weakness of ankle."

A declaration was filed June 4, 1885, by which this claimant insists upon an increase of pension on account of the wound and also for disease of eyes and rheumatism.

I am entirely satisfied that all has been done in this case that the most liberal treatment demands.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 7257, entitled "An act granting a pension to James H. Darling."

This man enlisted in November, 1861, and was reported as having deserted March 5, 1862. The charge of desertion was, however, removed, and it is stated that he went to his home in Ohio at the date stated, by proper authority, where he remained sick till December, 1862, when he was discharged for disability caused "by a disease of the kidneys known as Bright's disease," from which, the physician making the certificate thought, "there was no reasonable prospect of his recovery."

The claimant filed his application for pension, alleging that in January, 1862, he contracted rheumatism.

The claim was investigated by a special examiner and rejected on the ground that the evidence produced failed to show the alleged disability was contracted in the service and in the line of duty.

A medical examination made in 1877 showed that the claimant was "a well-nourished man, 65 years old; height, 5 feet 8 inches; weight, 165 pounds." No disability was discovered, "but a general stiffness of joints, especially of legs, which he says is much aggravated in stormy, cold weather."

Another examination in 1882 found this victim of war disability with "the appearance of a hale, hearty old man—no disease that was discoverable by examination (without chemical test), except some lameness from rheumatism." His weight upon this examination is stated to be 186 pounds.

It is evident to me that this man ought not to be pensioned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without my approval House bill No. 6372, entitled "An act to pension Charles A. Chase."

This claimant was enrolled September 6, 1864, and mustered out with his detachment June 1, 1865. His brief service contains no record of disability.

But in 1880 he filed a declaration for pension, in which he claims that by reason of exposure suffered in the service about the 20th of October, 1864, he contracted disease of the liver and kidneys.

The application for pension was denied January 9, 1884, because there was no record of the alleged diseases, and no satisfactory proof of their contraction in the Army was produced, and because of the meager and unconvincing evidence of disability found by the surgeon on an actual examination of the claimant.

I adopt these as the reasons for my action in withholding my approval of this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 6192, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Norman."

The husband of this claimant was enrolled May 22, 1863, and was mustered out of the service June 1, 1866.

He was wounded in the head February 20, 1864; was treated for the same, and returned to duty September 3, 1864.

In her declaration for pension, filed in February, 1880, the claimant claims a pension because of his wound and deafness consequent therefrom, and that he died after he left the service.

In a letter, however, dated October 13, 1880, she states that her husband was drowned while trying to cross Roanoke River in December, 1868.

Her claim was rejected in 1881 on the ground that the cause of the soldier's death was accidental drowning, and was not due to his military service.

In an attempt to meet this objection it was claimed as lately as 1885, on behalf of the widow, that her husband's wound caused deafness to such an extent that at the time he was drowned he was unable to hear the ferryman, with whom he was crossing the river, call out that the boat was sinking.

How he could have saved his life if he had heard the warning is not stated.

It seems very clear to me that this is not a proper case for the granting of a pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without my approval House bill No. 7614, entitled "An act granting an increase of pension to Hezekiah Tillman."

This claimant, in his declaration for pension, filed in 1866, alleges that he received a gunshot wound in his right leg November 25, 1862. He was mustered out with his company September 22, 1864.

He was pensioned for the wound which he claimed to have received as his only injury.

In another declaration, filed in 1872, he alleged that in December, 1862, he was struck in his left eye by some hard substance, which destroyed the vision of that organ.

In a subsequent declaration, filed in 1878, he claimed that he received a shell wound in his left knee in November, 1863.

This latter claim has not been finally acted upon by the Pension Bureau, and I am of the opinion that with the diverse claims for injuries which have been there presented on behalf of the beneficiary named justice will be done in the case.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 6718, entitled "An act granting a pension to William H. Starr."

An application made by this claimant to the Pension Bureau is still pending there, and additional evidence has been called for, which the claim is awaiting before final decision.

I am of the opinion that the investigation there should be fully completed before special legislation is resorted to.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7109, entitled "An act granting a pension to Joseph Tuttle."

This man claims a pension as the dependent father of Charles Tuttle, who enlisted in 1861 and was killed in action May 31, 1862.

The claimant, being, as he says, poor, took his son Charles, at the age of 9 years, and placed him in charge of an uncle living in Ohio. An arrangement was afterwards made by which the boy should live with a stranger named Betts. Upon the death of this gentleman the lad was transferred to one Captain Hill, with whom he remained until his enlistment in 1861.

It is stated that during the time he remained with Mr. Hill he sent his father $5; but the fatherly care and interest of the claimant in his son is exhibited by his statement that though the son was killed in 1862 his father was not aware of it until the year 1864.

After the exhibition of heartlessness and abandonment on the part of a father which is a prominent feature in this case, I should be sorry to be a party to a scheme permitting him to profit by the death of his patriotic son. The claimant relinquished the care of his son, and should be held to have relinquished all claim to his assistance and the benefits so indecently claimed as the result of his death.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 5995, entitled "An act granting a pension to David T. Elderkin."

This claimant enlisted August 5, 1862. From his record it appears that he was dishonorably discharged the service, to date from June 11, 1863, with a loss of all pay, bounty, and allowances.

He filed a declaration for a pension in 1882, claiming that he was wounded in the head by a shell January 1, 1863, which cut his cheek close to his right ear, causing almost total deafness.

There is conflicting evidence as to the claimant's freedom from deafness prior to enlistment, and on a special examination it was shown that he was slightly hard of hearing before enlistment. Indeed the claimant himself stated to the special examiner and also to the board of surgeons that he had been somewhat deaf from childhood.

In 1882 an examining surgeon reports that he finds no scar or evidence of wound, but his hearing is very much impaired.

The claim was rejected in 1885 on the ground that deafness existed prior to enlistment, and also because of no ratable disability by reason of alleged wound in the cheek.

I think, considering the manner of the soldier's discharge and the facts developed, that the claimant should not be pensioned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 29, 1886.

To the Senate:

I hereby return Senate bill No. 1797, entitled "An act granting a pension to John S. Kirkpatrick."

This claimant appears to have enlisted December 10, 1861, and to have been discharged December 20, 1864. He is borne upon the rolls of his company as present up to June, 1862; in July and August, 1862, as on detached service as hospital attendant, and so reported February 28, 1863. In March and April, 1863, he is reported as present, and in May and June, 1863, as on detached service. There is nowhere in his service any record of disability.

He filed his application for a pension in 1880, in which he alleged that from hardship and exposure on a long march in New Mexico in the month of December, 1862, he contracted varicose veins in his legs.

As I understand the record given above, this claimant was on detached service from July, 1862, to February, 1863.

It will be observed that his claim is that he contracted his disability within that time, and in December, 1862. He appears also to have served for two years after the date of his alleged injury, and that he did not file his application for pension till about sixteen years afterwards.

His claim is still pending, undetermined, in the Pension Bureau, and if there is merit in it there is no doubt that he will be able to make it apparent.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 29, 1886.

To the Senate:

I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 1077, entitled "An act granting a pension to Newcomb Parker."

This claimant filed an application for a pension in the year 1880.

Before the passage of the bill herewith returned the Commissioner of Pensions, in ignorance of the action of Congress, allowed his claim under the general law. As this decision of the Pension Bureau entitles the beneficiary named to draw a pension from the date of filing his application, which, under the provisions of the special bill in his favor, would only accrue from the time of its passage, I am unwilling that one found worthy to be placed upon the pension rolls by the Bureau, to which he properly applied, should be an actual loser by reason of a special interposition of Congress in his behalf.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 2, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 473, entitled "An act granting a pension to William Boone."

There is not the slightest room for doubt as to the facts involved in this case.

No application for pension was ever made to the Pension Bureau by the beneficiary named in this bill. He enlisted in August, 1862; was in action November, 1862, and taken prisoner and at once paroled. During his parole, and at Aurora, in the State of Illinois, he took part in the celebration of the 4th day of July, 1863, and while so engaged was terribly injured by the discharge of a cannon. He is poor, and has a wife and a number of children.

These facts are derived from the report of the committee in Congress to whom the bill was referred, and from a letter written by the soldier since favorable action was had upon said bill by both Houses of Congress, which letter is now before me. In this letter he says: "I never thought of trying getting a pension until my old comrades urged me to do so."

This declaration does not in the least, I think, militate against the present application for pension, but it tends to show the ideas that have become quite prevalent concerning the facts necessary to be established in order to procure a pension by special act of Congress.

Let it be conceded that during the three months which elapsed between the soldier's enlistment and his capture and parole he was constantly in the field and bravely did his duty. The case presented is that of a brave soldier, not injured in any engagement with the enemy, but honorably captured, and by his parole placed in a condition which prevented for the time being his further active military service. He proceeded to his home or to his friends and took his place among noncombatants. Eight months afterwards he joined the citizens of the place of his sojourn and the citizens of every town and hamlet in the loyal States in the usual and creditable celebration of our national holiday. Among the casualties which unfortunately always result from such celebrations there occurred a premature discharge of a cannon, which the present claimant for pension was assisting other citizens to discharge and manage.

Whether any of those thus engaged with him were injured is not disclosed, but it is certain that the paroled soldier was very badly hurt.

I am utterly unable to discover any relation between this accident and the military service, or any reason why, if a pension is granted as proposed by this bill, there should not also be a pension granted to any of the companions of the claimant who chanced to be injured at the same time.

A disabled man and a wife and family in need are objects which appeal to the sympathy and charitable feelings of any decent man; but it seems to me that it by no means follows that those intrusted with the people's business and the expenditure of the people's money are justified in so executing the pension laws as that they shall furnish a means of relief in every case of distress or hardship.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 3, 1886.

To the Senate:

I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 365, entitled "An act for the relief of Martin L. Bundy."

By this bill it is proposed to allow in the settlement by the United States with Mr. Bundy, who was lately a paymaster in the Army, the sum of $719.47 for the forage of two horses to which he claims he was entitled while in the service, and which has never been drawn by him. The time during which it is alleged this forage was due is stated to be between July 17, 1862, and April 15, 1866.

This claimant was mustered out as paymaster on the last-mentioned date, and in 1872 a certificate was issued that, his accounts having been adjusted, they exhibited no indebtedness on his part to the United States.

Subsequently, however, and in or about the year 1879, it was discovered that by reason of a duplicate credit, which had been allowed him by mistake, he was actually indebted to the Government in the sum of $528.72.

After the fact had been made known to him the claim embodied in this bill was suggested to or invented by him, which, if allowed, will not only extinguish his indebtedness to the Government, but leave a balance due to him.

By the law and the Army Regulations the forage upon which this claim is based is or should be only allowed to those in the service who actually have and use horses in the performance of their duties.

And when thus entitled to forage it was necessary to draw it in kind or in the specific articles permitted every month, and if not thus drawn it could not afterwards be claimed. There seems to be no such thing as commutation of forage in such cases.

There is no suggestion that the claimant named in this bill had or used any horses while in the service. If he did and paid for their maintenance and at the time of the settlement of his accounts made no claim for reimbursement, he presents a case of incredible ignorance of his rights or a wonderful lack of that disposition to gain every possible advantage which is usually found among those who deal with the Government.

It is quite apparent that the claim is not valid, and the fact that it is made long after the discovery of his deficit leads to the suspicion that it is insisted on merely for the purpose of paying his debt.

Though in this particular case it would do but little more than to extinguish an indebtedness to the Government, the allowance of this claim would set a precedent which could hardly be ignored, and which, if followed, would furnish another means of attack upon the public Treasury quite as effective as many which are now in active operation.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 7018, entitled "An act granting a pension to Aretus F. Loomis."

The Commissioner of Pensions, before he became aware of the passage of this bill, directed favorable action upon the application of the claimant pending in the Pension Bureau. A certificate has been issued for the payment of a pension to him, dating from September 30, 1882.

In the interest of the claimant I therefore withhold my signature from the bill, as the pension granted by special act would only date from the time of its passage.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 1818, entitled "An act granting a pension to H.L. Kyler."

A pension was granted to the person named in this bill, dating from September, 1864, for neuralgia and disease of the eyes.

He was mustered into the service, to serve one hundred days, May 14, 1864, and mustered out September 8, 1864.

In 1880 information reached the Pension Bureau that the pensioner was treated for neuralgia and disease of the eyes at various times between the years 1859 and 1864, and this fact appearing to the satisfaction of the Bureau upon the examination which followed, the pensioner's name was dropped from the roll.

Afterwards another thorough examination of the case was made, when the pensioner was permitted to confront the witnesses against him and produce evidence in his own behalf.

It is claimed that a Dr. Saunders, who testified to treating the pensioner before his enlistment, was exceedingly unfriendly; but he was corroborated by his son and by entries on his books. Another physician, apparently disinterested, also testified to his treatment of the pensioner in 1860 for difficulties with his eyes and ears. The pensioner himself admitted that he had trouble with one of his eyes in 1860, but that he entirely recovered. Six other witnesses testified to the existence of disease of the pensioner's eyes before enlistment.

Though twelve neighbors of the pensioner testified that he was free from neuralgia and disease of the eyes before enlistment, I am of the opinion that the evidence against the pension was quite satisfactory, and that it should not be restored, as the bill before me proposes.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 3640, entitled "An act granting a pension to James T. Irwin."

This claimant enlisted in February, 1864, and was mustered out June 10, 1865. He is reported as absent sick from August 20, 1864, until mustered out. He seems to have been treated for remittent fever, chronic diarrhea, general debility, and palpitation of the heart.

In 1876 he filed a declaration for pension, alleging that at Petersburg, July 1, 1864, he contracted fever and inflammation of the eyes.

He filed an affidavit in January, 1877, in which he states that his diseased eyes resulted from diseased nerves, caused by a wound received June 18, 1864, at Petersburg, and from a consequent abscess on the back of the neck.

In an affidavit filed in July, 1878, he states that in June, 1864, in front of Petersburg, he had his gun smashed in front of his face and his eyes injured, and afterwards he had an abscess on the back of his neck, typhoid fever, and disease of the left lung.

His claim founded upon these various allegations of injury was rejected in February, 1879.

In September, 1884, a declaration was filed for a pension, alleging disease of the heart contracted at Petersburg June 16, 1864.

The claimant was examined once in 1882 and twice in 1884 by United States examining surgeons and boards, and it is stated that these examinations failed to reveal any disease or disability except disease of the eyes and an irritable heart, the result of indigestion.

An oculist who made an examination in 1884 reported that the unnatural condition of claimant's eyes was congenital and in no manner the result of injury or disease.

Upon a consideration of the very short time that the claimant was in actual service, the different claims he has made touching his alleged disability, and the positive results of medical examinations, I am satisfied this pension should not be allowed.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without my approval House bill No. 5306, entitled "An act granting a pension to Roxana V. Rowley."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of Franklin Rowley, who enlisted February 8, 1865, was promoted to first lieutenant March 13, 1865, and was discharged May 22, 1865, having tendered his resignation, as it is stated, on account of incompetency. His tender of resignation was indorsed by the commanding officer of his regiment as follows: "This man is wholly unfit for an officer."

It will be seen that he was in the service a little more than three months.

In 1880, fifteen years after his discharge, he applied for a pension, alleging that he contracted disease of the liver while in the service.

Upon an examination of the claim his attending physician before enlistment stated that as early as 1854 the claimant was afflicted with dyspepsia and functional disease of the liver; that he regarded him as incurable, so far as being restored to sound health was concerned, and that if he had been at home at the time when he enlisted he would have advised against it.

The testimony of this physician as to the claimant's condition after his discharge is referred to in the report of the Committee of the House to whom this bill was referred, and I do not understand that he is at all impeached. He certainly is better informed than any other person regarding the condition of the man who was his patient.

The soldier died in 1881, sixteen years after his discharge, and his widow filed her claim for pension in 1882, alleging that the death of her husband was caused by a disease of the liver contracted in the service.

Her claim was rejected in 1883 upon the ground that the disease of which her husband died existed prior to his enlistment.

I can not avoid the conclusion, upon all the facts presented, that his death was not chargeable to any incident of his brief military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 5021, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Margaret A. Jacoby."

A pension has been allowed on account of the disability of the claimant's husband, dating from his discharge in 1864.

The beneficiary named in this bill applied for pension in 1885, alleging that she married the soldier in 1864; that he incurred deafness and chronic diarrhea while in the service, from the combined effect of which he partially lost his mind; that on the 7th day of September, 1875, he disappeared, and that after diligent search and inquiry she is unable to learn anything of him since that time.

His disability from army service should be conceded and his death at some time and in some manner may well be presumed; but the fact that he died from any cause related to his disability or his service in the Army has no presumption and not a single particle of proof to rest upon.

With proper diligence something should be discovered to throw a little light upon this subject.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 3304, entitled "An act to restore the name of Abner Morehead to the pension roll."

The person mentioned in this bill was pensioned in November, 1867, upon the claim made by him that in 1863, from hardship and exposure incident to camp life and field duty, he contracted a fever which settled in his eyes, almost wholly destroying his sight. Afterwards his pension was increased to $15 a month, dating from December, 1867, and arrears at the rate of $8 a month from February, 1864. In 1876 the case was put in the hands of a special agent of the Pension Bureau for examination, and upon his report, showing that the claimant's disease of the eyes existed prior to enlistment, his name was dropped from the rolls.

An application for restoration was made in 1879, and a thorough examination was made by a special examiner in 1885, who reported that the testimony taken conclusively established the fact that the claimant had disease of the eyes prior to the time of enlistment, the result of a disorder which he specifically mentions, and that he was treated for the same more than a year subsequently to 1860. He adds:

There is no merit whatever in this case, and it is evident that he obtained a large sum as pension to which, he must have known he was not entitled.

The results of these examinations, instituted for the express purpose of developing the facts, and with nothing apparent to impeach them, should, I think, control as against the statements of neighbors and comrades based upon mere general observation, and not necessarily covering the period which is important to the controversy.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 4782, entitled "An act granting a pension to Elizabeth McKay."

The beneficiary named is the widow of Rowley S. McKay, who in 1862 seems to have been employed as pilot on the ram Switzerland. He seems to have been upon the rolls of two other vessels of the United States, the Covington and General Price, but was discharged by Admiral Porter in June, 1864, with loss of all pay and emoluments.

He filed an application for pension in 1870, alleging that while on duty as pilot and in action with the rebel ram Arkansas his hearing became affected by heavy firing. He also claimed that in February, 1863, while on the vessel Queen of the West, she grounded, and to escape capture he got off and floated down the river on a cotton bale, and, being in the water about three hours, the exposure caused a disease of the urinary organs; and that a few days after, while coming up the river on a transport, the boat was fired into and several balls passed through his left thigh. It seems that this claim was not definitely passed upon, but it is stated that the records failed to show that McKay was in the service of the United States at the time he alleged the contraction of disease of the urinary organs and was wounded in the thigh.

The beneficiary named in this bill never made application for pension to the Pension Bureau, but it appears that she bases her claims to consideration by Congress upon the allegation that in 1862, while her husband was acting as pilot of the ram or gunboat Switzerland, he contracted chronic diarrhea, from which he never recovered, and that he died from the effects of said disease in May, 1874.

It will be observed that among the various causes which the soldier or sailor himself alleged as the grounds of his application for pension chronic diarrhea is not mentioned.

There does not appear to be any medical testimony to support the claim thus made by the widow, and the cause of death is not definitely stated.

Taking all together, it has the appearance of a case, by no means rare, where chronic diarrhea or rheumatism are appealed to as a basis for a pension claim in the absence of something more substantial and definite.

The fact that the claim of the beneficiary has never been presented to the Pension Bureau influences in some degree my action in withholding my approval of this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 3623, entitled "An act granting a pension to William H. Nevil."

This bill directs that the name of the claimant be placed upon the pension roll "subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws."

This very thing was done on the 22d day of June, 1865, and the claimant is in the receipt at the present time of the full amount of pension allowed by our pension laws as administered by the Pension Bureau.

I suppose the intention of the bill was to increase this pension, but it is not framed in such a way as to accomplish that object or to benefit the claimant in any way whatever.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 1505, entitled "An act granting a pension to William Dermody."

By the records of the War Department which have been furnished me it appears that this claimant enlisted August 19, 1861; that he deserted August 29, 1862; in November and December, 1862, he is reported as present in confinement in regimental guardhouse, to forfeit one month's pay by sentence of regimental court-martial; he is reported as having deserted again in December, 1863, but as present for duty in January and February, 1864; he reenlisted in the latter month, and was mustered out July 17, 1865, and with his company was paid up to and including July 21, 1865.

He filed a declaration for pension in 1879, alleging that he received a gunshot wound in the thigh at Trenton, N.J., July 21, 1865, and that the wound was inflicted by a member of the Invalid Corps, who was whipping a drummer boy, and the claimant interfered in behalf of the boy.

It is quite certain that the transaction took place July 23.

An examining board, in 1880, found pistol shot in thigh, but refused to give the claimant a rating, because, as they report, "from the evidence before the board there is reason to suppose that he was deserting from the barracks at Trenton July 23, 1865, and was shot by the guard."

This may not be a just suspicion or finding, but he surely was not in the service nor in the performance of any military duty at the time of the injury, nor was he engaged in such manner as to entitle him to indemnification at the hands of the Government.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 1059, entitled "An act to grant a pension to Joseph Romiser."

The Pension Bureau reports that the records of the office fail to show that an application has been filed in favor of this claimant, though it is stated in the report of the House committee that such a claim was made and rejected on the ground that the claimant was not at the time of injury in the service of the United States.

It certainly appears from the report of the committee that the beneficiary named in this bill was not in the service of the Government at such a time, and also that he had not been mustered into the service of any State military organization. It is stated that he belonged to Captain Frank Mason's company of volunteers, of Prostburg, in the State of Maryland.

Whether this company was organized for the purpose of cooperating at any time with the Union or State forces is not alleged, and it may well have been existing merely for the purpose of neighborhood protection.

Such as it was, the company was ordered in June, 1861, to proceed to Cumberland to repel a threatened attack of Confederate forces. Upon arriving at that place the men were ordered to uncap their muskets. In doing this, and through the negligence of another member of the company, whose musket was discharged, the claimant was wounded.

It does not seem to me that the facts in this case, so far as they have been developed, justify the passage of this act.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 4226, entitled "An act granting a pension to Fannie E. Evans."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of George S. Evans. He was a soldier in the Mexican War, and entered the Union Army in the War of the Rebellion, on the 16th day of October, 1861, as major of a California regiment. He became a colonel in February, 1863, and resigned in April of that year, to take effect on the 31st of May ensuing.

His resignation seems to have been tendered on account of private matters, and no mention was then made of any disability. It is stated in the committee's report to the House that in 1864 he accepted the office of adjutant-general of the State of California, which he held for nearly four years.

He died in 1883 from cerebral apoplexy.

In March, 1884, his widow filed an application for pension, based upon the allegation that from active and severe service in a battle with the Indians at Spanish Fort in 1863 her husband incurred a hernia, which incapacitated him for active service.

There appears to be evidence to justify this statement, notwithstanding the fact that the deceased during the twenty years that followed before his death made no claim for such disability.

But it seems to me that the effort to attribute his death by apoplexy to the existence of hernia ought not to be successful.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 2971, entitled "An act granting a pension to Francis Deming."

This claimant entered the service in August, 1861, and was discharged September 15, 1865.

His hospital record shows that during his service he was treated for various temporary ailments, among which rheumatism is not included.

He filed an application for pension in September, 1884, alleging that in August, 1864, he contracted rheumatism, which had resulted in blindness.

On an examination of his case in November, 1884, he stated that his eyesight began to fail in 1882.

There seems to be no testimony showing his condition from the time of his discharge to 1880, a period of fifteen years.

The claim that his present condition of blindness is the result of his army service is not insisted upon as a reason for granting him relief as strongly as his sad and helpless condition. The committee of the House to which this bill was referred, after detailing his situation, close their report with these words: "He served well his country in its dire need; his necessities now appeal for relief."

We have here presented the case of a soldier who did his duty during his army service, and who was discharged in 1865 without any record of having suffered with rheumatism and without any claim of disability arising from the same. He returned to his place as a citizen, and in peaceful pursuits, with chances certainly not impaired by the circumstance that he had served his country, he appears to have held his place in the race of life for fifteen years or more. Then, like many another, he was subjected to loss of sight, one of the saddest afflictions known to human life.

Thereupon, and after nineteen years had elapsed since his discharge from the Army, a pension is claimed for him upon a very shadowy allegation of the incurrence of rheumatism while in the service, coupled with the startling proposition that this rheumatism resulted, just previous to his application, in blindness. Upon medical examination it appeared that his blindness was caused by amaurosis, which is generally accepted as an affection of the optic nerve.

I am satisfied that a fair examination of the facts in this case justifies the statement that the bill under consideration can rest only upon the grounds that aid should be furnished to this ex-soldier because he served in the Army and because he a long time thereafter became blind, disabled, and dependent.

The question is whether we are prepared to adopt this principle and establish this precedent.

None of us are entitled to credit for extreme tenderness and consideration toward those who fought their country's battles. These are sentiments con "ion to all good citizens. They lead to the most benevolent care on the part of the Government and deeds of charity and mercy in private life. The blatant and noisy self-assertion of those who, from motives that may well be suspected, declare themselves above all others friends of the soldier can not discredit nor belittle the calm, steady, and affectionate regard of a grateful nation.

An appropriation has just been passed setting apart $76,000,000 of the public money for distribution as pensions, under laws liberally constructed, with a view of meeting every meritorious case. More than $1,000,000 was added to maintain the Pension Bureau, which is charged with the duty of a fair, just, and liberal apportionment of this fund.

Legislation has been at the present session of Congress perfected considerably increasing the rate of pension in certain cases. Appropriations have also been made of large sums for the support of national homes where sick, disabled, or needy soldiers are cared for, and within a few days a liberal sum has been appropriated for the enlargement and increased accommodation and convenience of these institutions.

All this is no more than should be done.

But with all this, and with the hundreds of special acts which have been passed granting pensions in cases where, for my part, I am willing to confess that sympathy rather than judgment has often led to the discovery of a relation between injury or death and military service, I am constrained by a sense of public duty to interpose against establishing a principle and setting a precedent which must result in unregulated, partial, and unjust gifts of public money under the pretext of indemnifying those who suffered in their means of support as an incident of military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 4642, entitled "An act granting a pension to James Carroll."

The claimant alleges that he was wounded while in the service as a member of Company B, Third Regiment North Carolina Mounted Volunteers, while securing recruits for the regiment at Watauga, N.C., January 25, 1865.

The records of the War Department develop the fact that the name of this man is not borne upon any roll of the company to which he claims to belong.

He stated in his application that he was sworn in by one George W. Perkins, who, it appears, was a private in said company, and that Perkins was with him at the time he was shot.

This is undoubtedly true, and that the claimant was injured by a gunshot is also probably true. He was not, however, at the time regularly in the United States service, but this objection might in some circumstances be regarded as technical. The difficulty is that the fact that he was creditably employed in a service of benefit to the country is not satisfactorily shown. He gives two accounts of the business in which he was engaged, and Mr. Perkins's explanation of the manner in which the two were occupied is somewhat different still.