 |
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 1, 1887.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State, together with a copy of the report, which it incloses, of Lieutenant William H. Schuetze, United States Navy, who was designated by the Secretary of the Navy, in pursuance of the act of Congress of March 3, 1885, making appropriations for the sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1886, to distribute the testimonials of the Government to subjects of Russia who extended aid to the survivors of the Jeannette exploring expedition and to the parties dispatched by this Government to aid the said survivors.
The report is interesting alike to the people of the United States and to the subjects of Russia, and will be gratifying to all who appreciate the generous and humane action of Congress in providing for the testimonials.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 1, 1887.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In response to the resolution of the House of Representatives adopted on the 22d ultimo, calling upon me for a "copy of the treaty or convention proposed to the Senate and ratified by that body between the United States and the Government of the Hawaiian Islands," I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers.
It is proper to remark in this relation that no convention whatever has been "agreed to and ratified" by "the President and Senate," as is recited in the preamble to the said resolution of the House of Representatives, but that the documents referred to, exhibiting the action of the Executive and the Senate, respectively, are communicated in compliance with the request of the resolution.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 8, 1887.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
I transmit herewith, in response to a resolution of the House of the 24th ultimo, a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying copies of correspondence between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the rights of American fishermen in the waters of British North America, supplemental to the correspondence already communicated to Congress with my message of December 8, 1886.[14]
GROVER CLEVELAND.
[Footnote 14: See pp. 529-530.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 10, 1887.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State, accompanying reports by consular officers of the United States on the extent and character of the emigration from and immigration into their respective districts.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 14, 1887.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, concluded October 2, 1886, in the harbor of Nukualofa, Tongatabu, between the United States of America and the King of Tonga.
I also transmit, for your information, a report from the Secretary of State, inclosing copies of the treaties of friendship concluded between the Kingdom of Tonga and Germany and Great Britain.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 14, 1887.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith a report furnished by the Secretary of State in response to a resolution of the Senate of January 31 ultimo, calling for particulars of the investment and distribution of the indemnity received in 1875 from Spain, and known as the "Virginius fund."
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 15, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 12th instant (the House of Representatives concurring), I return herewith the bill (H.R. 5652) for the relief of James W. Goodrich.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 16, 1887.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State, accompanying the annual reports of the consuls of the United States on the trade and industries of foreign countries.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 19, 1887.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
I transmit herewith to the House of Representatives a report from the Secretary of State, in response to a resolution of that body of the 16th instant, inquiring as to the action of this Department to protect the interests of American citizens whose property was destroyed by fire caused by insurgents at Aspinwall in 1885.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 23, 1887.
To the Senate:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 14th instant, relating to the arrest, trial, and discharge of A.K. Cutting, a citizen of the United States, by the authorities of Mexico, I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State of this date, with its accompaniment.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 25, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), I return herewith the bill (H.R. 367) to amend section 536 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to the division of the State of Illinois into judicial districts, and to provide for holding terms of court of the northern district at the city of Peoria.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 25, 1887.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, an additional article to the treaty of extradition concluded October 11, 1870, between the United States of America and the Republic of Guatemala.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 26, 1887.
To the Senate:
I transmit herewith, in reply to a resolution of the Senate of the 21st ultimo, a report from the Secretary of State, relative to the seizure and sale of the American schooner Rebecca at Tampico and the resignation of Henry R. Jackson, esq., as minister of the United States to Mexico. It is not thought compatible with the public interests to publish the correspondence in either case at the present time.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 28, 1887.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
I transmit herewith a communication of 17th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, two agreements made with Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota under the provisions of the act of May 15, 1886 (24 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 44).
The papers are presented for the consideration and action of Congress.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, March 1, 1887.
To the Senate of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 22d ultimo, requesting copies of certain letters, dated June 8, 1886, and September 20, 1886, addressed by the counsel of A.H. Lazare to the Secretary of State, in regard to the award against the Republic of Hayti in favor of A.H. Lazare under the protocol signed by the Secretary of State and the minister of Hayti on May 24, 1884, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State upon the subject.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, March 1, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:.
In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 28th ultimo (the Senate concurring), I return herewith the bill of the House (H.R. 7310) granting a pension to Mrs. Arlanta T. Taylor.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 2, 1887.
To the Senate of the United States:
In response to the resolution of the Senate of the 14th ultimo, requesting information concerning the service rendered by Count Casimir Pulaski, a brigadier-general of the Army of the United States in the years 1777, 1778, and 1779, and also respecting his pay and compensation, I transmit herewith reports upon the subject from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of War.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, March 2, 1887.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers, furnished in response to the resolution of the Senate of the 26th ultimo, calling for information touching the conditions under which certain transatlantic telegraph companies have been permitted to land their cables in the United States, and touching contracts of such companies with each other or with other cable or telegraph companies.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
VETO MESSAGES.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 19, 1887.
To the Senate:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 2269, entitled "An act granting a pension to William Dickens."
The beneficiary named in this bill filed his application for pension in the Pension Bureau in 1880, and in December, 1886, the same was granted, taking effect from the 15th day of October, 1864.
If the bill herewith returned should become a law, it would permit the payment of a pension only from the date of its approval. Thus, if it did not result in loss to the claimant by superseding the action of the Pension Bureau, it is plain that it would be a useless enactment.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 27, 1887.
To the Senate:
I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 2173, entitled "An act granting a pension to Benjamin Obekiah."
This bill directs that the beneficiary named therein be placed upon the pension roll, "subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws."
In July, 1886, the person named in this bill was placed upon the pension roll at a rate determined upon by the Pension Bureau, pursuant to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws; and it is entirely certain that the special act now presented to me would give the claimant no new rights or additional benefits.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 27, 1887.
To the Senate:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 127, entitled "An act for the relief of H.K. Belding."
This bill directs the sum of $1,566 to be paid to the said H.K. Belding "for carrying the mails of the United States between the years 1858 and 1862."
In April, 1858, a contract was awarded to the said Belding for carrying the mails from Brownsville, Minn., to Carimona, in the same State, a distance of 63 miles, and return, three times a week, for the sum of $1,800 per annum, said service to begin on the 1st day of July, 1858, and to terminate on the 30th day of June, 1862. This contract contained a provision that the Post-Office Department might discontinue the service in whole or in part, allowing to the contractor one month's extra pay therefor.
On May 9, 1859, in consequence of a failure on the part of the Congress to make the necessary appropriation, a general reduction of mail service was ordered, and the service under the contract with the claimant was reduced to two trips per week from May 10, 1859, instead of three, as stipulated in the contract, and a deduction of one-third of the annual sum to be paid by the contract was made for such reduced service; and thereupon one month's extra pay was allowed and paid the contractor on account of said reduction.
It is conceded that payment was made in full according to the terms of the contract up to the 10th day of May, 1859, but it is claimed that notwithstanding the reduction of the service to two trips per week and the receipt by the contractor of one month's extra pay by reason thereof, he continued to perform the full service of three trips per week from the 10th day of May, 1859, to the 30th day of September, 1860, being seventeen months.
Of the sum directed to be paid to him in the bill under consideration, $850 is allowed him on account of this service, he having been paid for the period stated at the rate of $1,200 per annum. The contractor claims that this full service was performed after the reduction by the Post-Office Department because he had received an intimation from the Postmaster-General that if the full service was continued after such reduction there was no doubt that the Congress would at its next session make provision for the payment of the sum deducted.
Of course no legal claim in favor of the contractor can be predicated upon the facts which he alleges; and if he did continue full service under the circumstances stated, it must be conceded that his conduct was hardly in accordance with the rules which regulate transactions of this kind.
But a thorough search of the correspondence and records in the Post-Office Department fails to disclose any letter, document, or record giving the least support to the allegation that any such intimation or assurance as is claimed was given; nor is there the least evidence in the Department that the full service was actually performed. There is, however, on the files of the Department a letter from the claimant, dated August 25, 1860, containing the following statement:
When I received official information of the curtailing service, the reasons why, I wrote to the Department that I would, if allowed, continue service three times a week and take certificates, if I could be allowed to connect with La Crosse at pro rata rates. That letter was never answered and I continued service three times a week till 3d of September following, then run twice a week.
Thus it appears that this contractor, who in August, 1860, claimed that he continued full service upon the invitation of his own unanswered letter for less than four months, insists twenty-seven years after the date of the alleged service that he performed such service for seventeen months, and up to October, 1860. Not only has he himself in this manner almost conclusively shown that the claim now made and allowed is exorbitant, but the evidence gives rise to a strong presumption that it is entirely fictitious.
The remainder of the amount allowed to the claimant in this bill is based upon an alleged performance by the contractor of the same mail service which has been referred to from October 1, 1860, to February 14, 1861, a period of four months and fourteen days.
Prior to October 1, 1860, the claimant's contract was annulled and a new or more extended route established, entirely covering that upon which he had carried the mails. Thereupon a month's extra pay was allowed to him, and new contractors undertook the service and were paid therefor by the Government for the period covered by the claimant's alleged service. From the 14th day of February, 1861, Mr. Belding's contract with the Government was reinstated; but if he performed the service alleged during the period of four months and fourteen days immediately prior to that date, it is quite clear that he did so under an arrangement with the new contractors, and not under circumstances creating any legal or equitable claim against the Government.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 31, 1887.
To the Senate:
I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 2167, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Margaret Dunlap."
By this bill it is proposed to grant a pension to the beneficiary therein named as the mother of James F. Dunlap, who enlisted in the Seventh Missouri State Militia Cavalry in 1862 and died in July, 1864, of wounds received at the hand of a comrade.
The favorable action of the Senate upon this bill appears to be based, so far as the cause of death is concerned, upon an affidavit contained in the report of the committee to which the bill was referred, made by one G. Will Houts, second lieutenant in the company to which the deceased soldier belonged, in which the affiant deposes that some of the comrades of the deceased being engaged in an affray he attempted to separate the combatants, whereupon one of them, without cause or provocation, stabbed the deceased in the breast, from which, in a few days thereafter, he died; to which affidavit is added the finding of a court-martial that the party inflicting the wound was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to five years' imprisonment.
Upon this showing it might be difficult to spell out the facts that the injury to the soldier was received in the line of duty or that any theory of granting pensions covered the case.
But the weak features of this application are not alluded to in the committee's report.
The record of the soldier's death states that he was "killed by one of his comrades in a difficulty."
The same Lieutenant Houts who in 1872 made oath that the soldier was wounded while attempting to separate comrades who were fighting testified in 1864 before the court-martial upon the trial of the man who did the wounding, and whose name was Capehart, that Dunlap, the deceased, stated to him "that he was more to blame than Capehart, and that they had been scuffling, at first good-naturedly, and then both got angry; that he was rougher with Capehart than he ought to have been."
Another witness testified that the affray took place between Dunlap and Capehart; that Dunlap handled Capehart very roughly, kicking him, etc., and that finally Capehart stabbed Dunlap, upon which the latter attempted to get his gun, but was prevented from doing so by the witness.
Of course there can be no pretense of any kind of claim against the Government arising from these facts.
It is quite evident that the affidavit presented to the Senate committee was contrived to deceive, and it is to be feared that it is but a sample of many that are made in support of claims for pensions.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 3, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 6443, entitled "An act granting a pension to Alexander Falconer."
This claimant filed his application for pension in 1879, alleging that in 1837, being then an enlisted man in the United States Army, he received a gunshot wound in his right leg below the knee at the battle of Okeechobee Lake, Florida.
The records disclose the fact that this soldier enlisted in 1834, and was almost continuously in the service and attached to the same company until 1846.
It further appears that he is reported sick during the month in which the battle was fought. The list of casualties does not contain his name among the wounded.
He reenlisted in 1846 and again in 1847, and was finally discharged in 1848. These latter enlistments were for service in the Mexican War.
His claim for pension was denied in 1885 on the ground that no disability existed in a pensionable degree from the alleged gunshot wound in his leg.
It is perfectly clear that the only pretexts for giving this claimant a pension are military service, old age, and poverty.
Inasmuch as he was a soldier in the Mexican War, his case is undoubtedly provided for by a general law approved within the last few days.
Under this bill the amount to be paid him is fixed, while if the bill herewith returned were approved the sum to be paid him would depend upon the determination of the Pension Bureau as to the extent of his disability as the result of his wound. As that Bureau has quite lately determined that there was no disability, it is evident that this old soldier can better rely upon the general law referred to.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 3, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6132, entitled "An act granting a pension to William Lynch."
The claimant mentioned in this bill enlisted in the Fifth Regiment United States Infantry in 1849, and was discharged, after a reenlistment, September 8, 1859.
He filed a claim for pension more than twenty-four years afterwards, in April, 1884, claiming that he contracted rheumatism of the right hip and leg in the winter of 1857-58, while serving in Utah. He admitted that he was not under treatment while in the service and that he never consulted a physician in regard to his disability until he commenced proceedings for a pension.
The evidence disclosed to me falls far short of establishing this claim for pension upon its merits.
The application made to the Pension Bureau is still pending and awaiting answer to inquiries made by the Bureau in January, 1886.
I do not understand that the Congress intends to pass special acts in cases thus situated.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without approval House bill No. 7698, entitled "An act granting a pension to Robert K. Bennett."
The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted in September, 1862, and it appears that very soon after that he was detailed to the cook shop. This seems to be the only military service he rendered, and on February 7, 1863, five months after enlistment, he was received into the marine hospital at New Orleans for varicocele. He was discharged from the service February 22, 1863, and the cause of discharge is stated to be "varicocele, to which he was subject four years before enlistment."
Seventeen years thereafter, and in June, 1880, this claimant filed an application for pension in the Pension Bureau, alleging that about the 10th day of February, 1863, in unloading a barrel it fell upon him, producing a hernia, shortly after which he was affected by piles.
It will be seen that he fixes this injury as occurring three days after his admission to the hospital, but he might well be honestly mistaken as to this date. If the injury, however, was such as he stated, it is difficult to see why no mention was made of it in the hospital records.
He persisted at all times, as I understand the case, until the rejection of his claim in 1883, that his disability arose from hernia and piles. The reason of this rejection is stated to be that varicocele existed prior to enlistment and that there was no evidence of the existence of piles in the service or at discharge. From a medical examination made in December, 1882, it appears that there was "no evidence or symptoms of disability resulting from piles or hernia."
Subsequent to the rejection of this claim some proof was filed tending to show that the disability was in the right leg, but it is of such a nature, in the light of the claimant's own previous allegations, that I think the Pension Bureau did entirely right in informing his attorney that the additional evidence did not change the status of the case.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without approval House bill No. 7540, entitled "An act to increase the pension of Franklin Sweet."
This soldier was pensioned in 1863 as sergeant, though before that time he had been acting as captain, and was in command of his company when he was wounded. He is entitled in equity, and, I think, upon the theory of an act very recently approved, in law, to be treated in regard to his pension as a captain; and the Pension Bureau has within the last few days ordered a certificate for pension to issue to him as captain as of the date of his discharge.
I fully approve this action of the Bureau, and as this is much more favorable to a deserving soldier than his remedy under this bill, I am not willing that the action, so lately and so justly taken in his behalf under the general law should be superseded by the approval of this act.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 8834, entitled "An act granting a pension to Abraham P. Griggs."
The claimant mentioned in this bill enlisted in a New Jersey regiment August 14, 1861, and was discharged for disability November 17, 1863.
He entered hospital January 2, 1863, and was transferred to general hospital at Newark, N.J., March 28, 1863, with "debility." He was discharged from that hospital and from the service in November, 1863, as above stated, and the following statement from his certificate of discharge, if trustworthy, sheds some light upon the kind of debility with which he was afflicted:
This man has been in this hospital for the past eight months. We do not believe him sick, or that he has been sick, but completely worthless. He is obese and a malingerer to such an extent that he is almost an imbecile—worthlessness, obesity, and imbecility and laziness. He is totally unfit for the Invalid Corps or for any other military duty.
I do not regard it at all strange that this claimant, encouraged by the ease with which special acts are passed, seeks relief through such means, after his application, filed in the Pension Bureau nearly twenty years after his discharge, had been rejected.
Of the four comrades who make affidavit in support of his claim, two of them are recorded as deserters.
His claim is predicated upon rheumatism. He alleges that after his discharge from his enlistment he was drafted and served in the Third New York Cavalry, but the Adjutant-General reports that his name does not appear on the rolls of the company to which he says he was attached.
The board of United States examining surgeons at Trenton, N.J., report as the result of an examination as late as May 27, 1885, that they found "no disease of heart or lungs, no thickening or wasting of any of the joints of the body, no evidence of any rheumatic diathesis, no rupture or hemorrhoids, no disease of his spleen or kidney; hands are hard and indicate an ability to work."
I can not think that the official statements referred to, and which militate so strongly against the merits of the claimant, should be impeached or set aside by any of the other testimony which has been brought to my attention.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without approval House bill No. 927, entitled "An act granting a pension to Cudbert Stone."
The report of the committee of the House of Representatives to whom this bill was referred states that the claimant enlisted October 3, 1861, in Company H, Fourteenth Kentucky Volunteers, and was honorably discharged on the 31st day of January, 1865; that he filed his claim for pension July 20, 1881, more than sixteen years thereafter, alleging that he contracted piles while in the service, from exposure while in the line of duty, and that his claim was rejected in October, 1884, on the ground that the allegation of the claimant shows that his disability originated while undergoing the sentence of a court-martial, and therefore not in the line of duty.
The report of the committee closes with the statement that—
In view of the long and faithful service and high character of the claimant and the well-established facts that claimant was a stout and able-bodied man, free from any and all disease when he enlisted, and that by reason of his faithful service to his country and the great suffering and hardship through which he passed while in said service his health was permanently destroyed, the committee earnestly recommend the passage of the bill.
The records of the War Department show that the claimant enlisted October 25, 1861, and that on the muster-in roll of his company dated December 10, 1861, he is reported as present; that on the roll dated December 31, 1861, he is reported as absent without leave; that on the roll for January and February, 1862, he is reported as deserted; that he is not borne on subsequent rolls until that for November, 1864, when he is reported as gained from desertion; he was mustered out with his company January 31, 1865, and the records offered no evidence of disability; that in his claim for pension, filed in 1881, he alleges that he contracted piles in the winter of 1863.
In a subsequent statement he alleges that this date is erroneous, and that his disability was contracted in October, 1864, and that he believes it was the result of his having diarrhea for about twelve months prior to that date, contracted while he was being carried from place to place as a prisoner, he having been tried by a court-martial in May, 1862, for desertion and sentenced to imprisonment until the expiration of his term of enlistment.
Thus it quite plainly appears that this claimant spent the most of his term of enlistment in desertion or in imprisonment as a punishment of that offense; and thus is exhibited the "long and faithful service and the high character of the claimant" mentioned as entitling him to consideration by the committee who reported favorably upon this bill.
I withhold my assent from this bill because, if the facts before me, derived from the army records and the statements of the claimant are true, the allowance of this claim would, in my opinion, be a travesty upon our whole scheme of pensions and an insult to every decent veteran soldier.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 8150, entitled "An act granting a pension to Jesse Campbell."
The claim for a pension made by the beneficiary named in this bill to the Pension Bureau, and rejected in 1881, was reopened upon further proof in January, 1887, and the claimant was ordered before a board of examining surgeons, upon which a report has not yet been made.
Inasmuch as the only ground for the rejection of his claim was the nonexistence of pensionable disability from the cause he alleged, and in view of the fact that he now alleges a different disability, which the new evidence seems to support, there is no doubt that justice will be done the claimant under the general law.
This bill if passed would only place the name of the beneficiary upon the pension roll, "subject to the restrictions and limitations of the pension laws." Whether any sum was allowed him or not would still depend upon the existence of a disability; and if this is found upon the examination lately ordered, he will undoubtedly be put upon the pension roll, under existing law, in accordance with his supplementary claim.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without approval House bill No. 6832, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Catharine Sattler."
The beneficiary named in this bill claims a pension as the surviving widow of Julius Sattler, who enlisted in Company A, Seventh New York Volunteers, and was in the service from March 10, 1864, to March 22, 1865, when he was discharged because of the amputation of his left forearm in consequence of a wound received in the battle of Deep Bottom, Virginia, on the 14th day of August, 1864. He was pensioned in 1865 at the rate of $8 per month, which was afterwards increased to $15 per month, dating from June 6, 1866.
In October, 1867, he was employed as a watchman in the United States bonded warehouse in the city of New York, and on the 31st day of that month he received his monthly pay of $50. He disappeared on that day, and on the 13th day of November, 1867, his body was found in the North River, at the foot of West Thirteenth street, in the city of New York without his hat, coat, watch, or money.
These facts, with the further statement that he was a strong and healthy man at the time of his death, constitute the case on the part of the widow, who filed her application for a pension July 8, 1884, nearly seventeen years after her husband's death, alleging that she was married to the deceased in 1865, after the amputation of his arm.
Her claim was rejected in November, 1884, upon the ground that the soldier's death was not due to his military service.
This rejection was clearly right, unless the Government is to be held as an insurer against every fatal casualty incurred by those who have served in the Army, without regard to the manner of its occurrence.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6825, entitled "An act granting a pension to James R. Baylor."
The claim of the beneficiary named in this bill is based upon an injury to his left ankle in 1862.
A medical examination in 1877 showed no appearance of there ever having been a fracture of the left ankle, as alleged by the claimant, and it was determined that there was no disability. A later examination in the same year was had with the same result. Still another medical examination was had in June, 1884, which, although nearly agreeing with the previous ones, and giving rise to some suspicion that the claimant was inclined to exaggerate and prevent a free and fair examination, still does not absolutely exclude a very slight disability.
Upon the report of this last examination the case has been reopened for further proof of disability since discharge, which if found will entitle the claimant to a pension under general laws. On the question to be determined he would have no advantage under a special act, inasmuch as there must be a ratable disability to entitle him to any payment in pursuance of its provisions.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 11, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without my approval House bill No. 10457, entitled "An act for the relief of dependent parents and honorably discharged soldiers and sailors who are now disabled and dependent upon their own labor for support."
This is the first general bill that has been sanctioned by the Congress since the close of the late civil war permitting a pension to the soldiers and sailors who served in that war upon the ground of service and present disability alone, and in the entire absence of any injuries received by the casualties or incidents of such service.
While by almost constant legislation since the close of this war there has been compensation awarded for every possible injury received as a result of military service in the Union Army, and while a great number of laws passed for that purpose have been administered with great liberality and have been supplemented by numerous private acts to reach special cases, there has not until now been an avowed departure from the principle thus far adhered to respecting Union soldiers, that the bounty of the Government in the way of pensions is generously bestowed when granted to those who, in this military service and in the line of military duty, have to a greater or less extent been disabled.
But it is a mistake to suppose that service pensions, such as are permitted by the second section of the bill under consideration, are new to our legislation. In 1818, thirty-five years after the close of the Revolutionary War, they were granted to the soldiers engaged in that struggle, conditional upon service until the end of the war or for a term not less than nine months, and requiring every beneficiary under the act to be one "who is, or hereafter by reason of his reduced circumstances in life shall be, in need of assistance from his country for support." Another law of a like character was passed in 1828, requiring service until the close of the Revolutionary War; and still another, passed in 1832, provided for those persons not included in the previous statute, but who served two years at some time during the war, and giving a proportionate sum to those who had served not less than six months.
A service-pension law was passed for the benefit of the soldiers of 1812 in the year 1871, fifty-six years after the close of that war, which required only sixty days' service; and another was passed in 1878, sixty-three years after the war, requiring only fourteen days' service.
The service-pension bill passed at this session of Congress, thirty-nine years after the close of the Mexican War, for the benefit of the soldiers of that war, requires either some degree of disability or dependency or that the claimant under its provisions should be 62 years of age, and in either case that he should have served sixty days or been actually engaged in a battle.
It will be seen that the bill of 1818 and the Mexican pension bill, being thus passed nearer the close of the wars in which its beneficiaries were engaged than the others—one thirty-five years and the other thirty-nine years after the termination of such wars—embraced persons who were quite advanced in age, assumed to be comparatively few in number, and whose circumstances, dependence, and disabilities were clearly defined and could be quite easily fixed.
The other laws referred to appear to have been passed at a time so remote from the military service of the persons which they embraced that their extreme age alone was deemed to supply a presumption of dependency and need.
The number of enlistments in the Revolutionary War is stated to be 309,791, and in the War of 1812 576,622; but it is estimated that on account of repeated reenlistments the number of individuals engaged in these wars did not exceed one-half of the number represented by these figures. In the war with Mexico the number of enlistments is reported to be 112,230, which represents a greater proportion of individuals engaged than the reported enlistments in the two previous wars.
The number of pensions granted under all laws to soldiers of the Revolution is given at 62,069; to soldiers of the War of 1812 and their widows, 60,178; and to soldiers of the Mexican War and their widows, up to June 30, 1885, 7,619. The latter pensions were granted to the soldiers of a war involving much hardship for disabilities incurred as a result of such service; and it was not till within the last month that the few remaining survivors were awarded a service pension.
The War of the Rebellion terminated nearly twenty-two years ago; the number of men furnished for its prosecution is stated to be 2,772,408. No corresponding number of statutes have ever been passed to cover every kind of injury or disability incurred in the military service of any war. Under these statutes 561,576 pensions have been granted from the year 1861 to June 30, 1886, and more than 2,600 pensioners have been added to the rolls by private acts passed to meet cases, many of them of questionable merit, which the general laws did not cover.
On the 1st day of July, 1886, 365,763 pensioners of all classes were upon the pension rolls, of whom 305,605 were survivors of the War of the Rebellion and their widows and dependents. For the year ending June 30, 1887, $75,000,000 have been appropriated for the payment of pensions, and the amount expended for that purpose from 1861 to July 1, 1886, is $808,624,811.51.
While annually paying out such a vast sum for pensions already granted, it is now proposed by the bill under consideration to award a service pension to the soldiers of all wars in which the United States has been engaged, including of course the War of the Rebellion, and to pay those entitled to the benefits of the act the sum of $12 per month.
So far as it relates to the soldiers of the late civil war, the bounty it affords them is given thirteen years earlier than it has been furnished the soldiers of any other war, and before a large majority of its beneficiaries have advanced in age beyond the strength and vigor of the prime of life.
It exacts only a military or naval service of three months, without any requirement of actual engagement with an enemy in battle, and without a subjection to any of the actual dangers of war.
The pension it awards is allowed to enlisted men who have not suffered the least injury, disability, loss, or damage of any kind, incurred in or in any degree referable to their military service, including those who never reached the front at all and those discharged from rendezvous at the close of the war, if discharged three months after enlistment. Under the last call of the President for troops, in December, 1864, 11,303 men were furnished who were thus discharged.
The section allowing this pension does, however, require, besides a service of three months and an honorable discharge, that those seeking the benefit of the act shall be such as "are now or may hereafter be suffering from mental or physical disability, not the result of their own vicious habits or gross carelessness, which incapacitates them for the performance of labor in such a degree as to render them unable to earn a support, and who are dependent upon their daily labor for support."
It provides further that such persons shall, upon making proof of the fact, "be placed on the list of invalid pensioners of the United States, and be entitled to receive for such total inability to procure their subsistence by daily labor $12 per month; and such pension shall commence from the date of the filing of the application in the Pension Office, upon proof that the disability then existed, and continue during the existence of the same in the degree herein provided: Provided, That persons who are now receiving pensions under existing laws, or whose claims are pending in the Pension Office, may, by application to the Commissioner of Pensions, in such form as he may prescribe, receive the benefit of this act."
It is manifestly of the utmost importance that statutes which, like pension laws, should be liberally administered as measures of benevolence in behalf of worthy beneficiaries should admit of no uncertainty as to their general objects and consequences.
Upon a careful consideration of the language of the section of this bill above given it seems to me to be so uncertain and liable to such conflicting constructions and to be subject to such unjust and mischievous application as to alone furnish sufficient ground for disapproving the proposed legislation.
Persons seeking to obtain the pension provided by this section must be now or hereafter—
1. "Suffering from mental or physical disability."
2. Such disability must not be "the result of their own vicious habits or gross carelessness."
3. Such disability must be such as "incapacitates them for the performance of labor in such a degree as to render them unable to earn a support."
4. They must be "dependent upon their daily labor for support."
5. Upon proof of these conditions they shall "be placed on the lists of invalid pensioners of the United States, and be entitled to receive for such total inability to procure their subsistence by daily labor $12 per month."
It is not probable that the words last quoted, "such total inability to procure their subsistence by daily labor," at all qualify the conditions prescribed in the preceding language of the section. The "total inability" spoken of must be "such" inability—that is, the inability already described and constituted by the conditions already detailed in the previous parts of the section.
It thus becomes important to consider the meaning and the scope of these last-mentioned conditions.
The mental and physical disability spoken of has a distinct meaning in the practice of the Pension Bureau and includes every impairment of bodily or mental strength and vigor. For such disabilities there are now paid 131 different rates of pension, ranging from $1 to $100 per month.
This disability must not be the result of the applicant's "vicious habits or gross carelessness." Practically this provision is not important. The attempt of the Government to escape the payment of a pension on such a plea would of course in a very large majority of instances, and regardless of the merits of the case, prove a failure. There would be that strange but nearly universal willingness to help the individual as between him and the public Treasury which goes very far to insure a state of proof in favor of the claimant.
The disability of applicants must be such as to "incapacitate them for the performance of labor in such a degree as to render them unable to earn a support."
It will be observed that there is no limitation or definition of the incapacitating injury or ailment itself. It need only be such a degree of disability from any cause as renders the claimant unable to earn a support by labor. It seems to me that the "support" here mentioned as one which can not be earned is a complete and entire support, with no diminution on account of the least impairment of physical or mental condition. If it had been intended to embrace only those who by disease or injury were totally unable to labor, it would have been very easy to express that idea, instead of recognizing, as is done, a "degree" of such inability.
What is a support? Who is to determine whether a man earns it, or has it, or has it not? Is the Government to enter the homes of claimants for pension and after an examination of their surroundings and circumstances settle those questions? Shall the Government say to one man that his manner of subsistence by his earnings is a support and to another that the things his earnings furnish are not a support? Any attempt, however honest, to administer this law in such a manner would necessarily produce more unfairness and unjust discrimination and give more scope for partisan partiality, and would result in more perversion of the Government's benevolent intentions, than the execution of any statute ought to permit.
If in the effort to carry out the proposed law the degree of disability as related to earnings be considered for the purpose of discovering if in any way it curtails the support which the applicant, if entirely sound, would earn, and to which he is entitled, we enter the broad field long occupied by the Pension Bureau, and we recognize as the only difference between the proposed legislation and previous laws passed for the benefit of the surviving soldiers of the Civil War the incurrence in one case of disabilities in military service and in the other disabilities existing, but in no way connected with or resulting from such service.
It must be borne in mind that in no case is there any grading of this proposed pension. Under the operation of the rule first suggested, if there is a lack in any degree, great or small, of the ability to earn such a support as the Government determines the claimant should have, and, by the application of the rule secondly suggested, if there is a reduction in any degree of the support which he might earn if sound, he is entitled to a pension of $12.
In the latter case, and under the proviso of the proposed bill permitting persons now receiving pensions to be admitted to the benefits of the act, I do not see how those now on the pension roll for disabilities incurred in the service, and which diminish their earning capacity, can be denied the pension provided in this bill.
Of course none will apply who are now receiving $12 or more per month. But on the 30th day of June, 1886, there were on the pension rolls 202,621 persons who were receiving fifty-eight different rates of pension from $1 to $11.75 per month. Of these, 28,142 were receiving $2 per month; 63,116, $4 per month; 37,254, $6 per month, and 50,274, whose disabilities were rated as total, $8 per month.
As to the meaning of the section of the bill under consideration there appears to have been quite a difference of opinion among its advocates in the Congress. The chairman of the Committee on Pensions in the House of Representatives, who reported the bill, declared that there was in it no provision for pensioning anyone who has a less disability than a total inability to labor, and that it was a charity measure. The chairman of the Committee on Pensions in the Senate, having charge of the bill in that body, dissented from the construction of the bill announced in the House of Representatives, and declared that it not only embraced all soldiers totally disabled, but, in his judgment, all who are disabled to any considerable extent; and such a construction was substantially given to the bill by another distinguished Senator, who, as a former Secretary of the Interior, had imposed upon him the duty of executing pension laws and determining their intent and meaning.
Another condition required of claimants under this act is that they shall be "dependent upon their daily labor for support."
This language, which may be said to assume that there exists within the reach of the persons mentioned "labor," or the ability in some degree to work, is more aptly used in a statute describing those not wholly deprived of this ability than in one which deals with those utterly unable to work.
I am of the opinion that it may fairly be contended that under the provisions of this section any soldier whose faculties of mind or body have become impaired by accident, disease, or age, irrespective of his service in the Army as a cause, and who by his labor only is left incapable of gaining the fair support he might with unimpaired powers have provided for himself, and who is not so well endowed with this world's goods as to live without work, may claim to participate in its bounty; that it is not required that he should be without property, but only that labor should be necessary to his support in some degree; nor is it required that he should be now receiving support from others.
Believing this to be the proper interpretation of the bill, I can not but remember that the soldiers of our Civil War in their pay and bounty received such compensation for military service as has never been received by soldiers before since mankind first went to war; that never before on behalf of any soldiery have so many and such generous laws been passed to relieve against the incidents of war; that statutes have been passed giving them a preference in all public employments; that the really needy and homeless Union soldiers of the rebellion have been to a large extent provided for at soldiers' homes, instituted and supported by the Government, where they are maintained together, free from the sense of degradation which attaches to the usual support of charity; and that never before in the history of the country has it been proposed to render Government aid toward the support of any of its soldiers based alone upon a military service so recent, and where age and circumstances appeared so little to demand such aid.
Hitherto such relief has been granted to surviving soldiers few in number, venerable in age, after a long lapse of time since their military service, and as a parting benefaction tendered by a grateful people.
I can not believe that the vast peaceful army of Union soldiers, who, having contentedly resumed their places in the ordinary avocations of life, cherish as sacred the memory of patriotic service, or who, having been disabled by the casualties of war, justly regard the present pension roll on which appear their names as a roll of honor, desire at this time and in the present exigency to be confounded with those who through such a bill as this are willing to be objects of simple charity and to gain a place upon the pension roll through alleged dependence.
Recent personal observation and experience constrain me to refer to another result which will inevitably follow the passage of this bill. It is sad, but nevertheless true, that already in the matter of procuring pensions there exists a widespread disregard of truth and good faith, stimulated by those who as agents undertake to establish claims for pensions heedlessly entered upon by the expectant beneficiary, and encouraged, or at least not condemned, by those unwilling to obstruct a neighbor's plans.
In the execution of this proposed law under any interpretation a wide field of inquiry would be opened for the establishment of facts largely within the knowledge of the claimants alone, and there can be no doubt that the race after the pensions offered by this bill would not only stimulate weakness and pretended incapacity for labor, but put a further premium on dishonesty and mendacity.
The effect of new invitations to apply for pensions or of new advantages added to causes for pensions already existing is sometimes startling.
Thus in March, 1879, large arrearages of pensions were allowed to be added to all claims filed prior to July 1, 1880. For the year from July 1, 1879, to July 1, 1880, there were filed 110,673 claims, though in the year immediately previous there were but 36,832 filed, and in the year following but 18,455.
While cost should not be set against a patriotic duty or the recognition of a right, still when a measure proposed is based upon generosity or motives of charity it is not amiss to meditate somewhat upon the expense which it involves. Experience has demonstrated, I believe, that all estimates concerning the probable future cost of a pension list are uncertain and unreliable and always fall far below actual realization.
The chairman of the House Committee on Pensions calculates that the number of pensioners under this bill would be 33,105 and the increased cost $4,767,120. This is upon the theory that only those who are entirely unable to work would be its beneficiaries. Such was the principle of the Revolutionary pension law of 1818, much more clearly stated, it seems to me, than in this bill. When the law of 1818 was upon its passage in Congress, the number of pensioners to be benefited thereby was thought to be 374; but the number of applicants under the act was 22,297, and the number of pensions actually allowed 20,485, costing, it is reported, for the first year, $1,847,900, instead of $40,000, the estimated expense for that period.
A law was passed in 1853 for the benefit of the surviving widows of Revolutionary soldiers who were married after January 1, 1800. It was estimated that they numbered 300 at the time of the passage of the act; but the number of pensions allowed was 3,742, and the amount paid for such pensions during the first year of the operation of the act was $180,000, instead of $24,000, as had been estimated.
I have made no search for other illustrations, and the above, being at hand, are given as tending to show that estimates can not be relied upon in such cases.
If none should be pensioned under this bill except those utterly unable to work, I am satisfied that the cost stated in the estimate referred to would be many times multiplied, and with a constant increase from year to year; and if those partially unable to earn their support should be admitted to the privileges of this bill, the probable increase of expense would be almost appalling.
I think it may be said that at the close of the War of the Rebellion every Northern State and a great majority of Northern counties and cities were burdened with taxation on account of the large bounties paid our soldiers; and the bonded debt thereby created still constitutes a large item in the account of the tax gatherer against the people. Federal taxation, no less borne by the people than that directly levied upon their property, is still maintained at the rate made necessary by the exigencies of war. If this bill should become a law, with its tremendous addition to our pension obligation, I am thoroughly convinced that further efforts to reduce the Federal revenue and restore some part of it to our people will, and perhaps should, be seriously questioned.
It has constantly been a cause of pride and congratulation to the American citizen that his country is not put to the charge of maintaining a large standing army in time of peace. Yet we are now living under a war tax which has been tolerated in peaceful times to meet the obligations incurred in war. But for years past, in all parts of the country, the demand for the reduction of the burdens of taxation upon our labor and production has increased in volume and urgency.
I am not willing to approve a measure presenting the objections to which this bill is subject, and which, moreover, will have the effect of disappointing the expectation of the people and their desire and hope for relief from war taxation in time of peace.
In my last annual message the following language was used:
Every patriotic heart responds to a tender consideration for those who, having served their country long and well, are reduced to destitution and dependence, not as an incident of their service, but with advancing age or through sickness or misfortune. We are all tempted by the contemplation of such a condition to supply relief, and are often impatient of the limitations of public duty. Yielding to no one in the desire to indulge this feeling of consideration, I can not rid myself of the conviction that if these ex-soldiers are to be relieved they and their cause are entitled to the benefit of an enactment under which relief may be claimed as a right, and that such relief should be granted under the sanction of law, not in evasion of it; nor should such worthy objects of care, all equally entitled, be remitted to the unequal operation of sympathy or the tender mercies of social and political influence, with their unjust discriminations.
I do not think that the objects, the conditions, and the limitations thus suggested are contained in the bill under consideration.
I adhere to the sentiments thus heretofore expressed. But the evil threatened by this bill is, in my opinion, such that, charged with a great responsibility in behalf of the people, I can not do otherwise than to bring to the consideration of this measure my best efforts of thought and judgment and perform my constitutional duty in relation thereto, regardless of all consequences except such as appear to me to be related to the best and highest interests of the country.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 16, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without my approval House bill No. 10203, entitled "An act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in the drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation therefor."
It is represented that a long-continued and extensive drought has existed in certain portions of the State of Texas, resulting in a failure of crops and consequent distress and destitution.
Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people's needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.
And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.
It is within my personal knowledge that individual aid has to some extent already been extended to the sufferers mentioned in this bill. The failure of the proposed appropriation of $10,000 additional to meet their remaining wants will not necessarily result in continued distress if the emergency is fully made known to the people of the country.
It is here suggested that the Commissioner of Agriculture is annually directed to expend a large sum of money for the purchase, propagation, and distribution of seeds and other things of this description, two-thirds of which are, upon the request of Senators, Representatives, and Delegates in Congress, supplied to them for distribution among their constituents.
The appropriation of the current year for this purpose is $100,000, and it will probably be no less in the appropriation for the ensuing year. I understand that a large quantity of grain is furnished for such distribution, and it is supposed that this free apportionment among their neighbors is a privilege which may be waived by our Senators and Representatives.
If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops, the constituents for whom in theory this grain is intended could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 19, 1887.
To the Senate:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 859, entitled "An act granting a pension to Charlotte O'Neal."
This bill proposes to grant a pension to the beneficiary therein named as the widow of Richard O'Neal, late colonel of the Twenty-sixth Regiment Indiana Volunteers.
In the report of the committee in the Senate to whom this bill was referred it is stated that the deceased soldier was the first colonel of the regiment named; that he resigned from the Army, and was by order of the governor of Indiana put in charge of the United States camps at Indianapolis. A military order is made part of the report, announcing that the funeral of Lieutenant-Colonel Richard O'Neal will take place January 6, 1863, and reciting the fact that the deceased had charge of the camps near Indianapolis for the preceding four months.
It is distinctly alleged in the report that the beneficiary did not apply to the Pension Bureau for relief because the disease of which her husband died was incurred after his resignation.
The records of the War Department fail to show that there was a colonel of the Twenty-sixth Indiana Regiment named Richard O'Neal, but it does appear that Richard Neal was lieutenant-colonel of said regiment; that he was mustered in August 31, 1861, and resigned June 30, 1862.
If this is the officer whose widow is named in the bill, the proposition is to pension a widow of a soldier who, after ten months' service, resigned, and who seven months after his resignation died of disease which was in no manner related to his military service.
There is besides such a discrepancy between the name given in the bill and the name of the officer who served as lieutenant-colonel in the regiment mentioned that if the merits were with the widow the bill would need further Congressional consideration.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 19, 1887.
To the Senate:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 1626, entitled "An act granting a pension to John Reed, Sr."
The report of the Senate Committee on Pensions merely states that the mother of John Reed was granted a pension, commencing the 5th day of December, 1862; that she has since died, and that the proposed bill is to secure a pension to John Reed, Sr., the aged and dependent father of the deceased soldier.
The records show that the beneficiary named in this bill filed an application for a pension in 1877, alleging that he was the father of John Reed, who died in the service, and that his wife, the mother of the deceased soldier, died May 10, 1872, and that he, the father, was mainly dependent upon his son for support. He filed evidence of the mother's death, and one witness alleged that he was present at her death and attended her funeral.
In 1864 Martha Reed, the mother of the soldier, filed her application for pension, in which she at first claimed to be the widow of John Reed. She afterwards, however, alleged that her husband, John Reed, abandoned his family in 1859 and had not thereafter contributed to their support, and that the soldier was her main support after such abandonment. She was allowed a pension as dependent mother, which commenced in 1862, the date of her son's death, and seems to have terminated July 22, 1884, when she died.
The claim of the father was rejected in 1883 for the reason that the mother, who had a prior right, was still living, and when his claim was again pressed in 1886 he was informed that his abandonment of his family in 1859 precluded the idea that he was entitled to a pension as being dependent upon the soldier for support.
Of course these decisions were correct in law, in equity, and in morals.
This case demonstrates the means employed in attempts to cheat the Government in applications for pensions—too often successful.
The allegation in 1877 of the man who now poses as the aged and dependent father of a dead soldier that the mother died in 1872, when at that time her claim was pending for pension largely based upon his abandonment; the affidavit of the man who testified that he saw her die in 1872; the effrontery of this unworthy father renewing his claim after the detection of his fraud and the actual death of the mother, and the allegation of the mother that she was a widow when in fact she was an abandoned wife, show the processes which enter into these claims for pensions and the boldness with which plans are sometimes concocted to rob the Government by actually trafficking in death and imposing upon the sacred sentiments of patriotism and national gratitude.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 21, 1887.
To the Senate:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 2452, entitled "An act granting a pension to Rachel Ann Pierpont."
At the time this bill was introduced and passed an application for pension on behalf of the beneficiary named was pending in the Pension Bureau. This application was filed in December, 1879. Within the last few days, and on the 17th day of February, 1887, a pension was granted upon said application and a certificate issued at precisely the same rate which the bill herewith returned authorizes.
But the pension under the general laws dates from the time of filing the application in 1879, while under a special act it would date only from the time of its passage.
In the interest of the beneficiary and for her advantage the special bill is therefore disapproved.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 21, 1887.
To the Senate:
I return herewith without approval Senate bill No. 2111, entitled "An act granting a pension to Jacob Smith."
The beneficiary named in this bill filed his claim for a pension November 11, 1882. He seems upon the facts presented to be justly entitled to it, and since this bill has been in my hands the Commissioner of Pensions has reported to me that a certificate therefor would at once be issued.
Under such a certificate this disabled soldier's pension will commence November 11, 1882. Under this bill, if approved, it would date only from the time of its approval. I suppose his certificate has already been issued, and I am unwilling to jeopardize the advantages he has gained thereunder, as might be done if the bill herewith returned became a law.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 21, 1887.
To the Senate:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 1768, entitled "An act granting a pension to John D. Fincher."
The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted August 6, 1862, and was discharged for disability February 24, 1863.
The surgeon's certificate of disability given at the time of the soldier's discharge recites "general debility, which will disable him from performing the duties of a soldier for a good period of time. The disease was contracted by exposure and fatigue while performing the duties of a soldier."
The claimant filed his application for pension in September, 1882, nearly twenty years after his discharge, alleging that in November, 1862, he was attacked with bilious fever, followed by chronic diarrhea and lung trouble.
In support of his application an affidavit of a comrade was filed, setting forth the fact that the claimant was taken sick, as he alleged, in the fall of 1862, and that he was sent to the hospital on that account. The affidavit further expresses the belief that the claimant still suffers from the effects of his sickness and exposure.
So far as I am informed, and so far as the committee's report discloses, this is the only proof furnished of any continuance of disability at the time of filing the application for pension, and this proof, if it may be so regarded, is the mere expression of an opinion or belief, not necessarily based upon any personal knowledge, and which might have been honestly expressed if derived from representations of the claimant himself.
In this condition of the case the claimant was examined by a surgeon in 1882, whose report seems to negative all ailments except as one may be found in the fact alleged therein that he had pneumonia in 1868, and that there might be some pleuritic adhesions, plainly inferring that if such adhesions existed they were the result of the sickness to which he refers.
In February, 1885, the claimant was again examined by a board of surgeons. This examination seems to have been very carefully and thoroughly made, and as a result of the same the board reported that there was no disability. On this ground the claim was rejected.
There is no doubt as to the sickness of the claimant during his service and his disability at the time of his discharge, but unless the report of the board of surgeons is to be impeached without apparent reason there is as little doubt of the claimant's complete recovery.
No case has been presented to me in which the evidence afforded of a continuance of disability seems so inconclusive. In these circumstances the report of the board of surgeons appears to be upon the evidence before me almost uncontradicted.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 23, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No 7327, entitled "An act granting a pension to Anthony McRobertson."
The beneficiary named in this bill was badly wounded in a battle which occurred about the 17th day of November, 1863.
He applied for pension in 1874, and the same was granted in November, 1886, to date from the time of his disability, November 17, 1863.
He is now receiving the highest rate allowed under the general law for cases such as his, and he would be entitled to no more under the special act.
It could not, therefore, by any possibility be of the least benefit to him, but, on the other hand, might jeopardize his advantages already gained.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 23, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 8002, entitled "An act to increase the pension of Loren Burritt."
The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted in October, 1863, and in December of that year was mustered in as major of the Eighth Regiment United States Colored Troops; was promoted to lieutenant-colonel and very badly wounded in February, 1864, and was mustered out with his regiment November 10, 1865.
His condition at the present time is most pitiable, and his helplessness is such that he needs the constant care and assistance of others. He was obliged to give up business about the year 1873.
In 1866 he was pensioned for his wound, which was in the right leg; and such pension has been increased from time to time until he is now in the receipt of $72 per month, the highest pension allowed under general laws. This rate was awarded him under a law passed in 1880, increasing from $50 to $72 per month the pensions of those who were rendered permanently and totally helpless, so that they required the regular and personal attendance of another.
On the 30th day of June, 1886, there were 1,009 persons on the rolls receiving this rate of pension.
This bill was reported upon adversely by the House Committee on Pensions, and they, while fully acknowledging the distressing circumstances surrounding the case, felt constrained to adverse action on the ground, as stated in the language of their report, that "there are many cases just as helpless and requiring as much attention as this one, and were the relief asked for granted in this instance it might reasonably be looked for in all."
No man can check, if he would, the feeling of sympathy and pity aroused by the contemplation of utter helplessness as the result of patriotic and faithful military service; but in the midst of all this I can not put out of mind the soldiers in this condition who were privates in the ranks, who sustained the utmost hardships of war, but who, because they were privates and in the humble walks of life, are not so apt to share in special favors of Congressional action. I find no reason why this beneficiary should be singled out from his class, except it be that he was a lieutenant-colonel instead of a private.
I am aware of a precedent for the legislation proposed, which is furnished by an enactment of the last session of Congress, to which I assented, as I think improvidently; but I am certain that exact equality and fairness in the treatment of our veterans is, after all, more just, beneficent, and useful than unfair discrimination in favor of officers or the special benefit born of sympathy in individual cases.
I am constrained, therefore, to agree with the House Committee on Pensions in their views of this bill.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 23, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 10082, entitled "An act to increase the pension of Margaret R. Jones."
The beneficiary mentioned in this bill is now receiving the highest rate of pension allowed in cases such as hers under the general law.
All the information which is available to me fails to furnish any reason why this pension should be specially increased, except the general statement in the claimant's petition that she is in necessitous circumstances and that the rate now allowed her is insufficient for her support.
The further statement in the petition that her husband's death "was caused prematurely by his endeavor to comply with unusual, disrespectful, and indefinite orders" to go to League Island Navy-Yard certainly does not in all its bearings furnish conclusive proof that his widow's pension should be increased beyond that furnished others in her situation.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 23, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 5877, entitled "An act for the relief of William H. Morhiser."
This beneficiary, though apparently not regularly enlisted in the military service of the country during the time covered by this bill for his relief, performed military duty, was captured and imprisoned. No technicality should be interposed in considering this bill to prevent the receipt by him of the same pay and allowances awarded under like circumstances to soldiers regularly enlisted.
But this bill proposes to appropriate for the benefit of this claimant such sum as pay and allowances as would be allowed a private of cavalry from November 30, 1863, to January 1, 1865. It appears from the records of the War Department that he has already been paid for at least two months of that time.
The bill also provides that there shall also be allowed to the claimant such additional pay and allowances, as commutation of rations and so forth, as were allowed prisoners of war, from July 30, 1864, to January 1, 1865. The records disclose the fact that he has been allowed commutation of rations from July 30, 1864, to December 11, 1864.
As the purpose of this bill, as gathered from the report of the committee to whom it was referred, appears to be to secure for the claimant therein named compensation "at the rate at which other soldiers in the same situation were paid," and as he seems already to have received a considerable part of the compensation provided for in the bill, I am led to suppose that a mistake has been made in framing the same.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 24, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 7648, entitled "An act for the relief of the estate of the late John How, Indian agent, and his sureties."
John How was appointed Indian agent in July, 1878, and upon such appointment gave a bond to the Government in the penal sum of $10,000 conditioned for the faithful performance of his duties as such agent and to protect the Government from loss by mismanagement or malfeasance in his official conduct. The parties named in the bill were his sureties on said bond.
On the 23d day of December, 1881, upon a report of inspectors connected with the Indian Bureau suggesting frauds and mismanagement in the conduct of this agency, Mr. How was suspended from his office, which suspension was approved by the President in January, 1882.
After such suspension the accounts of the agent were examined and various explanations offered by him in relation thereto. It is stated, however, in a report from the Indian Office now before me, that such explanations were deemed by that office sufficient to remove only a small part of the items in the accounts which were questioned. The matter was thereupon referred to the Treasury Department for further examination and adjustment.
The Second Comptroller reports that the final settlement of this agent's accounts was pending before the accounting officers for upward of eighteen months, affording ample opportunity for any explanation which might be deemed necessary and proper, and that on the 21st day of July, 1885, a final adjustment was made of the said accounts, by which a sum very much in excess of the penalty of his bond was found due from said agent to the Government.
A suit was afterwards instituted against the agent and his sureties to recover the amount thus found due, so far as the bond covered the same.
This suit is still pending.
The object of the bill now under consideration is to wholly release and discharge these sureties from any liability upon said bond.
It seems to be the opinion of all the officers of the Government who have examined the matter at all that a debt exists in favor of the Government upon this bond. It is reported that a large amount of evidence has been taken, and that in the opinion of these officers the amount due the Government can not be reduced to a less amount than the penalty of the bond.
The Second Comptroller states, as results of examinations made in his office and by the Second Auditor, that it appears that many of the vouchers presented by the agent were fictitious, the persons in whose names they were given testifying that services and supplies therein mentioned were never rendered or furnished; that in other cases parties denied the genuineness of vouchers purporting to be made by them; that a large voucher apparently given for cattle was actually given for money loaned, and that supplies bought with Government funds were appropriated for the agent's personal benefit.
I do not suppose that it was intended by the Congress to entirely relieve these sureties if a condition exists such as is above set out, which results in an indebtedness to the Government. The proposed legislation, judging from the report of the House Committee on Claims, seems rather to proceed upon the theory that no sum is due the Government in the premises.
I think it will hardly be claimed that the patient investigation of the accounting officers should be lightly discredited in this case; and it seems to me that justness to the Government and fairness to the sureties seeking relief will presumably be secured by the further prosecution of the suit already instituted, in which the truth of all matters involved can be thoroughly tested.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 25, 1887.
To the Senate:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 1162, entitled "An act for the erection of a post-office building at Lynn, Mass."
The title of this bill sufficiently indicates its purpose.
Congressional action in its favor appears to be based, as usual in such cases, upon representations concerning the population of the town in which it is proposed to erect the building, and the increase in such population, the number of railroad trains arriving and departing daily, and various other items calculated to demonstrate the importance of the city selected for Federal decoration.
These statements are supplemented by a report from the postmaster, setting forth that his postal receipts are increasing, giving the number of square feet now occupied by his office, the amount of rent paid, and the number of his employees.
This bill, unlike others of its class which seek to provide a place for a number of Federal offices, simply authorizes the construction of a building for the accommodation of the post-office alone.
The report of the postmaster differs also in this case from those which are usually furnished, inasmuch as it is therein distinctly stated that the space now furnished for his office is sufficient for its present operations. He adds, however, that from present indications there will be a large increase in the business of the office during the next ten years.
It is quite apparent that there is no necessity for the expenditure of $100,000, the amount limited in this bill, or any other sum, for the construction of the proposed building to meet the wants of the Government, and for this reason I am constrained to disapprove the proposed legislation.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 26, 1887.
To the Senate:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 2045, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Sarah Hamilton."
Thomas Hamilton, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted September 2, 1862. Upon the records he is reported present to April 30, 1863; deserted May 27, 1863. His name is dropped from subsequent rolls to February 29, 1864, when he is reported as a deserter in arrest. He is not borne upon the rolls for March and April, 1864; for May and June, 1864, he is reported absent in arrest; for July and August, present under arrest; and for September and October, present for duty. He was mustered out with his company May 24, 1865.
He applied for a pension in 1872, alleging that he received an injury to his left leg about February 15, 1863, at St. Louis, by falling from a ladder, causing varicose veins and stiffening of the leg.
He was granted a pension January 29, 1881, to commence May 25, 1865.
He subsequently applied for an increase of pension, claiming that his eyes had become affected as a result of his varicose veins. This application was rejected upon the ground that the disability for which he was pensioned had not increased and that the disease of his eyes was not a result of such disability.
The pensioner died April 22, 1883, twenty years after his alleged injury, of cerebral apoplexy; and a physician states it as his judgment that the varicosed condition of the venous system was primarily the cause of his disabilities and death.
His widow filed an application for pension October 31, 1883, which was rejected upon the ground that the soldier's death was not the result of his military service.
Notwithstanding the record of the deceased soldier, stained as it is with the charge of desertion, and the entire absence of any record proof of sickness and injury, I should consider myself, in favor of his widow, bound by the act of the Pension Bureau in allowing him a pension, and should cheerfully aid her attempt to procure a pension for herself in her needy condition, if I was not thoroughly convinced that her husband's death had no relation to his military service or any injury for which he was pensioned.
To the ordinary mind it seems impossible that apoplexy could result from such a varicosed condition as is described in this case. I do not understand that the physician who gives a contrary opinion bases his judgment upon actual observation at the time the soldier died. The last medical examination by the Pension Bureau before the soldier's death was in October, 1882, and resulted in the following report of the examining surgeon:
Weight, 180 pounds; age, 69 years; has varicose veins of left leg, but not to such an extent as to increase the size of the leg or result in marked disability; he is entirely blind in both eyes from glaucoma, which does not in any degree, in my opinion, depend upon the pensioned disability—varicose veins.
It appears that the benefit proposed by this bill can neither be properly regarded as a gratuity, based upon the honorable service and record of the soldier, nor predicated on his death resulting from a disability incurred in such service.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 26, 1887.
To the Senate:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 2210, entitled "An act granting a pension to Anna Wright."
The beneficiary named in this bill was granted a pension on the 17th day of November, 1886, dating from May 25, 1863, and is now under the general law receiving precisely the pension which she would receive under the bill herewith returned if the same should be approved.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 26, 1887.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6976, entitled "An act to erect a public building at Portsmouth, Ohio."
It is represented in support of this bill that Portsmouth by its last census had a population of 11,321, and that, it contains at present not less than 15,000 inhabitants; that it is a place of considerable manufacturing and commercial importance, and that there is no public building for the transaction of the business of the General Government nearer than Columbus or Cincinnati, both about 100 miles distant.
It is further stated in a communication from the promoter of this bill that—
There is not a Federal public building in the State of Ohio east of the line drawn on the accompanying map from Cleveland through Columbus to Cincinnati; and when wealth and population and the needs of the public service are considered, the distribution of public buildings in the State is an unfair one.
Here is disclosed a theory of expenditure for public buildings which I can hardly think should be adopted. If an application for the erection of such a building is to be determined by the distance between its proposed location and another public building, or upon the allegation that a certain division of a State is without a Government building, or that the distribution of these buildings in a particular State is unfair, we shall rapidly be led to an entire disregard of the considerations of necessity and public need which it seems to me should alone justify the expenditure of public funds for such a purpose.
The care and protection which the Government owes to the people do not embrace the grant of public buildings to decorate thriving and prosperous cities and villages, nor should such buildings be erected upon any principle of fair distribution among localities.
The Government is not an almoner of gifts among the people, but an instrumentality by which the people's affairs should be conducted upon business principles, regulated by the public needs.
Applying these principles to the case embraced in the bill under consideration, we find that at Portsmouth there is a post-office and an internal revenue collector's office for which the Government should provide.
It is represented that the quarters now furnished for these offices are inadequate and that more spacious rooms are desirable. In the post-office there are six employees, and the collector of internal revenue has five assistants. The annual rent paid for both these offices is $600.
Upon these facts the proposition is to expend $60,000 for a building to accommodate these offices, entailing after its completion quite a large sum annually for its care and superintendence.
Though the sum of $60,000 is the limit fixed for the cost of this building, if it should be completed for this sum it would be an exception to the rule in such cases; and if it is absolutely impossible to do the public business in the quarters now occupied by these offices, which does not appear to be claimed, there can be no difficulty in securing in this enterprising city adequate accommodations at a rent not largely in excess of that at present paid.
Upon the whole it does not appear, as a business proposition, that the building proposed should be undertaken.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 28, 1887.
To the Senate:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 531, entitled "An act to provide for the erection of a public building at Lafayette, Ind."
This bill appropriates $50,000 for the purpose indicated in its title.
It is represented that a deputy internal-revenue collector is located at Lafayette, but no information is furnished that he has an office there which is or ought to be furnished by the Government. It is not claimed that the Federal business at this point requires other accommodation except for the post-office located there.
As usual in such cases, the postmaster reports, in reply to inquiries, that his present quarters are inadequate, and, as usual, it appears that the postal business is increasing. The rent paid for the rooms or building in which the post-office is kept is $1, 100 per annum.
I have been informed since this bill has been in my hands that last spring a building was erected at Lafayette with special reference to its use for the post-office, and that a part of it was leased by the Government for that purpose for the term of five years. Upon the faith of such lease the premises thus rented were fitted up and furnished by the owner of the building in a manner especially adapted to postal uses, and an account of such fitting up and furnishing is before me, showing the expense of the same to have been more than $2,500.
In view of such new and recent arrangements made by the Government for the transaction of its postal business at this place, it seems that the proposed expenditure for the erection of a building for that purpose is hardly necessary or justifiable.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
PROCLAMATIONS.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas satisfactory proof has been given to me by the Government of the Netherlands that no light-house and light dues, tonnage dues, or beacon and buoy dues are imposed in the ports of the Kingdom of the Netherlands; that no other equivalent tax of any kind is imposed upon vessels in said ports, under whatever flag they may sail; that vessels belonging to the United States of America and their cargoes are not required in the Netherlands to pay any fee or due of any kind or nature, or any import due higher or other than is payable by vessels of the Netherlands or their cargoes; that no export duties are imposed in the Netherlands; and that in the free ports of the Dutch East Indies, to wit, Riouw (in the island of Riouw), Pabean, Sangrit, Loloan, and Tamboekoes (in the island of Bali), Koepang (in the island of Timor), Makassar, Menado, Kema, and Gorontalo (in the island of Celebes), Amboina, Saparoa, Banda, Ternate, and Kajeli (in the Moluccas), Olehleh and Bengkalis (in the island of Sumatra), vessels are subjected to no fiscal tax, and no import or export duties are there levied:
Now, therefore, I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by section 11 of the act of Congress entitled "An act to abolish certain fees for official services to American vessels, and to amend the laws relating to shipping commissioners, seamen, and owners of vessels, and for other purposes," approved June 19, 1886, do hereby declare and proclaim that from and after the date of this my proclamation shall be suspended the collection of the whole of the duty of 6 cents per ton, not to exceed 30 cents per ton per annum (which is imposed by said section of said act), upon vessels entered in the ports of the United States from any of the ports of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Europe, or from any of the above named free ports of the Dutch East Indies.
Provided, That there shall be excluded from the benefits of the suspension hereby declared and proclaimed the vessels of any foreign country in whose ports the fees or dues of any kind or nature imposed on vessels of the United States, or the import or export duties on their cargoes, are in excess of the fees, dues, or duties imposed on the vessels of such foreign country or their cargoes, or of the fees, dues, or duties imposed on the vessels of the country in which are the ports mentioned in this proclamation, or the cargoes of such vessels. |
|
