sore eyes among the results of diarrhea.

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 21, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 21, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 21, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 22, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 22, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 22, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 22, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 22, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 22, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 22, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 22, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 23, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 29, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 29, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 2, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 3, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

He died in 1883 from cerebral apoplexy.

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

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

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All this is no more than should be done.

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

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

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

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

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

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

Carroll's claim, presented to the Pension Bureau, was rejected upon
the ground that there was no record of his service on file; but in his
testimony he stated that Perkins was wounded on the same occasion as
himself, and that he (Perkins) was then a pensioner on account thereof.

The records of the Pension Bureau show that Perkins was pensioned in
1873 on account of three wounds received at the time and place of
Carroll's injury.

It also appears that his name was dropped from the rolls in 1877 on the
ground that his wounds were not received in the line of duty.

After an investigation made at that time by a special examiner, he
reported that Perkins and Carroll had collected a number of men
together, who made their headquarters at the home of Carroll's mother
and were engaged in plundering the neighborhood, and that on account of
their depredations they were hunted down by home guards and shot at the
time they stated.

If this report is accepted as reliable, it should of course lead to the
rejection of the claim for pension on the part of Mr. Carroll.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 3043, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Lewis W. Scanland."

The claimant filed his declaration for a pension in 1884, alleging that
he contracted chronic diarrhea while serving in a company of mounted
Illinois volunteers in the Black Hawk War.

The records show that he served from April 18, 1832, to May 28, in the
same year.

He was examined by a board of surgeons in 1884, when he was said to be
75 years old. In his examination he did not claim to have diarrhea for a
good many years. On the contrary, he claimed to be affected with
constipation, and said he had never had diarrhea of late years, except
at times when he had taken medicine for constipation.

I am inclined to think it would have been a fortunate thing if in this
case it could have been demonstrated that a man could thrive so well
with the chronic diarrhea for fifty-two years as its existence in the
case of this good old gentleman would prove. We should then, perhaps,
have less of it in claims for pensions.

The fact is, in this case there is no disability which can be traced to
the forty days' military service of fifty-four years ago, and I think
little, if any, more infirmity than is usually found in men of the age
of the claimant.

Entertaining this belief, I am constrained to withhold my signature from
this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 5414, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Maria Cunningham."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill enlisted January 29,
1862, and was discharged January 20, 1865.

He applied for a pension in 1876, alleging a shell wound in the head.
His claim was rejected on the ground that there appeared to be no
disability from that cause. No other injury or disability was ever
claimed by him, but at the time of his examination in 1876 he was found
to be sickly, feeble, and emaciated, and suffering from an advanced
stage of saccharine diabetes.

His widow filed an application for a pension in 1879, alleging that her
husband died in December, 1877, of spinal disease and diabetes,
contracted in the service.

Her claim was rejected because evidence was not furnished that the cause
of the soldier's death had its origin in the military service.

There seems to be an entire absence of proof of this important fact.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 4797, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Robert H. Stapleton."

This claimant filed an application for pension in the Pension Bureau in
1883, alleging that while acting as lieutenant-colonel of a New Mexico
regiment, on February 21, 1862, the tongue of a caisson struck him,
injuring his left side. A medical examination made in 1882 showed a
fracture of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh ribs of the left side.

If these fractures were the result of the injury alleged, they were
immediately apparent, and the delay of twenty-one years in presenting
the claim for pension certainly needs explanation.

Claims of this description, by a wise provision of law, must, to be
valid, be prosecuted to a successful issue prior to the 4th day of July,
1874.

The rank which this claimant held presupposes such intelligence as
admits of no excuse on the ground of ignorance of the law for his
failure to present his application within the time fixed by law.

The evidence of disability from the cause alleged is weak, to say the
most of it, and I can not think that such a wholesome provision of law
as that above referred to, which limits the time for the adjustment of
such claims, should be modified upon the facts presented in this case.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 5550, entitled "An act
to provide for the erection of a public building at Duluth, Minn."

After quite a careful examination of the public needs at the point
mentioned I am entirely satisfied that the public building provided for
in this bill is not immediately necessary.

Not a little legislation has lately been perfected, and very likely more
will be necessary, to increase miscalculated appropriations for and
correct blunders in the construction of many of the public buildings now
in process of erection.

While this does not furnish a good reason for disapproving the erection
of other buildings where actually necessary, it induces close scrutiny
and gives rise to the earnest wish that new projects for public
buildings shall for the present be limited to such as are required by
the most pressing necessities of the Government's business.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 2043, entitled "An act
to place Mary Karstetter on the pension roll."

The husband of this beneficiary, Jacob Karstetter, was enrolled June 30,
1864, as a substitute in a Pennsylvania regiment, and was discharged for
disability June 20, 1865, caused by a gunshot wound in the left hand.

A declaration for pension was filed by him in 1865, based upon this
wound, and the same was granted, dating from June in that year, which he
drew till the time of his death, August 21, 1874.

In 1882 his widow filed her application for pension, alleging that he
died of wounds received in battle. The claim was made that he was
injured while in the Army by a horse running over him.

There is little or no evidence of such an injury having been received;
and if this was presented there would be no necessary connection between
that and the cause of the soldier's death, which was certified by the
attending physician to be gastritis and congestion of the kidneys.

I can hardly see how the Pension Bureau could arrive at any conclusion
except that the death of the soldier was not due to his military
service, and the acceptance of this finding, after an examination of the
facts, leads me to disapprove this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 5394, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Sallie Ann Bradley."

The husband of this proposed beneficiary was discharged from the
military service in 1865, after a long service, and was afterwards
pensioned for gunshot wound.

He died in 1882. The widow appears to have never filed a claim for
pension in her own right.

No cause is given of the soldier's death, but it is not claimed that it
resulted from his military service, her pension being asked for entirely
because of her needs and the faithful service of her husband and her
sons.

This presents the question whether a gift in such a case is a proper
disposition of money appropriated for the purpose of paying pensions.

The passage of this law would, in my opinion, establish a precedent so
far-reaching and open the door to such a vast multitude of claims not on
principle within our present pension laws that I am constrained to
disapprove the bill under consideration.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 5603, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Mrs. Catherine McCarty."

The beneficiary is the widow of John McCarty, of the First Missouri
Regiment of State Militia Volunteers, who died at Clinton, Mo., April 8,
1864.

The widow filed her claim in 1866, alleging that her husband died while
in the service from an overdose of colchicum.

The evidence shows without dispute that on the day previous to the death
of the soldier a comrade procured some medicine from the regimental
surgeon and asked McCarty to smell and taste it; that he did so, and
shortly afterwards became very sick and died the next morning.

It is quite evident that the deceased soldier did more than taste this
medicine.

Although it would be pleasant to aid the widow in this case, it is
hardly fair to ask the Government to grant a pension for the freak or
gross heedlessness and recklessness of this soldier.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without my approval House bill No. 6648, entitled "An
act for the relief of Edward M. Harrington."

It appears that this claimant was enrolled as a recruit December 31,
1863, and mustered in at Dunkirk, N.Y. He remained at the barracks there
until March, 1864, when he was received at the Elmira rendezvous. From
there he was sent to his regiment on the 7th day of April, 1864.

He was discharged June 15, 1864, upon a surgeon's certificate of
disability, declaring the cause of discharge to be epilepsy, produced by
blows of violence over the hypochondrial region while in the service,
producing a deformity of sternum.

The claimant filed an application for pension in June, 1879, and in that
and subsequent affidavits he alleged that while in barracks at Dunkirk,
N.Y., and about the 9th day of January, 1864, and in the line of duty,
he was attacked by one Patrick Burnes, who struck him upon the head and
stamped upon and kicked him, breaking his collar bone and a number of
ribs, causing internal injury and fits, the latter recurring every two
weeks.

It is hardly worth while considering the character of these alleged
injuries or their connection with the fits with which the claimant is
afflicted.

I am entirely unable to see how the injuries are related to the
claimant's army service.

The Government ought not to be called upon to insure against the
quarrelsome propensities of its individual soldiers, nor to compensate
one who is worsted in a fight, or even in an unprovoked attack, when the
cause of injury is in no way connected with or related to any
requirement or incident of military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 7, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2281, entitled "An act
granting to railroads the right of way through the Indian reservation in
northern Montana."

The reservation referred to stretches across the extreme northern
part of Montana Territory, with British America for its northern
boundary. It contains an area of over 30,000 square miles. It is
dedicated to Indian occupancy by treaty of October 17, 1855, and act of
Congress of April 15, 1874. No railroads are within immediate approach
to its boundaries, and only one, as shown on recent maps, is under
construction in the neighborhood leading in its direction. The
surrounding country is sparsely settled, and I have been unable to
ascertain that the necessities of commerce or any public exigencies
demand this legislation, which would affect so seriously the rights and
interests of the Indians occupying the reservation.

The bill is in the nature of a general right of way for railroads
through this Indian reservation. The Indian occupants have not given
their consent to it, neither have they been consulted regarding it, nor
is there any provision in it for securing their consent or agreement to
the location or construction of railroads upon their lands. No routes
are described, and no general directions on which the line of any
railroad will be constructed are given.

No particular organized railway company engaged in constructing a
railroad toward the reservation and ready or desirous to build its road
through the Indian lands to meet the needs and requirements of trade
and commerce is named. The bill gives the right to any railroad in the
country, duly organized under the laws of any Territory, of any State,
or of the United States, except those of the District of Columbia, to
enter this Indian country, prospect for routes of travel, survey them,
and construct routes of travel wherever it may please, with no check
save possible disapproval by the Secretary of the Interior of its maps
of location, and no limitation upon its acts except such rules and
regulations as he may prescribe.

This power vested in the Secretary of the Interior might itself be
improvidently exercised and subject to abuse.

No limit of time is fixed within which the construction of railroads
should begin or be completed. Without such limitations speculating
corporations would be enabled to seek out and secure the right of way
over the natural and most feasible routes, with no present intention of
constructing railroads along such lines, but with the view of holding
their advantageous easements for disposal at some future time to some
other corporation for a valuable consideration. In this way the
construction of needed railroad facilities in that country could be
hereafter greatly obstructed and retarded.

If the United States must exercise its right of eminent domain over the
Indian Territories for the general welfare of the whole country, it
should be done cautiously, with due regard for the interests of the
Indians, and to no greater extent than the exigencies of the public
service require.

Bills tending somewhat in the direction of this general character of
legislation, affecting the rights of the Indians reserved to them by
treaty stipulations, have been presented to me during the present
session of Congress. They have received my reluctant approval, though
I am by no means certain that a mistake has not been made in passing
such laws without providing for the consent to such grants by the
Indian occupants and otherwise more closely guarding their rights and
interests; and I hoped that each of those bills as it received my
approval would be the last of the kind presented. They, however,
designated particular railroad companies, laid down general routes over
which the respective roads should be constructed through the Indian
lands, and specified their direction and termini, so that I was enabled
to reasonably satisfy myself that the exigencies of the public service
and the interests of commerce probably demanded the construction of the
roads, and that by their construction and operation the Indians would
not be too seriously affected.

The bill now before me is much more general in its terms than those
which have preceded it. It is a new and wide departure from the general
tenor of legislation affecting Indian reservations. It ignores the right
of the Indians to be consulted as to the disposition of their lands,
opens wide the door to any railroad corporation to do what, under the
treaty covering the greater portion of the reservation, is reserved to
the United States alone; it gives the right to enter upon Indian lands
to a class of corporations carrying with them many individuals not known
for any scrupulous regard for the interest or welfare of the Indians;
it invites a general invasion of the Indian country, and brings into
contact and intercourse with the Indians a class of whites and others
who are independent of the orders, regulations, and control of the
resident agents.

Corporations operating railroads through Indian lands are strongly
tempted to infringe at will upon the reserved rights and the property of
Indians, and thus are apt to become so arbitrary in their dealings and
domineering in their conduct toward them that the Indians become
disquieted, often threatening outbreaks and periling the lives of
frontier settlers and others.

I am impressed with the belief that the bill under consideration does
not sufficiently guard against an invasion of the rights and a
disturbance of the peace and quiet of the Indians on the reservation
mentioned; nor am I satisfied that the legislation proposed is demanded
by any exigency of the public welfare.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 9, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 524, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Daniel H. Ross."

An application for pension was filed in the Pension Bureau by the
beneficiary named in this bill, and considerable testimony was filed in
support of the same. I do not understand that the claim has been finally
rejected. But however that may be, the claimant died, as I am advised,
on the 1st day of February last. This, of course, renders the proposed
legislation entirely inoperative, if it would not actually prejudice the
claim of his surviving widow. She has already been advised of the
evidence necessary to complete the claim of her husband, and it is not
at all improbable that she will be able to prosecute the same to a
successful issue for her benefit.

At any rate, her rights should not be in the least jeopardized by the
completion of the legislation proposed in this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 9, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 856, entitled "An act
to provide for the erection of a public building in the city of Dayton,
Ohio."

It is not claimed that the Government has any public department or
business which it should quarter at Dayton except its post-office and
internal-revenue office. The former is represented as employing ten
clerks, sixteen regular and two substitute letter carriers, and two
special-delivery employees, who, I suppose, are boys, only occasionally
in actual service. I do not understand that the present post-office
quarters are either insufficient or inconvenient. By a statement
prepared by the present postmaster it appears that they are rented by
the Government for a period of ten years from the 15th day of October,
1883, at an annual rent of $2,950, which includes the cost of heating
the same.

The office of the internal-revenue collector is claimed to be
inadequate, but I am-led to believe that this officer is fairly
accommodated at an annual rental of $900. It is not impossible that a
suggestion to change the area of this revenue district may be adopted,
which would relieve any complaint of inadequacy of office room.

With only these two offices to provide for, I am not satisfied that the
expenditure of $150,000 for their accommodation, as proposed by this
bill, is in accordance with sound business principles or consistent with
that economy in public affairs which has been promised to the people.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 10, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 5546, entitled "An act
for the erection of a public building at Asheville, N.C."

If the needs of the Government are alone considered, the proposed
building is only necessary for the accommodation of two terms of the
United States court in each year and to provide an office for the clerk
of that court and more commodious quarters for the post-office.

The terms of the court are now held in the county court room at
Asheville at an expense to the Government of $50 for each term; the
clerk of the court occupies a room for which an annual rent of $150 is
paid, and the rent paid for the rooms occupied by the post-office is
$180 each year.

The postmaster reports that four employees are regularly engaged in his
office, which is now rated as third class.

I have no doubt that the court could be much more conveniently provided
for in a new building if one should be erected; but it is represented to
me that the regular terms held at Asheville last only two or three weeks
each, though special terms are ordered at times to clear the docket. It
is difficult to see from any facts presented in support of this bill why
the United States court does not find accommodations which fairly answer
its needs in the rooms now occupied by it. The floor space furnished for
the terms of the Federal court is stated to be 75 by 100 feet, which, it
must be admitted, provides a very respectable court room.

It is submitted that the necessity to the Government of a proper place
to hold its courts is the only consideration which should have any
weight in determining upon the propriety of expending the money which
will be necessary to erect the proposed new building.

The limit of its cost is fixed in the bill under consideration at the
sum of $80,000, but the history of such projects justifies the
expectation that this limit will certainly be exceeded.

I am satisfied that the present necessity for this building is not
urgent, and that something may be gained by a delay which will
demonstrate more fully the public needs, and thus better suggest the
style and size of the building to be erected.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 30, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 63, entitled "An act to
authorize the construction of a highway bridge across that part of the
waters of Lake Champlain lying between the towns of North Hero and
Alburg, in the State of Vermont."

On the 20th day of June, 1884, a bill was approved and became a law
having the same title and containing precisely the same provisions and
in the exact words of the bill herewith returned.

The records of the War Department indicate that nothing has been done
toward building the bridge permitted by such prior act. It is hardly
possible that the bill now before me is intended to authorize an
additional bridge between the two towns named, and I have been unable to
discover any excuse or necessity for new legislation on the subject.

I conclude, therefore, that Congress in passing this bill acted in
ignorance of the fact that a law providing for its objects and purposes
was already on the statute book.

My approval of the bill is withheld for this reason and in order to
prevent an unnecessary and confusing multiplicity of laws.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 30, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I hereby return without my approval House bill No. 1391, entitled "An
act to provide for the erection of a public building at Springfield, Mo."

It appears from the report of the committee of the House of
Representatives to which this bill was referred that the city of
Springfield is in a thriving condition, with stores, banks, and
manufactories, and having, with North Springfield, which is an adjoining
town, about 20,000 inhabitants.

No Federal courts are held at this place, and apparently the only
quarters which the Government should provide are such as are necessary
for the accommodation of the post-office and the land-office located
there.

The postmaster reports that six employees are engaged in his office.

The rooms used as a post-office are now furnished the Government free of
expense, and the rent paid for the quarters occupied as a land-office
amounts to $300 annually.

Upon the facts presented I am satisfied that the business of the
Government at this point can be well transacted for the present without
the construction of the proposed building.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 31, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2160, entitled "A bill
granting a pension to Mary J. Hagerman."

The husband of this proposed beneficiary enlisted in 1861 and was
wounded by a gunshot, which seriously injured his left forearm. In 1864
he was discharged; was afterwards pensioned for his wound, and died in
August, 1884.

Dr. Hageman, who attended the deceased in his last illness, testifies
that he was called to attend him in August, 1884; that he was sick with
typhomalarial fever, and that upon inquiry he (the physician) found that
it was caused by hard work or overexertion and exposure. He was ill for
about ten days.

The application of his widow for pension was rejected in 1885 on the
ground that the fatal disease was not due to military service.

I am unable to discover how any different determination could have been
reached.

To grant a pension in this case would clearly contravene the present
policy of the Government, and either establish a precedent which, if
followed, would allow a pension to the widow of every soldier wounded
or disabled in the war, without regard to the cause of death, or would
unjustly discriminate in favor of the few thus receiving the bounty of
the Government against many whose cases were equally meritorious.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 31, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

I herewith return without my approval Senate bill No. 1421, entitled "An
act granting a pension to William H. Weaver."

The claimant named in this bill enlisted August 12, 1862, and was
mustered out of service June 12, 1865. During his service he was treated
in hospital for diarrhea and lumbago, and in the reports for May and
June, as well as July and August, 1864, he is reported as absent sick.

He filed his application for pension in November, 1877, alleging that in
March, 1863, he contracted measles, and in May, 1864, remittent fever,
and that as a result of the two attacks he was afflicted with weakness
in the limbs and eyes. He made statements afterwards in support of his
application that he was also troubled in the service with rheumatism and
diarrhea.

The case was examined by several special examiners, from which, as
reported to me, it appeared from the claimant's admission that he had
sore eyes previous to his enlistment, though he claimed they were sound
when he entered the Army.

A surgeon who made an examination in March, 1881, reported that he could
not find any evidence whatever of disease of the eyes, and nothing to
corroborate the claimant's assertion that he was suffering from
rheumatism, piles, or diarrhea.

Another surgeon, who examined the claimant in 1879, reported that he
found the eyelids slightly granulated, producing some irritation of the
eyeball and rendering the eyes a little weak, and that he found no other
disability.

In 1882 a surgeon who made an examination reported that he discovered
indications that the claimant had suffered at some time with chronic
ophthalmia, but that in his opinion his eyes did not disable him in the
least, and that the claimant was well nourished and in good health.

The report of the committee to whom this bill was referred in the Senate
states that six special examinations have been made in the case and that
two of them were favorable to the claim.

The trouble and expense incurred by the Pension Bureau to ascertain the
truth and to deal fairly by this claimant, and the entire absence of any
suspicion of bias against the claim in that Bureau, ought to give weight
to its determination.

The claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau in July, 1885, upon the
ground that disease of the eyes existed prior to enlistment and that the
evidence failed to show that there had existed a pensionable degree of
disability, since discharge, from diarrhea or rheumatism.

It will be observed that this is not a case where there was a lack of
the technical proof required by the Pension Bureau, but that its
judgment was based upon the merits of the application and affected the
very foundation of the claim.

I think it should be sustained; and its correctness is somewhat
strengthened by the fact that the claimant continued in active service
for more than a year after his alleged sickness, that after filing his
claim he added thereto allegations of additional disabilities, and that
he made no application for pension until more than twelve years after
his discharge.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 31, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 3363, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Jennette Dow."

The husband of the claimant enlisted August 7, 1862; received a gunshot
wound in his left knee in September, 1863, and was mustered out with his
company June 10, 1865. He was pensioned for his wound in 1878 at the
rate of $4 per month, dating from the time of his discharge, which
amount was increased to $8 per month from June 4, 1880. The pensioned
soldier died December 17, 1882, and in 1883 his widow, the claimant,
filed an application for pension, alleging that her husband's death
resulted from his wound. Her claim was rejected in 1885 upon the ground
that death was not caused by the wound.

The physician who was present at the time of the death certifies that
the same resulted from apoplexy in twelve hours after the deceased was
attacked.

It also appears from the statement of this physician that the deceased
was employed for years after his discharge from the Army as a railroad
conductor, and that at the time of his death he had with difficulty
reached his home. He then describes as following the attack the usual
manifestations of apoplexy, and adds that he regards the case as one of
"hemiplegia, the outgrowth primarily of nerve injury, aggravated by the
life's calling, and eventuating in apoplexy as stated."

Evidence is filed in the Pension Bureau showing that after his discharge
he was more or less troubled with his wound, though one witness
testifies that he railroaded with him for fifteen years after his
injury. I find no medical testimony referred to which with any
distinctness charges death to the wound, and it would be hardly credible
if such evidence was found.

I am sure that in no case except in an application for pension would an
attempt be made in the circumstances here developed to attribute death
from apoplexy to a wound in the knee received nineteen years before the
apoplectic attack.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 31, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 9106, entitled "An act granting
a pension to Rachel Barnes."

William Barnes, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill,
enlisted in the United States infantry in February, 1838, and was
discharged February 24, 1841.

In 1880 he applied for a pension, alleging that while serving in Florida
in 1840 and 1841 he contracted disease of the eyes. He procured
considerable evidence in support of his claim, but in 1882, and while
still endeavoring to furnish further proof, he committed suicide by
hanging.

The inference that his death thus occasioned was the result of
despondency and despair brought on by his failure to procure a pension,
while it adds a sad feature to the case, does not aid in connecting his
death with his military service.

That this was the view of the committee of the House to whom the bill
was referred is evidenced by the conclusion of their report in these
words:

  And while your committee do not feel justified under the law as at
  present existing in recommending that the name of the widow be placed
  upon the pension roll for the purpose of a pension in her own right as
  widow of the deceased soldier and by reason of the soldier's death,
  they do think that she should be allowed such pension as, had her
  husband's claim been favorably determined on the day of his decease,
  he would have received.

And yet the bill under consideration directs the Secretary of the
Interior to place this widow's name on the pension roll and to "pay her
a pension as such widow from and after the passage of this act, subject
to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws."

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 31, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 8336, entitled "An act
granting an increase of pension to Duncan Forbes."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted, under the name of Alexander
Sheret, January 7, 1862, in the Regular Army, and was discharged January
8, 1865.

He applied for a pension in 1879, alleging that he was wounded in his
right breast December 31, 1862, and in his right ankle September 20,
1863. He was pensioned in 1883, dating from January 9, 1865, for the
ankle wound, but that part of his claim based upon the wound in his
breast was rejected upon the ground that there was no record of the same
and the testimony failed to show that such a wound had its origin in the
service.

Though the lack of such a record is sufficiently accounted for, I am
convinced that, conceding both the wounds alleged were received, this
pensioner has been fairly and justly treated.

It appears from the allegations of his application to the Pension Bureau
that after the wound in his breast, in December, 1862, he continued his
service till September, 1863, when he was wounded again in the ankle,
and that with both wounds he served until his discharge in January,
1865. It also appears from the records that after his discharge from
the. Army, and on the 3d day of February, 1865, he enlisted as landsman
in the United States Navy, and served in that branch of the service for
three years.

A medical examination in May, 1885, disclosed the appearance of a
gunshot wound in the right breast, which is thus described:

  The missile struck the seventh rib of right side and glanced off,
  leaving a horizontal scar 2-1/4 inches long and one-half inch wide,
  deeply depressed and firmly adherent.

I credit this claimant with being a good soldier, and I am willing to
believe that his insistence upon a greater pension than that already
allowed by the Pension Bureau, under liberal general laws, enacted for
the benefit of himself and all his comrades, is the result of the
demoralization produced by ill-advised special legislation on the
subject.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 4, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 5389, entitled "An act granting
a pension to Ann Kinney."

This beneficiary applied for a pension in 1877 as the widow of Edward
Kinney, alleging that he died September 5, 1875, from the effects of a
wound received in the Army. He enlisted November 4, 1861, and was
discharged July 28, 1862, on account of a gunshot wound in his left
elbow, for which wound he was pensioned in the year 1865.

A physician testifies that the pensioned soldier's death was, in his
opinion, brought on indirectly by the intemperate use of intoxicating
liquors, and that he died from congestion of the brain.

The marshal of the city where he resided states that on the day of the
soldier's death he was called to remove him from a house in which he was
making a disturbance, and that finding him intoxicated he arrested him
and took him to the lockup and placed him in a cell. In a short time,
not exceeding an hour, thereafter he was found dead. He further states
that he was addicted to periodical sprees.

Another statement is made that the soldier was an intemperate man, and
died very suddenly in the city lockup, where he had been taken by an
officer while on a drunken spree.

This is not a pleasant recital, and as against the widow I should be
glad to avoid its effect. But the most favorable phase of the case does
not aid her, since her claim rests upon the allegation that her husband
was subject to epileptic fits and died from congestion of the brain
while in one of these fits. Even upon this showing the connection
between the fits and the wound in the elbow is not made apparent.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 4, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 8556, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Abraham Points."

This soldier enlisted August 11, 1864, and was mustered out June 28,
1865.

He was treated during his short term of service for "catarrhal,"
"constipation," "diarrhea," "jaundice," and "colic."

He filed an application for pension in 1878, alleging that some of his
comrades in a joke twisted his arm in such a manner that the elbow joint
became stiffened and anchylosed, and that his eyes became sore and have
continued to grow worse ever since. There is no record of either of
these disabilities.

The application was denied upon the ground, as stated in the report from
the Pension Bureau, that the claim "was specially examined, and it was
shown conclusively, from the evidence of neighbors and acquaintances of
good repute and standing, that the alleged disabilities existed at and
prior to claimant's enlistment."

I am satisfied from an examination of the facts submitted to me that
this determination was correct.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 4, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 3551, entitled "An act
granting a pension to George W. Cutler, late a private in Company B,
Ninth New Hampshire Volunteers."

This claimant enlisted July 12, 1862, and was discharged June 22, 1863,
for disability resulting from "scrofulous ulceration of the tibia and
fibula of right leg; loss of sight of left eye."

He made a claim for pension in 1865, alleging an injury while loading
commissary stores, resulting in spitting of blood, injury to lungs, and
heart disease.

This claim was rejected August 31, 1865.

In 1867 he again enlisted in the United States infantry, and was
discharged from that enlistment March 29, 1869, for disability, the
certificate stating that--

  He is unfit for military service by reason of being subject to bleeding
  of the lungs. He was wounded, while in the line of his duty in the
  United States Army, at Fredericksburg, Va., December 13, 1862. Said
  wound is not the cause of his disability.

Afterwards, and in the year 1879, he filed affidavits claiming that he
was wounded by a minie ball at the battle of Fredericksburg, December
13, 1862, and was injured by falling down an embankment.

In 1883 he filed an affidavit in which he stated that the disability for
which he claims a pension arose from injuries received in falling down a
bank at Fredericksburg and being tramped on by troops, causing a
complication of diseases resulting in general debility.

The statement in the certificate of discharge from his second enlistment
as to the wound he received by a minie ball at Fredericksburg was of
course derived from his own statement, as it was related to a prior term
of service.

The records of the Adjutant-General's Office furnish no evidence of
wounds or injury at Fredericksburg.

The injury alleged at first as a consequence of loading commissary
stores seems to have been abandoned by the claimant for the adoption
of a wound at Fredericksburg, which in its turn seems to have been
abandoned and a fall down a bank and trampling upon by troops
substituted.

Whatever injuries he may have suffered during his first enlistment, and
to whatever cause he chooses at last to attribute them, they did not
prevent his reenlistment and passing the physical examination necessary
before acceptance.

The surgeon of the Ninth New Hampshire Volunteers, in which he first
enlisted, states that he remembers the claimant well; that he was
mustered and accepted as a recruit in spite of his (the surgeon's)
protest; that he was physically unfit for duty; that he had the
appearance of impaired health, and that his face and neck were marked by
one or more deep scars, the result, as the claimant himself alleged, of
scrofulous abscesses in early youth. He expresses the opinion that he is
attempting to palm off these old scars as evidence of wounds received,
and that if he had been wounded as he claimed he (the surgeon) would
have known it and remembered it.

It is true that whenever in this case a wound is described it is located
in the jaw, while some of the medical testimony negatives the existence
of any wound.

The contrariety of the claimant's statements and the testimony and
circumstances tend so strongly to impeach his claim that I do not think
the decision of the Pension Bureau should be reversed and the claimant
pensioned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 4, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without my approval House bill No. 7234, entitled "An
act granting a pension to Susan Hawes."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the mother of Jeremiah Hawes, who
enlisted in February, 1861, in the United States artillery, and was
discharged in February, 1864. He filed a claim for pension in 1881,
alleging that in 1862, by the premature discharge of a cannon, he
sustained paralysis of his right arm and side. In 1883, while his claim
was still pending, he died.

He does not appear to have made his home with his mother altogether,
if at all. For some years prior to his death and at the time of its
occurrence he was an inmate, or had been an inmate, of a soldiers' home
in Ohio.

But whatever may be said of the character of any injuries he may have
received in the service or of his relations to his mother, the cause of
his death, it seems to me, can not possibly upon any reasonable theory
be attributable to any incident of his military service.

It appears that in July, 1883, while the deceased was on his way from
Buffalo, where he had been in a hospital, to the soldiers' home in Ohio,
he attempted to step on a slowly moving freight train, and making a
misstep a wheel of the car passed over his foot, injuring it so badly
that it was deemed necessary by two physicians who were called to
amputate the foot. An anaesthetic was administered preparatory to the
operation, but before it was entered upon the injured man died, having
survived the accident but two hours.

The physicians who were present stated that in their opinion death was
due to heart disease.

The above account of the death of the soldier is derived from a report
furnished by the Pension Bureau, and differs somewhat from the statement
contained in the report of the House Committee on Invalid Pensions as
related to the intention of the physicians to amputate the injured foot
and their administration of an anaesthetic. But the accident and the
death two hours thereafter under the treatment of the physicians are
conceded facts.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 4, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 1584, entitled "An act
for the relief of Mrs. Aurelia C. Richardson."

Albert H. Fillmore, the son of the beneficiary mentioned in this bill,
enlisted in August, 1862, and died in the service of smallpox, May 20,
1865.

His father having died some time prior to the soldier's enlistment, his
mother in 1858 married Lorenzo D. Richardson. It is stated in the report
upon this case from the Pension Bureau that the deceased did not live
with his mother after her marriage to Richardson, and that there is no
competent evidence that he contributed to her support after that event.

At the time of the soldier's death his stepfather was a blacksmith,
earning at about that time, as it is represented, not less than $70 a
month, and owning considerable property, a part of which still remains
to him.

While in ordinary cases of this kind I am by no means inclined to
distinguish very closely between dependence at the date of the soldier's
death and the date of proposed aid to a needy mother, I think the
circumstances here presented, especially the fact of nonresidence by the
son with his mother since her second marriage, do not call for a
departure from the law governing claims based upon dependence.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

POCKET VETOES.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, August 17, 1886_.

Hon. Thos. F. Bayard,
  _Secretary of State_.

DEAR SIR: The President directs me to transmit to you the accompanying
bills and joint resolutions, which failed to become laws at the close of
the late session of Congress, being unsigned and not having been
presented to him ten days prior to adjournment.

I may add that the printed copy of memorandum (without signature) is by
the President, and is attached to each bill and resolution by his
direction.

Very respectfully,

O.L. PRUDEN,
  _Assistant Secretary_.

["An act for the relief of Francis W. Haldeman."--Received July 28,
1886.]

This bill appropriates $200 to the party named therein "as compensation
for services performed and money expended for the benefit of the United
States Army." It appears from a report of the House Committee on War
Claims that in the fall of 1863 Haldeman, a lad 12 years of age,
purchased a uniform and armed himself and attached himself to various
Ohio regiments, and, as is said, performed various duties connected with
the army service until the end of the year 1864, and for this it is
proposed to give him $200.

Of course he never enlisted and never was regularly attached to any
regiment. What kind of arms this boy 12 years of age armed himself with
is not stated, and it is quite evident that his military service could
not have amounted to much more than the indulgence of a boyish freak and
his being made a pet of the soldiers with whom he was associated. There
is a pleasant sentiment connected with this display of patriotism and
childish military ardor, and it is not a matter of surprise that he
should, as stated by the committee, have "received honorable mention by
name in the history of his regiment;" but when it is proposed twenty-two
years after his one year's experience with troops to pay him a sum
nearly if not quite equal to the pay of a soldier who fought and
suffered all the dangers and privations of a soldier's life, I am
constrained to dissent.

["An act for the relief of R.D. Beckley and Leon Howard."--Received July
28, 1886.]

These two men were employed by the Doorkeeper of the Forty-eighth
Congress as laborers at the rate of $720 per annum.

They claim that in both sessions of that Congress they not only
performed the duties appertaining to their positions as laborers, but
also performed the full duties of messengers. Having received their pay
as laborers, this bill proposes to appropriate for them the difference
between their compensation as laborers and $1,200, the pay allowed
messengers.

Congress, in appropriation bills covering the period in which these men
claim to have performed these dual duties, provided for a certain
specified number of messengers and a fixed number of laborers. They both
accepted the latter position. If they actually performed the duties of
both places, their ability to do so is evidence that the labor of either
place was very light. In any case they owed their time and services to
the Government, and while they were performing the duties of messengers
they were not engaged in the harder tasks which might have been required
of them as laborers. They ought not to complain if they have received
the amount for which they agreed to work, and which was allowed for as
the wages of a place which they were glad enough to secure. If they
really did the work of both places, I don't see why they should not be
paid both compensations. This proposition of course would not be
entertained for a moment.

I am of the opinion that claims for extra compensation such as these
should be firmly discountenanced, and I am sure no injustice will be
done by my declining to approve this bill.

["An act for the relief of Thomas P. Morgan, jr."--Received July 31,
1886.--Memorandum.]

Thomas P. Morgan, jr., in the year 1881 entered into a contract with the
Government to do certain excavating in the harbor of Norfolk.

He performed considerable of the work, but though the time limited by
the contract for the completion was extended by the Government, he
failed to complete the work, which necessitated other arrangements, to
the damage of the Government in quite a large sum. His contract was
forfeited by the Government because the progress he made was so slow and
unsatisfactory. It seems that a certain percentage of the money earned
by him in the progress of the work was, under the terms of the contract,
retained by the Government to insure its completion, and when work was
terminated the sum thus retained amounted to $4,898.04, which sum was
justly forfeited to the Government.

The object of this bill is to waive this forfeiture and pay this sum to
the derelict contractor.

Inasmuch as I am unable to see any equities in this case that should
overcome the fact that the amount of loss to the Government through the
contract is greater than the sum thus sought to be released to him, I am
not willing to agree to his release from the consequence of his failure
to perform his contract.

["An act for the relief of Charles F. Bowers."--Received August 2,
1886.]

It appears that Charles P. Bowers, while acting as regimental
quartermaster in 1862, received of John Weeks, assistant quartermaster