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.