Chapter 15

Eighty-one cover cases in which favorable action by the Pension Bureau was denied by reason of the insufficiency of the testimony filed to prove the facts alleged.

These bills I have approved on the assumption that the claims were meritorious and that by the passage of the bills the Government has waived full proof of the facts.

Twenty-six of the bills cover claims rejected by the Pension Bureau because the evidence produced tended to prove that the alleged disability existed before the claimant's enlistment; 21 cover claims which have been denied by such Bureau because the evidence tended to show that the disability, though contracted in the service, was not incurred in the line of duty; 33 cover claims which have been denied because the evidence tended to establish that the disability originated after the soldier's discharge from the Army; 47 cover claims which have been denied because the general pension laws contain no provisions under which they could be allowed, and 24 of the claims have never been presented to the Pension Bureau.

I estimate the expenditure involved in these bills at more than $35,000 annually.

Though my conception of public duty leads me to the conclusion, upon the slight examination which I have been able to give such of these bills as are not comprised in the first class above mentioned, that many of them should be disapproved, I am utterly unable to submit within the time allowed me for that purpose my objections to the same.

They will therefore become operative without my approval.

A sufficient reason for the return of the particular bill now under consideration is found in the fact that it provides that the name of Andrew J. Hill be placed upon the pension roll, while the records of the Pension Bureau, as well as a medical certificate made a part of the committee's report, disclose that the correct name of the intended beneficiary is Alfred J. Hill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 17, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1397, entitled "An act to establish a port of delivery at Springfield, in the State of Massachusetts."

It appears that the best reasons urged for the passage of this bill are that Springfield has a population of about 40,000, that the imports to the section of country where the city is located for the last year amounted in value to nearly $3,000,000, and that the importers at this point labored under a disadvantage in being obliged to go to New York and Boston to clear their goods, which are frequently greatly delayed.

The Government is now subjected to great loss of revenue through the intricacies of the present system relating to the collection of customs dues, and through the frauds and evasions which that system permits and invites. It is also the cause of much of the delay and vexation to which the honest importer is subjected.

I am of the opinion that the reforms of present methods which have been lately earnestly pressed upon Congress should be inaugurated, instead of increasing the number of ports where present evils may be further extended.

The bill now under consideration provides that a surveyor of customs shall be appointed to reside at said port, who shall receive a salary not to exceed $1,000 per annum.

It is quite obvious that an experienced force of employees at the ports where goods for Springfield are entered would be much better qualified to adjust the duties upon the same than the person thus proposed to be added to the vast army of Federal officials.

There are many cities in the different States having larger populations than Springfield, and fully as much entitled, upon every ground presented, to the advantages sought by this bill; and yet it is clear that the following of the precedent which the proposed legislation would establish could not fail to produce confusion and uncertainty in the adjustment of customs dues, leading to irritating discriminations and probable loss to the Government.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 24, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 2186, entitled "An act granting a pension to Louis Melcher."

This claimant enlisted on the 25th day of May, 1861, and was discharged for disability on the 16th day of August, 1861, having been in the service less than three months.

The certificate of the surgeon of his regiment, made at the time of his discharge, stated his disability to be "lameness, caused by previous repeated and extensive ulcerations of his legs, extending deeply among the muscles and impairing their powers and action by cicatrices, all existing before enlistment and not mentioned to the mustering officers at the time."

Upon this certificate, given at the time of the claimant's discharge and while he was actually under the surgeon's observation, an application for a pension was rejected by the Pension Bureau.

In the absence of anything impeaching the ability and integrity of the surgeon of the regiment, his certificate should, in my opinion, be regarded as a true statement of the condition of the claimant at the time of his discharge, though the committee's report suggests that the surgeon's skill may have been at fault when he declared that the ulcers existed before enlistment. The cicatrices showing beyond a doubt the previous existence of this difficulty would be plainly apparent upon an examination by a surgeon, and their origin could hardly be mistaken. The term of the claimant's service was not sufficiently long to have developed and healed, even imperfectly, in a location previously healthy, ulcers of the kind mentioned in the claimant's application.

My approval of this bill is therefore withheld upon the ground that I find nothing in my examination of the facts connected with the case which impeaches the value of the surgeon's certificate upon which the adverse action of the Pension Bureau was predicated.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 24, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

A bill which originated in the Senate, entitled "An act granting a pension to Edward Ayers," and numbered 363, is herewith returned without approval.

The person named in this bill enlisted October 3, 1861, in an Indiana regiment and was mustered out of the service December 13, 1865. He represents that he was injured in the hip at the battle of Days Gap, April 30, 1863, and for this a pension is provided for him by the bill under consideration. His application for pension has been rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that it was proved on a special examination of the case that the claimant was injured by a fall when a boy, and that the injury complained of existed prior to his enlistment.

There is not a particle of proof or a fact stated either in the committee's report or the records in the Pension Bureau, so far as they are brought to my notice, tending to show that the claimant was in hospital or under medical care a single day during the whole term of his enlistment.

The report of the committee contains the following statement:

The record evidence proves that he was in this engagement, but there is no proof from this source that he was wounded. By numerous comrades who were present it is proven that he was hurt by the explosion of a shell as claimed. It is also shown that he has been disabled ever since; and the examining surgeon specifically describes the wound, and twice verifies that he is permanently disabled. From the fact that a man was exceedingly liable to injury under the circumstances in which he was placed, and from the evidence of eyewitnesses, the committee are of opinion that he was wounded as alleged.

A wound from a shell causing the person injured to be "disabled ever since" usually results in hospital or medical treatment. Not only is there no such claim made in this case, but, on the contrary, it appears that the claimant served in his regiment two years and nearly eight months after the alleged injury, and until he was mustered out.

It is represented to me by a report from the Pension Bureau that after his alleged wound, and in May or June, 1863, the claimant deserted, and in July of that year was arrested in the State of Indiana and returned to duty without trial. If this report is correct, the party now seeking a pension at the hands of the Government for disability incurred in the service seems to have been capable of considerable physical exertion, though not very creditable, within a few weeks after he claims to have received the injury upon which his application is based.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 24, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1630, entitled "An act granting a pension to James C. Chandler."

It appears from the report of the committee to whom this bill was referred and from an examination of the official records that the proposed beneficiary first enlisted on the 27th day of August, 1861, and about nine months thereafter, on the 1st day of June, 1862, was discharged on account of disability arising from chronic bronchitis.

Notwithstanding the chronic character of his alleged disability, he enlisted again on the 3d day of January, 1864, seventeen months after such discharge.

No statement is presented of the bounty received by him upon either enlistment.

He was finally mustered out on the 19th day of September, 1865.

He first applied for a pension under the general law in May, 1869, alleging that in April, 1862, he was run over by a wagon and injured in his ankle. This accident occurred during his first enlistment; but instead of the injury having been then regarded a disability, he was discharged from such enlistment less than two months thereafter on account of chronic bronchitis.

It appears from the committee's report that his application was rejected and that another was afterwards made, alleging that the claimant had been afflicted with typhoid fever contracted in May, 1862, resulting in "rheumatism and disease of the back in region of kidneys."

This application was also rejected, on the ground that any disability that might have arisen from the cause alleged "had not existed in a pensionable degree since the date of filing the claim therefor," which was February 10, 1885.

There still remained an appeal to Congress, and probably there were not wanting those who found their interests in advising such an appeal and who had at hand Congressional precedents which promised a favorable result. That the parties interested did not miscalculate the chances of success is demonstrated by the bill now before me, which, in direct opposition to the action of the Pension Bureau, grants a pension to a man who, though discharged from enlistment for a certain alleged disability, made two applications for a pension based upon two distinct causes, both claimed to exist within two months prior to such discharge, and both different from the one upon which he accepted the same, and notwithstanding the fact that the proposed beneficiary, after all these disabilities had occurred, passed an examination as to his physical fitness for reenlistment, actually did reenlist, and served till finally mustered out at the close of the war.

If any money is to be given this man from the public Treasury, it should not be done under the guise of a pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 24, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 857, entitled "An act granting a pension to Dudley B. Branch."

This claim is based upon the allegation, as appears by the committee's report, that the person named in the bill has a hernia, and that on the 9th day of June, 1862, while in the military service and in the line of duty, "in getting over a fence he fell heavily, striking a stone or hard substance, and received the hernia in his left side."

In December, 1875, thirteen and a half years thereafter, he filed an application for a pension, which was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that there was no record of the alleged hernia, and the claimant was unable to furnish satisfactory evidence of its origin in the service.

The fact is stated in the committee's report that late in the year 1863 this soldier was transferred to the Invalid Corps, and the records show that he was thus transferred for a disability entirely different from that upon which he now bases his claim. He was mustered out in September, 1864, at the end of his term of service.

I am convinced that the rejection of this claim by the Pension Bureau was correct, and think its action should not be reversed.

I suppose an injury of the description claimed, if caused by violence directly applied, is quite palpable, its effect usually immediate, and its existence easily proved. The long time which elapsed between the injury and the claimant's application for a pension may be fairly considered as bearing upon the merits of such application, while the fact that the claimant was transferred to the Invalid Corps more than a year after he alleges the injury occurred, for an entirely different disability, can not be overlooked. In the committee's report the statement is found that the beneficiary named in the bill was in two different hospitals during the year 1863, and yet it is not claimed that the history of his hospital treatment furnishes any proof of the injury upon which his claim is now based.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 25, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1998, entitled "An act for the relief of John D. Ham," which grants a pension to the party named.

The claimant alleges that he enrolled in the Army in January, 1862, and was "sworn in at his own home;" that the next day he started on horseback to go to the regiment he was to join, and that on the way his horse fell upon his left ankle, whereby he sustained an injury which entitles him to a pension.

His name is not borne upon any of the rolls of the regiment he alleges he was on his way to join.

He filed his application for pension in the Pension Bureau October 17, 1879 (seventeen years after his alleged injury), which was rejected apparently on the ground that he was not in the military service when the disability claimed was incurred.

He was drafted in 1863 and served until he was mustered out in 1865.

It is entirely clear that this claimant was not in the military service at the time he claims to have been injured; and his conduct in remaining at home until he was drafted, nearly two years afterwards, furnishes proof that he did not regard himself as in the meantime owing any military duty. These considerations, and the further facts that upon being drafted he was accepted as physically qualified for service, that he actually thereafter served a year and eight months, and that he waited seventeen years before claiming pension for his injury, in my mind present a case upon which the claimant is entitled to no relief even if charity instead of just liberality is invoked.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 25, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 1290, entitled "An act granting a pension to David W. Hamilton."

A claim for pension filed by him in November, 1879, was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that his alleged disability existed prior to his enlistment.

An examination of the records in the Adjutant-General's Office and a statement from the Pension Bureau derived from the claimant's application there for pension, with a reference to the report of the committee to whom this bill was referred, disclose the following facts:

The claimant was mustered in the service as first lieutenant in September, 1861, and as captain June 12, 1862. He is reported as present with his company until the 30th of that month. For the six months immediately following the latter date he is reported as "absent sick," and for the ten months next succeeding, and until October 27, 1863, as "absent on detached service." On the day last mentioned he tendered his resignation at Camp Morton, in the State of Indiana, to enable him to accept an appointment as captain in the Invalid Corps. He was thereupon so appointed upon account of "chronic enlargement of the spermatic cord of several years' standing, consequent upon hydrocele." He remained in the Invalid Corps until July 12, 1864, when, upon the tender of his resignation, he was discharged.

Less than four months afterwards, and on the 6th day of November, 1864, he was mustered in the service as a captain in another regiment of volunteers, and on the 17th day of November, 1865, again tendered his resignation, and was finally discharged.

Upon his application for pension under the general law, fourteen years thereafter, he admitted that he suffered from hydrocele as early as 1856, but claimed that an operation then performed for the same had given him permanent relief.

It will be seen that the claimant's term of service was liberally interspersed with sick leave, detached service, resignations, and membership in the Invalid Corps. He admits having the trouble which would naturally result in his alleged disability long before he entered the service. The surgeon upon whose certificate he was appointed to the Invalid Corps must have stated to him the character of his difficulty and that it was chronic. No application for pension was made until fourteen years after his discharge and just prior to the expiration of the time within which large arrearages might have been claimed. There is no hint of any medical testimony at all contradicting the certificate of the army surgeon made in 1863, but it is stated in the report of the committee that he can not procure medical testimony as to his soundness before entering the service because his family physician is dead. If he had filed his application earlier, it would have appeared in better faith, and it may be that he could have secured the evidence of his family physician if it was of the character he desired.

After the Pension Bureau has been in operation for a score of years since the late civil war, equipped with thousands of employees charged with no other duty except the ascertainment and adjustment of the claims of our discharged soldiers and their surviving relatives, it seems to me that a stronger case than this should be presented to justify the passage of a special act, twenty-three years after an alleged disability, granting a pension which has been refused by the Bureau especially organized for the purpose of allowing the same under just and liberal laws.

I am by no means insensible to that influence which leads the judgment toward the allowance of every claim alleged to be founded upon patriotic service in the nation's cause; and yet I neither believe it to be a duty nor a kindness to the worthy citizens for whose benefit our scheme of pensions was provided to permit the diversion of the nation's bounty to objects not within its scope and purpose.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 28, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 1850, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Annie C. Owen."

The husband of the claimant was mustered into the service as second lieutenant December 14, 1861, and discharged October 16, 1862. It appears that he died in 1876 from neuralgia of the heart. In 1883 the present claimant filed her application for pension, alleging that her husband received two shell wounds, one in the calf of his left leg and one in his left side, on the 1st day of July, 1862, and claiming that they were in some way connected with the cause of his death.

On the records of his command there is no mention made of either wound, but it does appear that on the 8th day of July, seven days after the date of the alleged wounds, he was granted a leave of absence for thirty days on account, as stated in a medical certificate, of "remittent fever and diarrhea." A medical certificate dated August 5, 1862, while absent on leave, represents him to be at that time suffering from "chronic bronchitis and acute dysentery."

The application made for pension by the widow was rejected by the Pension Bureau February 1, 1886.

There is nothing before me showing that the husband of the claimant ever filed an application for pension, though he lived nearly fourteen years after his discharge; and his widow's claim was not made until twenty-one years after the alleged wounds and seven years after her husband's death.

If the information furnished concerning this soldier's service is correct, this claim for pension must be based upon a mistake. It is hardly possible that wounds such as are alleged should be received in battle by a second lieutenant and no record made of them; that he should seven days thereafter receive a leave of absence for other sickness, with no mention of these wounds, and that a medical certificate should be made (probably with a view of prolonging his leave) stating still other ailments, but silent as to wounds. The further facts that he made no claim for pension and that the claim of his widow was long delayed are worthy of consideration. And if the wounds were received as described there is certainly no necessary connection between them and death fourteen years afterwards from neuralgia of the heart.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 28, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval a bill originating in the House of Representatives, numbered 2145, and entitled "An act for the relief of Rebecca Eldridge."

This bill provides for the payment of a pension to the claimant as the widow of Wilber H. Eldridge, who was mustered into the service on the 24th day of July, 1862, and discharged June 21, 1865. He was pensioned at the rate of $2 per month for a slight wound in the calf of the left leg, received on the 25th day of March, 1865. There is no pretense that this wound was at all serious, and a surgeon who examined it in 1880 reported that in his opinion the wounded man "was not incapacitated from obtaining his subsistence by manual labor;" that the ball passed "rather superficially through the muscles," and that the party examined said there was no lameness "unless after long standing or walking a good deal."

On the 28th of January, 1881, while working about a building, he fell backward from a ladder and fractured his skull, from which he died the same day.

Without a particle of proof and with no fact established which connects the fatal accident in the remotest degree with the wound referred to, it is proposed to grant a pension to the widow of $12 per month.

It is not a pleasant thing to interfere in such a case; but we are dealing with pensions, and not with gratuities.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 28, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 1253, entitled "An act granting a pension to J.D. Haworth."

It is proposed by this bill to grant a pension to the claimant for the alleged loss of sight in one eye and the impairment of the vision of the other.

From the information furnished me I am convinced that the difficulty alleged by this applicant had its origin in causes existing prior to his enlistment, and that his present condition of disability is not the result of his service in the Army.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 28, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I hereby return without approval a bill which originated in the House of Representatives, numbered 1582, and entitled "An act for the relief of Eleanor C. Bangham."