Chapter 22

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 of volunteers, the sum of $230, for which he gave a receipt. On the settlement of his accounts he was unable to account for said sum, for the reason, as he alleges, that certain of his papers were lost and destroyed. Thus in the statement of his account he is represented as a debtor of the Government in that amount.

This bill directs that a credit be allowed to him of the said sum of $230. But since his account was adjusted as above stated, showing him in debt to the Government in the amount last stated, he has paid the sum of $75 and been allowed a credit of $125 for the value of a horse; so that whatever may be said of the merits of his claim that he should not be charged with the sum of $230, if he should now be credited with that sum the Government would owe him upon its books the sum of $30.

The bill is therefore not approved.

["An act to provide for the erection of a public building in the city of Annapolis, Md."--Received August 3, 1886.--Memorandum.]

The post-office at Annapolis is now accommodated in quarters for which the Government pays rent at the rate of $500 per annum, and the office occupied by the collector of customs is rented for $75 per annum.

The Government has no other use for a public building at Annapolis than is above indicated, and the chief argument urged why a building should be constructed there is based upon the fact that this city is the capital of the State of Maryland and should have a Government building because most if not all the other capitals of the States have such edifices.

There seems to be so little necessity for the building proposed for the transaction of Government business, and if there is anything in the argument last referred to it seems so well answered by the maintenance of the Naval Academy at Annapolis, this bill is allowed to remain inoperative.

["An act for the relief of J.A. Henry and others."--Received August 3, 1886.--Memorandum.]

This bill appropriates various sums to the parties named therein, being claims of rent of quarters occupied during the war by the Quartermaster's Department of the Army.

Among the appropriations there proposed to be made is one of the sum of $51 to L.F. Green. This account has been once paid, a special act directing such payment having been approved February 12, 1885. The fact of this payment and important information bearing upon the validity of some of the other claims mentioned in the bill could have been easily obtained by application to the Third Auditor.

["An act for the relief of William H. Wheeler."--Received August 3, 1886.]

This bill directs the payment of the sum of $633.50 to William H. Wheeler for quartermaster's stores furnished the Army in the year 1862.

From the data furnished me by the Quartermaster-General I am quite certain that this claim has been once paid. The circumstances presented to prove this are so strong that they should be explained before the relief provided by this bill is afforded the claimant.

["An act granting a pension to Margaret D. Marchand."--Received August 5, 1886.--Memorandum.]

A bill presented to me for approval, granting a pension of $50 per month to the beneficiary named, was disapproved upon the ground that the death of her husband did not appear to be in any way related to any incident of his military service.

This bill differs from the prior one simply in granting a pension subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws instead of fixing the rate of pension at a specified sum. I am still unable to see how the objection to the first bill has been obviated.

["Joint resolution providing for the distribution of the Official Register of the United States."--Received August 5, 1886.--Memorandum.]

This resolution reached me five minutes after the adjournment of the two Houses of Congress, and is the only enactment of the session which came to me too late for official action.

I do not understand this resolution nor the purposes sought to be accomplished by its passage, and while in that frame of mind should have been constrained to withhold my approval from the same even if it had reached me in time for consideration.

["Joint resolution directing payment of the surplus in the Treasury on the public debt."--Received August 5, 1886.--Memorandum.]

This resolution involves so much and is of such serious import that I do not deem it best to discuss it at this time. It is not approved because I believe it to be unnecessary and because I am by no means convinced that its mere passage and approval at this time may not endanger and embarrass the successful and useful operations of the Treasury Department and impair the confidence which the people should have in the management of the finances of the Government.

PROCLAMATIONS.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas it is represented to me by the governor of the Territory of Washington that domestic violence exists within the said Territory, and that by reason of unlawful obstructions and combinations and the assemblage of evil-disposed persons it has become impracticable to enforce by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings the laws of the United States at Seattle and at other points and places within said Territory, whereby life and property are there threatened and endangered; and

Whereas, in the judgment of the President, an emergency has arisen and a case is now presented which justifies and requires, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the employment of military force to suppress domestic violence and enforce the faithful execution of the laws of the United States if the command and warning of this proclamation be disobeyed and disregarded:

Now, therefore, I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States of America, do hereby command and warn all insurgents and all persons who have assembled at any point within the said Territory of Washington for the unlawful purposes aforesaid to desist therefrom and to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes on or before 6 o'clock in the afternoon of the 10th day of February instant.

And I do admonish all good citizens of the United States and all persons within the limits and jurisdiction thereof against aiding, abetting, countenancing, or taking any part in such unlawful acts or assemblages.

In witness whereof I have set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 9th day of February, A.D. 1886, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and tenth.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

By the President: T.F. BAYARD, _Secretary of State_.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas by a proclamation of the President of the United States dated the 14th day of February, in the year 1884,[5] upon evidence then appearing satisfactory to him that the Government of Spain had abolished the discriminating customs duty theretofore imposed upon the products of and articles proceeding from the United States of America imported into the islands of Cuba and Puerto Rico, such abolition to take effect on and after the 1st day of March of said year 1884, and, by virtue of the authority vested in him by section 4228 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, the President did thereby declare and proclaim that on and after the said 1st day of March, 1884, so long as the products of and articles proceeding from the United States imported into the islands of Cuba and Puerto Rico should be exempt from discriminating customs duties, any such duties on the products of and articles proceeding from Cuba and Puerto Rico under the Spanish flag should be suspended and discontinued; and

Whereas by Article I of the commercial agreement signed at Madrid the 13th day of February, 1884, it was stipulated and provided that "the duties of the third column of the customs tariffs of Cuba and Puerto Rico, which implies the suppression of the differential flag duty," should at once be applied to the products of and articles proceeding from the United States of America; and

Whereas the complete suppression of the differential flag duty in respect of all vessels of the United States and their cargoes entering the ports of Cuba and Puerto Rico is by the terms of the said agreement expressly made the consideration for the exercise of the authority conferred upon the President in respect of the suspension of the collection of foreign discriminating duties of tonnage and imposts upon merchandise brought within the United States from Cuba and Puerto Rico in Spanish vessels by said section 4228 of the Revised Statutes, which section reads as follows:

SEC. 4228. Upon satisfactory proof being given to the President by the government of any foreign nation that no discriminating duties of tonnage or imposts are imposed or levied in the ports of such nation upon vessels wholly belonging to citizens of the United States, or upon the produce, manufactures, or merchandise imported in the same from the United States or from any foreign country, the President may issue his proclamation declaring that the foreign discriminating duties of tonnage and impost within the United States are suspended and discontinued so far as respects the vessels of such foreign nation, and the produce, manufactures, or merchandise imported into the United States from such foreign nation or from any other foreign country; the suspension to take effect from the time of such notification being given to the President, and to continue so long as the reciprocal exemption of vessels belonging to citizens of the United States, and their cargoes, shall be continued, and no longer.

And whereas proof is given to me that such complete suppression of the differential flag duty in respect of vessels of the United States and their cargoes entering the ports of Cuba and Puerto Rico has not in fact been secured, but that, notwithstanding the said agreement dated at Madrid, February 13, 1884, and in contravention thereof, as well as of the provisions of the said section 4228 of the Revised Statutes, higher and discriminating duties continue to be imposed and levied in said ports upon certain produce, manufactures, or merchandise imported into said ports from the United States or from any foreign country in vessels of the United States than is imposed and levied on the like produce, manufactures, or merchandise carried to said ports in Spanish vessels:

Now, therefore, I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States of America, in execution of the aforesaid section 4228 of the Revised Statutes, do hereby revoke the suspension of the discriminating customs imposed and levied in the ports of the United States on the products of and articles proceeding under the Spanish flag from Cuba and Puerto Rico, which is set forth and contained in the aforesaid proclamation dated the 14th day of February, 1884; this revocation of said proclamation to take effect on and after the 25th day of October instant.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.]

Done at the city of Washington, this 13th day of October, A.D. 1886, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and eleventh.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

By the President: T.F. BAYARD, _Secretary of State_.

[Footnote 5: See pp. 323-224.]

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas satisfactory proof has been given to me by the Government of Spain that no discriminating duties of tonnage or imposts are imposed or levied in the islands of Cuba and Puerto Rico upon vessels wholly belonging to citizens of the United States, or upon the produce, manufactures, or merchandise imported in the same from the United States or from any foreign country; and