Chapter 44

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 28, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1237, entitled "An act granting a pension to Anna Mertz."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of Charles A. Mertz, who served in the Army as captain from April, 1862, to June, 1863, when he resigned on account of impaired health. It is stated in the committee's report that after his return from the Army he worked occasionally at his trade, though subject to attacks of very severe diarrhea, accompanied with acute catarrhal pains in the head and face, which he constantly attributed to his army service.

It is alleged that he had several times taken morphine, under medical advice, to allay pain caused by these attacks.

He did not apply for a pension.

On the 1st day of December, 1884, more than twenty-one years after his discharge from the Army, he died from an overdose of morphine self-administered, for the purpose, it is claimed, of alleviating his suffering.

I do not think that in this case the death of the soldier was so related to his military service as to entitle his widow to a pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 28, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 820, entitled "An act granting a pension to David A. Servis."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted August 14, 1862, and was discharged June 8, 1865.

It is alleged that about the month of January, 1863, a comrade, by way of a joke, put powder into a pipe which the beneficiary was accustomed to smoke and covered it with tobacco, so that when he lighted it the powder exploded and injured his eyes. The report of the Senate committee states that it does not appear that "any notice was taken of this wanton act of his tent mate."

There is no mention of any disability or injury in the record of the soldier's service. He seems to have served nearly two years and a half after the injury. He filed an application for a pension in May, 1885, more than twenty-two years thereafter.

Whatever may be the extent of the injury sustained, in regard to which the evidence is apparently quite meager, I can not see that it was such a result of military service as to entitle the applicant to a pension.

The utmost liberality to those who were in our Army hardly justifies a compensation by way of pension for injuries incurred in sport or pastime or as the result of a practical joke.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 28, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 835, entitled "An act for the relief of Elisha Griswold."

The beneficiary named in this bill, which awards him a pension, enlisted in January, 1864, and was discharged February 12, 1866.

His claim for pension, as developed in the report of the Senate Committee on Pensions, is based upon the allegation that in January, 1866, he fell from a swing which had been put up in the building occupied as a barrack and struck on his head and shoulder.

The committee report in favor of the bill upon the grounds that the soldier was injured "while engaged in recreation" and that "such recreation is a necessary part of a soldier's life."

The beneficiary filed an application in January, 1880, and in support of such application he filed on the 16th day of July, 1886, an affidavit in which he testifies that at the time of the injury he was in prison at San Antonio, Tex., upon charges the character of which he could not ascertain, and that the swing from which he fell was erected by himself and others for pastime and exercise.

It will be seen that the injury complained of is alleged to have been sustained less than a month before his discharge. There is, however, no record of any disability.

His claim based upon this injury was, in my opinion, properly rejected as having no connection with his military service, and I think the facts in his case as herein detailed do not justify the award of a pension to him by special enactment.

On the 23d day of March, 1888, after the introduction of the bill herewith returned, the beneficiary, apparently having abandoned the claim upon which the bill is predicated, filed another application for a pension in the Pension Bureau, alleging that he contracted diarrhea and malarial poisoning in the service. This application is still pending.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 29, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 1275, entitled "An act for the erection of a public building at Columbus, Ga., and appropriating money therefor."

The city of Columbus, Ga., is undoubtedly a thriving, growing city. The only present necessity for a public building there is for the accommodation of its post-office. It is stated in the report of the House committee that the gross revenues of the office for the year ending June 30, 1887, were $16,700. The postmaster, in a letter upon the subject, makes the following statement:

I estimate the gross receipts at $17,500 for the fiscal year ending March 31, which will be an increase of nearly 7 per cent over last year's receipts.

There are nine persons employed in the post-office at present, including the postmaster. The present quarters are leased by the Government at an annual rent of $900. The postmaster represents that his accommodations are not adequate or convenient, and that instead of a space of 1,900 square feet, which he now has, he should be provided with 2,500 square feet.

The population of the city in 1880 was 10,123. It is claimed that it is now about 20,000.

In my opinion the facts presented do not exhibit the necessity of the expenditure of $100,000 to afford the increased room for the post-office which may be desirable. I believe a private person would erect a building abundantly sufficient for all our postal needs in that city for many years to come for one-third of that sum.

Business prudence and good judgment seem to dictate that the erection of the proposed building should be delayed until its necessity is more manifest, and so that it can be better determined what expenditure for such a purpose will be justified by the continued growth of the city and the needs of the Government.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 5, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 4467, entitled "An act for the erection of a public building at Bar Harbor, in Maine."

The entire town within which Bar Harbor is situated contained in 1880 1,639 inhabitants, as appears by the census of that year.

There is no pretense that there is any need of a public building there except to accommodate the post-office.

This is a third-class office, and the Government does not pay the rent for offices of that class. The gross receipts of the office for the year ended June 30, 1887, are reported by the Postmaster-General at $5,337. The postmaster reports that he employs five clerks in the summer and three in the winter. The fact that Bar Harbor is a place of very extensive summer resort makes its population exceedingly variable, and during a part of the year it is quite likely that the influx of pleasure seekers may make a more commodious post-office desirable, though there does not seem to be much complaint of present inconvenience.

The postmaster pays a rent of $500 per annum for his present quarters.

The amount appropriated by the bill is quite moderate, being only $25,000, but the postmaster expresses the opinion that a proper site alone would cost from twenty to thirty thousand dollars.

I am decidedly of the opinion that if a public building is to be erected at this place, of which at present there appears to be no necessity, it should be done under a system which will not give the post-office and the postmaster there an advantage over others of their class.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 5, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 1394, entitled "An act authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase additional ground for the accommodation of Government offices in Council Bluffs, Iowa."

A new public building at Council Bluffs will be completed in a short time. The ground upon which it is located has a frontage of 192 feet and a depth of 106 feet and 10 inches. The proposition is to add 30 feet to its depth. The act under which this building has been thus far constructed provides that the ground purchased therefor shall be of such dimensions as to leave the building unexposed to fire by an open space of at least 40 feet, including streets and alleys. The building is located on land now belonging to the Government sufficient in size to comply with this provision, and in point of fact more than the open space required is left on all sides of the same. There is no pretense that any enlargement of the building is necessary or contemplated.

The report of the committee to which this bill was referred in the House simply states that "the grounds on which said building is situated are inadequate for its proper accommodation and safety."

If this is so, I can see no reason why additional ground should not be purchased for "the proper accommodation and safety" of a large proportion of the public buildings completed and in process of erection, since the provision that there shall exist 40 feet of open space on all sides is, I think, contained in all the bills authorizing their construction. In this view the proposed legislation would establish a very bad precedent.

It is provided in the bill that the additional 30 feet mentioned shall be purchased for a sum not to exceed $10,000. The adjoining 106 feet and 10 inches, located on the corner of two streets, were purchased in the year 1882 by the Government for $15,000. The permission to purchase this addition at a price per foot greatly in excess of that already owned by the Government seems so unnecessary, except to benefit the owner, that I am of the opinion it should not be granted.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 5, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 739, entitled "An act granting a pension to Johanna Loewinger."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill enlisted June 28, 1861, and was discharged May 8, 1862, upon a surgeon's certificate of disability. He was pensioned for chronic diarrhea. He died July 17, 1876. A coroner's inquest was held, who found by their verdict that the deceased came to his death "from suicide by cutting his throat with a razor, caused by long-continued illness."

This inquest was held immediately after the soldier's death, and it appears that the case was fully investigated, with full opportunities to discover the truth. Upon the verdict found, in the absence of insanity caused by any disability, it can hardly be claimed that his death was caused by his military service. The attempts afterwards to impeach this verdict and introduce another cause of death do not seem to be successful.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 12, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1772, entitled "An act for the relief of John H. Marion."

It is proposed by this bill to relieve the party named therein from an indebtedness to the Government amounting to $1,042.45, arising from the nonfulfillment of a contract made by him in 1884 with the Government, by which he agreed to furnish for the use of the Quartermaster's Department a quantity of grama hay.

The contractor wholly failed to furnish the hay as agreed, and thereupon the Government, pursuant to the terms of the contract, obtained the hay in other quarters, paying therefor a larger sum by $1,042.45 than it would have been obliged to pay the contractor if he had fulfilled his agreement. This amount was charged against the contractor.

It is alleged that the crop of the particular kind of hay which was to be furnished under the contract failed the season in which it was to be supplied on account of drought, and that thus performance became impossible on the part of the contractor.

Between individuals no injustice could be claimed if the contractor in such circumstances should be held to have taken the chances of the crop; and if an equitable adjustment should be suggested in such a case as is here presented it would hardly be asked that the party suffering from the default or failure of the other should sustain all the loss.

It seems that the contractor was the proprietor of a newspaper in Arizona, and that he did some printing for the Government besides agreeing to furnish hay to the Quartermaster's Department. After the ascertainment of the loss to the Government arising out of the hay transactions, certain accounts for printing presented by the contractor were credited against the amount of such loss charged against him. In this way his debt to the Government has been reduced more than $700. The proposed legislation would cause to be paid to the contractor the sums so retained for printing and to relieve him from the remainder of the Government's claims.

Inquiry at the Quartermaster-General's Office fails to substantiate the allegation that there is any understanding when such contracts are made that their performance is to be at all relaxed by the failure of the crop.

There really seems to be no good reason why the contractor should not make good the entire loss consequent upon his default. If, however, strict rights are to be relinquished and the liberality of the Government invoked, it should not be taxed beyond the limit of sharing the loss with the delinquent. This result would be accomplished by discharging the remainder of the contractor's debt after crediting the bills for printing above referred to.

The Government is obliged in the transaction of its business to make numerous contracts with private parties, and if these contracts are to be of any use or protection they should not be lightly set aside on behalf of citizens who are disappointed as to their profitable nature or their ability to perform them.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 12, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1017, entitled "An act granting a pension to Stephen Schiedel."

The beneficiary named in this bill served in the First Regiment Missouri Light Artillery from October 24, 1861, to October, 1864. There is no record of any injury or disability while in the service.

In March, 1880, sixteen years after his discharge, he filed an application for a pension, alleging that about June, 1862, while carrying logs to aid in building quarters, a log slipped and fell upon a lever, which flew up and struck him, injuring his back and shoulder.

He furnished the testimony of two witnesses tending to support his statement of the manner in which he was injured, but upon investigation this evidence was found to be unreliable.

Medical examinations failed to disclose any disability from the cause alleged, but do tend to show that he was disabled since his discharge by an injury to his right hand and arm and some rheumatic trouble.

It is not claimed that he incurred any disability from rheumatism while in the Army. It appears distinctly that he was wounded in the right wrist and arm while firing a cannon at the village of Hamburg, Erie County, N.Y., on the 4th day of July, 1866. The doctor who testifies to this injury and who dressed the wound negatives any other illness before the accident.

Even if he has, since his discharge, suffered from rheumatism, he does not claim that this was incurred in the Army. He bases his right to a pension entirely upon an injury which he particularly describes, and which the medical examination does not sustain. It will be observed, too, that he continued his military service for two years and four months after the date of his alleged injury. It seems hardly possible that he could have done this if he had been injured in the manner he alleges.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 18, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 3959, entitled "An act granting a pension to Dolly Blazer."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill was apparently a good soldier and was confined for a time in a Confederate prison. He was mustered out of the service in June, 1865, and never applied for a pension.

He died in 1878, leaving as survivors his widow and several children, two of whom are alleged to be still under 16 years of age.

The cause of the soldier's death was yellow fever. There is in my mind no doubt of this fact, and the attempt to establish any other cause of death, if successful, would go far toward fixing a precedent for the rejection of all evidence which stood in the way of a claim for pension.

The bill herewith returned is disapproved for the reason that the death of the soldier had no relation to his military service, and I do not think there should be a discrimination in favor of this applicant and against many thousands of widows fully as well entitled.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 18, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 5522, entitled "An act for the relief of Elijah Martin."

By this bill it is proposed to increase the pension now paid to the beneficiary therein named, who was a soldier in the War of 1812, from $8 to $20 per month.

Prior to May 22, 1888, an application was made for reimbursement of the expenses attending the last sickness and burial of this pensioner, and on the day mentioned such application was transmitted to the proper auditing officer for adjustment.

I have no other information of the death of this soldier, but as his age is stated in the report of the House committee to be 87 years, and as there can hardly be a mistake as to the identity of the person named in the application mentioned, I am satisfied that the beneficiary has died since the introduction of the bill for his relief.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 19, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 488, entitled "An act granting a pension to Elizabeth Burr."

It is proposed by this bill to grant a pension to the beneficiary therein named as the widow of William Burr, who enlisted for one hundred days in 1864 and was discharged on the 3d day of September in that year.

He is reported as present on all roll calls during his service. He died April 7, 1867, of dropsy, never having made any application for a pension.

His widow filed an application for pension in 1880, thirteen years after the soldier's death, alleging that the disease of which he died, claimed to be dropsy, was contracted in the service.

The claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the dropsy causing his death was not due to his military service, but that he was subject to the same before his enlistment.

I am perfectly satisfied that the rejection upon the ground claimed was correct.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 19, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1957, entitled "An act granting a pension to Virtue Smith."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of David M. Smith (incorrectly named David W. Smith in the bill), who served as a bugler in a Minnesota regiment from August 22, 1862, to September 28, 1862, in a campaign against the Sioux Indians.

He received a gunshot wound in the right elbow, for which in 1867 he was granted a pension of $6 a month, which was very soon thereafter increased to $8, and in August, 1875, said pension was further increased to $10 a month, which he received to the date of his death.

He died in the city of Washington on the 22d day of January, 1880.

He obtained a position in the Second Auditor's Office of the Treasury Department in 1864, and worked steadily there until about six months before his death.

Medical examinations had from time to time up to 1877 seem to have found him in excellent physical condition except the wound in his right elbow, which caused stiffness, and an injury to his left forearm not received in the Army.

In 1879 he was examined by a physician of this city who stands among the best in the profession, and found in the last stages of consumption, and this physician declares he died from that cause. A female physician certified that the cause of death was "wounds in the Army."

The pensioner was 64 years old at the time of his death.

I am perfectly satisfied from the medical testimony and from other facts connected with this case that the death of the husband of the beneficiary was in no manner related to his military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 22, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 3016, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary F. Harkins."

The husband of this beneficiary was discharged from the military service in 1865, and was pensioned for a gunshot wound in the right foot at the rate of $6 per month.

He died in 1882, seventeen years after his discharge, "from rupture of the heart, caused by the bursting and parting of the fibers of the right ventricle."

The claim is now made that the death was the result of the wound in the foot.

An application to the Pension Bureau was rejected on the ground that the death cause was not the result of the wound.

I am satisfied that this was a just conclusion.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 22, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 600, entitled "An act increasing the pension of Mary Minor Hoxey."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill was, while on military duty, wounded in the left hand and afterwards in the thigh. He was pensioned in 1871 on account of these wounds, and in 1879 was allowed arrearages from time of his discharge. He died in December, 1881, of consumption, being at that time in the receipt of a pension at the rate of $17 per month.

In 1884 his widow was allowed a pension at the same rate, with $2 a month each for two minor children. The children have now attained the age of 16 years, but the widow still receives the pension awarded to her, which is the same as that allowed to all widows of her class.

I discover no reason of any substance why this pension should be increased, and if it should be done it would only be a manifestation of unjust favoritism.

I can not forget the thousands of poor widows with claims superior to this beneficiary, but with no interested friends to push their claims for increase of pension, who would be discriminated against if this proposed bill becomes a law.

It seems to me that there is a chance to do injustice by unfair caprice in fixing the rates of pension, as well as by refusing them altogether when they should be granted.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 22, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 8281, entitled "An act for the relief of Lieutenant James G.W. Hardy."

It is proposed by this bill to award a pension to the beneficiary above named.

In the month of January, 1864, he was on recruiting service in the State of Indiana. On the 15th day of that month he was traveling between Indianapolis and Lafayette in a railroad car, and he alleges that he raised a window of the car to obtain air, and placed his arm on the window sill, when it was struck by something from the outside and one of the bones of his arm broken.

In February, 1865, he resigned on account of disability caused by the accident above mentioned, the medical certificate then stating that he had a fracture of the right humerus of ten months' standing which had not been properly adjusted.

He made an application for a pension to the Pension Bureau, which was rejected.