Chapter 46

It is proposed by this bill to pension the beneficiary named therein, as the widow of Edmund Fitzmorris, under the provisions and limitations of the general pension laws. The name of the beneficiary is already upon the pension roll, and she is now entitled to receive precisely the sum as a pensioner which is allowed her under this bill.

As her application to the Pension Bureau was quite lately favorably acted upon, it is supposed this special bill for her relief was passed by the Congress in ignorance of that fact.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 16, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 121, entitled "An act granting a pension to Tobias Baney."

This soldier was enrolled on the 28th day of February, 1865, and was discharged on the 31st day of January, 1866.

He filed an application for a pension in 1878, which was supplemented by statements from time to time, not always in exact agreement, but alleging uniformly that during his service, fixing the date at one time as in January, 1866, and at another time as in November, 1865, he was attacked in the city of Washington by palpitation of the heart, which increased after his discharge and resulted in disability. After a careful special examination by the Pension Bureau the claim was rejected upon the ground that origin of disability in the service and line of duty had not been shown, nor that the same existed for some time after discharge.

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted shortly before the surrender of the Confederate forces, and it appears did little, if anything, more than garrison duty. He does not seem to have suffered any of the exposures usually incident to a soldier's service, and, as I understand his claim, does not himself give any instance of exposure or exertion from which his difficulty arose.

There is no record of any sickness or disability during the time he was in the Army nor any satisfactory proof that he was suffering with any ailment at the time of his discharge. His own statement, which some of the proof taken tends to show is not entirely reliable, goes no further than to claim that during his term of service his difficulty began.

On appeal from the rejection of the beneficiary's claim the case was thoroughly examined at the Interior Department and the rejection affirmed.

I am entirely satisfied that the case was properly determined.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 16, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 470, entitled "An act granting a pension to Amanda F. Deck."

The husband of this beneficiary was pensioned for a gunshot wound in his right shoulder which he received in 1864 in a battle with Indians.

The report of the committee to which the bill was referred states nothing concerning the death of the soldier and gives no information as to the date or cause of the same, and the recommendation that a pension should be given the widow is based upon the service and injury of the soldier and the circumstances of the beneficiary.

No claim was filed in the Pension Bureau on behalf of the widow. This perhaps is accounted for by the fact that information is lodged in that Bureau to the effect that the deceased soldier died on the 21st day of September, 1883, "from a pistol ball fired by Luther Cultor."

If he was killed in a personal encounter, as the report of his death would seem to indicate, I am unable to see how his death can be in any way attributed to his military service or his widow be justly pensioned therefor.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 17, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1613, entitled "An act granting an increase of pension to John F. Ballier."

This pensioner is now receiving the full amount of pension allowed for total disability to ex-soldiers of his rank.

Inasmuch as the bill herewith returned limits any increase to the rate fixed by law for cases of total disability, it appears to accomplish nothing of benefit to the beneficiary therein named.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 17, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 5913, entitled "An act granting a pension to Thomas Shannon."

This beneficiary enlisted on the 31st day of May, 1870, in the Tenth Regiment of United States Infantry.

On the 4th day of July, 1872, he was upon leave at the city of Rio Grande, in the State of Texas. Some of the citizens were celebrating the day, and one of them had a can of powder in his hand which, according to the report of the accident, "was about to explode." The soldier endeavored to knock the can from the hand of the person who held it, when the powder exploded, severely injuring the soldier and necessitating the amputation of his right forearm.

Though this was a most unfortunate accident, it is quite plain that it had no connection with the military service.

To grant a pension in such a case would establish a precedent in the appropriation of money from the public Treasury which I can hardly think we should be justified in following.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 17, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 9174, entitled "An act granting a pension to Woodford M. Houchin."

The beneficiary named in this bill was enrolled September 18, 1861 and discharged December 17, 1864.

He filed a claim for pension in the Pension Bureau December 22, 1876, alleging that he had a sore or ulcer on his left leg "which existed in a small way prior to enlistment," but was aggravated and enlarged by the exposures of the service.

This claim was rejected in 1877 on the ground that the disability existed prior to enlistment.

In September, 1879, he filed another application for pension, alleging a disability arising from an affection of his right eye caused by an attack of measles in September, 1861, and also again alleging ulcerated varicose veins of his left leg.

In October, 1886, the rejection of the claim for ulcerated varicose veins was adhered to and the added claim for disease of the eyes was rejected on the ground that it was not incurred in the service and line of duty.

On appeal from the action of the Pension Bureau to the Secretary of the Interior the rejection of the claim was sustained.

The claimant stated in support of his application that about three months before he enlisted a little yellow blister appeared on his left leg, which made a small sore, which existed when he enlisted; that while he was in Central America with General Walker he received a wound in the temple from a musket ball, and that he had also before enlistment been sick with the dropsy.

The case was very thoroughly examined by officers of the Pension Bureau, and a great mass of testimony was taken from numerous witnesses. Three brothers of the claimant testified to the existence of all the disabilities before his enlistment, and two of them stated facts which go far toward accounting for such disabilities in a way very discreditable to the claimant. Many other witnesses, with good opportunities of knowledge on the subject, testified to the same effect.

While testimony of a different character was also given, tending to establish the theory that the disabilities alleged were at least to some extent attributable to military service, the overwhelming weight of proof seems to establish that whatever disabilities exist are the result of disease contracted by vicious habits, and that such disabilities had their origin prior to enlistment.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 17, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 8078, entitled "An act granting a pension to Theresa Herbst, widow of John Herbst, late private Company G, One hundred and fortieth Regiment of New York Volunteers."

John Herbst, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted August 26, 1862. He was wounded in the head at the battle of Gettysburg, July 2, 1863. He recovered from this wound, and on the 19th day of August, 1864, was captured by the enemy.

After his capture he joined the Confederate forces, and in 1865 was captured by General Stoneman while in arms against the United States Government. He was imprisoned and voluntarily made known the fact that he formerly belonged to the Union Army. Upon taking the oath of allegiance and explaining that he deserted to the enemy to escape the hardship and starvation of prison life, he was released and mustered out of the service on the 11th day of October, 1865.

He was regularly borne on the Confederate muster rolls for probably nine or ten months. No record is furnished of the number of battles in which he fought against the soldiers of the Union, and we shall never know the death and the wounds which he inflicted upon his former comrades in arms.

He never applied for a pension, though it is claimed now that at the time of his discharge he was suffering from rheumatism and dropsy, and that he died in 1868 of heart disease. If such disabilities were incurred in military service, they were quite likely the result of exposure in the Confederate army; but it is not improbable that this soldier never asked a pension because he considered that the generosity of his Government had been sufficiently taxed when the full forfeit of his desertion was not exacted.

The greatest possible sympathy and consideration are due to those who bravely fought, and being captured as bravely languished in rebel prisons.

But I will take no part in putting a name upon our pension roll which represents a Union soldier found fighting against the cause he swore he would uphold, nor should it be for a moment admitted that such desertion and treachery are excused when it avoids the rigors of honorable capture and confinement.

It would have been a sad condition of affairs if every captured Union soldier had deemed himself justified in fighting against his Government rather than to undergo the privations of capture.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 26, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1447, entitled "An act granting a pension to Bridget Foley."

Joseph F. Foley, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted on the 22d day of August, 1862, and was discharged February 13, 1863, for disability which was certified to arise from chronic rheumatism contracted prior to enlistment.

He appears to have been sick with rheumatism a large part of the time he was in the service, and because of that fact never reached a point nearer the front than the city of Washington.

He died May 13, 1873, of consumption.

His widow filed in 1884 a declaration executed by the deceased shortly before his death, in which he alleged that he was first attacked with rheumatism at Capitol Hill, in the District of Columbia, in October, 1862. The soldier never applied for a pension.

It is strenuously disputed that he had this complaint before enlistment. However this may be, it is certain that he died of consumption, and I can find no proof that this disease was contracted in the service or had any relation thereto.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 26, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2644, entitled "An act granting the right of way to the Fort Smith, Paris and Dardanelle Railway Company to construct and operate a railroad, telegraph, and telephone line from Fort Smith, Ark., through the Indian Territory, to or near Baxter Springs, in the State of Kansas."

This bill grants a right of way 100 feet in width, with the use of adjoining lands for stations and other purposes, through the eastern part of that portion of the Indian Territory occupied by the Cherokee Indians under a treaty with the United States.

By the terms of the treaty concluded between the Government and the Cherokee Nation in 1866 these Indians expressly granted a right of way through their lands "to any company or corporation which shall be duly authorized by Congress to construct a railroad from any point north to any point south, and from any point east to any point west of, and which may pass through, the Cherokee Nation."

There are excellent reasons why this clause in the treaty should be construed as limiting the railroads which should run through these lands, at least without further permission of the Indians, to only one from north to south and one other from east to west.

It is evident, however, that the Congress has either not so interpreted this provision of the treaty or has determined that it should be disregarded, for there have been six or seven railroads constructed or authorized through these lands by the permission of the Government.

It has become very much the custom to grant these rights of way through Indian lands and reservations merely for the asking. They have been duplicated to such an extent that rival roads are found struggling for the advantage of a prior Congressional grant or for the possession of a contested route through these reservations.

I believe these indiscriminate grants to railroads permitting them to cross the lands occupied by the Indians, if not in absolute violation of their treaty rights, are dangerous to the success of our Indian management.

While maintaining their tribal condition they should not be easily subjected to the disturbance and the irritation of such encroachments. When they have advanced sufficiently for the allotment of their lands in severalty, they should be permitted, as a general rule, to enjoy and cultivate all the land set apart to them, and not discouraged by the forced surrender of a part of it for railroad purposes. In the solution of the problem of their civilization by allotments of land they need the land itself, and not compensation for its appropriation by others. They can not be expected to understand this process in any other way than an indication that their tenure is uncertain and the assurance that they shall hold their allotted land for cultivation a delusion.

It is not necessary in the treatment of this subject to insist that in no case should a railroad be permitted to cross Indian reservations. There may be valid public reasons why in some cases this should be allowed. Important lines of through travel should not be always obstructed or defeated by a refusal of such permission. But I think there should be shown in every case a justification in the public interest or in furtherance of general growth and progress, or at least in a plain local necessity or convenience, before such grants are made.

It seems to me also that the consent of the Indians for the passage of railroads through their land should, as a general rule, be required; that the means of determining the compensation to be made for land taken should be just and definite and easy of application; that the route of the proposed road should be as particularly described as is possible; that a reasonable time should be fixed for the construction of the road, and in default of such construction that the grant should be declared null and void without legislation or judicial action, and that in all cases the rights and interests of the Indians should be carefully considered.

The bill under consideration grants to the railroad company therein named the right to construct its road over substantially the same route described in a law already passed permitting the Kansas City, Fort Scott and Gulf Railway Company to build its road through this reservation. No necessity or good reason is apparent why these two roads should be built upon the same line.

The bill makes no provision for gaining the consent of the Indians occupying these lands. The Cherokee Nation of Indians have their local laws and legislation, and are quite competent to pass upon this question. They have heretofore shown their interest in such subjects, I am informed, by protesting against some of the grants which have been made for the construction of railroads through their lands.

The bill provides for the taking of lands held by individual occupants and the manner of fixing the compensation therefor; but it is declared that when any portion of the land taken by the company shall cease to be used for the purposes for which it is taken the same shall revert to the nation or tribe from which the same shall have been taken. There is no provision that in any case land taken from individual occupants shall revert to them.

In the fifth section of the bill it is provided that the railroad company shall pay to the Secretary of the Interior, for the benefit of the particular nation or tribe through whose lands its line may be located, in addition to other compensation, the sum of $50.

It was, of course, intended to declare that this sum should be paid for every mile of road built through Indian lands, but it is not so expressed. I am by no means certain that the context will aid this omission, which is quite palpable, when that part of the bill is compared with others of the same character. In any event, this is a provision which should be free from all doubt.

There is no time limited in the bill within which the proposed road through the reservation shall be completed, and consequently no forfeiture fixed for noncompletion. The nearest approach to it is found in a clause providing that the company shall build at least 50 miles of its road in the Indian Territory within three years from the passage of the act, or the rights granted shall be forfeited as to that portion not built. The length of the proposed route through the Cherokee lands appears to be considerably over 100 miles, and it is plain that there is no sufficient guaranty in the bill that the entire road will be built within any particular time. There is no forfeiture and no limitation for the completion of the road if 50 miles is built within three years, and there may be some doubt how far the forfeiture would extend in case of a failure to finish the 50 miles within the time specified.

I believe these grants to railroads should be sparingly made; that when made they should present better reasons for their necessity and usefulness than are apparent in this case, and that they should be guarded and limited by provisions which are not found in the bill herewith returned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 3, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 3008, entitled "An act for the relief of P.A. Leatherbury."

This bill provides that the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the person above named the sum of $601.27, being the amount paid by him to Lucy Roberts on two pension checks which were afterwards recalled and canceled.

The committee of the House to whom this bill was referred report that--

The Department discovered, after the issuing of the checks, that the claim for pension was fraudulent, but not until after the purchase, in the ordinary course of business, by Mr. Leatherbury paying $601.27 therefor and giving his due bill for the balance, which balance he refused to pay after ascertaining that the check was repudiated by the Government.

Lucy Roberts, a colored woman, filed a claim for pension in 1868, alleging that she was the widow of Nelson Roberts, who died in the military service in 1865.

Her claim was allowed in 1876, and two checks, numbered 6863 and 6864, aggregating $1,301.27, were issued on account of said pension. Before payment of the checks information was received which caused an investigation by the Pension Bureau as to the honesty of the claim for pension. This investigation established its utterly fraudulent character, and thereupon the checks were canceled and the woman's name was dropped from the pension rolls.

Certain important facts are reported to me from the Pension Bureau as having been developed upon the investigation.

It appears that one Thomas had undertaken to act for the claimant in procuring her pension under an agreement that he should have $300 if successful. Mr. Leatherbury was a notary, postmaster, and claim agent, and acted as notary and general assistant to Thomas and the claimant, who was employed at Leatherbury's house. In the month of July, 1876, the same month the claim for pension was allowed, the woman Roberts was indicted for larceny, the complaining witness being Mr. Leatherbury. Shortly after the issue of the checks the woman disappeared, and it is reported that certain indications suggested that both Leatherbury and Thomas were not entirely ignorant of her whereabouts nor completely disconnected with her disappearance. The checks were obtained from Thomas by Leatherbury, he paying, as he alleges, to Thomas the fee of $300 which had been agreed upon. The checks remained in Leatherbury's possession until they were delivered by him to the special agent of the Pension Bureau upon the investigation. He claimed in his deposition that he considered that what money he had let the woman have and the goods she had obtained at his store while she worked for him, and the $300 which he had advanced to Thomas, her agent, justified him in holding her indebted to him in the sum of $600, and that he held the checks as security for the same, admitting that there was still $700 in her favor, written acknowledgment of which he had placed in the hands of his wife. He further stated that rather than gain notoriety in the matter he would return the checks to the special agent, but he trusted that the Government would pay him the $600 which he had sunk in the transaction.

The woman testified that she did take some goods from Leatherbury at his store at his suggestion, after the arrival of the checks and before she left, about August 16, 1876, which purchases amounted to no more than $100, and that he also advanced her $100; that he made no further payment and wrote to her that he had to give up the checks, and that she never indorsed the checks nor authorized anyone to do so.

Both Leatherbury and Thomas disclaimed any knowledge of the fraudulent character of the claim; but the fraudulent claimant lived in the house of one of them and he was assisting in procuring her claim to be allowed, while the other made an unlawful agreement for a liberal compensation for his services if the claim succeeded. The woman was indicted at the instance of Leatherbury at about the time of the issuance of the checks and fled, but if she is to be believed Leatherbury wrote to her during her absence. After her disappearance he ventures to pay to Thomas his illegal fee and takes possession of the checks. He considers that she owes him $600, and the bill under consideration gives him $601.27, the exact amount of the checks less $700.

Someone with more intelligence than this ignorant colored woman concocted the scheme to gain this fraudulent pension; and the circumstances point so suspiciously toward Thomas and Leatherbury, the claim of the latter upon the Government is infected with so much illegality, and the amount of his advances is arrived at so loosely that in my opinion he should not at this late day be relieved.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 7, 1888_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1870, entitled "An act granting the use of certain lands in Pierce County, Washington Territory, to the city of Tacoma, for the purpose of a public park."

It is proposed by this bill to permit the appropriation for a public park of a certain military reservation containing 635 acres, which was set apart for military and defensive purposes the 22d day of September, 1866.

The establishment of this reservation was strongly recommended by high military authority, and its preservation and maintenance have since that time been also urged by the same authority.