Part 31
In 1864 Martha Reed, the mother of the soldier, filed her application for pension, in which she at first claimed to be the widow of John Reed. She afterwards, however, alleged that her husband, John Reed, abandoned his family in 1859 and had not thereafter contributed to their support, and that the soldier was her main support after such abandonment. She was allowed a pension as dependent mother, which commenced in 1862, the date of her son's death, and seems to have terminated July 22, 1884, when she died.
The claim of the father was rejected in 1883 for the reason that the mother, who had a prior right, was still living, and when his claim was again pressed in 1886 he was informed that his abandonment of his family in 1859 precluded the idea that he was entitled to a pension as being dependent upon the soldier for support.
Of course these decisions were correct in law, in equity, and in morals.
This case demonstrates the means employed in attempts to cheat the Government in applications for pensions--too often successful.
The allegation in 1877 of the man who now poses as the aged and dependent father of a dead soldier that the mother died in 1872, when at that time her claim was pending for pension largely based upon his abandonment; the affidavit of the man who testified that he saw her die in 1872; the effrontery of this unworthy father renewing his claim after the detection of his fraud and the actual death of the mother, and the allegation of the mother that she was a widow when in fact she was an abandoned wife, show the processes which enter into these claims for pensions and the boldness with which plans are sometimes concocted to rob the Government by actually trafficking in death and imposing upon the sacred sentiments of patriotism and national gratitude.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 21, 1887_.
_To the Senate_:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 2452, entitled "An act granting a pension to Rachel Ann Pierpont."
At the time this bill was introduced and passed an application for pension on behalf of the beneficiary named was pending in the Pension Bureau. This application was filed in December, 1879. Within the last few days, and on the 17th day of February, 1887, a pension was granted upon said application and a certificate issued at precisely the same rate which the bill herewith returned authorizes.
But the pension under the general laws dates from the time of filing the application in 1879, while under a special act it would date only from the time of its passage.
In the interest of the beneficiary and for her advantage the special bill is therefore disapproved.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, February 21, 1887_.
_To the Senate_:
I return herewith without approval Senate bill No. 2111, entitled "An act granting a pension to Jacob Smith."
The beneficiary named in this bill filed his claim for a pension November 11, 1882. He seems upon the facts presented to be justly entitled to it, and since this bill has been in my hands the Commissioner of Pensions has reported to me that a certificate therefor would at once be issued.
Under such a certificate this disabled soldier's pension will commence November 11, 1882. Under this bill, if approved, it would date only from the time of its approval. I suppose his certificate has already been issued, and I am unwilling to jeopardize the advantages he has gained thereunder, as might be done if the bill herewith returned became a law.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 21, 1887_.
_To the Senate_:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 1768, entitled "An act granting a pension to John D. Fincher."
The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted August 6, 1862, and was discharged for disability February 24, 1863.
The surgeon's certificate of disability given at the time of the soldier's discharge recites "general debility, which will disable him from performing the duties of a soldier for a good period of time. The disease was contracted by exposure and fatigue while performing the duties of a soldier."
The claimant filed his application for pension in September, 1882, nearly twenty years after his discharge, alleging that in November, 1862, he was attacked with bilious fever, followed by chronic diarrhea and lung trouble.
In support of his application an affidavit of a comrade was filed, setting forth the fact that the claimant was taken sick, as he alleged, in the fall of 1862, and that he was sent to the hospital on that account. The affidavit further expresses the belief that the claimant still suffers from the effects of his sickness and exposure.
So far as I am informed, and so far as the committee's report discloses, this is the only proof furnished of any continuance of disability at the time of filing the application for pension, and this proof, if it may be so regarded, is the mere expression of an opinion or belief, not necessarily based upon any personal knowledge, and which might have been honestly expressed if derived from representations of the claimant himself.
In this condition of the case the claimant was examined by a surgeon in 1882, whose report seems to negative all ailments except as one may be found in the fact alleged therein that he had pneumonia in 1868, and that there might be some pleuritic adhesions, plainly inferring that if such adhesions existed they were the result of the sickness to which he refers.
In February, 1885, the claimant was again examined by a board of surgeons. This examination seems to have been very carefully and thoroughly made, and as a result of the same the board reported that there was no disability. On this ground the claim was rejected.
There is no doubt as to the sickness of the claimant during his service and his disability at the time of his discharge, but unless the report of the board of surgeons is to be impeached without apparent reason there is as little doubt of the claimant's complete recovery.
No case has been presented to me in which the evidence afforded of a continuance of disability seems so inconclusive. In these circumstances the report of the board of surgeons appears to be upon the evidence before me almost uncontradicted.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 23, 1887_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I herewith return without approval House bill No 7327, entitled "An act granting a pension to Anthony McRobertson."
The beneficiary named in this bill was badly wounded in a battle which occurred about the 17th day of November, 1863.
He applied for pension in 1874, and the same was granted in November, 1886, to date from the time of his disability, November 17, 1863.
He is now receiving the highest rate allowed under the general law for cases such as his, and he would be entitled to no more under the special act.
It could not, therefore, by any possibility be of the least benefit to him, but, on the other hand, might jeopardize his advantages already gained.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 23, 1887_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 8002, entitled "An act to increase the pension of Loren Burritt."
The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted in October, 1863, and in December of that year was mustered in as major of the Eighth Regiment United States Colored Troops; was promoted to lieutenant-colonel and very badly wounded in February, 1864, and was mustered out with his regiment November 10, 1865.
His condition at the present time is most pitiable, and his helplessness is such that he needs the constant care and assistance of others. He was obliged to give up business about the year 1873.
In 1866 he was pensioned for his wound, which was in the right leg; and such pension has been increased from time to time until he is now in the receipt of $72 per month, the highest pension allowed under general laws. This rate was awarded him under a law passed in 1880, increasing from $50 to $72 per month the pensions of those who were rendered permanently and totally helpless, so that they required the regular and personal attendance of another.
On the 30th day of June, 1886, there were 1,009 persons on the rolls receiving this rate of pension.
This bill was reported upon adversely by the House Committee on Pensions, and they, while fully acknowledging the distressing circumstances surrounding the case, felt constrained to adverse action on the ground, as stated in the language of their report, that "there are many cases just as helpless and requiring as much attention as this one, and were the relief asked for granted in this instance it might reasonably be looked for in all."
No man can check, if he would, the feeling of sympathy and pity aroused by the contemplation of utter helplessness as the result of patriotic and faithful military service; but in the midst of all this I can not put out of mind the soldiers in this condition who were privates in the ranks, who sustained the utmost hardships of war, but who, because they were privates and in the humble walks of life, are not so apt to share in special favors of Congressional action. I find no reason why this beneficiary should be singled out from his class, except it be that he was a lieutenant-colonel instead of a private.
I am aware of a precedent for the legislation proposed, which is furnished by an enactment of the last session of Congress, to which I assented, as I think improvidently; but I am certain that exact equality and fairness in the treatment of our veterans is, after all, more just, beneficent, and useful than unfair discrimination in favor of officers or the special benefit born of sympathy in individual cases.
I am constrained, therefore, to agree with the House Committee on Pensions in their views of this bill.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 23, 1887_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 10082, entitled "An act to increase the pension of Margaret R. Jones."
The beneficiary mentioned in this bill is now receiving the highest rate of pension allowed in cases such as hers under the general law.
All the information which is available to me fails to furnish any reason why this pension should be specially increased, except the general statement in the claimant's petition that she is in necessitous circumstances and that the rate now allowed her is insufficient for her support.
The further statement in the petition that her husband's death "was caused prematurely by his endeavor to comply with unusual, disrespectful, and indefinite orders" to go to League Island Navy-Yard certainly does not in all its bearings furnish conclusive proof that his widow's pension should be increased beyond that furnished others in her situation.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 23, 1887_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I return without approval House bill No. 5877, entitled "An act for the relief of William H. Morhiser."
This beneficiary, though apparently not regularly enlisted in the military service of the country during the time covered by this bill for his relief, performed military duty, was captured and imprisoned. No technicality should be interposed in considering this bill to prevent the receipt by him of the same pay and allowances awarded under like circumstances to soldiers regularly enlisted.
But this bill proposes to appropriate for the benefit of this claimant such sum as pay and allowances as would be allowed a private of cavalry from November 30, 1863, to January 1, 1865. It appears from the records of the War Department that he has already been paid for at least two months of that time.
The bill also provides that there shall also be allowed to the claimant such additional pay and allowances, as commutation of rations and so forth, as were allowed prisoners of war, from July 30, 1864, to January 1, 1865. The records disclose the fact that he has been allowed commutation of rations from July 30, 1864, to December 11, 1864.
As the purpose of this bill, as gathered from the report of the committee to whom it was referred, appears to be to secure for the claimant therein named compensation "at the rate at which other soldiers in the same situation were paid," and as he seems already to have received a considerable part of the compensation provided for in the bill, I am led to suppose that a mistake has been made in framing the same.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 24, 1887_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 7648, entitled "An act for the relief of the estate of the late John How, Indian agent, and his sureties."
John How was appointed Indian agent in July, 1878, and upon such appointment gave a bond to the Government in the penal sum of $10,000 conditioned for the faithful performance of his duties as such agent and to protect the Government from loss by mismanagement or malfeasance in his official conduct. The parties named in the bill were his sureties on said bond.
On the 23d day of December, 1881, upon a report of inspectors connected with the Indian Bureau suggesting frauds and mismanagement in the conduct of this agency, Mr. How was suspended from his office, which suspension was approved by the President in January, 1882.
After such suspension the accounts of the agent were examined and various explanations offered by him in relation thereto. It is stated, however, in a report from the Indian Office now before me, that such explanations were deemed by that office sufficient to remove only a small part of the items in the accounts which were questioned. The matter was thereupon referred to the Treasury Department for further examination and adjustment.
The Second Comptroller reports that the final settlement of this agent's accounts was pending before the accounting officers for upward of eighteen months, affording ample opportunity for any explanation which might be deemed necessary and proper, and that on the 21st day of July, 1885, a final adjustment was made of the said accounts, by which a sum very much in excess of the penalty of his bond was found due from said agent to the Government.
A suit was afterwards instituted against the agent and his sureties to recover the amount thus found due, so far as the bond covered the same.
This suit is still pending.
The object of the bill now under consideration is to wholly release and discharge these sureties from any liability upon said bond.
It seems to be the opinion of all the officers of the Government who have examined the matter at all that a debt exists in favor of the Government upon this bond. It is reported that a large amount of evidence has been taken, and that in the opinion of these officers the amount due the Government can not be reduced to a less amount than the penalty of the bond.
The Second Comptroller states, as results of examinations made in his office and by the Second Auditor, that it appears that many of the vouchers presented by the agent were fictitious, the persons in whose names they were given testifying that services and supplies therein mentioned were never rendered or furnished; that in other cases parties denied the genuineness of vouchers purporting to be made by them; that a large voucher apparently given for cattle was actually given for money loaned, and that supplies bought with Government funds were appropriated for the agent's personal benefit.
I do not suppose that it was intended by the Congress to entirely relieve these sureties if a condition exists such as is above set out, which results in an indebtedness to the Government. The proposed legislation, judging from the report of the House Committee on Claims, seems rather to proceed upon the theory that no sum is due the Government in the premises.
I think it will hardly be claimed that the patient investigation of the accounting officers should be lightly discredited in this case; and it seems to me that justness to the Government and fairness to the sureties seeking relief will presumably be secured by the further prosecution of the suit already instituted, in which the truth of all matters involved can be thoroughly tested.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 25, 1887_.
_To the Senate_:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 1162, entitled "An act for the erection of a post-office building at Lynn, Mass."
The title of this bill sufficiently indicates its purpose.
Congressional action in its favor appears to be based, as usual in such cases, upon representations concerning the population of the town in which it is proposed to erect the building, and the increase in such population, the number of railroad trains arriving and departing daily, and various other items calculated to demonstrate the importance of the city selected for Federal decoration.
These statements are supplemented by a report from the postmaster, setting forth that his postal receipts are increasing, giving the number of square feet now occupied by his office, the amount of rent paid, and the number of his employees.
This bill, unlike others of its class which seek to provide a place for a number of Federal offices, simply authorizes the construction of a building for the accommodation of the post-office alone.
The report of the postmaster differs also in this case from those which are usually furnished, inasmuch as it is therein distinctly stated that the space now furnished for his office is sufficient for its present operations. He adds, however, that from present indications there will be a large increase in the business of the office during the next ten years.
It is quite apparent that there is no necessity for the expenditure of $100,000, the amount limited in this bill, or any other sum, for the construction of the proposed building to meet the wants of the Government, and for this reason I am constrained to disapprove the proposed legislation.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 26, 1887_.
_To the Senate_:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 2045, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Sarah Hamilton."
Thomas Hamilton, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted September 2, 1862. Upon the records he is reported present to April 30, 1863; deserted May 27, 1863. His name is dropped from subsequent rolls to February 29, 1864, when he is reported as a deserter in arrest. He is not borne upon the rolls for March and April, 1864; for May and June, 1864, he is reported absent in arrest; for July and August, present under arrest; and for September and October, present for duty. He was mustered out with his company May 24, 1865.
He applied for a pension in 1872, alleging that he received an injury to his left leg about February 15, 1863, at St. Louis, by falling from a ladder, causing varicose veins and stiffening of the leg.
He was granted a pension January 29, 1881, to commence May 25, 1865.
He subsequently applied for an increase of pension, claiming that his eyes had become affected as a result of his varicose veins. This application was rejected upon the ground that the disability for which he was pensioned had not increased and that the disease of his eyes was not a result of such disability.
The pensioner died April 22, 1883, twenty years after his alleged injury, of cerebral apoplexy; and a physician states it as his judgment that the varicosed condition of the venous system was primarily the cause of his disabilities and death.
His widow filed an application for pension October 31, 1883, which was rejected upon the ground that the soldier's death was not the result of his military service.
Notwithstanding the record of the deceased soldier, stained as it is with the charge of desertion, and the entire absence of any record proof of sickness and injury, I should consider myself, in favor of his widow, bound by the act of the Pension Bureau in allowing him a pension, and should cheerfully aid her attempt to procure a pension for herself in her needy condition, if I was not thoroughly convinced that her husband's death had no relation to his military service or any injury for which he was pensioned.
To the ordinary mind it seems impossible that apoplexy could result from such a varicosed condition as is described in this case. I do not understand that the physician who gives a contrary opinion bases his judgment upon actual observation at the time the soldier died. The last medical examination by the Pension Bureau before the soldier's death was in October, 1882, and resulted in the following report of the examining surgeon:
Weight, 180 pounds; age, 69 years; has varicose veins of left leg, but not to such an extent as to increase the size of the leg or result in marked disability; he is entirely blind in both eyes from glaucoma, which does not in any degree, in my opinion, depend upon the pensioned disability--varicose veins.
It appears that the benefit proposed by this bill can neither be properly regarded as a gratuity, based upon the honorable service and record of the soldier, nor predicated on his death resulting from a disability incurred in such service.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 26, 1887_.
_To the Senate_:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 2210, entitled "An act granting a pension to Anna Wright."
The beneficiary named in this bill was granted a pension on the 17th day of November, 1886, dating from May 25, 1863, and is now under the general law receiving precisely the pension which she would receive under the bill herewith returned if the same should be approved.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, February 26, 1887_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6976, entitled "An act to erect a public building at Portsmouth, Ohio."
It is represented in support of this bill that Portsmouth by its last census had a population of 11,321, and that, it contains at present not less than 15,000 inhabitants; that it is a place of considerable manufacturing and commercial importance, and that there is no public building for the transaction of the business of the General Government nearer than Columbus or Cincinnati, both about 100 miles distant.
It is further stated in a communication from the promoter of this bill that--
There is not a Federal public building in the State of Ohio east of the line drawn on the accompanying map from Cleveland through Columbus to Cincinnati; and when wealth and population and the needs of the public service are considered, the distribution of public buildings in the State is an unfair one.
Here is disclosed a theory of expenditure for public buildings which I can hardly think should be adopted. If an application for the erection of such a building is to be determined by the distance between its proposed location and another public building, or upon the allegation that a certain division of a State is without a Government building, or that the distribution of these buildings in a particular State is unfair, we shall rapidly be led to an entire disregard of the considerations of necessity and public need which it seems to me should alone justify the expenditure of public funds for such a purpose.
The care and protection which the Government owes to the people do not embrace the grant of public buildings to decorate thriving and prosperous cities and villages, nor should such buildings be erected upon any principle of fair distribution among localities.
The Government is not an almoner of gifts among the people, but an instrumentality by which the people's affairs should be conducted upon business principles, regulated by the public needs.