Chapter XIII: Section 6: of the amended Chinese immigration act of 1884 purports to (8)

The agreement, together with the recommendations of the Department, is presented for the action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, January 18, 1887_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

Referring to the message of the President of the United States dated February 2, 1885,[13] I transmit herewith, for your consideration, a report from the Secretary of State, inclosing a translation of the convention for the protection of industrial property, of the _protocole de clôture_ of said convention, and of a protocol proposed by the conference of 1886 for ratification by the Governments which have adhered to the convention.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[Footnote 13: See p. 270.]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 18, 1887_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

As a matter of national interest, and one solely within the discretion and control of Congress, I transmit the accompanying memorial of the executive committee of the subconstitutional centennial commission, proposing to celebrate on the 17th of September, in the city of Philadelphia, as the day upon which and the place where the convention that framed the Federal Constitution concluded their labors and submitted the results for ratification to the thirteen States then composing the United States.

The epoch was one of the deepest interest and the events well worthy of commemoration.

I am aware that as each State acted independently in giving its adhesion to the new Constitution the dates and anniversaries of their several ratifications are not coincident. Some action looking to a national expression in relation to the celebration of the close of the first century of popular government under a written constitution has already been suggested, and whilst stating the great interest I share in the renewed examination by the American people of the historical foundations of their Government, I do not feel warranted in discriminating in favor or against the propositions to select one day or place in preference to all others, and therefore content myself with conveying to Congress these expressions of popular feeling and interest upon the subject, hoping that in a spirit of patriotic cooperation, rather than of local competition, fitting measures may be enacted by Congress which will give the amplest opportunity all over these United States for the manifestation of the affection and confidence of a free and mighty nation in the institutions of a Government of which they are the fortunate inheritors and under which unexampled prosperity has been enjoyed by all classes and conditions in our social system.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 18, 1887_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 7th ultimo from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill "for the relief of Hiatt & Co., late traders for the Osage tribe of Indians, and for other purposes."

The matter is presented for the consideration of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, January 20, 1887_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, a draft of declaration explanatory of Articles II and IV of the convention for the protection of submarine cables, which has been proposed by the conference of 1886 for ratification by the Governments adhering to the said convention.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 20, 1887_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I herewith transmit a communication addressed to me by Mr. Samuel C. Reid, who offers to the United States the battle sword (now in my custody) of his father, Captain Samuel Chester Reid, who commanded the United States private armed brig _General Armstrong_ at the battle of Fayal, in September, 1814.

I respectfully recommend that appropriate action be taken by Congress for the acceptance of this gift.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 20, 1887_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I have the honor to transmit to the Senate herewith a report of the Secretary of State, in answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 11th instant, requesting "estimates for the contingent fund of each bureau" in the Department of State.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 20, 1887_.

_To the Senate_:

I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, in answer to the resolution of the Senate of December 8, 1886, relative to the claims of Antonio Pelletier and A.H. Lazare against the Republic of Hayti.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 23, 1887_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In response to the resolution of the Senate of the 21st ultimo, calling for certain correspondence touching the construction of a ship canal through Nicaragua, I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State on the subject, with accompanying papers.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 1, 1887_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State, together with a copy of the report, which it incloses, of Lieutenant William H. Schuetze, United States Navy, who was designated by the Secretary of the Navy, in pursuance of the act of Congress of March 3, 1885, making appropriations for the sundry civil expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1886, to distribute the testimonials of the Government to subjects of Russia who extended aid to the survivors of the _Jeannette_ exploring expedition and to the parties dispatched by this Government to aid the said survivors.

The report is interesting alike to the people of the United States and to the subjects of Russia, and will be gratifying to all who appreciate the generous and humane action of Congress in providing for the testimonials.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 1, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In response to the resolution of the House of Representatives adopted on the 22d ultimo, calling upon me for a "copy of the treaty or convention proposed to the Senate and ratified by that body between the United States and the Government of the Hawaiian Islands," I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers.

It is proper to remark in this relation that no convention whatever has been "agreed to and ratified" by "the President and Senate," as is recited in the preamble to the said resolution of the House of Representatives, but that the documents referred to, exhibiting the action of the Executive and the Senate, respectively, are communicated in compliance with the request of the resolution.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 8, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, in response to a resolution of the House of the 24th ultimo, a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying copies of correspondence between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the rights of American fishermen in the waters of British North America, supplemental to the correspondence already communicated to Congress with my message of December 8, 1886.[14]

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[Footnote 14: See pp. 529-530.]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 10, 1887_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State, accompanying reports by consular officers of the United States on the extent and character of the emigration from and immigration into their respective districts.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, February 14, 1887_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, concluded October 2, 1886, in the harbor of Nukualofa, Tongatabu, between the United States of America and the King of Tonga.

I also transmit, for your information, a report from the Secretary of State, inclosing copies of the treaties of friendship concluded between the Kingdom of Tonga and Germany and Great Britain.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 14, 1887_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a report furnished by the Secretary of State in response to a resolution of the Senate of January 31 ultimo, calling for particulars of the investment and distribution of the indemnity received in 1875 from Spain, and known as the "_Virginius_ fund."

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 15, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 12th instant (the House of Representatives concurring), I return herewith the bill (H.R. 5652) for the relief of James W. Goodrich.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 16, 1887_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State, accompanying the annual reports of the consuls of the United States on the trade and industries of foreign countries.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 19, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I transmit herewith to the House of Representatives a report from the Secretary of State, in response to a resolution of that body of the 16th instant, inquiring as to the action of this Department to protect the interests of American citizens whose property was destroyed by fire caused by insurgents at Aspinwall in 1885.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 23, 1887_.

_To the Senate_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 14th instant, relating to the arrest, trial, and discharge of A.K. Cutting, a citizen of the United States, by the authorities of Mexico, I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State of this date, with its accompaniment.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 25, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), I return herewith the bill (H.R. 367) to amend section 536 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to the division of the State of Illinois into judicial districts, and to provide for holding terms of court of the northern district at the city of Peoria.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, February 25, 1887_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, an additional article to the treaty of extradition concluded October 11, 1870, between the United States of America and the Republic of Guatemala.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 26, 1887_.

_To the Senate_:

I transmit herewith, in reply to a resolution of the Senate of the 21st ultimo, a report from the Secretary of State, relative to the seizure and sale of the American schooner _Rebecca_ at Tampico and the resignation of Henry R. Jackson, esq., as minister of the United States to Mexico. It is not thought compatible with the public interests to publish the correspondence in either case at the present time.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 28, 1887_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication of 17th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, two agreements made with Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota under the provisions of the act of May 15, 1886 (24 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 44).

The papers are presented for the consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, March 1, 1887_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 22d ultimo, requesting copies of certain letters, dated June 8, 1886, and September 20, 1886, addressed by the counsel of A.H. Lazare to the Secretary of State, in regard to the award against the Republic of Hayti in favor of A.H. Lazare under the protocol signed by the Secretary of State and the minister of Hayti on May 24, 1884, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State upon the subject.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, March 1, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:.

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 28th ultimo (the Senate concurring), I return herewith the bill of the House (H.R. 7310) granting a pension to Mrs. Arlanta T. Taylor.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _March 2, 1887_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In response to the resolution of the Senate of the 14th ultimo, requesting information concerning the service rendered by Count Casimir Pulaski, a brigadier-general of the Army of the United States in the years 1777, 1778, and 1779, and also respecting his pay and compensation, I transmit herewith reports upon the subject from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of War.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, March 2, 1887_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers, furnished in response to the resolution of the Senate of the 26th ultimo, calling for information touching the conditions under which certain transatlantic telegraph companies have been permitted to land their cables in the United States, and touching contracts of such companies with each other or with other cable or telegraph companies.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

VETO MESSAGES.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 19, 1887_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2269, entitled "An act granting a pension to William Dickens."

The beneficiary named in this bill filed his application for pension in the Pension Bureau in 1880, and in December, 1886, the same was granted, taking effect from the 15th day of October, 1864.

If the bill herewith returned should become a law, it would permit the payment of a pension only from the date of its approval. Thus, if it did not result in loss to the claimant by superseding the action of the Pension Bureau, it is plain that it would be a useless enactment.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 27, 1887_.

_To the Senate_:

I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 2173, entitled "An act granting a pension to Benjamin Obekiah."

This bill directs that the beneficiary named therein be placed upon the pension roll, "subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws."

In July, 1886, the person named in this bill was placed upon the pension roll at a rate determined upon by the Pension Bureau, pursuant to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws; and it is entirely certain that the special act now presented to me would give the claimant no new rights or additional benefits.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 27, 1887_.

_To the Senate_:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 127, entitled "An act for the relief of H.K. Belding."

This bill directs the sum of $1,566 to be paid to the said H.K. Belding "for carrying the mails of the United States between the years 1858 and 1862."

In April, 1858, a contract was awarded to the said Belding for carrying the mails from Brownsville, Minn., to Carimona, in the same State, a distance of 63 miles, and return, three times a week, for the sum of $1,800 per annum, said service to begin on the 1st day of July, 1858, and to terminate on the 30th day of June, 1862. This contract contained a provision that the Post-Office Department might discontinue the service in whole or in part, allowing to the contractor one month's extra pay therefor.

On May 9, 1859, in consequence of a failure on the part of the Congress to make the necessary appropriation, a general reduction of mail service was ordered, and the service under the contract with the claimant was reduced to two trips per week from May 10, 1859, instead of three, as stipulated in the contract, and a deduction of one-third of the annual sum to be paid by the contract was made for such reduced service; and thereupon one month's extra pay was allowed and paid the contractor on account of said reduction.

It is conceded that payment was made in full according to the terms of the contract up to the 10th day of May, 1859, but it is claimed that notwithstanding the reduction of the service to two trips per week and the receipt by the contractor of one month's extra pay by reason thereof, he continued to perform the full service of three trips per week from the 10th day of May, 1859, to the 30th day of September, 1860, being seventeen months.

Of the sum directed to be paid to him in the bill under consideration, $850 is allowed him on account of this service, he having been paid for the period stated at the rate of $1,200 per annum. The contractor claims that this full service was performed after the reduction by the Post-Office Department because he had received an intimation from the Postmaster-General that if the full service was continued after such reduction there was no doubt that the Congress would at its next session make provision for the payment of the sum deducted.

Of course no legal claim in favor of the contractor can be predicated upon the facts which he alleges; and if he did continue full service under the circumstances stated, it must be conceded that his conduct was hardly in accordance with the rules which regulate transactions of this kind.

But a thorough search of the correspondence and records in the Post-Office Department fails to disclose any letter, document, or record giving the least support to the allegation that any such intimation or assurance as is claimed was given; nor is there the least evidence in the Department that the full service was actually performed. There is, however, on the files of the Department a letter from the claimant, dated August 25, 1860, containing the following statement:

When I received official information of the curtailing service, the
reasons why, I wrote to the Department that I would, if allowed,
continue service three times a week and take certificates, if I could
be allowed to connect with La Crosse at _pro rata_ rates. That letter
was never answered and I continued service three times a week till
3d of September following, then run twice a week.

Thus it appears that this contractor, who in August, 1860, claimed that he continued full service upon the invitation of his own unanswered letter for less than four months, insists twenty-seven years after the date of the alleged service that he performed such service for seventeen months, and up to October, 1860. Not only has he himself in this manner almost conclusively shown that the claim now made and allowed is exorbitant, but the evidence gives rise to a strong presumption that it is entirely fictitious.

The remainder of the amount allowed to the claimant in this bill is based upon an alleged performance by the contractor of the same mail service which has been referred to from October 1, 1860, to February 14, 1861, a period of four months and fourteen days.

Prior to October 1, 1860, the claimant's contract was annulled and a new or more extended route established, entirely covering that upon which he had carried the mails. Thereupon a month's extra pay was allowed to him, and new contractors undertook the service and were paid therefor by the Government for the period covered by the claimant's alleged service. From the 14th day of February, 1861, Mr. Belding's contract with the Government was reinstated; but if he performed the service alleged during the period of four months and fourteen days immediately prior to that date, it is quite clear that he did so under an arrangement with the new contractors, and not under circumstances creating any legal or equitable claim against the Government.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 31, 1887_.

_To the Senate_:

I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 2167, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Margaret Dunlap."

By this bill it is proposed to grant a pension to the beneficiary therein named as the mother of James F. Dunlap, who enlisted in the Seventh Missouri State Militia Cavalry in 1862 and died in July, 1864, of wounds received at the hand of a comrade.

The favorable action of the Senate upon this bill appears to be based, so far as the cause of death is concerned, upon an affidavit contained in the report of the committee to which the bill was referred, made by one G. Will Houts, second lieutenant in the company to which the deceased soldier belonged, in which the affiant deposes that some of the comrades of the deceased being engaged in an affray he attempted to separate the combatants, whereupon one of them, without cause or provocation, stabbed the deceased in the breast, from which, in a few days thereafter, he died; to which affidavit is added the finding of a court-martial that the party inflicting the wound was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

Upon this showing it might be difficult to spell out the facts that the injury to the soldier was received in the line of duty or that any theory of granting pensions covered the case.

But the weak features of this application are not alluded to in the committee's report.

The record of the soldier's death states that he was "killed by one of his comrades in a difficulty."

The same Lieutenant Houts who in 1872 made oath that the soldier was wounded while attempting to separate comrades who were fighting testified in 1864 before the court-martial upon the trial of the man who did the wounding, and whose name was Capehart, that Dunlap, the deceased, stated to him "that he was more to blame than Capehart, and that they had been scuffling, at first good-naturedly, and then both got angry; that he was rougher with Capehart than he ought to have been."

Another witness testified that the affray took place between Dunlap and Capehart; that Dunlap handled Capehart very roughly, kicking him, etc., and that finally Capehart stabbed Dunlap, upon which the latter attempted to get his gun, but was prevented from doing so by the witness.

Of course there can be no pretense of any kind of claim against the Government arising from these facts.

It is quite evident that the affidavit presented to the Senate committee was contrived to deceive, and it is to be feared that it is but a sample of many that are made in support of claims for pensions.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 3, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 6443, entitled "An act granting a pension to Alexander Falconer."

This claimant filed his application for pension in 1879, alleging that in 1837, being then an enlisted man in the United States Army, he received a gunshot wound in his right leg below the knee at the battle of Okeechobee Lake, Florida.

The records disclose the fact that this soldier enlisted in 1834, and was almost continuously in the service and attached to the same company until 1846.

It further appears that he is reported sick during the month in which the battle was fought. The list of casualties does not contain his name among the wounded.

He reenlisted in 1846 and again in 1847, and was finally discharged in 1848. These latter enlistments were for service in the Mexican War.

His claim for pension was denied in 1885 on the ground that no disability existed in a pensionable degree from the alleged gunshot wound in his leg.

It is perfectly clear that the only pretexts for giving this claimant a pension are military service, old age, and poverty.

Inasmuch as he was a soldier in the Mexican War, his case is undoubtedly provided for by a general law approved within the last few days.

Under this bill the amount to be paid him is fixed, while if the bill herewith returned were approved the sum to be paid him would depend upon the determination of the Pension Bureau as to the extent of his disability as the result of his wound. As that Bureau has quite lately determined that there was no disability, it is evident that this old soldier can better rely upon the general law referred to.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 3, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6132, entitled "An act granting a pension to William Lynch."

The claimant mentioned in this bill enlisted in the Fifth Regiment United States Infantry in 1849, and was discharged, after a reenlistment, September 8, 1859.

He filed a claim for pension more than twenty-four years afterwards, in April, 1884, claiming that he contracted rheumatism of the right hip and leg in the winter of 1857-58, while serving in Utah. He admitted that he was not under treatment while in the service and that he never consulted a physician in regard to his disability until he commenced proceedings for a pension.

The evidence disclosed to me falls far short of establishing this claim for pension upon its merits.

The application made to the Pension Bureau is still pending and awaiting answer to inquiries made by the Bureau in January, 1886.

I do not understand that the Congress intends to pass special acts in cases thus situated.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 4, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 7698, entitled "An act granting a pension to Robert K. Bennett."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted in September, 1862, and it appears that very soon after that he was detailed to the cook shop. This seems to be the only military service he rendered, and on February 7, 1863, five months after enlistment, he was received into the marine hospital at New Orleans for varicocele. He was discharged from the service February 22, 1863, and the cause of discharge is stated to be "varicocele, to which he was subject four years before enlistment."

Seventeen years thereafter, and in June, 1880, this claimant filed an application for pension in the Pension Bureau, alleging that about the 10th day of February, 1863, in unloading a barrel it fell upon him, producing a hernia, shortly after which he was affected by piles.

It will be seen that he fixes this injury as occurring three days after his admission to the hospital, but he might well be honestly mistaken as to this date. If the injury, however, was such as he stated, it is difficult to see why no mention was made of it in the hospital records.

He persisted at all times, as I understand the case, until the rejection of his claim in 1883, that his disability arose from hernia and piles. The reason of this rejection is stated to be that varicocele existed prior to enlistment and that there was no evidence of the existence of piles in the service or at discharge. From a medical examination made in December, 1882, it appears that there was "no evidence or symptoms of disability resulting from piles or hernia."

Subsequent to the rejection of this claim some proof was filed tending to show that the disability was in the right leg, but it is of such a nature, in the light of the claimant's own previous allegations, that I think the Pension Bureau did entirely right in informing his attorney that the additional evidence did not change the status of the case.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 4, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 7540, entitled "An act to increase the pension of Franklin Sweet."

This soldier was pensioned in 1863 as sergeant, though before that time he had been acting as captain, and was in command of his company when he was wounded. He is entitled in equity, and, I think, upon the theory of an act very recently approved, in law, to be treated in regard to his pension as a captain; and the Pension Bureau has within the last few days ordered a certificate for pension to issue to him as captain as of the date of his discharge.

I fully approve this action of the Bureau, and as this is much more favorable to a deserving soldier than his remedy under this bill, I am not willing that the action, so lately and so justly taken in his behalf under the general law should be superseded by the approval of this act.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 4, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 8834, entitled "An act granting a pension to Abraham P. Griggs."

The claimant mentioned in this bill enlisted in a New Jersey regiment August 14, 1861, and was discharged for disability November 17, 1863.

He entered hospital January 2, 1863, and was transferred to general hospital at Newark, N.J., March 28, 1863, with "debility." He was discharged from that hospital and from the service in November, 1863, as above stated, and the following statement from his certificate of discharge, if trustworthy, sheds some light upon the kind of debility with which he was afflicted:

This man has been in this hospital for the past eight months. We do not
believe him sick, or that he has been sick, but completely worthless.
He is obese and a malingerer to such an extent that he is almost an
imbecile--worthlessness, obesity, and imbecility and laziness. He is
totally unfit for the Invalid Corps or for any other military duty.

I do not regard it at all strange that this claimant, encouraged by the ease with which special acts are passed, seeks relief through such means, after his application, filed in the Pension Bureau nearly twenty years after his discharge, had been rejected.

Of the four comrades who make affidavit in support of his claim, two of them are recorded as deserters.

His claim is predicated upon rheumatism. He alleges that after his discharge from his enlistment he was drafted and served in the Third New York Cavalry, but the Adjutant-General reports that his name does not appear on the rolls of the company to which he says he was attached.

The board of United States examining surgeons at Trenton, N.J., report as the result of an examination as late as May 27, 1885, that they found "no disease of heart or lungs, no thickening or wasting of any of the joints of the body, no evidence of any rheumatic diathesis, no rupture or hemorrhoids, no disease of his spleen or kidney; hands are hard and indicate an ability to work."

I can not think that the official statements referred to, and which militate so strongly against the merits of the claimant, should be impeached or set aside by any of the other testimony which has been brought to my attention.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 4, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 927, entitled "An act granting a pension to Cudbert Stone."

The report of the committee of the House of Representatives to whom this bill was referred states that the claimant enlisted October 3, 1861, in Company H, Fourteenth Kentucky Volunteers, and was honorably discharged on the 31st day of January, 1865; that he filed his claim for pension July 20, 1881, more than sixteen years thereafter, alleging that he contracted piles while in the service, from exposure while in the line of duty, and that his claim was rejected in October, 1884, on the ground that the allegation of the claimant shows that his disability originated while undergoing the sentence of a court-martial, and therefore not in the line of duty.

The report of the committee closes with the statement that--

In view of the long and faithful service and high character of the
claimant and the well-established facts that claimant was a stout and
able-bodied man, free from any and all disease when he enlisted, and
that by reason of his faithful service to his country and the great
suffering and hardship through which he passed while in said service
his health was permanently destroyed, the committee earnestly recommend
the passage of the bill.

The records of the War Department show that the claimant enlisted October 25, 1861, and that on the muster-in roll of his company dated December 10, 1861, he is reported as present; that on the roll dated December 31, 1861, he is reported as absent without leave; that on the roll for January and February, 1862, he is reported as deserted; that he is not borne on subsequent rolls until that for November, 1864, when he is reported as gained from desertion; he was mustered out with his company January 31, 1865, and the records offered no evidence of disability; that in his claim for pension, filed in 1881, he alleges that he contracted piles in the winter of 1863.

In a subsequent statement he alleges that this date is erroneous, and that his disability was contracted in October, 1864, and that he believes it was the result of his having diarrhea for about twelve months prior to that date, contracted while he was being carried from place to place as a prisoner, he having been tried by a court-martial in May, 1862, for desertion and sentenced to imprisonment until the expiration of his term of enlistment.

Thus it quite plainly appears that this claimant spent the most of his term of enlistment in desertion or in imprisonment as a punishment of that offense; and thus is exhibited the "long and faithful service and the high character of the claimant" mentioned as entitling him to consideration by the committee who reported favorably upon this bill.

I withhold my assent from this bill because, if the facts before me, derived from the army records and the statements of the claimant are true, the allowance of this claim would, in my opinion, be a travesty upon our whole scheme of pensions and an insult to every decent veteran soldier.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 4, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 8150, entitled "An act granting a pension to Jesse Campbell."

The claim for a pension made by the beneficiary named in this bill to the Pension Bureau, and rejected in 1881, was reopened upon further proof in January, 1887, and the claimant was ordered before a board of examining surgeons, upon which a report has not yet been made.

Inasmuch as the only ground for the rejection of his claim was the nonexistence of pensionable disability from the cause he alleged, and in view of the fact that he now alleges a different disability, which the new evidence seems to support, there is no doubt that justice will be done the claimant under the general law.

This bill if passed would only place the name of the beneficiary upon the pension roll, "subject to the restrictions and limitations of the pension laws." Whether any sum was allowed him or not would still depend upon the existence of a disability; and if this is found upon the examination lately ordered, he will undoubtedly be put upon the pension roll, under existing law, in accordance with his supplementary claim.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 4, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 6832, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Catharine Sattler."

The beneficiary named in this bill claims a pension as the surviving widow of Julius Sattler, who enlisted in Company A, Seventh New York Volunteers, and was in the service from March 10, 1864, to March 22, 1865, when he was discharged because of the amputation of his left forearm in consequence of a wound received in the battle of Deep Bottom, Virginia, on the 14th day of August, 1864. He was pensioned in 1865 at the rate of $8 per month, which was afterwards increased to $15 per month, dating from June 6, 1866.

In October, 1867, he was employed as a watchman in the United States bonded warehouse in the city of New York, and on the 31st day of that month he received his monthly pay of $50. He disappeared on that day, and on the 13th day of November, 1867, his body was found in the North River, at the foot of West Thirteenth street, in the city of New York without his hat, coat, watch, or money.

These facts, with the further statement that he was a strong and healthy man at the time of his death, constitute the case on the part of the widow, who filed her application for a pension July 8, 1884, nearly seventeen years after her husband's death, alleging that she was married to the deceased in 1865, after the amputation of his arm.

Her claim was rejected in November, 1884, upon the ground that the soldier's death was not due to his military service.

This rejection was clearly right, unless the Government is to be held as an insurer against every fatal casualty incurred by those who have served in the Army, without regard to the manner of its occurrence.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 4, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6825, entitled "An act granting a pension to James R. Baylor."

The claim of the beneficiary named in this bill is based upon an injury to his left ankle in 1862.

A medical examination in 1877 showed no appearance of there ever having been a fracture of the left ankle, as alleged by the claimant, and it was determined that there was no disability. A later examination in the same year was had with the same result. Still another medical examination was had in June, 1884, which, although nearly agreeing with the previous ones, and giving rise to some suspicion that the claimant was inclined to exaggerate and prevent a free and fair examination, still does not absolutely exclude a very slight disability.

Upon the report of this last examination the case has been reopened for further proof of disability since discharge, which if found will entitle the claimant to a pension under general laws. On the question to be determined he would have no advantage under a special act, inasmuch as there must be a ratable disability to entitle him to any payment in pursuance of its provisions.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 11, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without my approval House bill No. 10457, entitled "An act for the relief of dependent parents and honorably discharged soldiers and sailors who are now disabled and dependent upon their own labor for support."

This is the first general bill that has been sanctioned by the Congress since the close of the late civil war permitting a pension to the soldiers and sailors who served in that war upon the ground of service and present disability alone, and in the entire absence of any injuries received by the casualties or incidents of such service.

While by almost constant legislation since the close of this war there has been compensation awarded for every possible injury received as a result of military service in the Union Army, and while a great number of laws passed for that purpose have been administered with great liberality and have been supplemented by numerous private acts to reach special cases, there has not until now been an avowed departure from the principle thus far adhered to respecting Union soldiers, that the bounty of the Government in the way of pensions is generously bestowed when granted to those who, in this military service and in the line of military duty, have to a greater or less extent been disabled.

But it is a mistake to suppose that service pensions, such as are permitted by the second section of the bill under consideration, are new to our legislation. In 1818, thirty-five years after the close of the Revolutionary War, they were granted to the soldiers engaged in that struggle, conditional upon service until the end of the war or for a term not less than nine months, and requiring every beneficiary under the act to be one "who is, or hereafter by reason of his reduced circumstances in life shall be, in need of assistance from his country for support." Another law of a like character was passed in 1828, requiring service until the close of the Revolutionary War; and still another, passed in 1832, provided for those persons not included in the previous statute, but who served two years at some time during the war, and giving a proportionate sum to those who had served not less than six months.

A service-pension law was passed for the benefit of the soldiers of 1812 in the year 1871, fifty-six years after the close of that war, which required only sixty days' service; and another was passed in 1878, sixty-three years after the war, requiring only fourteen days' service.

The service-pension bill passed at this session of Congress, thirty-nine years after the close of the Mexican War, for the benefit of the soldiers of that war, requires either some degree of disability or dependency or that the claimant under its provisions should be 62 years of age, and in either case that he should have served sixty days or been actually engaged in a battle.

It will be seen that the bill of 1818 and the Mexican pension bill, being thus passed nearer the close of the wars in which its beneficiaries were engaged than the others--one thirty-five years and the other thirty-nine years after the termination of such wars--embraced persons who were quite advanced in age, assumed to be comparatively few in number, and whose circumstances, dependence, and disabilities were clearly defined and could be quite easily fixed.

The other laws referred to appear to have been passed at a time so remote from the military service of the persons which they embraced that their extreme age alone was deemed to supply a presumption of dependency and need.

The number of enlistments in the Revolutionary War is stated to be 309,791, and in the War of 1812 576,622; but it is estimated that on account of repeated reenlistments the number of individuals engaged in these wars did not exceed one-half of the number represented by these figures. In the war with Mexico the number of enlistments is reported to be 112,230, which represents a greater proportion of individuals engaged than the reported enlistments in the two previous wars.

The number of pensions granted under all laws to soldiers of the Revolution is given at 62,069; to soldiers of the War of 1812 and their widows, 60,178; and to soldiers of the Mexican War and their widows, up to June 30, 1885, 7,619. The latter pensions were granted to the soldiers of a war involving much hardship for disabilities incurred as a result of such service; and it was not till within the last month that the few remaining survivors were awarded a service pension.

The War of the Rebellion terminated nearly twenty-two years ago; the number of men furnished for its prosecution is stated to be 2,772,408. No corresponding number of statutes have ever been passed to cover every kind of injury or disability incurred in the military service of any war. Under these statutes 561,576 pensions have been granted from the year 1861 to June 30, 1886, and more than 2,600 pensioners have been added to the rolls by private acts passed to meet cases, many of them of questionable merit, which the general laws did not cover.

On the 1st day of July, 1886, 365,763 pensioners of all classes were upon the pension rolls, of whom 305,605 were survivors of the War of the Rebellion and their widows and dependents. For the year ending June 30, 1887, $75,000,000 have been appropriated for the payment of pensions, and the amount expended for that purpose from 1861 to July 1, 1886, is $808,624,811.51.

While annually paying out such a vast sum for pensions already granted, it is now proposed by the bill under consideration to award a service pension to the soldiers of all wars in which the United States has been engaged, including of course the War of the Rebellion, and to pay those entitled to the benefits of the act the sum of $12 per month.

So far as it relates to the soldiers of the late civil war, the bounty it affords them is given thirteen years earlier than it has been furnished the soldiers of any other war, and before a large majority of its beneficiaries have advanced in age beyond the strength and vigor of the prime of life.

It exacts only a military or naval service of three months, without any requirement of actual engagement with an enemy in battle, and without a subjection to any of the actual dangers of war.

The pension it awards is allowed to enlisted men who have not suffered the least injury, disability, loss, or damage of any kind, incurred in or in any degree referable to their military service, including those who never reached the front at all and those discharged from rendezvous at the close of the war, if discharged three months after enlistment. Under the last call of the President for troops, in December, 1864, 11,303 men were furnished who were thus discharged.

The section allowing this pension does, however, require, besides a service of three months and an honorable discharge, that those seeking the benefit of the act shall be such as "are now or may hereafter be suffering from mental or physical disability, not the result of their own vicious habits or gross carelessness, which incapacitates them for the performance of labor in such a degree as to render them unable to earn a support, and who are dependent upon their daily labor for support."

It provides further that such persons shall, upon making proof of the fact, "be placed on the list of invalid pensioners of the United States, and be entitled to receive for such total inability to procure their subsistence by daily labor $12 per month; and such pension shall commence from the date of the filing of the application in the Pension Office, upon proof that the disability then existed, and continue during the existence of the same in the degree herein provided: _Provided_, That persons who are now receiving pensions under existing laws, or whose claims are pending in the Pension Office, may, by application to the Commissioner of Pensions, in such form as he may prescribe, receive the benefit of this act."

It is manifestly of the utmost importance that statutes which, like pension laws, should be liberally administered as measures of benevolence in behalf of worthy beneficiaries should admit of no uncertainty as to their general objects and consequences.

Upon a careful consideration of the language of the section of this bill above given it seems to me to be so uncertain and liable to such conflicting constructions and to be subject to such unjust and mischievous application as to alone furnish sufficient ground for disapproving the proposed legislation.

Persons seeking to obtain the pension provided by this section must be now or hereafter--

1. "Suffering from mental or physical disability."

2. Such disability must not be "the result of their own vicious habits or gross carelessness."

3. Such disability must be such as "incapacitates them for the performance of labor in such a degree as to render them unable to earn a support."

4. They must be "dependent upon their daily labor for support."

5. Upon proof of these conditions they shall "be placed on the lists of invalid pensioners of the United States, and be entitled to receive for such total inability to procure their subsistence by daily labor $12 per month."

It is not probable that the words last quoted, "such total inability to procure their subsistence by daily labor," at all qualify the conditions prescribed in the preceding language of the section. The "total inability" spoken of must be "such" inability--that is, the inability already described and constituted by the conditions already detailed in the previous parts of the section.

It thus becomes important to consider the meaning and the scope of these last-mentioned conditions.

The mental and physical disability spoken of has a distinct meaning in the practice of the Pension Bureau and includes every impairment of bodily or mental strength and vigor. For such disabilities there are now paid 131 different rates of pension, ranging from $1 to $100 per month.

This disability must not be the result of the applicant's "vicious habits or gross carelessness." Practically this provision is not important. The attempt of the Government to escape the payment of a pension on such a plea would of course in a very large majority of instances, and regardless of the merits of the case, prove a failure. There would be that strange but nearly universal willingness to help the individual as between him and the public Treasury which goes very far to insure a state of proof in favor of the claimant.

The disability of applicants must be such as to "incapacitate them for the performance of labor in such a degree as to render them unable to earn a support."

It will be observed that there is no limitation or definition of the incapacitating injury or ailment itself. It need only be such a degree of disability from any cause as renders the claimant unable to earn a support by labor. It seems to me that the "support" here mentioned as one which can not be earned is a complete and entire support, with no diminution on account of the least impairment of physical or mental condition. If it had been intended to embrace only those who by disease or injury were totally unable to labor, it would have been very easy to express that idea, instead of recognizing, as is done, a "degree" of such inability.

What is a support? Who is to determine whether a man earns it, or has it, or has it not? Is the Government to enter the homes of claimants for pension and after an examination of their surroundings and circumstances settle those questions? Shall the Government say to one man that his manner of subsistence by his earnings is a support and to another that the things his earnings furnish are not a support? Any attempt, however honest, to administer this law in such a manner would necessarily produce more unfairness and unjust discrimination and give more scope for partisan partiality, and would result in more perversion of the Government's benevolent intentions, than the execution of any statute ought to permit.

If in the effort to carry out the proposed law the degree of disability as related to earnings be considered for the purpose of discovering if in any way it curtails the support which the applicant, if entirely sound, would earn, and to which he is entitled, we enter the broad field long occupied by the Pension Bureau, and we recognize as the only difference between the proposed legislation and previous laws passed for the benefit of the surviving soldiers of the Civil War the incurrence in one case of disabilities in military service and in the other disabilities existing, but in no way connected with or resulting from such service.

It must be borne in mind that in no case is there any grading of this proposed pension. Under the operation of the rule first suggested, if there is a lack in any degree, great or small, of the ability to earn such a support as the Government determines the claimant should have, and, by the application of the rule secondly suggested, if there is a reduction in any degree of the support which he might earn if sound, he is entitled to a pension of $12.

In the latter case, and under the proviso of the proposed bill permitting persons now receiving pensions to be admitted to the benefits of the act, I do not see how those now on the pension roll for disabilities incurred in the service, and which diminish their earning capacity, can be denied the pension provided in this bill.

Of course none will apply who are now receiving $12 or more per month. But on the 30th day of June, 1886, there were on the pension rolls 202,621 persons who were receiving fifty-eight different rates of pension from $1 to $11.75 per month. Of these, 28,142 were receiving $2 per month; 63,116, $4 per month; 37,254, $6 per month, and 50,274, whose disabilities were rated as total, $8 per month.

As to the meaning of the section of the bill under consideration there appears to have been quite a difference of opinion among its advocates in the Congress. The chairman of the Committee on Pensions in the House of Representatives, who reported the bill, declared that there was in it no provision for pensioning anyone who has a less disability than a total inability to labor, and that it was a charity measure. The chairman of the Committee on Pensions in the Senate, having charge of the bill in that body, dissented from the construction of the bill announced in the House of Representatives, and declared that it not only embraced all soldiers totally disabled, but, in his judgment, all who are disabled to any considerable extent; and such a construction was substantially given to the bill by another distinguished Senator, who, as a former Secretary of the Interior, had imposed upon him the duty of executing pension laws and determining their intent and meaning.

Another condition required of claimants under this act is that they shall be "dependent upon their daily labor for support."

This language, which may be said to assume that there exists within the reach of the persons mentioned "labor," or the ability in some degree to work, is more aptly used in a statute describing those not wholly deprived of this ability than in one which deals with those utterly unable to work.