A \ B \ C \ D \ E \ F \ G \ H \ I \ J \ K \ L \ M \ N \ O \ P \ R \ S \ T \ U \ V \ W \Z

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents by Grover Cleveland

G >> Grover Cleveland >> A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents




But it seems to me that the effort to attribute his death by apoplexy to
the existence of hernia ought not to be successful.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 2971, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Francis Deming."

This claimant entered the service in August, 1861, and was discharged
September 15, 1865.

His hospital record shows that during his service he was treated for
various temporary ailments, among which rheumatism is not included.

He filed an application for pension in September, 1884, alleging that in
August, 1864, he contracted rheumatism, which had resulted in blindness.

On an examination of his case in November, 1884, he stated that his
eyesight began to fail in 1882.

There seems to be no testimony showing his condition from the time of
his discharge to 1880, a period of fifteen years.

The claim that his present condition of blindness is the result of his
army service is not insisted upon as a reason for granting him relief as
strongly as his sad and helpless condition. The committee of the House
to which this bill was referred, after detailing his situation, close
their report with these words: "He served well his country in its dire
need; his necessities now appeal for relief."

We have here presented the case of a soldier who did his duty during
his army service, and who was discharged in 1865 without any record of
having suffered with rheumatism and without any claim of disability
arising from the same. He returned to his place as a citizen, and
in peaceful pursuits, with chances certainly not impaired by the
circumstance that he had served his country, he appears to have held his
place in the race of life for fifteen years or more. Then, like many
another, he was subjected to loss of sight, one of the saddest
afflictions known to human life.

Thereupon, and after nineteen years had elapsed since his discharge from
the Army, a pension is claimed for him upon a very shadowy allegation of
the incurrence of rheumatism while in the service, coupled with the
startling proposition that this rheumatism resulted, just previous to
his application, in blindness. Upon medical examination it appeared that
his blindness was caused by amaurosis, which is generally accepted as an
affection of the optic nerve.

I am satisfied that a fair examination of the facts in this case
justifies the statement that the bill under consideration can rest only
upon the grounds that aid should be furnished to this ex-soldier because
he served in the Army and because he a long time thereafter became
blind, disabled, and dependent.

The question is whether we are prepared to adopt this principle and
establish this precedent.

None of us are entitled to credit for extreme tenderness and
consideration toward those who fought their country's battles. These
are sentiments con|"ion to all good citizens. They lead to the most
benevolent care on the part of the Government and deeds of charity and
mercy in private life. The blatant and noisy self-assertion of those
who, from motives that may well be suspected, declare themselves above
all others friends of the soldier can not discredit nor belittle the
calm, steady, and affectionate regard of a grateful nation.

An appropriation has just been passed setting apart $76,000,000 of
the public money for distribution as pensions, under laws liberally
constructed, with a view of meeting every meritorious case. More than
$1,000,000 was added to maintain the Pension Bureau, which is charged
with the duty of a fair, just, and liberal apportionment of this fund.

Legislation has been at the present session of Congress perfected
considerably increasing the rate of pension in certain cases.
Appropriations have also been made of large sums for the support of
national homes where sick, disabled, or needy soldiers are cared for,
and within a few days a liberal sum has been appropriated for the
enlargement and increased accommodation and convenience of these
institutions.

All this is no more than should be done.

But with all this, and with the hundreds of special acts which have been
passed granting pensions in cases where, for my part, I am willing to
confess that sympathy rather than judgment has often led to the
discovery of a relation between injury or death and military service, I
am constrained by a sense of public duty to interpose against
establishing a principle and setting a precedent which must result in
unregulated, partial, and unjust gifts of public money under the pretext
of indemnifying those who suffered in their means of support as an
incident of military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 4642, entitled "An act
granting a pension to James Carroll."

The claimant alleges that he was wounded while in the service as a
member of Company B, Third Regiment North Carolina Mounted Volunteers,
while securing recruits for the regiment at Watauga, N.C., January 25,
1865.

The records of the War Department develop the fact that the name of this
man is not borne upon any roll of the company to which he claims to
belong.

He stated in his application that he was sworn in by one George W.
Perkins, who, it appears, was a private in said company, and that
Perkins was with him at the time he was shot.

This is undoubtedly true, and that the claimant was injured by a gunshot
is also probably true. He was not, however, at the time regularly in the
United States service, but this objection might in some circumstances
be regarded as technical. The difficulty is that the fact that he was
creditably employed in a service of benefit to the country is not
satisfactorily shown. He gives two accounts of the business in which he
was engaged, and Mr. Perkins's explanation of the manner in which the
two were occupied is somewhat different still.

Carroll's claim, presented to the Pension Bureau, was rejected upon
the ground that there was no record of his service on file; but in his
testimony he stated that Perkins was wounded on the same occasion as
himself, and that he (Perkins) was then a pensioner on account thereof.

The records of the Pension Bureau show that Perkins was pensioned in
1873 on account of three wounds received at the time and place of
Carroll's injury.

It also appears that his name was dropped from the rolls in 1877 on the
ground that his wounds were not received in the line of duty.

After an investigation made at that time by a special examiner, he
reported that Perkins and Carroll had collected a number of men
together, who made their headquarters at the home of Carroll's mother
and were engaged in plundering the neighborhood, and that on account of
their depredations they were hunted down by home guards and shot at the
time they stated.

If this report is accepted as reliable, it should of course lead to the
rejection of the claim for pension on the part of Mr. Carroll.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 3043, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Lewis W. Scanland."

The claimant filed his declaration for a pension in 1884, alleging that
he contracted chronic diarrhea while serving in a company of mounted
Illinois volunteers in the Black Hawk War.

The records show that he served from April 18, 1832, to May 28, in the
same year.

He was examined by a board of surgeons in 1884, when he was said to be
75 years old. In his examination he did not claim to have diarrhea for a
good many years. On the contrary, he claimed to be affected with
constipation, and said he had never had diarrhea of late years, except
at times when he had taken medicine for constipation.

I am inclined to think it would have been a fortunate thing if in this
case it could have been demonstrated that a man could thrive so well
with the chronic diarrhea for fifty-two years as its existence in the
case of this good old gentleman would prove. We should then, perhaps,
have less of it in claims for pensions.

The fact is, in this case there is no disability which can be traced to
the forty days' military service of fifty-four years ago, and I think
little, if any, more infirmity than is usually found in men of the age
of the claimant.

Entertaining this belief, I am constrained to withhold my signature from
this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 5414, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Maria Cunningham."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill enlisted January 29,
1862, and was discharged January 20, 1865.

He applied for a pension in 1876, alleging a shell wound in the head.
His claim was rejected on the ground that there appeared to be no
disability from that cause. No other injury or disability was ever
claimed by him, but at the time of his examination in 1876 he was found
to be sickly, feeble, and emaciated, and suffering from an advanced
stage of saccharine diabetes.

His widow filed an application for a pension in 1879, alleging that her
husband died in December, 1877, of spinal disease and diabetes,
contracted in the service.

Her claim was rejected because evidence was not furnished that the cause
of the soldier's death had its origin in the military service.

There seems to be an entire absence of proof of this important fact.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 4797, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Robert H. Stapleton."

This claimant filed an application for pension in the Pension Bureau in
1883, alleging that while acting as lieutenant-colonel of a New Mexico
regiment, on February 21, 1862, the tongue of a caisson struck him,
injuring his left side. A medical examination made in 1882 showed a
fracture of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh ribs of the left side.

If these fractures were the result of the injury alleged, they were
immediately apparent, and the delay of twenty-one years in presenting
the claim for pension certainly needs explanation.

Claims of this description, by a wise provision of law, must, to be
valid, be prosecuted to a successful issue prior to the 4th day of July,
1874.

The rank which this claimant held presupposes such intelligence as
admits of no excuse on the ground of ignorance of the law for his
failure to present his application within the time fixed by law.

The evidence of disability from the cause alleged is weak, to say the
most of it, and I can not think that such a wholesome provision of law
as that above referred to, which limits the time for the adjustment of
such claims, should be modified upon the facts presented in this case.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 5550, entitled "An act
to provide for the erection of a public building at Duluth, Minn."

After quite a careful examination of the public needs at the point
mentioned I am entirely satisfied that the public building provided for
in this bill is not immediately necessary.

Not a little legislation has lately been perfected, and very likely more
will be necessary, to increase miscalculated appropriations for and
correct blunders in the construction of many of the public buildings now
in process of erection.

While this does not furnish a good reason for disapproving the erection
of other buildings where actually necessary, it induces close scrutiny
and gives rise to the earnest wish that new projects for public
buildings shall for the present be limited to such as are required by
the most pressing necessities of the Government's business.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 2043, entitled "An act
to place Mary Karstetter on the pension roll."

The husband of this beneficiary, Jacob Karstetter, was enrolled June 30,
1864, as a substitute in a Pennsylvania regiment, and was discharged for
disability June 20, 1865, caused by a gunshot wound in the left hand.

A declaration for pension was filed by him in 1865, based upon this
wound, and the same was granted, dating from June in that year, which he
drew till the time of his death, August 21, 1874.

In 1882 his widow filed her application for pension, alleging that he
died of wounds received in battle. The claim was made that he was
injured while in the Army by a horse running over him.

There is little or no evidence of such an injury having been received;
and if this was presented there would be no necessary connection between
that and the cause of the soldier's death, which was certified by the
attending physician to be gastritis and congestion of the kidneys.

I can hardly see how the Pension Bureau could arrive at any conclusion
except that the death of the soldier was not due to his military
service, and the acceptance of this finding, after an examination of the
facts, leads me to disapprove this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 5394, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Sallie Ann Bradley."

The husband of this proposed beneficiary was discharged from the
military service in 1865, after a long service, and was afterwards
pensioned for gunshot wound.

He died in 1882. The widow appears to have never filed a claim for
pension in her own right.

No cause is given of the soldier's death, but it is not claimed that it
resulted from his military service, her pension being asked for entirely
because of her needs and the faithful service of her husband and her
sons.

This presents the question whether a gift in such a case is a proper
disposition of money appropriated for the purpose of paying pensions.

The passage of this law would, in my opinion, establish a precedent so
far-reaching and open the door to such a vast multitude of claims not on
principle within our present pension laws that I am constrained to
disapprove the bill under consideration.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 5603, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Mrs. Catherine McCarty."

The beneficiary is the widow of John McCarty, of the First Missouri
Regiment of State Militia Volunteers, who died at Clinton, Mo., April 8,
1864.

The widow filed her claim in 1866, alleging that her husband died while
in the service from an overdose of colchicum.

The evidence shows without dispute that on the day previous to the death
of the soldier a comrade procured some medicine from the regimental
surgeon and asked McCarty to smell and taste it; that he did so, and
shortly afterwards became very sick and died the next morning.

It is quite evident that the deceased soldier did more than taste this
medicine.

Although it would be pleasant to aid the widow in this case, it is
hardly fair to ask the Government to grant a pension for the freak or
gross heedlessness and recklessness of this soldier.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without my approval House bill No. 6648, entitled "An
act for the relief of Edward M. Harrington."

It appears that this claimant was enrolled as a recruit December 31,
1863, and mustered in at Dunkirk, N.Y. He remained at the barracks there
until March, 1864, when he was received at the Elmira rendezvous. From
there he was sent to his regiment on the 7th day of April, 1864.

He was discharged June 15, 1864, upon a surgeon's certificate of
disability, declaring the cause of discharge to be epilepsy, produced by
blows of violence over the hypochondrial region while in the service,
producing a deformity of sternum.

The claimant filed an application for pension in June, 1879, and in that
and subsequent affidavits he alleged that while in barracks at Dunkirk,
N.Y., and about the 9th day of January, 1864, and in the line of duty,
he was attacked by one Patrick Burnes, who struck him upon the head and
stamped upon and kicked him, breaking his collar bone and a number of
ribs, causing internal injury and fits, the latter recurring every two
weeks.

It is hardly worth while considering the character of these alleged
injuries or their connection with the fits with which the claimant is
afflicted.

I am entirely unable to see how the injuries are related to the
claimant's army service.

The Government ought not to be called upon to insure against the
quarrelsome propensities of its individual soldiers, nor to compensate
one who is worsted in a fight, or even in an unprovoked attack, when the
cause of injury is in no way connected with or related to any
requirement or incident of military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 7, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2281, entitled "An act
granting to railroads the right of way through the Indian reservation in
northern Montana."

The reservation referred to stretches across the extreme northern
part of Montana Territory, with British America for its northern
boundary. It contains an area of over 30,000 square miles. It is
dedicated to Indian occupancy by treaty of October 17, 1855, and act of
Congress of April 15, 1874. No railroads are within immediate approach
to its boundaries, and only one, as shown on recent maps, is under
construction in the neighborhood leading in its direction. The
surrounding country is sparsely settled, and I have been unable to
ascertain that the necessities of commerce or any public exigencies
demand this legislation, which would affect so seriously the rights and
interests of the Indians occupying the reservation.

The bill is in the nature of a general right of way for railroads
through this Indian reservation. The Indian occupants have not given
their consent to it, neither have they been consulted regarding it, nor
is there any provision in it for securing their consent or agreement to
the location or construction of railroads upon their lands. No routes
are described, and no general directions on which the line of any
railroad will be constructed are given.

No particular organized railway company engaged in constructing a
railroad toward the reservation and ready or desirous to build its road
through the Indian lands to meet the needs and requirements of trade
and commerce is named. The bill gives the right to any railroad in the
country, duly organized under the laws of any Territory, of any State,
or of the United States, except those of the District of Columbia, to
enter this Indian country, prospect for routes of travel, survey them,
and construct routes of travel wherever it may please, with no check
save possible disapproval by the Secretary of the Interior of its maps
of location, and no limitation upon its acts except such rules and
regulations as he may prescribe.

This power vested in the Secretary of the Interior might itself be
improvidently exercised and subject to abuse.

No limit of time is fixed within which the construction of railroads
should begin or be completed. Without such limitations speculating
corporations would be enabled to seek out and secure the right of way
over the natural and most feasible routes, with no present intention of
constructing railroads along such lines, but with the view of holding
their advantageous easements for disposal at some future time to some
other corporation for a valuable consideration. In this way the
construction of needed railroad facilities in that country could be
hereafter greatly obstructed and retarded.

If the United States must exercise its right of eminent domain over the
Indian Territories for the general welfare of the whole country, it
should be done cautiously, with due regard for the interests of the
Indians, and to no greater extent than the exigencies of the public
service require.

Bills tending somewhat in the direction of this general character of
legislation, affecting the rights of the Indians reserved to them by
treaty stipulations, have been presented to me during the present
session of Congress. They have received my reluctant approval, though
I am by no means certain that a mistake has not been made in passing
such laws without providing for the consent to such grants by the
Indian occupants and otherwise more closely guarding their rights and
interests; and I hoped that each of those bills as it received my
approval would be the last of the kind presented. They, however,
designated particular railroad companies, laid down general routes over
which the respective roads should be constructed through the Indian
lands, and specified their direction and termini, so that I was enabled
to reasonably satisfy myself that the exigencies of the public service
and the interests of commerce probably demanded the construction of the
roads, and that by their construction and operation the Indians would
not be too seriously affected.

The bill now before me is much more general in its terms than those
which have preceded it. It is a new and wide departure from the general
tenor of legislation affecting Indian reservations. It ignores the right
of the Indians to be consulted as to the disposition of their lands,
opens wide the door to any railroad corporation to do what, under the
treaty covering the greater portion of the reservation, is reserved to
the United States alone; it gives the right to enter upon Indian lands
to a class of corporations carrying with them many individuals not known
for any scrupulous regard for the interest or welfare of the Indians;
it invites a general invasion of the Indian country, and brings into
contact and intercourse with the Indians a class of whites and others
who are independent of the orders, regulations, and control of the
resident agents.

Corporations operating railroads through Indian lands are strongly
tempted to infringe at will upon the reserved rights and the property of
Indians, and thus are apt to become so arbitrary in their dealings and
domineering in their conduct toward them that the Indians become
disquieted, often threatening outbreaks and periling the lives of
frontier settlers and others.

I am impressed with the belief that the bill under consideration does
not sufficiently guard against an invasion of the rights and a
disturbance of the peace and quiet of the Indians on the reservation
mentioned; nor am I satisfied that the legislation proposed is demanded
by any exigency of the public welfare.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 9, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 524, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Daniel H. Ross."

An application for pension was filed in the Pension Bureau by the
beneficiary named in this bill, and considerable testimony was filed in
support of the same. I do not understand that the claim has been finally
rejected. But however that may be, the claimant died, as I am advised,
on the 1st day of February last. This, of course, renders the proposed
legislation entirely inoperative, if it would not actually prejudice the
claim of his surviving widow. She has already been advised of the
evidence necessary to complete the claim of her husband, and it is not
at all improbable that she will be able to prosecute the same to a
successful issue for her benefit.

At any rate, her rights should not be in the least jeopardized by the
completion of the legislation proposed in this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 9, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 856, entitled "An act
to provide for the erection of a public building in the city of Dayton,
Ohio."

It is not claimed that the Government has any public department or
business which it should quarter at Dayton except its post-office and
internal-revenue office. The former is represented as employing ten
clerks, sixteen regular and two substitute letter carriers, and two
special-delivery employees, who, I suppose, are boys, only occasionally
in actual service. I do not understand that the present post-office
quarters are either insufficient or inconvenient. By a statement
prepared by the present postmaster it appears that they are rented by
the Government for a period of ten years from the 15th day of October,
1883, at an annual rent of $2,950, which includes the cost of heating
the same.

The office of the internal-revenue collector is claimed to be
inadequate, but I am-led to believe that this officer is fairly
accommodated at an annual rental of $900. It is not impossible that a
suggestion to change the area of this revenue district may be adopted,
which would relieve any complaint of inadequacy of office room.

Copyright (c) 2007. bestextbooks.com. All rights reserved.

Jack London - "The Road"

John Gay - "The Present State of Wit (1711)"

William MacLeod Raine - "Gunsight Pass"

Annie Besant and Charles W. Leadbeater - "Occult Chemistry"