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




And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed
by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through
the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and
I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought
to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no
manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent
tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should,
I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be
constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the
Government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon
to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly
and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the
expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens
the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the
indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which
strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

It is within my personal knowledge that individual aid has to some
extent already been extended to the sufferers mentioned in this bill.
The failure of the proposed appropriation of $10,000 additional to meet
their remaining wants will not necessarily result in continued distress
if the emergency is fully made known to the people of the country.

It is here suggested that the Commissioner of Agriculture is annually
directed to expend a large sum of money for the purchase, propagation,
and distribution of seeds and other things of this description,
two-thirds of which are, upon the request of Senators, Representatives,
and Delegates in Congress, supplied to them for distribution among their
constituents.

The appropriation of the current year for this purpose is $100,000, and
it will probably be no less in the appropriation for the ensuing year.
I understand that a large quantity of grain is furnished for such
distribution, and it is supposed that this free apportionment among
their neighbors is a privilege which may be waived by our Senators and
Representatives.

If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture
to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them to the suffering
farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops, the
constituents for whom in theory this grain is intended could well bear
the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the
satisfaction attending deeds of charity.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 19, 1887_.

_To the Senate_:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 859, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Charlotte O'Neal."

This bill proposes to grant a pension to the beneficiary therein named
as the widow of Richard O'Neal, late colonel of the Twenty-sixth
Regiment Indiana Volunteers.

In the report of the committee in the Senate to whom this bill was
referred it is stated that the deceased soldier was the first colonel of
the regiment named; that he resigned from the Army, and was by order of
the governor of Indiana put in charge of the United States camps at
Indianapolis. A military order is made part of the report, announcing
that the funeral of Lieutenant-Colonel Richard O'Neal will take place
January 6, 1863, and reciting the fact that the deceased had charge of
the camps near Indianapolis for the preceding four months.

It is distinctly alleged in the report that the beneficiary did not
apply to the Pension Bureau for relief because the disease of which her
husband died was incurred after his resignation.

The records of the War Department fail to show that there was a colonel
of the Twenty-sixth Indiana Regiment named Richard O'Neal, but it does
appear that Richard Neal was lieutenant-colonel of said regiment; that
he was mustered in August 31, 1861, and resigned June 30, 1862.

If this is the officer whose widow is named in the bill, the proposition
is to pension a widow of a soldier who, after ten months' service,
resigned, and who seven months after his resignation died of disease
which was in no manner related to his military service.

There is besides such a discrepancy between the name given in the bill
and the name of the officer who served as lieutenant-colonel in the
regiment mentioned that if the merits were with the widow the bill would
need further Congressional consideration.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 19, 1887_.

_To the Senate_:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 1626, entitled "An
act granting a pension to John Reed, Sr."

The report of the Senate Committee on Pensions merely states that the
mother of John Reed was granted a pension, commencing the 5th day of
December, 1862; that she has since died, and that the proposed bill is
to secure a pension to John Reed, Sr., the aged and dependent father of
the deceased soldier.

The records show that the beneficiary named in this bill filed an
application for a pension in 1877, alleging that he was the father of
John Reed, who died in the service, and that his wife, the mother of the
deceased soldier, died May 10, 1872, and that he, the father, was mainly
dependent upon his son for support. He filed evidence of the mother's
death, and one witness alleged that he was present at her death and
attended her funeral.

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.

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

Harold Harvey - "A Soldier's Sketches Under Fire"

Forrestine C. Hooker - "Prince Jan, St. Bernard"

George Douglass Sherley - "A Spray of Kentucky Pine"

Anonymous - "Elene; Judith; Athelstan, or the Fight at Brunanburh; Byrhtnoth, or the Fight at Maldon; and the Dream of the Rood"