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




In December, 1859, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that
the grant to the Territory of Iowa under the law of 1846 conveyed no
land above the Raccoon Fork, and that all selections and certifications
of lands above that point were unauthorized and void, and passed no
title or interest in said lands to the State of Iowa. In other words, it
was determined that these lands were, in the language of the bill under
consideration, "improperly certified to Iowa by the Department of the
Interior under the act of August 8, 1846."

This adjudication would seem to conclusively determine that the title to
these lands was, as the law then stood, and notwithstanding all that had
taken place, still in the United States. And for the purpose of granting
all claim or right of the Government to said lands for the benefit of
the grantees of the State of Iowa, Congress, on the 2d day of March,
1861, passed a joint resolution providing that all the title still
retained by the United States in the lands above the Raccoon Fork, in
the State of Iowa, "which have been certified to said State improperly
by the Department of the Interior as part of the grant by act of
Congress approved August 8, 1846, and which is now held by _bona
fide_ purchasers under the State of Iowa, be, and the same is hereby,
relinquished to the State of Iowa."

Afterwards, and on the 12th day of July, 1862, an act of Congress was
passed extending the grant of 1846 so as to include lands lying above
the Raccoon Fork.

The joint resolution and act of Congress here mentioned have been
repeatedly held by the Supreme Court of the United States to supply a
title to the lands mentioned in the deed from the State of Iowa to the
Navigation and Railroad Company, which inured to the benefit of said
company or its grantees.

No less than ten cases have been decided in that court more or less
directly establishing this proposition, as well as the further
proposition that no title to these lands could prior to said
Congressional action be gained by settlers, for the reason that it had
been withdrawn and reserved from entry and sale under the general land
laws. It seems to be perfectly well settled also, if an adjudication was
necessary upon that question, that all interest of the United States in
these lands was entirely and completely granted by the resolution of
1861 and the act of 1862.

The act of 1862 provides for the setting apart of other lands in lieu of
such as were covered by the act, but had been before its passage sold
and disposed of by the United States, excepting such as had been
released to the State of Iowa under the joint resolution of 1861.

It is claimed, I believe, that in a settlement of land grants thereafter
had between the United States and the State of Iowa lands were allowed
to the State in lieu or indemnity for some of the lands which it had
conveyed to the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company. But if the
title of the company is valid to lands along the river and above the
Raccoon Fork, under the deed from Iowa and the joint resolution and act
of Congress, it can not be in the least affected by the fact that the
State afterwards, justly or unjustly, received other lands as indemnity.

The bill under consideration provides that all the lands "improperly
certified to Iowa" under the grant of 1846, as referred to in the joint
resolution of 1861, and for which indemnity lands were selected and
received by the State, as provided in the act of 1862, "are, and are
hereby, declared to be public lands of the United States."

The claims of persons and their heirs who, with intent in good faith to
obtain title under the preemption and homestead laws of the United
States, have entered and remained upon any tract of said land prior to
1880 are confirmed and made valid to them and their heirs, not exceeding
160 acres; and upon due proof and payment of the usual price or fees it
is directed that such claims shall be carried to patent.

It is further provided that the claims of settlers and claimants which
do not come in conflict with the claims of the parties above mentioned
are confirmed and made valid. By the second section of the bill it is
made the duty of the Attorney-General, as soon as practicable, and
within three years after the passage of the act, to institute legal
proceedings to assert and protect the title of the United States to said
lands and to remove all clouds from its title thereto.

One result of this legislation, if consummated and if effectual, would
be to restore to the United States, as a part of the public domain,
lands which more than twenty-five years ago the Government expressly
granted and surrendered, and which repeated decisions of the Supreme
Court have adjudged to belong by virtue of this action of the Government
to other parties.

Another result would be not only to validate claims to this land which
our highest judicial tribunal have solemnly declared to be invalid, but
to actually direct the issue of patents in confirmation of said claims.

Still another result would be to oblige the Government of the United
States to enter the courts ostensibly to assert and protect its title to
said land, while in point of fact it would be used to enforce private
claims to the same and unsettle private ownership.

It is by no means certain that this proposed legislation, relating to a
subject peculiarly within the judicial function, and which attempts to
disturb rights and interests thoroughly intrenched in the solemn
adjudications of our courts, would be upheld. In any event, it seems to
me that it is an improper exercise of legislative power, an interference
with the determinations of a coordinate branch of the Government, an
arbitrary annulment of a public grant made more than twenty-five years
ago, an attempted destruction of vested rights, and a threatened
impairment of lawful contracts.

The advocates of this measure insist that a point in favor of the
settlers upon these lands and important in the consideration of this
bill is found in the following language of the constitution of the State
of Iowa, which was adopted in 1857:

The general assembly shall not locate any of the public lands which have
been or may be granted by Congress to this State, and the location of
which may be given to the general assembly, upon lands actually settled,
without the consent of the occupant.


The State under its constitution was perfectly competent to take the
grants of 1861 and 1862. The clause of the constitution above quoted
deals expressly with "lands which have been or may be granted by
Congress to the State," and thus of necessity recognizes its right to
take such grants. This competency in the State as a grantee was all that
was needed to create, under the joint resolution of 1861 and the act of
1862, a complete divestiture of the interests of the United States in
these lands. It must be borne in mind, too, that prior to this time
these lands had been conveyed by the State of Iowa in furtherance of the
purposes of the original Congressional grants, and that the joint
resolution of 1861 and the act of 1862 were really made for the benefit
of those who held under grants from the State. After these grants by the
Government it had no concern with these lands. If in any stage of the
proceedings the general assembly of Iowa was guilty of any neglect of
duty or failed to act in accordance with the constitution of the State
of Iowa, the remedy should be found in the courts of that State; and it
is difficult to see how the situation in this aspect can be changed or
improved by the bill under consideration.

I am not unmindful of the fact that there may be persons who have
suffered or who are threatened with loss through a reliance upon the
erroneous decisions of Government officials as to the extent of the
original grant from the United States to the Territory of Iowa. I
believe cases of this kind should be treated in accordance with the
broadest sentiments of equity, and that where loss is apparent arising
from a real or fairly supposed invitation of the Government to settle
upon the lands mentioned in the bill under consideration such loss
should be made good. But I do not believe that the condition of these
settlers will be aided by encouraging them in such further litigation as
the terms of this bill invite, nor do I believe that in attempting to
right the wrongs of which they complain legislation should be sanctioned
mischievous in principle, and in its practical operation doing injustice
to others as innocent as they and as much entitled to consideration.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[Footnote 32: See pp. 411-413.]



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 23, 1889_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 220, entitled "An act
granting a pension to John J. Lockrey."

It is stated that this beneficiary enlisted April 11, 1865, but it
appears from the muster roll of his company for May and June, 1865, that
he was a recruit assigned, but who had not joined. There is nothing
appearing on the record which positively shows that he ever reached his
regiment.

It is conceded that his real and nominal connection with the Army
extended only from April 11, 1865, when he was mustered in, until
August, 1865, when he was discharged for disability, consisting of a
disease of the eye, called in the surgeon's certificate "iritis with
conjunctivitis."

It seems that this claimant enlisted just at the close of the war, and
was connected in a manner with the Army for four months. It is not
probable that he ever saw any actual service, for none is stated in the
papers before me; and it does appear that he spent a large part of his
short term of enlistment in hospitals and under treatment for a trouble
with his eye. As early as May 23, 1865, he was admitted to hospital with
gonorrheal ophthalmia. His claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau on
the ground that this was the cause of his disability, and the inferences
from the proof presented make this extremely probable.

One of the witnesses who testified that the beneficiary caught cold in
his eye in April, 1865, on the Mississippi River is shown to have been
at that time with his regiment and company at Danville, Va.

The circumstances surrounding this case and the facts proved satisfy me
that the determination of the Pension Bureau was correct, and there is
certainly no sentiment in favor of the claimant which justifies the
indulgence of violent presumptions for the purpose of overriding such
determination.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 23, 1889_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 5807, entitled "An act granting
a pension to John McCool."

This beneficiary served in an Iowa regiment of volunteers from May 27,
1861, to July 12, 1865.

He filed a petition for pension, alleging an accidental wound in the
right thumb while extracting a cartridge from a pistol in August, 1861.
There is no record of any such disability, though it appears that he was
on a furlough about the date of his alleged injury. It appears that he
served nearly four years after the time he fixed as the date of his
injury.

No evidence was filed in support of the claim he filed, and he refused
to appear for examination, though twice notified to do so.

His claim was rejected in May, 1888, no suggestion having been made of
any other disability than the wound in the thumb, upon which his claim
before the Bureau was based.

The report of the committee in the House of Representatives recommending
the passage of this bill contains no intimation that there exists any
disability contracted in the military service, but distinctly declares
the pension recommended a service pension, and states that the
beneficiary is blind.

As long as the policy of granting pensions for disability traceable to
the incidents of army service is adhered to, the allowance of pensions
by special acts based upon service only gives rise to unjust and unfair
discriminations among those equally entitled, and makes precedents which
will eventually result in an entire departure from the principle upon
which pensions are now awarded.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 23, 1889_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 11803, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Henry V. Bass."

This beneficiary enlisted September 9, 1862, and was mustered out August
15, 1865. The records show no disability during his service.

It is now alleged that the soldier was sitting on the ground near his
tent while two comrades were wrestling near him, and that in the course
of the scuffle one of the parties engaged in it was thrown or fell upon
the beneficiary, injuring his right knee and ankle.

Upon these facts the claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the
ground that the injury was not received in the line of duty.

I do not think that the Government should be held as an insurer against
injuries of this kind, which are in no manner related to the performance
of military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 23, 1889_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 11999, entitled "An
act granting a pension to William Barnes."

The beneficiary named in this bill served in a Kentucky regiment from
August 9, 1861, to December 6, 1864.

He made claim for pension in the Pension Bureau in September, 1882,
alleging that in October, 1862, he was accidentally injured by a pistol
shot in the thigh while in the line of duty.

It is conceded that he was wounded by the discharge of a pistol which he
was carrying while he was absent from his command with permission on a
visit to his home, and that the discharge of the pistol was accidental.

The circumstances of the injury are neither given in the report of the
committee to whom the claim was referred by the House of Representatives
nor in the report of the case furnished to me from the Pension Bureau,
but on the conceded facts the granting of a pension in this case can be
predicated upon no other theory except the liability of the Government
for any injury by accident to a person in the military service, whether
in the line of duty or not.

I think the adoption of the principle that the Government is an insurer
against accidents under any circumstances befalling those enlisted in
its military service when visiting at home is an unwarrantable stretch
of pension legislation.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 25, 1889_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 10448, entitled "An
act granting a pension to Squire Walter."

The son of the beneficiary named in this bill enlisted in a West
Virginia regiment on the 28th day of June, 1861.

On the 15th day of September, 1862, while bathing in the Potomac River
near the Chain Bridge, with the knowledge and consent of his commanding
officer, he was drowned.

It is perfectly clear that he lost his life while in the enjoyment of a
privilege and when at his request military discipline was relaxed and
its restraints removed for his comfort and pleasure. His death resulted
from his voluntary and perfectly proper personal indulgence, and can not
be in the least attributed to military service.

The father does not appear to be so needy and dependent as is often
exhibited in cases of this class.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 25, 1889_.

_To the Senate_:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 3561, entitled "An
act granting a pension to Edwin W. Warner."

A claim for pension on behalf of the beneficiary named in this bill
was filed in the Pension Bureau May 6, 1867. It has been examined and
reexamined and always rejected, until, on the 29th day of December,
1888, as the result of a personal and thorough investigation by the
Commissioner, a pension was allowed and a certificate issued under which
the claimant will be paid $18 a month hereafter and arrearages amounting
to something near $2,000.

As the special act for the benefit of this claimant was passed by the
Congress upon the supposition that nothing had been done for the
beneficiary therein named, I deem it best, in his interest, and probably
consistent with the intent of the Congress, that the bill herewith
returned should not become a law.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 26, 1889_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 12047, entitled "An act
granting an increase of pension to George Colwell."

The record shows that this beneficiary was enrolled in the military
service August 10, 1862, and was mustered out June 1, 1865.

There is no record of any disability during his service.

He was pensioned at the rate of $2 a month for a dog bite just above the
ankle.

In September, 1865, three months after his discharge, he strained the
knee of the leg which had been bitten.

In 1887 he applied for an increase of pension, alleging increased
disability. This increased disability appears plainly to be the result
of the strain or injury to the knee, and in no way connected with the
bite for which he was pensioned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 26, 1889_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 10791, entitled "An
act granting a pension to Marinda Wakefield Reed."

This beneficiary filed an application for pension in November, 1876,
alleging that her husband, William A. Reed, died in September of that
year of consumption contracted in the line of military duty.

The records show that the soldier was in hospital in the year 1864 for
chronic diarrhea and intermittent fever.

On the 5th day of November, 1864, he was injured in a railroad accident
while on his way home to vote at the Presidential election of that year.

The beneficiary claimed in August, 1885, in support of her application
for pension that those injuries resulted in consumption, from which the
soldier died, and the favorable report of the House committee to which
the bill herewith returned was referred seems to proceed upon the same
theory.

Nothing appears which satisfactorily connects this injury, which was
received in November, 1864, with death from consumption in 1876.

Another difficulty in the case is found in the fact that when the
soldier was injured he was clearly not engaged in any military duty nor
was his injury in any degree attributable to military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 26, 1889_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill 11466, entitled "An act granting a
pension to Mary A. Selbach."

This bill does not give the name of any soldier to whom the beneficiary
was related or in what capacity the pension provided for is to be paid
to her, but it appears from the report of the committee accompanying the
bill that she is the widow of Gustavus Selbach, a volunteer in the Ninth
Regiment of Ohio Volunteers.

This soldier drew a pension from January, 1882, to January 16, 1886,
when he died. He claimed disability for disease of the ears and a
resulting deafness of his left ear. There appears to be no evidence in
his record of any disability or medical treatment while in the service,
and the medical examination upon his application for pension shows no
rating for any disability other than that alleged by him and for which
he was pensioned--disease of the ears and resulting deafness.

It is conceded that the soldier died January 16, 1886, of pneumonia.

The widow filed a claim for pension in May, 1887.

The testimony of physicians upon her claim covered seven years prior
to his death, thus dating back to the year 1879, and they speak of
the disease of the ear and of the kidneys, which, in their opinion,
undermined his health, so that "he succumbed to an attack of pneumonia,
which to a person of ordinary good health would not have been considered
serious."

It can hardly be supposed that the trouble with his ears caused the
soldier to fall a victim to pneumonia; and so far as the kidney disease
tended in that direction, it is to be observed that it apparently did
not make its appearance until fourteen years after the soldier's
discharge.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 26, 1880_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 11586, entitled "An act for the
relief of Stephen Williams."

It appears from the records that the beneficiary for whom a pension is
provided in this bill served as a volunteer in an Illinois regiment from
October, 1862, to October; 1864, at which date he is reported as a
deserter.

He filed a claim for pension in 1881, in which he alleged that he was
struck with a gunstock upon his head and injured in October, 1864.

The evidence shows that a drunken comrade struck the claimant with the
stock of his gun because he would not buy whisky for him.

This, upon all the facts, does not appear to be a proper case for
allowing a pension for an injury suffered in the line of military duty.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, _March 2, 1889_.

_To the Senate_:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 139, entitled "An act
to credit and pay to the several States and Territories and the District
of Columbia all moneys collected under the direct tax levied by the act
of Congress approved August 5, 1861."

The object of this bill is quite clearly indicated in its title. Its
provisions have been much discussed in both branches of Congress and
have received emphatic legislative sanction. I fully appreciate the
interest which it has excited and have by no means failed to recognize
the persuasive presentation made in its favor. I know, too, that the
interposition of Executive disapproval in this case is likely to arouse
irritation and cause complaint and earnest criticism. Since, however, my
judgment will not permit me to assent to the legislation proposed, I can
find no way of turning aside from what appears to be the plain course of
official duty.

On the 5th day of August, 1861, a Federal statute was passed entitled
"An act to provide increased revenue from imports, to pay interest on
the public debt, and for other purposes."

This law was passed at a time when immense sums of money were needed
by the Government for the prosecution of a war for the Union, and the
purpose of the law was to increase in almost every possible way the
Federal revenues. The first seven sections of the statute were devoted
to advancing very largely the rates of duties on imports, and to
supplement this the eighth section provided that a direct tax of
$20,000,000 should be annually laid and that certain amounts therein
specified should be apportioned to the respective States. The remainder
of the law, consisting of fifty sections, contained the most particular
and detailed provisions for the collection of the tax through Federal
machinery.

It was declared, among other things, that the tax should be assessed
and laid on all lands and lots of ground, with their improvements and
dwelling houses; that the annual amount of said taxes should be a lien
upon all lands and real estate of the individuals assessed for the same,
and that in default of payment the said taxes might be collected by
distraint and sale of the goods, chattels, and effects of the delinquent
persons.

This tax was laid in execution of the power conferred upon the General
Government for that purpose by the Constitution. It was an exercise
of the right of the Government to tax its citizens. It dealt with
individuals, and the strong arm of Federal power was stretched out to
exact from those who owed it support and allegiance their just share
of the sum it had decreed should be raised by direct taxation for the
general good. The lien created by this tax was upon the land and real
estate of the "individuals" assessed for the same, and for its
collection the distraint and sale of personal property of the "persons
delinquent" were permitted.

But while the direct relationship and responsibility between the
individuals taxed and the Federal Government were thus created by the
exercise of the highest attribute of sovereignty, it was provided in the
statute that any State or Territory and the District of Columbia might
lawfully "assume, assess, collect, and pay into the Treasury of the
United States" its quota of said tax in its own way and manner and by
and through its own officers, assessors, and collectors; and it was
further provided that such States or Territories as should give notice
of their intention to thus assume and pay or to assess, collect, and pay
into the Treasury of the United States such direct tax, should be
entitled, in lieu of the compensation, pay, per diem, and percentage in
said act prescribed and allowed to assessors, assistant assessors, and
collectors of the United States, to a deduction of 15 per cent of the
quota of direct tax apportioned to such States or Territories and levied
and collected through their officers.

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

George Lang - "Pixy's Holiday Journey"

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow - "Evangeline"

James Runciman - "Side Lights"

Edmund Burke - "The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Vol. VI. (of 12)"