The soldier’s name remained on the records of the War Department as a deserter at large for twenty-three years, and until the year 1888.  In August of that year application was made to the Department for the removal of the charge of desertion against him, which was refused on the ground that it was not shown that such charge was founded in error.  Thereupon he applied for a discharge without character, as it is called, as of the date of his desertion.  This was granted on the 21st day of September, 1888.  Such discharges, which were not uncommon at that time, omitted the certificate of character which entitled the soldier to reenlistment.

In 1892 a bill similar to that now under consideration was referred to the Adjutant-General of the Army and was returned with an adverse report.

The record of the War Department on the subject of this soldier’s separation from the Army is absolutely correct as it stands, and no sufficient reason is apparent why another record should be substituted.  If this deserter is to be allowed an honorable discharge, I do not see why every deserter should not be absolved from the consequences of his unfaithfulness.

The effect of this bill if it should become a law would be to allow the beneficiary not only a pensionable status, but arrears of pay and clothing allowances up to the date of his desertion and travel allowance from the place of his desertion to the place of his enlistment.

It is not denied that all these things have been justly forfeited by deliberate and inexcusable desertion.  In the case presented it seems to me that the laws and regulations adopted for the purpose of maintaining the discipline and efficiency of the Army ought not to be set aside.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 23, 1895.

To the House of Representatives: 

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 8165, entitled “An act authorizing the Kansas City, Oklahoma and Pacific Railway Company to construct and operate a railway through Indian reservations in the Indian Territory and the Territories of Oklahoma and New Mexico, and for other purposes.”

This bill contains concessions more comprehensive and sweeping than any ever presented for my approval, and it seems to me the rights and interests of the Indians and the Government are the least protected.

The route apparently desired, though passing through or into one State and three Territories, is described as indefinitely as possible, and does not seem to be subject to the approval in its entirety of the Secretary of the Interior or any other governmental agency having relation to the interest involved.

There is no provision for obtaining the consent of the Indians through whose territory and reservations the railroad may be located.

Though it is proposed to build the railroad through territories having local courts convenient to their inhabitants, all controversies that may arise out of the location and building of the road are by the provisions of the bill to be passed upon by the United States circuit and district courts for the district of Kansas “and such other courts as may be authorized by Congress.”