GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 27, 1895.

To the House of Representatives: 

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 2051, entitled “An act to grant a pension to Eunice Putman.”

This bill provides for a pension to the beneficiary therein named as the helpless daughter of John Putman, who served as a private in the War of the Rebellion from August 27, 1864, to June 2, 1865.  In 1870, when the beneficiary was not 2 years old, her mother died, and her father married again in 1872.  He applied for a pension in 1884, but died the same year.  His claim was allowed, however, in 1891, and his pension which had accrued between the date of his application and his death was paid to his widow, Jeanette S. Putman.  Immediately thereafter a pension was allowed the widow in her own right, dating from the soldier’s death, in 1884, with $2 additional per month for each of the two minor children.  The beneficiary was not included because she had reached the age of 16 years prior to her father’s death.

The report of the committee to whom this bill was referred states that no claim for pension on account of the soldier’s death has ever been filed in the Pension Bureau, and it seems that upon this theory it was proposed to pension the daughter.  I do not suppose it was intended that a double pension should be allowed.  In point of fact, the widow has already been pensioned, and no such pension allowance has been made for the minor children.  There is no suggestion that the widow has died or remarried.

If this bill should become a law, two full pensions would be in force at the same time, one to the widow and another to the daughter, each predicated upon the services and death of the same soldier.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 27, 1895.

To the House of Representatives: 

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6868, entitled “An act for the relief of Catherine Ott, widow of Joseph Ott.”

An application by the beneficiary named in this bill, under the law of 1890, was rejected on the ground that her husband died in the service, and therefore had not been honorably discharged, as required by that law.

It appears that after he had served a number of years in a cavalry regiment, and having been once discharged for reenlistment, he was transferred to the Veteran Reserve Corps and was in that service at the time of his death.

In these circumstances the rejection of the beneficiary’s claim on the ground stated is held, under present rulings of the Pension Bureau, to have been erroneous, and such claim can now be favorably adjudicated upon proof of continued widowhood of the applicant and the lack of other means of support than her daily labor.

If such proof is supplied, she would be entitled to a pension dating from July 14, 1890, which would be much more advantageous than the relief afforded by the bill herewith returned.