I am of the opinion that the investigation there should be fully completed before special legislation is resorted to.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives: 

I return without approval House bill No. 7109, entitled “An act granting a pension to Joseph Tuttle.”

This man claims a pension as the dependent father of Charles Tuttle, who enlisted in 1861 and was killed in action May 31, 1862.

The claimant, being, as he says, poor, took his son Charles, at the age of 9 years, and placed him in charge of an uncle living in Ohio.  An arrangement was afterwards made by which the boy should live with a stranger named Betts.  Upon the death of this gentleman the lad was transferred to one Captain Hill, with whom he remained until his enlistment in 1861.

It is stated that during the time he remained with Mr. Hill he sent his father $5; but the fatherly care and interest of the claimant in his son is exhibited by his statement that though the son was killed in 1862 his father was not aware of it until the year 1864.

After the exhibition of heartlessness and abandonment on the part of a father which is a prominent feature in this case, I should be sorry to be a party to a scheme permitting him to profit by the death of his patriotic son.  The claimant relinquished the care of his son, and should be held to have relinquished all claim to his assistance and the benefits so indecently claimed as the result of his death.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1886.

To the House of Representatives: 

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 5995, entitled “An act granting a pension to David T. Elderkin.”

This claimant enlisted August 5, 1862.  From his record it appears that he was dishonorably discharged the service, to date from June 11, 1863, with a loss of all pay, bounty, and allowances.

He filed a declaration for a pension in 1882, claiming that he was wounded in the head by a shell January 1, 1863, which cut his cheek close to his right ear, causing almost total deafness.

There is conflicting evidence as to the claimant’s freedom from deafness prior to enlistment, and on a special examination it was shown that he was slightly hard of hearing before enlistment.  Indeed the claimant himself stated to the special examiner and also to the board of surgeons that he had been somewhat deaf from childhood.

In 1882 an examining surgeon reports that he finds no scar or evidence of wound, but his hearing is very much impaired.

The claim was rejected in 1885 on the ground that deafness existed prior to enlistment, and also because of no ratable disability by reason of alleged wound in the cheek.

I think, considering the manner of the soldier’s discharge and the facts developed, that the claimant should not be pensioned.