GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.

To the House of Representatives: 

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 5021, entitled “An act granting a pension to Mrs. Margaret A. Jacoby.”

A pension has been allowed on account of the disability of the claimant’s husband, dating from his discharge in 1864.

The beneficiary named in this bill applied for pension in 1885, alleging that she married the soldier in 1864; that he incurred deafness and chronic diarrhea while in the service, from the combined effect of which he partially lost his mind; that on the 7th day of September, 1875, he disappeared, and that after diligent search and inquiry she is unable to learn anything of him since that time.

His disability from army service should be conceded and his death at some time and in some manner may well be presumed; but the fact that he died from any cause related to his disability or his service in the Army has no presumption and not a single particle of proof to rest upon.

With proper diligence something should be discovered to throw a little light upon this subject.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1886.

To the House of Representatives: 

I return without approval House bill No. 3304, entitled “An act to restore the name of Abner Morehead to the pension roll.”

The person mentioned in this bill was pensioned in November, 1867, upon the claim made by him that in 1863, from hardship and exposure incident to camp life and field duty, he contracted a fever which settled in his eyes, almost wholly destroying his sight.  Afterwards his pension was increased to $15 a month, dating from December, 1867, and arrears at the rate of $8 a month from February, 1864.  In 1876 the case was put in the hands of a special agent of the Pension Bureau for examination, and upon his report, showing that the claimant’s disease of the eyes existed prior to enlistment, his name was dropped from the rolls.

An application for restoration was made in 1879, and a thorough examination was made by a special examiner in 1885, who reported that the testimony taken conclusively established the fact that the claimant had disease of the eyes prior to the time of enlistment, the result of a disorder which he specifically mentions, and that he was treated for the same more than a year subsequently to 1860.  He adds: 

  There is no merit whatever in this case, and it is evident that he
  obtained a large sum as pension to which, he must have known he was
  not entitled.

The results of these examinations, instituted for the express purpose of developing the facts, and with nothing apparent to impeach them, should, I think, control as against the statements of neighbors and comrades based upon mere general observation, and not necessarily covering the period which is important to the controversy.