An examination upon such application made in 1884 tended to show an injury to his ribs, but the claim was rejected upon the ground that no injury was incurred in the line of duty.  It must be conceded that upon the claimant’s own showing he was not injured as an incident to military service.

Aside from this objection, it is hardly possible that an injury of this kind, producing the consequences which it is alleged followed its infliction, could have been sustained by this soldier and not in the least interrupted the performance of his military service, though such service was very short and probably not severe.  When with this it is considered that eighteen years elapsed between the date of the alleged injury and the soldier’s application for pension, I am satisfied that no injustice will be done if the disposition made of this case by the Pension Bureau is allowed to stand.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 21, 1888.

To the House of Representatives: 

I return without approval House bill No. 4633, entitled “An act granting a pension to Morris T. Mantor.”

The records in this case show that the beneficiary named in this bill enlisted on the 25th day of February, 1864, and that he was mustered out July 18, 1865.

It is also shown that though he was reported sick a considerable part of his period of service there is no mention of any trouble with his eyes.

In the year 1880 he filed an application for pension, alleging dropsy and disease of his eyes, caused by an explosion of ammunition.

The case was examined in 1882 and 1883, and was again specially examined very thoroughly and critically in 1885.

The evidence thus secured seemed to establish the fact that the claimant’s eyes were sore for many years before enlistment, and that their condition before that date, during his service, and after his discharge did not materially differ.  It also appeared that no pensionable disability from dropsy had existed since the filing of his application.

On these grounds the application was rejected, and I am convinced such action was entirely justified.

The reported conduct of the claimant on the last examination and his attempts to influence witnesses in their testimony add weight to the proposition, quite well established by the proof, that his claim to a pension lacks merit.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 24, 1888.

To the House of Representatives: 

I return without approval House bill No. 5247, entitled “An act granting a pension to William H. Brimmer.”

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted September 5, 1864, as a wagon master, and was discharged on the 30th day of May, 1865.  There is no record of any disability during his short service.

In February, 1888, nearly twenty-three years after his discharge, he filed an application for a pension, alleging that in the fall of 1864 he was made to carry sacks of corn, which produced a weakness of the walls of the abdomen, resulting in rupture.  In an affidavit filed upon said application the claimant testifies that he said nothing about his injury or disability to anyone while in the service and can furnish no evidence except his own statement.