withholds such privileges from any of the places mentioned in the law of 1880 can confer the same without the aid of a new statute. This position is sustained by an opinion of the Attorney-General, dated in February, 1885.

If the legislation now proposed should become operative, the privileges extended to the city of Omaha would still be subject to the proviso attached to the seventh section of the law of 1880, and such newly granted privileges would be liable to immediate withdrawal by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Thus, if the design of this bill is to restore to the city named the privileges permitted by the law of 1880, it seems to be entirely unnecessary, since the power of such restoration is now fully vested in the Treasury Department. If the object sought is to bestow such privileges entirely free from the operation of the proviso above recited, the language of the bill does not accomplish that result.

I understand that the Government has not now at Omaha "the necessary officers for the appraisement of merchandise and the collection of duties," which by such proviso are necessary in order to secure to any place the advantages of immediate transportation. In the absence of such officers the proposed legislation would be nugatory and inoperative. GROVER CLEVELAND.

To the House of Representatives:

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 8, 1886.

I herewith return without approval a bill numbered 3019; entitled "An act to increase the pension of Abigail Smith," which bill originated in the House of Representatives.

This proposed legislation does injustice to a very worthy pensioner who was on the pension roll at the time of the passage of the law which took effect on the 19th day of March last, and by virtue of which all pensions of her class were increased from $8 to $12 per month. Under this law she became entitled to her increased pension from the date of its passage. The bill now returned allows her the same amount, but if it became a law I suppose it would supersede her claim under the previous statute and postpone the receipt by her of the increase to the date of the passage of the new law.

She would thus lose for nearly two months the increase of pension already secured to her. GROVER CLEVELAND.

To the House of Representatives:

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 8, 1886.

I return without my approval House bill No. 1471, entitled "An act increasing the pension of Andrew J. Hill."

This bill doubles the pension which the person named therein has been receiving for a number of years. It appears from the report of the committee to which the bill was referred that a claim made by him for increased pension has been lately rejected by the Pension Bureau "on the ground that the claimant is now receiving a pension commensurate with the degree of disability found to exist."

The policy of frequently reversing by special enactment the decisions of the Bureau invested by law with the examination of pension claims, fully equipped for such examination, and which ought not to be suspected of any lack of liberality to our veteran soldiers, is exceedingly questionable. It may well be doubted if a committee of Congress has a better opportunity than such an agency to judge of the merits of these claims. If, however, there is any lack of power in the Pension Bureau for a full investigation, it should be supplied; if the system adopted is inadequate to do full justice to claimants, it should be corrected, and if there is a want of sympathy and consideration for the defenders of our Government the Bureau should be reorganized.

The disposition to concede the most generous treatment to the disabled, aged, and needy among our veterans ought not to be restrained; and it must be admitted that in some cases justice and equity can not be done nor the charitable tendencies of the Government in favor of worthy objects of its care indulged under fixed rules. These conditions sometimes justify a resort to special legislation, but I am convinced that the interposition by special enactment in the granting of pensions should be rare and exceptional. In the nature of things if this is lightly done and upon slight occasion, an invitation is offered for the presentation of claims to Congress which upon their merits could not survive the test of an examination by the Pension Bureau, and whose only hope of suc cess depends upon sympathy, often misdirected, instead of right and justice. The instrumentality organized by law for the determination of pension claims is thus often overruled and discredited, and there is danger that in the end popular prejudice will be created against those who are worthily entitled to the bounty of the Government.

There has lately been presented to me, on the same day, for approval, nearly 240 special bills granting and increasing pensions and restoring to the pension list the names of parties which for cause have been dropped. To aid Executive duty they were referred to the Pension Bureau for examination and report. After a delay absolutely necessary they have been returned to me within a few hours of the limit constitutionally per mitted for Executive action. Two hundred and thirty-two of these bills are thus classified:

Eighty-one cover cases in which favorable action by the Pension Bureau was denied by reason of the insufficiency of the testimony filed to prove the facts alleged.

These bills I have approved on the assumption that the claims were

meritorious and that by the passage of the bills the Government has waived full proof of the facts.

Twenty-six of the bills cover claims rejected by the Pension Bureau because the evidence produced tended to prove that the alleged disability existed before the claimant's enlistment; 21 cover claims which have been denied by such Bureau because the evidence tended to show that the disability, though contracted in the service, was not incurred in the line of duty; 33 cover claims which have been denied because the evidence tended to establish that the disability originated after the soldier's discharge from the Army; 47 cover claims which have been denied because the general pension laws contain no provisions under which they could be allowed, and 24 of the claims have never been presented to the Pension Bureau.

I estimate the expenditure involved in these bills at more than $35,000 annually.

Though my conception of public duty leads me to the conclusion, upon the slight examination which I have been able to give such of these bills as are not comprised in the first class above mentioned, that many of them should be disapproved, I am utterly unable to submit within the time allowed me for that purpose my objections to the same.

They will therefore become operative without my approval.

A sufficient reason for the return of the particular bill now under consideration is found in the fact that it provides that the name of Andrew J. Hill be placed upon the pension roll, while the records of the Pension. Bureau, as well as a medical certificate made a part of the committee's report, disclose that the correct name of the intended beneficiary is Alfred J. Hill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 17, 1886.

To the Senate of the United States:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1397, entitled "An act to establish a port of delivery at Springfield, in the State of Massachusetts.” It appears that the best reasons urged for the passage of this bill are that Springfield has a population of about 40,000, that the imports to the section of country where the city is located for the last year amounted in value to nearly $3,000,000, and that the importers at this point labored under a disadvantage in being obliged to go to New York and Boston to clear their goods, which are frequently greatly delayed.

The Government is now subjected to great loss of revenue through the intricacies of the present system relating to the collection of customs dues, and through the frauds and evasions which that system permits and invites. It is also the cause of much of the delay and vexation to which the honest importer is subjected.

M P-VOL VIII—27

I am of the opinion that the reforms of present methods which have been lately earnestly pressed upon Congress should be inaugurated, instead of increasing the number of ports where present evils may be further extended.

The bill now under consideration provides that a surveyor of customs shall be appointed to reside at said port, who shall receive a salary not to exceed $1,000 per annum.

It is quite obvious that an experienced force of employees at the ports where goods for Springfield are entered would be much better qualified to adjust the duties upon the same than the person thus proposed to be added to the vast army of Federal officials.

There are many cities in the different States having larger populations than Springfield, and fully as much entitled, upon every ground presented, to the advantages sought by this bill; and yet it is clear that the following of the precedent which the proposed legislation would establish could not fail to produce confusion and uncertainty in the adjustment of customs dues, leading to irritating discriminations and probable loss to the Government. GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 24, 1886.

To the Senate of the United States:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 2186, entitled “‘An act granting a pension to Louis Melcher."

This claimant enlisted on the 25th day of May, 1861, and was discharged for disability on the 16th day of August, 1861, having been in the service less than three months.

The certificate of the surgeon of his regiment, made at the time of his discharge, stated his disability to be "lameness, caused by previous repeated and extensive ulcerations of his legs, extending deeply among the muscles and impairing their powers and action by cicatrices, all existing before enlistment and not mentioned to the mustering officers at the time."

Upon this certificate, given at the time of the claimant's discharge and while he was actually under the surgeon's observation, an application for a pension was rejected by the Pension Bureau.

In the absence of anything impeaching the ability and integrity of the surgeon of the regiment, his certificate should, in my opinion, be regarded as a true statement of the condition of the claimant at the time of his discharge, though the committee's report suggests that the surgeon's skill may have been at fault when he declared that the ulcers existed before enlistment. The cicatrices showing beyond a doubt the previous existence of this difficulty would be plainly apparent upon an examination by a surgeon, and their origin could hardly be mistaken. The term of the claimant's service was not sufficiently long to have developed and

healed, even imperfectly, in a location previously healthy, ulcers of the kind mentioned in the claimant's application.

My approval of this bill is therefore withheld upon the ground that I find nothing in my examination of the facts connected with the case which impeaches the value of the surgeon's certificate upon which the adverse action of the Pension Bureau was predicated.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 24, 1886.

To the Senate of the United States:

A bill which originated in the Senate, entitled "An act granting a pension to Edward Ayers," and numbered 363, is herewith returned without approval.

The person named in this bill enlisted October 3, 1861, in an Indiana regiment and was mustered out of the service December 13, 1865. He represents that he was injured in the hip at the battle of Days Gap, April 30, 1863, and for this a pension is provided for him by the bill under consideration. His application for pension has been rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that it was proved on a special examination of the case that the claimant was injured by a fall when a boy, and that the injury complained of existed prior to his enlistment.

There is not a particle of proof or a fact stated either in the committee's report or the records in the Pension Bureau, so far as they are brought to my notice, tending to show that the claimant was in hospital or under medical care a single day during the whole term of his enlistment.

The report of the committee contains the following statement:

The record evidence proves that he was in this engagement, but there is no proof from this source that he was wounded. By numerous comrades who were present it is proven that he was hurt by the explosion of a shell as claimed. It is also shown that he has been disabled ever since; and the examining surgeon specifically describes the wound, and twice verifies that he is permanently disabled. From the fact that a man was exceedingly liable to injury under the circumstances in which he was placed, and from the evidence of eyewitnesses, the committee are of opinion that he was wounded as alleged.

A wound from a shell causing the person injured to be "disabled ever since" usually results in hospital or medical treatment. Not only is there no such claim made in this case, but, on the contrary, it appears that the claimant served in his regiment two years and nearly eight months after the alleged injury, and until he was mustered out.

It is represented to me by a report from the Pension Bureau that after his alleged wound, and in May or June, 1863, the claimant deserted, and in July of that year was arrested in the State of Indiana and returned to duty without trial. If this report is correct, the party now seeking a pension at the hands of the Government for disability incurred in the