Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1886-07-03
THE VETOEs OF PRIVATE PENSION
BILLS.

applause from one end OF the country
to the other than his vetOes of private
pension bills.
These bills are vicious in their char
acter from their very incipiency. They
are born in the demagogic fear OF con-
gressmen. They violate a great prln-
ciple, in that they require at all special
legislation where general legislation
has been but too ample and too liberal.
The frivolous ground upon which
most of them stand make it almost
criminal that they should have even
been introduced, and yet they pass;
pass by "courtesy" to the member in
Producing them and thus have millions
of dollars been taken from the treasury
of the United States in past years. But
now there is a man at the helm of
state. A true man; a conscientious
man; a fearless, and a working man.
He looks for himself, and in proposed
legislation where he sees wrongs he
vetoes them.
Demagogues cry out, but that does
not alarm him; he goes right On. He
gives reasons, too, for all that he does.
For instance, three OF the bills, giving
pensions to Giles C. Hawley, David L.
Elderkin and Andrew j. Wilson, are
disapproved because of satisfactory
proof that the disabilities of the bene-
ficiaries existed prior to their enlist
ment. Ought they to be pensioned?
The bills to pension Charles A. Chase,
Philip Arner, George w. Guyse and
James H. Darling, are disapproved be-
cause of the presidents belief that their
present ills are in no wise the result OF
service in the army. Will anyone claim
that they should become charges upon
the government?
The bills to pension Sarah Harbaugh,
Louisa c. Beezeley, Mary Anderson,
Sallie West, Mary A. Van Etten, Mary
Norman, Mary A. Miller and Martha
McIlwain, widows of soldiers, are dis
/ dppIOtCu OCCouoC VI tuC oOoOINO VI
proof that the death of their husbands
was due in the remoiest degree to mill.
tary service. Would it not be an in
justice against every other poor widow
in the country to single these out for
support by the public treasurer
The objection to legislation for the
relief of James D. Cotton, w. II.
| Starr, Hezekfah Tillman, Maria Hunter,
Charles Schiller, Jackson Stewart and
Bruno Schultz is that their cases are
now pending in the pension bureau
with every prospect of a just determi-
nation. Where general laws apply and
are entirely adequate is it not vicious
and wrong to appeal to special legisla-
ton?
Now look at this case. The act
granting a pension to Mary S. Wood
son is vetoed because the claimant is
unable to furnish any evidence Of
the date or the calse of her NUS
bands death. He left home in March,
1874, for the purpose of finding work
and has never been heard from since.
| The president says:-''His death may
naturally be presumed, and the condi-
ton OF his family is such that it would
be a positive qualification to aid them
in the name proposed, but the entire
and conceded absence of any pre-
sumption, however weak, that he died
from any cause connected with his
military service seems to render it i'm
proper 10 place the widows name upon
the pension rolls"
We might thus 60 ON indefinitely.
But let us cite M or two more cases,
The act granting a pension to Anna A.
Probert is refused approval because the
claimants husband died from yellow
fever in 1873. In the message return
ing this act the president says:-"Thai
she has employed an ingenious attorney
or agent is demonstrated by the fact
that the bill now before me seems to be
based upon the theory that Mr., Probert
might have recovered from his attack
of yellow fever if he had been free
from the ailments for which he had
been pensiOned fourteen years before.
1t such speculations and prescriptions
as this are to be INDUCED, we shall find
ourselves surrounded and hedged in by
the rule that all men entering an army
were free from disease or the liability
to disease before their enlistment, and
every infirmity which is visited upon
them thereafter is the consequence OF
army SERVICE"
Another case is even worse than
this. In the act for the relief of Julia
Connolly, it is proposed to grant the
beneficiary a pension as the widow of
Thomas Connolly, who was mustered
into the service Oct. &c, 1861, and was
reported as having deserted Nov. IA,
1861. In December, 1861, he visited
his family and was drowned shortly af-
aAo III q ANA oOOuL VI IN
from his holne. In vetoing this bill the
president says:-"Those who prosecute
claims for pensions have grown very
bold when cases of this description arr
presented for consideration"
William Bishop, the act for whose
relief Is among the number vetoed, was
in the army II month and seventeen
days. He was enrolled as a substitute
Oh the 25th of March, 1865, was ad-
United to a post hospital at indianapolis
on the Sd of April. 1865, with the
measles, was removed to the City Gen
eral Hospital, IN indianapolis, on the
9th of May, 1865; was returned to duty
May s., 1868, and was mustered out OF
the 18th of May, 1865. In the messag,
vetoing this bill the president says
"Fifteen years after this brilliant service
and this terrific encounter with tn,
measles, and on the 2Sth OF June, 1880
the claimant discovered that his attacl
of the measles had some relation to hi
army enrolment, and that this diseas,
had settled in his eyes, also affectin,
his spinal column This claim was re
iected by the pension bureau, and
hn.yo ~ t~,,lt - A. q =.