The Portland daily press., 1888-09-06
The Presidents Pension vetoea.


Some time ago in response to suggestion
OF the PRESS the Argus began the publica-
ton of the Presidents pension vetoes and
has kept it up to the present time, publish
ing one each day. 1t has undoubtedly used
a judicious discretion in selection, and has
doubtless given the preference to those to
which the least exception could be taken.
Nevertheless it has published some which
seem to us to clearly prove the Republican
claim that the President always scrutinized
an appropriation for the benefit of a soldier
much more closely than he was in the habit
OF examining other appropriations, and very
seldom gave the benefit Of any doubt to the
soldier. 1t must be borne in mind that these
pension bills which he has been vetoing
were all reported favorably by Democratic
committee and passed by Democratic
House, so it cannot be charged that these
bills were put through by Republicans for
the the purpose of placing the President
before the country in an attitude of unfriend-
illness to the soldier. Against some of these
Vetoes no complaint can justly be made
But there are others in which it seems to
us pension could have been awarded and
ought to have been awarded, even under a
very strict construction of the facts. Here is
one where it seems to us that death was
clearly attributable to a wound received in
the service, though the proximate cause was
an overdose Of morphine taken to deaden the
pain produced by that wound:
return, without approval, House bill No.
2,l40, entitled An act granting pension to
was second lieutenant in an Indiana regiment
and was discharged from the service in April
1864. 1t is proposed in the bill herewith re.
turned TO pension the beneficiary as the widow of
q first lieutenant The deceased was pensioned
for gunshot wound In his left arm under the
special act in 1883. He died away from home AZ
hotel In Union City, Indiana, on the 18th day of
december, 1854, and it was determined at the
time; and is still claimed that his death was the
result OF an overdose OF morphine, self-adminis-
tered. 1t Is represented that at times the wound
OF the deceased soldier was very painful and that
phine TO alleviate his sufferiag. Two days before
MS death he was at the house of one Moore in
ton Union 0ity. he complained Of pain and asked
that he obtained ii.
On the same day he went to hotel in the same
town and remained there until his DEATH On the
second evening after his arrival there he com
pIalned Of asthma and pain in his arm, and retired
Seo aeoat oeloc6 & p p ~ ~ In In the afternoon Of the
and he was found PROSTATE and helpless, though
able to talk. Medicines were administered, but
the did not seyy om sssh@a mat mat
when his wound was suppurating be had difficulty
IN breathing, and that al such times he was il
that at times he was incorporate, especially when
suffering from his wound. 1t seems to me it
pension npon the facts developed in the case ca ss.O"
lolgned) GROVER CLEVELAND.
No doubt life insurance company which
had insured mans life, and had specified
that in case of death from any deliberate act
of his own the policy should be forfeited,
would resist payment of claim under such a
statement Of facts as are given in the Presi-
dents message. But the people of.the United
States, we imagine. do not wish to set up
against the claim Of the widow of man
who perilled his life and ruined his health
In the service OF his country the technical
defence which an insurance company would
maintain. Yet this is just what the Presi-
dent has done in this case. To be sure. he
says, this man was wounded in the defence
Of his country, he did suffer from that
wound for years excruciating pain, but his
widow has no claim upon the country be-
cause he sought to alleviate the pain by
morphine and died from an overdose of that
drug. He did not die from his wound, he
died from morphine 1t would establish a
very bad precedent to grant pension in
such case. This is the Presidents reason
ing and it is precisely the reasoning Of the
insurance company, striving to relieve itself
Of an obligation existing in equity if not in
law. We do not believe the people of the
United States want any such manner of
policy as this adopted toward the soldier.
II they do then the resolutions of all the
political parties in every Northern State
have belied them. The people of the North
wish to deal not only justly with the soldier,
but generously also.
Again in veto dated August 10. 1888. the
President said
AT the time the soldier committed suicide he
was sixty-eight years old. Upon the facts
does not appear to be the least evidence of il,
unless it be the suicide ITSELF Ii is claimed how
ever, and with good reason that he had become
supposed that important evidence to establish his
Ing. 1t is very likely that this despondency ex
isted and that 1t so affected the mind of this old
soldier tnat i LED 70 his suicide: But the fact re-
mains that ne took his own life In a deliberate
manner, and that the affection Of his eyes which
was the disability claimed, was not in proper
sense, even the remote cause of his death.
The connection between the disability in
the case of this soldier and the death is not
so close as in the other And yet it is pretty
clear that the remote cause of his death was a
disease contracted in the service, which par
:ially incapacitated him from labor, thereby
reducing him to poverty and bringing with 1t
dependency which resulted in suicide Con-
gress presumably had investigated the case
and knew the facts. As the representative
OF the people it had the right to grant the
pension, and neither his duty nor his oath
required the President to overrule this ac-
tlon. The instruction of the country to its
representatives has ever been to treat the
Soiolers with generosity, not to resist their
claims because of technical defects.
lhese are not isolated cases. There are
many others in which the same excess of
zeal to protect the county against peneros-
ity to the soldier is exhibited. Yet when a