EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 3, 1886_.
_To the Senate_:
I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 365, entitled "An act
for the relief of Martin L. Bundy."
By this bill it is proposed to allow in the settlement by the United
States with Mr. Bundy, who was lately a paymaster in the Army, the sum
of $719.47 for the forage of two horses to which he claims he was
entitled while in the service, and which has never been drawn by him.
The time during which it is alleged this forage was due is stated to be
between July 17, 1862, and April 15, 1866.
This claimant was mustered out as paymaster on the last-mentioned date,
and in 1872 a certificate was issued that, his accounts having been
adjusted, they exhibited no indebtedness on his part to the United
States.
Subsequently, however, and in or about the year 1879, it was discovered
that by reason of a duplicate credit, which had been allowed him by
mistake, he was actually indebted to the Government in the sum of
$528.72.
After the fact had been made known to him the claim embodied in this
bill was suggested to or invented by him, which, if allowed, will not
only extinguish his indebtedness to the Government, but leave a balance
due to him.
By the law and the Army Regulations the forage upon which this claim is
based is or should be only allowed to those in the service who actually
have and use horses in the performance of their duties.
And when thus entitled to forage it was necessary to draw it in kind or
in the specific articles permitted every month, and if not thus drawn it
could not afterwards be claimed. There seems to be no such thing as
commutation of forage in such cases.
There is no suggestion that the claimant named in this bill had or
used any horses while in the service. If he did and paid for their
maintenance and at the time of the settlement of his accounts made no
claim for reimbursement, he presents a case of incredible ignorance
of his rights or a wonderful lack of that disposition to gain every
possible advantage which is usually found among those who deal with the
Government.
It is quite apparent that the claim is not valid, and the fact that it
is made long after the discovery of his deficit leads to the suspicion
that it is insisted on merely for the purpose of paying his debt.
Though in this particular case it would do but little more than to
extinguish an indebtedness to the Government, the allowance of this
claim would set a precedent which could hardly be ignored, and which, if
followed, would furnish another means of attack upon the public Treasury
quite as effective as many which are now in active operation.