EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1886_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 2971, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Francis Deming."
This claimant entered the service in August, 1861, and was discharged
September 15, 1865.
His hospital record shows that during his service he was treated for
various temporary ailments, among which rheumatism is not included.
He filed an application for pension in September, 1884, alleging that in
August, 1864, he contracted rheumatism, which had resulted in blindness.
On an examination of his case in November, 1884, he stated that his
eyesight began to fail in 1882.
There seems to be no testimony showing his condition from the time of
his discharge to 1880, a period of fifteen years.
The claim that his present condition of blindness is the result of his
army service is not insisted upon as a reason for granting him relief as
strongly as his sad and helpless condition. The committee of the House
to which this bill was referred, after detailing his situation, close
their report with these words: "He served well his country in its dire
need; his necessities now appeal for relief."
We have here presented the case of a soldier who did his duty during
his army service, and who was discharged in 1865 without any record of
having suffered with rheumatism and without any claim of disability
arising from the same. He returned to his place as a citizen, and
in peaceful pursuits, with chances certainly not impaired by the
circumstance that he had served his country, he appears to have held his
place in the race of life for fifteen years or more. Then, like many
another, he was subjected to loss of sight, one of the saddest
afflictions known to human life.
Thereupon, and after nineteen years had elapsed since his discharge from
the Army, a pension is claimed for him upon a very shadowy allegation of
the incurrence of rheumatism while in the service, coupled with the
startling proposition that this rheumatism resulted, just previous to
his application, in blindness. Upon medical examination it appeared that
his blindness was caused by amaurosis, which is generally accepted as an
affection of the optic nerve.
I am satisfied that a fair examination of the facts in this case
justifies the statement that the bill under consideration can rest only
upon the grounds that aid should be furnished to this ex-soldier because
he served in the Army and because he a long time thereafter became
blind, disabled, and dependent.
The question is whether we are prepared to adopt this principle and
establish this precedent.
None of us are entitled to credit for extreme tenderness and
consideration toward those who fought their country's battles. These
are sentiments con|»ion to all good citizens. They lead to the most
benevolent care on the part of the Government and deeds of charity and
mercy in private life. The blatant and noisy self-assertion of those
who, from motives that may well be suspected, declare themselves above
all others friends of the soldier can not discredit nor belittle the
calm, steady, and affectionate regard of a grateful nation.
An appropriation has just been passed setting apart $76,000,000 of
the public money for distribution as pensions, under laws liberally
constructed, with a view of meeting every meritorious case. More than
$1,000,000 was added to maintain the Pension Bureau, which is charged
with the duty of a fair, just, and liberal apportionment of this fund.
Legislation has been at the present session of Congress perfected
considerably increasing the rate of pension in certain cases.
Appropriations have also been made of large sums for the support of
national homes where sick, disabled, or needy soldiers are cared for,
and within a few days a liberal sum has been appropriated for the
enlargement and increased accommodation and convenience of these
institutions.
All this is no more than should be done.
But with all this, and with the hundreds of special acts which have been
passed granting pensions in cases where, for my part, I am willing to
confess that sympathy rather than judgment has often led to the
discovery of a relation between injury or death and military service, I
am constrained by a sense of public duty to interpose against
establishing a principle and setting a precedent which must result in
unregulated, partial, and unjust gifts of public money under the pretext
of indemnifying those who suffered in their means of support as an
incident of military service.