EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 21, 1887_.
_To the Senate_:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 1768, entitled "An
act granting a pension to John D. Fincher."
The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted August 6, 1862, and was
discharged for disability February 24, 1863.
The surgeon's certificate of disability given at the time of the
soldier's discharge recites "general debility, which will disable him
from performing the duties of a soldier for a good period of time. The
disease was contracted by exposure and fatigue while performing the
duties of a soldier."
The claimant filed his application for pension in September, 1882,
nearly twenty years after his discharge, alleging that in November,
1862, he was attacked with bilious fever, followed by chronic diarrhea
and lung trouble.
In support of his application an affidavit of a comrade was filed,
setting forth the fact that the claimant was taken sick, as he alleged,
in the fall of 1862, and that he was sent to the hospital on that
account. The affidavit further expresses the belief that the claimant
still suffers from the effects of his sickness and exposure.
So far as I am informed, and so far as the committee's report discloses,
this is the only proof furnished of any continuance of disability at the
time of filing the application for pension, and this proof, if it may
be so regarded, is the mere expression of an opinion or belief, not
necessarily based upon any personal knowledge, and which might have been
honestly expressed if derived from representations of the claimant
himself.
In this condition of the case the claimant was examined by a surgeon in
1882, whose report seems to negative all ailments except as one may be
found in the fact alleged therein that he had pneumonia in 1868, and
that there might be some pleuritic adhesions, plainly inferring that if
such adhesions existed they were the result of the sickness to which he
refers.
In February, 1885, the claimant was again examined by a board of
surgeons. This examination seems to have been very carefully and
thoroughly made, and as a result of the same the board reported that
there was no disability. On this ground the claim was rejected.
There is no doubt as to the sickness of the claimant during his service
and his disability at the time of his discharge, but unless the report
of the board of surgeons is to be impeached without apparent reason
there is as little doubt of the claimant's complete recovery.
No case has been presented to me in which the evidence afforded of a
continuance of disability seems so inconclusive. In these circumstances
the report of the board of surgeons appears to be upon the evidence
before me almost uncontradicted.