[May 22 the Senate proceeded, as the Constitution prescribes, to
reconsider the said bill returned by the President of the United States
with his objections, pending which it was ordered that the said bill and
message be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. No
action was taken.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 19, 1888_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I return without approval House bill No. 88, entitled "An act granting a
pension to Sally A. Randall."
Antipas Taber enlisted in the War of 1812 and was discharged in the year
1814. There is no claim made that he received any injury in the Army or
that his death, which happened long after his discharge, was in the
slightest degree related to his military service. It does not appear
that he ever made any application for a pension or was ever upon the
pension rolls. He died at Trinidad, in the island of Cuba, April 11,
1831, leaving as his widow the beneficiary mentioned in this bill. About
twenty-two years after his death, and in February, 1853, she married
Albert Randall, and twenty years thereafter, in October, 1873, Randall
died, leaving her again a widow.
It is alleged in the report of the committee in the House to which this
bill was referred that Mrs. Randall is a worthy woman, 75 years of age,
in needy circumstances, with health much impaired, and that the petition
for her relief was signed by prominent citizens of Norwich, Conn., where
she now resides.
All this certainly commends her case to the kindness and benevolence of
the citizens mentioned, and the State of Connecticut ought not to allow
her to be in needy circumstances.
It seems to me, however, that it would establish a bad precedent to
provide for her from the Federal Treasury. From the statement of her
present age she must have been born during the time of her first
husband's enlistment. She knew nothing of his military service except as
the same may have been detailed to her. Her first widowhood had no
connection with any incident or condition of health traceable to such
service, and her second husband, with whom she lived for twenty years,
never entered the military service of the Government.
I do not see how the relief proposed can be granted in this case without
an unjustifiable departure from the rules under which applications for
pension should be determined.