EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1888_.
_To the Senate_:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 1547, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Mary Ann Dougherty."
A large share of the report of the Senate committee to which this bill
was referred, and which report is adopted by the committee of the House,
as is usual in such cases, consists of a petition signed by Mary Ann
Dougherty, addressed to the Congress, in which she states that she
resides in Washington, having removed here with her husband in 1863
from New Jersey; that shortly after their arrival in this city her
husband, Daniel Dougherty, returned to New Jersey and enlisted in
the Thirty-fourth Regiment New Jersey Volunteers; that she obtained
employment in the United States arsenal making cartridges, and that
while so engaged she was injured by an explosion.
She also states that she had a young son killed by machinery in the
navy-yard, and that at the grand review of the Army after the close of
the war another son, 6 years old, was stolen by an officer of the Army
and has not been heard of since. She further says that her husband left
his home in 1865 and has not been heard of since, and that she believes
he deserted her on account of her infirmities.
It is alleged in the report that she received a pension as the widow of
Daniel Dougherty until it was discovered that he was alive, when her
name was dropped from the rolls.
The petition of this woman is indorsed by the Admiral and several other
officers of the Navy and a distinguished clergyman of Washington,
certifying that they know Mrs. Dougherty and believe the facts stated to
be true.
There is no pretense made now that this beneficiary is a widow, though
she at one time claimed to be, and was allowed a pension on that
allegation. Her present claim rests entirely upon injuries received by
her when she was concededly not employed in the military service. If the
pension now proposed is allowed her, it will be a mere act of charity.
Her husband, Daniel Dougherty, is now living in Philadelphia, and is a
pensioner in his own right for disability alleged to have been incurred
while serving in the Thirty-fourth New Jersey Volunteers. Of this fact
this beneficiary has been repeatedly informed; and yet she states in her
petition that her husband deserted her in 1865 and has not been heard of
since.
It is alleged in the Pension Bureau that in 1878 she succeeded in
securing a pension as the widow of Daniel Dougherty through fraudulent
testimony and much false swearing on her part.
The police records of the precinct in which she has lived for years show
that she is a woman of very bad character, and that she has been under
arrest nine times for drunkenness, larceny, creating disturbance, and
misdemeanors of that sort.
It happens that this claimant, by reason of her residence here, has been
easily traced and her character and untruthfulness discovered. But there
is much reason to fear that this case will find its parallel, in many
that have reached a successful conclusion.
I can not spell out any principle upon which the bounty of the
Government is bestowed through the instrumentality of the flood of
private pension bills that reach me. The theory seems to have been
adopted that no man who served in the Army can be the subject of death
or impaired health except they are chargeable to his service. Medical
theories are set at naught and the most startling relation is claimed
between alleged incidents of military service and disability or death.
Fatal apoplexy is admitted as the result of quite insignificant wounds,
heart disease is attributed to chronic diarrhea, consumption to hernia,
and suicide is traced to army service in a wonderfully devious and
curious way.
Adjudications of the Pension Bureau are overruled in the most peremptory
fashion by these special acts of Congress, since nearly all the
beneficiaries named in these bills have unsuccessfully applied to that
Bureau for relief.
This course of special legislation operates very unfairly.
Those with certain influence or friends to push their claims procure
pensions, and those who have neither friends nor influence must be
content with their fate under general laws. It operates unfairly by
increasing in numerous instances the pensions of those already on the
rolls, while many other more deserving cases, from the lack of fortunate
advocacy, are obliged to be content with the sum provided by general
laws.
The apprehension may well be entertained that the freedom with which
these private pension bills are passed furnishes an inducement to fraud
and imposition, while it certainly teaches the vicious lesson to our
people that the Treasury of the National Government invites the approach
of private need.
None of us should be in the least wanting in regard for the veteran
soldier, and I will yield to no man in a desire to see those who
defended the Government when it needed defenders liberally treated.
Unfriendliness to our veterans is a charge easily and sometimes
dishonestly made.
I insist that the true soldier is a good citizen, and that he will be
satisfied with generous, fair, and equal consideration for those who are
worthily entitled to help.
I have considered the pension list of the Republic a roll of honor,
bearing names inscribed by national gratitude, and not by improvident
and indiscriminate almsgiving.
I have conceived the prevention of the complete discredit which must
ensue from the unreasonable, unfair, and reckless granting of pensions
by special acts to be the best service I can render our veterans.
In the discharge of what has seemed to me my duty as related to
legislation, and in the interest of all the veterans of the Union Army,
I have attempted to stem the tide of improvident pension enactments,
though I confess to a full share of responsibility for some of these
laws that should not have been passed.
I am far from denying that there are cases of merit which can not be
reached except by special enactment, but I do not believe there is a
member of either House of Congress who will not admit that this kind of
legislation has been carried too far.
I have now before me more than 100 special pension bills, which can
hardly be examined within the time allowed for that purpose.
My aim has been at all times, in dealing with bills of this character,
to give the applicant for a pension the benefit of any doubt that might
arise, and which balanced the propriety of granting a pension if there
seemed any just foundation for the application; but when it seemed
entirely outside of every rule in its nature or the proof supporting it,
I have supposed I only did my duty in interposing an objection.
It seems to me that it would be well if our general pension laws should
be revised with a view of meeting every meritorious case that can arise.
Our experience and knowledge of any existing deficiencies ought to make
the enactment of a complete pension code possible.
In the absence of such a revision, and if pensions are to be granted
upon equitable grounds and without regard to general laws, the present
methods would be greatly improved by the establishment of some tribunal
to examine the facts in every case and determine upon the merits of the
application.