EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 10, 1888_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I return without approval House bill No. 9126, entitled "An act granting
a pension to Mrs. Caroline G. Seyfforth."
The husband of this beneficiary served as contract surgeon in the United
States Army from September 12, 1862, to August 17, 1865, and was
stationed at Portsmouth Grove Hospital, in Rhode Island.
He never filed a claim for pension, and died July 21, 1874, of
congestion of the liver. His widow filed an application for pension in
1882, alleging that her husband's death was caused by blood poisoning
contracted while dressing the wound of a patient in January, 1863. There
is proof that he suffered from blood poisoning.
The record of death states its cause as congestion of the liver, but the
certificate was not signed. A young doctor named Adams, a friend and
pupil of the deceased, seems to have been more than any other the
attendant physician, but he appeared to think that one of three other
doctors had actual charge of the case. These physicians, named,
respectively, Sullivan, Dana, and Sargent, agreed that Adams had charge
of the case and that they were consulting surgeons in the last illness.
Dr. Adams testified before a special examiner that from intimate
association he knew that the deceased was subject to kidney disease and
other symptoms of bad health from discharge to his death; that as he had
lost a part of one hand from blood poisoning in the Army, he always
supposed his subsequent troubles were referable to that cause; that he
believed the cause of death was albuminuria, and that his liver was also
affected. He further expresses the opinion that the death was the
culmination of the disorders which affected him from the time of his
discharge from the service.
Dr. Sullivan deposed that he knew the deceased well from about 1869, and
never had any reason to think him the subject of blood poisoning or its
results. He further says that he was called in consultation at the last
illness of the deceased and diagnosed his trouble as liver disease, due
to the patient's habits of intemperance.
Dr. Dana testified that he knew the deceased well from the time of his
discharge; that he was called to consult in his case with young Dr.
Adams a few days before the death occurred; that he took a general view
of the case and considered that the trouble was due to habits of
intemperance.
Dr. Sargent deposed that he knew the deceased well and knew that he had
lost a part of his hand, as alleged, from septic poisoning in the Army,
though he was not aware that the poisoning had left any other effect;
that the deceased had several spells of alcoholism after the war; that
he had heard him complain of his kidneys, but attributed his troubles to
his excesses.
Other evidence suggested the same cause for sickness and death spoken of
by these physicians, but there seems to be an almost entire absence of
evidence connecting the death with service in the Army.
I am of the opinion that a case is not presented in any of its aspects
justifying a pension.