I do not understand that it has ever been claimed that a parent should be pensioned for the death of a son who had been in the Army unless his death could be traced in some way to his army service.

I am fully satisfied that the surgeon was not mistaken who made the certificate upon which the beneficiary was discharged.

Although there are cases in which it seems not improper that pensions should be granted for injuries sustained during furlough and before actual return to duty, this does not appear to me to be one of them.

Never has done a day's duty. Is utterly worthless and unfit for the Veteran Reserve Corps.

The man for whom this pension is proposed never, so far as I can learn, did a single day's actual military service at the front.

To the House of Representatives: In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 27th instant (the Senate concurring), I return herewith House bill No. 10,060, entitled 'An act prescribing the times for sales and for…

As a general rule the allowances made by the Post-Office Department in these cases ought not to be interfered with.

To give the least encouragement to postmasters that these allowances would be upon their application revised and increased by Congress would lead to demoralization in the service.

I think it should not, on the grounds that the amount was fixed by the Department upon full examination.

There seems to be an entire lack of testimony connecting in any reasonable way his death with any incident of his military service.

If there is any value to be placed upon the reports of these examining boards, the refusal of the Pension Bureau to restore this beneficiary to the rolls was fully justified.

To allow a claim so lacking in merit would endanger discipline and invite irregularity and loose methods in a very important branch of the public service.

It seems to me that the action of Congress in relieving these sureties was generous in the extreme.

It is perfectly apparent that this beneficiary was injured while acting as a deputy assistant provost-marshal, arresting deserters for the pay and rewards allowed him, and that his injuries were not at all connected with actual military…

Neither the service nor the alleged disability of this beneficiary are of a meritorious character.

The Government is in no default and should be put to no expense in refunding the small sum recovered on account of the defalcation of its officer whose good conduct this beneficiary guaranteed.

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2370, entitled 'An act granting a pension to Sarah C. Anderson and children under 16 years of age.'

I fail to find in it reasonably satisfactory proof that the disabilities upon which he now bases his claim for a pension were incurred in the military service.