The fact is, in this case there is no disability which can be traced to the forty days' military service of fifty-four years ago.
It is hardly fair to ask the Government to grant a pension for the freak or gross heedlessness and recklessness of this soldier.
I am entirely unable to see how the injuries are related to the claimant's army service.
There seems to be an entire absence of proof of this important fact.
The evidence of disability from the cause alleged is weak, to say the most of it.
I can not think that such a wholesome provision of law... should be modified upon the facts presented in this case.
I think little, if any, more infirmity than is usually found in men of the age of the claimant.
Entertaining this belief, I am constrained to withhold my signature from this bill.
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 1059, entitled 'An act to grant a pension to Joseph Romiser.'
There does not appear to be any medical testimony to support the claim thus made by the widow.
It does not seem to me that the facts in this case, so far as they have been developed, justify the passage of this act.
The beneficiary named is the widow of Rowley S. McKay.
The question is whether we are prepared to adopt this principle and establish this precedent.
he surely was not in the service nor in the performance of any military duty at the time of the injury
It seems that this claim was not definitely passed upon.
I am of the opinion that the evidence against the pension was quite satisfactory, and that it should not be restored, as the bill before me ...
There is no merit whatever in this case.
The results of these examinations should, I think, control as against the statements of neighbors and comrades.
