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.

The evidence of disability from the cause alleged is weak, to say the most of it.

There seems to be an entire absence of proof of this important fact.

I think little, if any, more infirmity than is usually found in men of the age of the claimant.

I am entirely satisfied that the public building provided for in this bill is not immediately necessary.

The Government ought not to be called upon to insure against the quarrelsome propensities of its individual soldiers.

I am inclined to think it would have been a fortunate thing if in this case it could have been demonstrated that a man could thrive so well with the chronic diarrhea for fifty-two years as its existence in the case of this good old…

I am entirely unable to see how the injuries are related to the claimant's army service.

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.

This pension should not be allowed.

It seems that this claim was not definitely passed upon.