It appears from the record furnished to me that they were rejected on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to connect the death cause or disability with the soldier's military service.

I return without approval House bill No. 2472, entitled 'An act granting a pension to Lydia A. Eaton.'

Upon the merits as the case now stands, and because of the mistake in describing the relationship of the beneficiary, this bill, I think, should not become a law.

I am of the opinion that, considering the cause of death and all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, the certificate of discharge which the soldier himself procured to be made out should stand as stating the true origin of…

it seems quite clear to me that it would be extending the pension theory to an unwarrantable limit to hold the Government responsible for such an accident.

There does not, however, seem to be a particle of evidence establishing that cause of death.

The cause of rejection is stated to be 'that the death cause (sunstroke) was not the result of the soldier's military service.'

Whatever disability he had at the date of discharge he had when he enlisted.

I can not believe that this is a case in which a pension should be granted.

I therefore venture, notwithstanding the persistent misrepresentations of my action in similar cases, to disapprove this bill.

The claim mentioned in this bill grows out of alleged extra work done by the claimant in the construction of the post-office and courthouse building in the city of New York.

I hardly think it will be seriously contended that the claimant has any legal claim against the United States.

He is not entitled to dictate the rule by which his claim is to be adjusted.

This can not be right.

Every intelligent man should be charged with the knowledge that as a general rule commercial intercourse with the enemy is entirely inconsistent with a state of war.

I fail to appreciate the equities which entitle this claimant to further hearing.

It is thus easy to learn how the joint desires and unequivocal mutual understanding of the two Governments were brought into articulated form in the treaty.

I can not but regard the expressed demand on the part of China for a reexamination and renewed discussion of the topics so completely covered by mutual treaty stipulations as an indefinite postponement and practical abandonment of the…