1. He alleges that his shoulder was
dislocated in 1862 while ferrying troops across a river. The records of
the War Department fail to furnish any information as to the alleged
injury. He served afterwards until 1865 and was discharged. His claim
for pension was rejected by the Pension Bureau in 1882, twenty years
after the time he fixes as the date of his injury; and after such long
delay he states as an excuse for the unsatisfactory nature of his proof
that the doctors, surgeons, and officers who knew him are dead.
Considering that the injury complained of is merely a dislocation of the
shoulder, and in view of the other facts developed in the case, I think
the Pension Bureau arrived at a correct conclusion when this claim was
rejected.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 2, 1886_.
_To the Senate_:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 327, entitled "An act granting
a pension to James E. O'Shea."
From the report of the committee to whom this bill was referred I learn
that the claimant enlisted in April, 1861, and was discharged in
October, 1864.
He filed a claim in the Pension Bureau alleging that he received a saber
wound in the head March 7, 1862, and a gunshot wound in the left leg in
the autumn of the same year.
It appears upon examination of his military record that there is no
mention of either disability, and that he served two years after the
time he claims to have received these injuries. So far from being
disabled, it is reported as an incident of his army life that in the
year 1864 this soldier was found guilty of desertion and sentenced to
forfeit all pay and allowances for the time he was absent.
The report of the committee, in apparent explanation of the lack of any
official mention of the injuries alleged, declares that "the fact that
the records of the War Department are often imperfect works great
hardship to men who apply for pensions;" and his conviction of desertion
and the lack of proof to sustain his allegations as to his injuries are
disposed of as follows in the committee's report:
The Adjutant-General's report shows that the man was under discipline
for some irregularities, but notwithstanding this and the lack of the
required proof that he was wounded in the line of duty the committee are
of the opinion that, situated as he was, he was very liable to and very
probably did receive the wound from which he has suffered and is still
suffering.
|