. He made statements afterwards in support of his
application that he was also troubled in the service with rheumatism and
diarrhea.

The case was examined by several special examiners, from which, as
reported to me, it appeared from the claimant's admission that he had
sore eyes previous to his enlistment, though he claimed they were sound
when he entered the Army.

A surgeon who made an examination in March, 1881, reported that he could
not find any evidence whatever of disease of the eyes, and nothing to
corroborate the claimant's assertion that he was suffering from
rheumatism, piles, or diarrhea.

Another surgeon, who examined the claimant in 1879, reported that he
found the eyelids slightly granulated, producing some irritation of the
eyeball and rendering the eyes a little weak, and that he found no other
disability.

In 1882 a surgeon who made an examination reported that he discovered
indications that the claimant had suffered at some time with chronic
ophthalmia, but that in his opinion his eyes did not disable him in the
least, and that the claimant was well nourished and in good health.

The report of the committee to whom this bill was referred in the Senate
states that six special examinations have been made in the case and that
two of them were favorable to the claim.

The trouble and expense incurred by the Pension Bureau to ascertain the
truth and to deal fairly by this claimant, and the entire absence of any
suspicion of bias against the claim in that Bureau, ought to give weight
to its determination.

The claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau in July, 1885, upon the
ground that disease of the eyes existed prior to enlistment and that the
evidence failed to show that there had existed a pensionable degree of
disability, since discharge, from diarrhea or rheumatism.

It will be observed that this is not a case where there was a lack of
the technical proof required by the Pension Bureau, but that its
judgment was based upon the merits of the application and affected the
very foundation of the claim.

I think it should be sustained; and its correctness is somewhat
strengthened by the fact that the claimant continued in active service
for more than a year after his alleged sickness, that after filing his
claim he added thereto allegations of additional disabilities, and that
he made no application for pension until more than twelve years after
his discharge.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUT