rida
in 1840 and 1841 he contracted disease of the eyes. He procured
considerable evidence in support of his claim, but in 1882, and while
still endeavoring to furnish further proof, he committed suicide by
hanging.

The inference that his death thus occasioned was the result of
despondency and despair brought on by his failure to procure a pension,
while it adds a sad feature to the case, does not aid in connecting his
death with his military service.

That this was the view of the committee of the House to whom the bill
was referred is evidenced by the conclusion of their report in these
words:

And while your committee do not feel justified under the law as at
present existing in recommending that the name of the widow be placed
upon the pension roll for the purpose of a pension in her own right as
widow of the deceased soldier and by reason of the soldier's death,
they do think that she should be allowed such pension as, had her
husband's claim been favorably determined on the day of his decease,
he would have received.

And yet the bill under consideration directs the Secretary of the
Interior to place this widow's name on the pension roll and to "pay her
a pension as such widow from and after the passage of this act, subject
to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws."

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 31, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 8336, entitled "An act
granting an increase of pension to Duncan Forbes."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted, under the name of Alexander
Sheret, January 7, 1862, in the Regular Army, and was discharged January
8, 1865.

He applied for a pension in 1879, alleging that he was wounded in his
right breast December 31, 1862, and in his right ankle September 20,
1863. He was pensioned in 1883, dating from January 9, 1865, for the
ankle wound, but that part of his claim based upon the wound in his
breast was rejected upon the ground that there was no record of the same
and the testimony failed to show that such a wound had its origin in the
service.

Though the lack of such a record is sufficiently accounted for, I am
convinced that, conceding both the wounds alleged were received, this
pensioner has been fairly and justly treated.

It appears from the allegations of his application to the Pension Bureau
that after the wound in his breast, in December, 1862,