I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6132, entitled "An act
granting a pension to William Lynch."

The claimant mentioned in this bill enlisted in the Fifth Regiment
United States Infantry in 1849, and was discharged, after a
reenlistment, September 8, 1859.

He filed a claim for pension more than twenty-four years afterwards, in
April, 1884, claiming that he contracted rheumatism of the right hip and
leg in the winter of 1857-58, while serving in Utah. He admitted that he
was not under treatment while in the service and that he never consulted
a physician in regard to his disability until he commenced proceedings
for a pension.

The evidence disclosed to me falls far short of establishing this claim
for pension upon its merits.

The application made to the Pension Bureau is still pending and awaiting
answer to inquiries made by the Bureau in January, 1886.

I do not understand that the Congress intends to pass special acts in
cases thus situated.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 4, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 7698, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Robert K. Bennett."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted in September, 1862, and it
appears that very soon after that he was detailed to the cook shop. This
seems to be the only military service he rendered, and on February 7,
1863, five months after enlistment, he was received into the marine
hospital at New Orleans for varicocele. He was discharged from the
service February 22, 1863, and the cause of discharge is stated to be
"varicocele, to which he was subject four years before enlistment."

Seventeen years thereafter, and in June, 1880, this claimant filed an
application for pension in the Pension Bureau, alleging that about the
10th day of February, 1863, in unloading a barrel it fell upon him,
producing a hernia, shortly after which he was affected by piles.

It will be seen that he fixes this injury as occurring three days after
his admission to the hospital, but he might well be honestly mistaken as
to this date. If the injury, however, was such as he stated, it is
difficult to see why no mention was made of it in the hospital records.

He persisted at all times, as I understand the case, until the rejection
of his claim in 1883, that his disability arose from hernia and piles.
The reason of this rejection is stated to be that varicocele exist