He is obese and a malingerer to such an extent that he is almost an
imbecile--worthlessness, obesity, and imbecility and laziness. He is
totally unfit for the Invalid Corps or for any other military duty.

I do not regard it at all strange that this claimant, encouraged by the
ease with which special acts are passed, seeks relief through such
means, after his application, filed in the Pension Bureau nearly twenty
years after his discharge, had been rejected.

Of the four comrades who make affidavit in support of his claim, two of
them are recorded as deserters.

His claim is predicated upon rheumatism. He alleges that after his
discharge from his enlistment he was drafted and served in the Third New
York Cavalry, but the Adjutant-General reports that his name does not
appear on the rolls of the company to which he says he was attached.

The board of United States examining surgeons at Trenton, N.J., report
as the result of an examination as late as May 27, 1885, that they found
"no disease of heart or lungs, no thickening or wasting of any of the
joints of the body, no evidence of any rheumatic diathesis, no rupture
or hemorrhoids, no disease of his spleen or kidney; hands are hard and
indicate an ability to work."

I can not think that the official statements referred to, and which
militate so strongly against the merits of the claimant, should be
impeached or set aside by any of the other testimony which has been
brought to my attention.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 4, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 927, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Cudbert Stone."

The report of the committee of the House of Representatives to whom this
bill was referred states that the claimant enlisted October 3, 1861, in
Company H, Fourteenth Kentucky Volunteers, and was honorably discharged
on the 31st day of January, 1865; that he filed his claim for pension
July 20, 1881, more than sixteen years thereafter, alleging that he
contracted piles while in the service, from exposure while in the line
of duty, and that his claim was rejected in October, 1884, on the ground
that the allegation of the claimant shows that his disability originated
while undergoing the sentence of a court-martial, and therefore not in
the line of duty.

The report of the committee closes with the statement that--

In view of the long and faithful service a