1852, when she married John Freeman, through which she of course lost
her pensionable status. Two minor children of the soldier were, however,
placed on the pension roll in her stead, and their pension was paid to
them until the youngest became 16 years of age, in 1863.

John Freeman died in December, 1871, the beneficiary having been his
wife for almost twenty years. It is now proposed to restore her to the
pension roll as the widow of her former husband, the Mexican soldier,
who died nearly fifty years ago, and notwithstanding the fact that less
than five years after his death she relinquished her right to a pension
and surrendered her widowhood to become the wife of another husband,
with whom she lived for many years.

I am not willing, even by inaction, to be charged with acquiescence in
what appears to be such an entire departure from the principle, as well
as sentiment, connected with reasonable pension legislation.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 22, 1897_.

_To the Senate_:

I return herewith without approval Senate bill No. 1323, entitled "An
act granting a pension to Maria Somerlat, widow of Valentine Somerlat."

This beneficiary, under the name of Maria Somerlat, was pensioned in
1867 as the widow of Valentine Somerlat, a volunteer soldier, dating
from his death, in 1864. She continued to draw the pension allowed
her as such widow until 1881, when she married one Hiram Smith.
Subsequently, but at what time does not appear, she was divorced from
Smith in a suit that seems to have been begun by him, but in which
she interposed a cross bill and obtained judgment in her favor.
Notwithstanding her remarriage, through which she ceased to be the widow
of the dead soldier, it is proposed to pension her again on account of
his death.

The rule governing the operation of general pension laws which forfeits
a widow's pension on her remarriage seems so reasonable and just and
its relaxation must necessarily lead to such a departure from just
principles and to such vexatious pension administration that I am
convinced it ought to be strictly maintained.

I hope I may be permitted to call the attention of the Senate to the
increasing latitude clearly discernible in special pension legislation.
It has seemed to me so useless to attempt to stem the tide of this
legislation by Executive interference that I have contented myself with
nonacquiescence in numerous cases where I could not approve.