removal of the charge of desertion against him, which was refused on
the ground that it was not shown that such charge was founded in error.
Thereupon he applied for a discharge without character, as it is called,
as of the date of his desertion. This was granted on the 21st day of
September, 1888. Such discharges, which were not uncommon at that time,
omitted the certificate of character which entitled the soldier to
reenlistment.

In 1892 a bill similar to that now under consideration was referred
to the Adjutant-General of the Army and was returned with an adverse
report.

The record of the War Department on the subject of this soldier's
separation from the Army is absolutely correct as it stands, and no
sufficient reason is apparent why another record should be substituted.
If this deserter is to be allowed an honorable discharge, I do not see
why every deserter should not be absolved from the consequences of his
unfaithfulness.

The effect of this bill if it should become a law would be to allow
the beneficiary not only a pensionable status, but arrears of pay and
clothing allowances up to the date of his desertion and travel allowance
from the place of his desertion to the place of his enlistment.

It is not denied that all these things have been justly forfeited by
deliberate and inexcusable desertion. In the case presented it seems to
me that the laws and regulations adopted for the purpose of maintaining
the discipline and efficiency of the Army ought not to be set aside.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 23, 1895_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 8165, entitled "An
act authorizing the Kansas City, Oklahoma and Pacific Railway Company
to construct and operate a railway through Indian reservations in the
Indian Territory and the Territories of Oklahoma and New Mexico, and
for other purposes."

This bill contains concessions more comprehensive and sweeping than
any ever presented for my approval, and it seems to me the rights and
interests of the Indians and the Government are the least protected.

The route apparently desired, though passing through or into one State
and three Territories, is described as indefinitely as possible, and
does not seem to be subject to the approval in its entirety of the
Secretary of the Interior or any other governmental agency having
relation to the interest involved.

There is no provision for