sfied this mother deserves a pension.
I withhold my approval of the bill intended to grant her this relief
solely because I am advised that the law would be inoperative for the
reason that the deceased soldier never served in the Seventh New
Hampshire Infantry, and should have been described in the bill as a
member of Company D, First New Hampshire Heavy Artillery.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 29, 1896_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 900, entitled "An act
to provide for the payment of the claim of William H. Mahoney."

This bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to receive and pay to
W.H. Mahoney, without the indorsement of N.A. Rogers, a certain bond
issued by the United States in 1861 for the sum of $500, such payment to
be made upon the giving by said Mahoney of a bond to hold harmless the
United States against repayment of said bond.

The bond mentioned is one of a large issue which was authorized under an
act passed March 2, 1861, and known as Oregon war-debt bonds. They were
made payable in 1881.

In 1864 an act was passed directing the Secretary of the Treasury to
issue or cause to be issued to E.F. and Samuel A. Ward duplicates of
nineteen of these bonds, particularly described by their numbers and
otherwise. Among others are mentioned "Nos. 1352 to 1359, inclusive."
This of course includes the bond numbered 1358, which is directed to be
paid in the bill under consideration. Nothing can now be discovered to
indicate the occasion for the issuance of these duplicates, but from the
fact that a bond of indemnity was required it is inferred that they were
issued because of the loss or destruction of the original bonds.

Pursuant to this act a duplicate of the bond in question, among others,
was issued and made payable to the order of Thomas Pritchard, attorney,
who was the payee in the original bond.

In 1881 this duplicate was paid by the Treasury Department and is now in
possession of the Government. The indorsement of the payee, "Thomas
Pritchard, attorney," appears thereon and all other proper indorsements
to show title in the party to whom the payment was made.

The Government has therefore once paid the amount of this bond to the
party apparently entitled to it. If the beneficiary named in this bill
has a better right to the money, the Government, not being in default,
should be protected against double payment. I suppose