al of
this bill.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 5, 1888_.
_To the Senate_:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 1547, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Mary Ann Dougherty."
A large share of the report of the Senate committee to which this bill
was referred, and which report is adopted by the committee of the House,
as is usual in such cases, consists of a petition signed by Mary Ann
Dougherty, addressed to the Congress, in which she states that she
resides in Washington, having removed here with her husband in 1863
from New Jersey; that shortly after their arrival in this city her
husband, Daniel Dougherty, returned to New Jersey and enlisted in
the Thirty-fourth Regiment New Jersey Volunteers; that she obtained
employment in the United States arsenal making cartridges, and that
while so engaged she was injured by an explosion.
She also states that she had a young son killed by machinery in the
navy-yard, and that at the grand review of the Army after the close of
the war another son, 6 years old, was stolen by an officer of the Army
and has not been heard of since. She further says that her husband left
his home in 1865 and has not been heard of since, and that she believes
he deserted her on account of her infirmities.
It is alleged in the report that she received a pension as the widow of
Daniel Dougherty until it was discovered that he was alive, when her
name was dropped from the rolls.
The petition of this woman is indorsed by the Admiral and several other
officers of the Navy and a distinguished clergyman of Washington,
certifying that they know Mrs. Dougherty and believe the facts stated to
be true.
There is no pretense made now that this beneficiary is a widow, though
she at one time claimed to be, and was allowed a pension on that
allegation. Her present claim rests entirely upon injuries received by
her when she was concededly not employed in the military service. If the
pension now proposed is allowed her, it will be a mere act of charity.
Her husband, Daniel Dougherty, is now living in Philadelphia, and is a
pensioner in his own right for disability alleged to have been incurred
while serving in the Thirty-fourth New Jersey Volunteers. Of this fact
this beneficiary has been repeatedly informed; and yet she states in her
petition that her husband deserted her in 1865 and has not been heard of
since.
It is alleged in the Pension Bureau that in 1878 she succe
|