the poisoning had left any other effect;
that the deceased had several spells of alcoholism after the war; that
he had heard him complain of his kidneys, but attributed his troubles to
his excesses.

Other evidence suggested the same cause for sickness and death spoken of
by these physicians, but there seems to be an almost entire absence of
evidence connecting the death with service in the Army.

I am of the opinion that a case is not presented in any of its aspects
justifying a pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 10, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 6193, entitled "An act for the
relief of Edson Saxberry."

The beneficiary named in this bill filed a declaration for a pension in
1879, alleging that in 1863 he bruised his leg, which became very sore,
and when it began to heal his eyes became sore.

The evidence taken upon a careful examination of this application seems
to establish, by the admission of the applicant and by other evidence,
the correctness of the position taken by the Pension Bureau in rejecting
the claim, that whatever disability was incurred existed before
enlistment and was in no manner attributable to military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 10, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 2233, entitled "An act granting
a pension to Bernard Carlin."

By this bill it is proposed to pension the beneficiary therein named as
of Company A, Fourteenth Regiment of Missouri Volunteer Infantry.

It seems that he served in the company and regiment named, but that he
also served in Company A, Sixty-sixth Illinois Regiment, and it is
claimed that while in the latter service exclusively he received the
injuries for which a pension is claimed.

His application is still pending in the Pension Bureau, and the papers
pertaining to the same are now in the hands of an examiner for special
examination.

I think this should be completed before a special act is passed, and
I understand this to be in accordance with a general rule adopted by
Congress and its pension committees. This is certainly the correct
course to be pursued in this case, in view of the failure to state in
the special bill the regiment and company to which the soldier belonged
at the time of the incurrence of disability. This can be corrected by
the Pension Bureau if the claim is found merit