the period covered
by the use of this telephone, for the official term of the beneficiary
extended from May 16, 1881, to June 18, 1885.

Assuming, however, that it was intended to describe the period ending
June 30, 1883, it appears that the use of a telephone during that time
was wholly unauthorized by the Post Office Department, and that the only
authority given for any expenditure for that purpose covered the period
of one year from the 1st day of January, 1884.

The following letter, dated July 16, 1884, was sent to the beneficiary
from the salary and allowance division of the Post Office Department:

In reply to your letter relative to amounts disallowed for use of
telephone for your office, you are informed that the said expenditures
were made without the authority of this office, and it is therefore
deemed advisable not to approve the same.

Your authority for a telephone was for one year beginning January 1,
1884. At the expiration of the time named, if you desire to continue the
telephone service, you should make application to the First Assistant
Postmaster-General for a renewal of the same.

The multitude of claims of the same kind which the legislation proposed
would breed and encourage, and the absolute necessity, in the interest
of good administration, of limiting all public officers to authorized
expenditures, constrain me to withhold my approval from this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 16, 1889_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 7, entitled "An act granting a
pension to Thomas B. Walsh."

This beneficiary enlisted January 1, 1864, and was discharged August 1,
1865.

He is reported absent without leave in April, 1864, and further recorded
as having deserted November 24, 1864. He was restored to duty in May,
1865, by the President's proclamation.

He filed an application for pension in December, 1881, alleging that he
contracted rheumatism in May, 1865.

This statement of the claimant and nearly, if not all, the evidence in
the case which tends to show the incurrence of the disability complained
of appear to fix its appearance at a date very near the return of the
beneficiary after his desertion.

In these circumstances the proof of disability, such as it is, is as
consistent with its incurrence during desertion as it is with the theory
that the beneficiary suffered therefrom as the result of honorab