ilitary employment
and service, to hold that a man engaged on a vessel transporting
recruits to a rendezvous from which they may be sent to the scene of
hostilities should be allowed the same advantages which are bestowed
upon those actually engaged in or more directly related to the dangers
and chances of military operations.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 18, 1889_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 9252, entitled "An act granting
a pension to Mrs. Catherine Barberick, of Watertown."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the mother of William Barberick,
who enlisted February 19, 1862, and died of smallpox August 2, 1864, at
his home while on veteran furlough.

It is not claimed that the soldier contracted the fatal disease while in
the Army. On the contrary, the testimony taken upon his mother's
application for pension to the Pension Bureau shows that he was taken
sick after his arrival at his home on furlough, and that several of his
family had died of the contagious disease to which he fell a victim
before he was taken sick with it.

In these circumstances, unless there is to be a complete departure from
the principle that pensions are to be granted for death or disability in
some way related to the military service, this bill should not become a
law.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 18, 1889_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 7877, entitled "An act to place
Mary Karstetter on the pension roll."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of Jacob Karstetter, who
enlisted in June, 1864, and was discharged in June, 1865, on account of
a wound in his left hand received in action. He died in August, 1874, of
gastritis, or inflammation of the stomach, and congestion of the liver.
He was granted a pension for his gunshot wound and was in receipt of
such pension at the time of his death.

I was constrained to return without approval a bill identical with the
one herewith returned, and which was passed by the last Congress, and
stated my objections to the same in a communication addressed to the
House of Representatives, dated July 6, 1886.[31]

It seemed to me at that time that the soldier's death could not be held
to be the result of his wound or any other cause chargeable to his military
service.

Upon reexamination I am still of the same opinion, which leads me to
a