dow was rejected in July, 1885, on the ground that
"the soldier's death was not the result of his service."

I am satisfied that this conclusion of the Pension Bureau was correct.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 22, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

I return herewith without approval Senate bill No. 342, entitled "An Act
granting a pension to Marrilla Parsons, of Detroit, Mich."

No claim has ever been made for a pension in this case to the Pension
Bureau, probably for the reason that there is no pretext that the
beneficiary named is entitled to a pension under any general law.

Daniel P. Parsons was her stepson, who enlisted in 1861 and died of
consumption on the 13th day of August, 1864.

There are no special circumstances to distinguish this case from many
others whose claims might be made by stepparents, and there are no facts
stated in support of the conclusion embodied in the committee's report
that the soldier was taken sick from exposure incident to the service.

To depart from all rules regulating the granting of pensions by such an
enactment as is proposed would establish a precedent which could not
fail to cause embarrassment and perplexity.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 22, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1383, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Harriet Welch."

The beneficiary named in this bill asks for a pension as the widow of
Syreannous Welch, who was wounded in 1864 while in the service, and was
pensioned therefor in 1867. In 1876 his rate of pension was increased.
In 1877 he appears to have applied to have his pension again increased.
It is alleged that upon such application he was directed to appear
before an examining board or a surgeon at Green Bay, Wis., for
examination, and in returning to his home from that place on the 7th day
of September, 1877, he fell from the cars and was killed, his remains
having been found on the track the next morning.

No one appears to have seen the accident, but it is claimed that he
could not depend upon his wounded leg, and that it "gave way many times
and caused him to fall." From this statement the inference seems to have
been indulged that his death was attributable to the wound he had
received thirteen years before.

The widow's claim based upon this state of facts was rejected by the
Pension Bureau on the ground that the accident resulting in death was
not the result of his