ncis Deming."

This claimant entered the service in August, 1861, and was discharged
September 15, 1865.

His hospital record shows that during his service he was treated for
various temporary ailments, among which rheumatism is not included.

He filed an application for pension in September, 1884, alleging that in
August, 1864, he contracted rheumatism, which had resulted in blindness.

On an examination of his case in November, 1884, he stated that his
eyesight began to fail in 1882.

There seems to be no testimony showing his condition from the time of
his discharge to 1880, a period of fifteen years.

The claim that his present condition of blindness is the result of his
army service is not insisted upon as a reason for granting him relief as
strongly as his sad and helpless condition. The committee of the House
to which this bill was referred, after detailing his situation, close
their report with these words: "He served well his country in its dire
need; his necessities now appeal for relief."

We have here presented the case of a soldier who did his duty during
his army service, and who was discharged in 1865 without any record of
having suffered with rheumatism and without any claim of disability
arising from the same. He returned to his place as a citizen, and
in peaceful pursuits, with chances certainly not impaired by the
circumstance that he had served his country, he appears to have held his
place in the race of life for fifteen years or more. Then, like many
another, he was subjected to loss of sight, one of the saddest
afflictions known to human life.

Thereupon, and after nineteen years had elapsed since his discharge from
the Army, a pension is claimed for him upon a very shadowy allegation of
the incurrence of rheumatism while in the service, coupled with the
startling proposition that this rheumatism resulted, just previous to
his application, in blindness. Upon medical examination it appeared that
his blindness was caused by amaurosis, which is generally accepted as an
affection of the optic nerve.

I am satisfied that a fair examination of the facts in this case
justifies the statement that the bill under consideration can rest only
upon the grounds that aid should be furnished to this ex-soldier because
he served in the Army and because he a long time thereafter became
blind, disabled, and dependent.

The question is whether we are prepared to adopt this principle and
establish this pre