so apt to share
in special favors of Congressional action. I find no reason why this
beneficiary should be singled out from his class, except it be that he
was a lieutenant-colonel instead of a private.

I am aware of a precedent for the legislation proposed, which is
furnished by an enactment of the last session of Congress, to which I
assented, as I think improvidently; but I am certain that exact equality
and fairness in the treatment of our veterans is, after all, more just,
beneficent, and useful than unfair discrimination in favor of officers
or the special benefit born of sympathy in individual cases.

I am constrained, therefore, to agree with the House Committee on
Pensions in their views of this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 23, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 10082, entitled "An
act to increase the pension of Margaret R. Jones."

The beneficiary mentioned in this bill is now receiving the highest rate
of pension allowed in cases such as hers under the general law.

All the information which is available to me fails to furnish any reason
why this pension should be specially increased, except the general
statement in the claimant's petition that she is in necessitous
circumstances and that the rate now allowed her is insufficient for her
support.

The further statement in the petition that her husband's death "was
caused prematurely by his endeavor to comply with unusual,
disrespectful, and indefinite orders" to go to League Island Navy-Yard
certainly does not in all its bearings furnish conclusive proof that his
widow's pension should be increased beyond that furnished others in her
situation.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 23, 1887_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return without approval House bill No. 5877, entitled "An act for the
relief of William H. Morhiser."

This beneficiary, though apparently not regularly enlisted in the
military service of the country during the time covered by this bill for
his relief, performed military duty, was captured and imprisoned. No
technicality should be interposed in considering this bill to prevent
the receipt by him of the same pay and allowances awarded under like
circumstances to soldiers regularly enlisted.

But this bill proposes to appropriate for the benefit of this claimant
such sum as pay and allowances as would be allowed