It seems to me it would establish a very bad precedent to allow a
pension upon the facts developed in this case.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 9, 1888_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I return without approval House bill No. 7510, entitled "An act granting
a pension to Stephen A. Seavey."
This beneficiary served in a Maine regiment from November 11, 1861, to
August 17, 1862, when he was discharged upon a surgeon's certificate of
epilepsia and melancholia. The surgeon further stated in his certificate
that the soldier had been unfit for duty for sixty days in consequence
of epileptic fits, occurring daily, and requiring the constant
attendance of two persons during the past thirty days.
In 1879 he applied for a pension, alleging that he incurred a sunstroke
on July 20, 1862. This was within the sixty days during which he was
unfit for duty and also within the thirty days during which he required
the constant attendance of two persons.
He succeeded in securing a pension, and drew the same until December,
1885, when information was received at the Pension Bureau which caused
an examination of the merits of the case.
This examination developed such facts as led the Pension Bureau to the
conclusion that the condition of the soldier was then identical with
that before enlistment and that his disability existed before he entered
the service.
Pages:
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724