Upon appeal to the
Secretary of the Interior he states the settled doctrine of such cases
to be that "service must have been _in_, not simply _during_,
a war to give title to bounty land."
The only claim made by the beneficiary is that the vessel upon which he
was employed was engaged for a time in transporting seamen from New
Orleans, where they were enlisted, to Pensacola, and that he was
informed and believed that they were enlisted to serve on board vessels
composing the Gulf Squadron, then cooperating with the land forces in
the Mexican War.
It seems to me that it is establishing a bad precedent, tending to the
breaking down of all distinctions between civil and military 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.
Pages:
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949