Senate bill No. 789, entitled "An act granting a pension to John S. Williams," is herewith returned without approval.
This claimant enlisted in 1861. He alleges that his shoulder was dislocated in 1862 while ferrying troops across a river. The records of the War Department fail to furnish any information as to the alleged injury. He served afterwards until 1865 and was discharged. His claim for pension was rejected by the Pension Bureau in 1882, twenty years after the time he fixes as the date of his injury; and after such long delay he states as an excuse for the unsatisfactory nature of his proof that the doctors, surgeons, and officers who knew him are dead.
Considering that the injury complained of is merely a dislocation of the shoulder, and in view of the other facts developed in the case, I think the Pension Bureau arrived at a correct conclusion when this claim was rejected.
I return without approval Senate bill No. 327, entitled "An act granting a pension to James E. O'Shea."
From the report of the committee to whom this bill was referred I learn that the claimant enlisted in April, 1861, and was discharged in October, 1864.
He filed a claim in the Pension Bureau alleging that he received a saber wound in the head March 7, 1862, and a gunshot wound in the left leg in the autumn of the same year.
It appears upon examination of his military record that there is no mention of either disability, and that he served two years after the time he claims to have received these injuries. So far from being disabled, it is reported as an incident of his army life that in the year 1864 this soldier was found guilty of desertion and sentenced to forfeit all pay and allowances for the time he was absent.
The report of the committee, in apparent explanation of the lack of any official mention of the injuries alleged, declares that "the fact that the records of the War Department are often imperfect works great hardship to men who apply for pensions;" and his conviction of desertion and the lack of proof to sustain his allegations as to his injuries are disposed of as follows in the committee's report:
The Adjutant-General's report shows that the man was under discipline for some irregularities, but notwithstanding this and the lack of the required proof that he was wounded in the line of duty the committee are of the opinion that, situated as he was, he was very liable to and very probably did receive the wound from which he has suffered and is still suffering.
