A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Volume 8, part 2: Grover Cleveland

by Grover Cleveland

VETO MESSAGES.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 17, 1894.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without my approval House bill No. 71, entitled "An act for the relief of purchasers of timber and stone lands under the act of June 3, 1878."

This bill permits the proofs and affidavits which under present statutes parties desiring to acquire certain public lands are required to make before the registers and receivers of the land offices within which such lands are located to be made before any commissioner of the United States circuit court or before the judge or clerk of any court of records of the county or parish in which the lands are situated.

A similar bill was passed by the Fifty-second Congress and was disapproved by the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the Secretary of the Interior. The successors of these officers oppose the present bill on the ground that in its operation it would open the door to fraud and to a perversion of the intentions of the Government in relation to the public lands.

It is difficult, with the most scrupulous care, to guard the alienation of our public lands from fraud and illegal practices. It is perfectly plain, however, that the prospect of accomplishing this result is better under present laws, which require the necessary proofs to be made before land officers who are appointed for that purpose and who are under the control of the General Land Office and amenable to its regulations, than it would be by substituting other officers over whom the Land Office has no control.

Certain rules and orders of the Land Office are now in force which regulate the taking of the necessary proofs and permit oral examinations by registers and receivers. These regulations are of the utmost importance if our land laws are to be justly and honestly administered.

I fully concur in the objections made to this bill by the officers having charge of the public lands in the last Administration and by their successors who are now charged with that responsibility. I am convinced that such a relaxation of our existing land laws as is contemplated by the bill under consideration would not be in the interest of good administration.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 20, 1894.

To the House of Representatives:

I hereby return without my approval House bill No. 3289, entitled "An act to authorize the New York and New Jersey Bridge Companies to construct and maintain a bridge across the Hudson River between New York City and the State of New Jersey."

This bill authorizes the construction of a bridge over the North River between the States of New York and New Jersey, the terminus of which in the city of New York shall not be below Sixty-sixth street. It contemplates the construction of a bridge upon piers placed in the river. No mention is made of a single span crossing the entire river, nor is there anything in the bill indicating that it was within the intention of the Congress that there should be a bridge built without piers. I am by no means certain that the Secretary of War, who is invested by the terms of the bill with considerable discretion so far as the plans for the structure are concerned, would have the right to exact of the promoters of this enterprise the erection of a bridge spanning the entire river.

Much objection has been made to the location of any piers in the river for the reason that they would seriously interfere with the commerce which seeks the port of New York through that channel. It is certainly very questionable whether piers should be permitted at all in the North River at the point designated for the location of this bridge. It seems absolutely certain that within a few years a great volume of shipping will extend to that location, which would be seriously embarrassed by such obstruction.

I appreciate fully the importance of securing some means by which railroad traffic can cross this river, and no one can fail to realize the serious inconvenience to travel caused by lack of facilities of that character. At the same time, it is a plain dictate of wisdom and expediency that the commerce of the river be not unnecessarily interfered with by bridges or in any other manner.

Engineers whose judgment upon the matter can not be questioned, including the engineer of the company proposing to build this bridge, have expressed the opinion that the entire river can be spanned safely and effectively by a suspension bridge, or a construction not needing the use of piers.

The company to which the permission to bridge the river is granted in the bill under consideration was created by virtue of an act of the legislature of the State of New York which became a law, by reason of the failure of the governor to either approve or veto the same, on the 30th day of April, 1890. It may be safely assumed that the members of the legislature which passed this law knew what was necessary for the protection of the commerce of the city of New York and had informed themselves concerning the plan of a bridge that should be built in view of all the interests concerned.

By paragraph 24 of the law creating this company it is provided that "the said bridge shall be constructed with a single span over the entire river between towers or piers located between the span and the existing pier-head lines in either State," and that "no pier or tower or other obstruction of a permanent character shall be placed or built in the river between said towers or piers under this act."

In view of such professional judgment, and considering the interests which would be interfered with by the location of piers in the river, and having due regard to the judgment of the legislature of the State of New York, it seems to me that a plan necessitating the use of piers in the bed of the river should be avoided. The question of increased expense of construction or the compromise of conflicting interests should not outweigh the other important considerations involved.

I notice the bill provides that the companies availing themselves of its privileges shall receive no greater pay for transporting the mails across the bridge than is allowed per mile to railroads using the same. If this is intended, as the language seems to import, to authorize this bridge company to charge the United States Government a toll for the carriage of its mails across the bridge equal to the amount which may be paid per mile by the Government for carrying the mails by railroads crossing the bridge, it seems to me it should not be allowed. The expense to the Government for carrying the mails over the structure should beyond any doubt be limited to the compensation paid the railroads for transportation.

An exceedingly important objection to the bill remains to be considered. In 1890 the North River Bridge Company was incorporated by an act of Congress for the purpose of constructing a bridge across the North River, the New York terminus of which was located at or near Twenty-third street in the city of New York. The proposition to construct the bridge at that point was a subject very carefully and thoroughly examined at that time and during the agitation of the project for a number of years prior to the passage of the act. As a result of such examination and much discussion, Congress granted permission to this company to construct a bridge having a single span and suspended from towers on each side of the river, and in the act especially prohibited the placing of any piers in the river, either of a temporary or of a permanent character, in connection with said bridge. This plan to bridge the river without piers was at that time considered feasible by the engineers of the company, and it accepted the terms of the act. Before this permission was finally granted a number of bills were introduced in the Congress covering the same subject, which were referred to Government engineers. Reports were made by these officers in every case insisting upon a construction with a single span and without piers in the bed of the river.

The eighth subdivision of the bill herewith returned provides that any company heretofore created for the purpose of bridging the river may avail itself of the provisions of the act, and makes such company subject to all its provisions. This, of course, has reference to the North River Bridge Company and releases that company from the prohibition of the act under which it was permitted to span the river and permits it to construct piers in the river. It seems to me that the language of the bill under consideration, so far as it relates to this particular feature, is equivalent to a new grant to that company, differing very materially from the grant which was thought expedient at the time it was before the Congress, and removes the guaranty that in the construction of its bridge there shall be no obstructions in the river such as were especially guarded against by the bill originally passed for its benefit. In effect a new charter is granted to a company not named in the bill, and with no apparent reason for the important enlargement of its privileges thus accomplished. It is entirely apparent that the reasons against obstructions in the North River which might interfere with commerce and navigation and the beneficial use of the harbor of New York are immensely strengthened when they are applied to a location in the river far below the location of the bridge which is permitted in the bill now before me.

Whatever question there may be about the injurious character of the obstruction at Sixty-sixth street in New York City, I believe there can be no doubt whatever that piers placed in the river more than 2 miles below, at Twenty-third street, would be very serious impediments. If this thoroughfare, so important to the commerce of the country and the State of New York, is to be crossed by bridges, each scheme for that purpose should be considered by itself and its merits and advisability determined by the circumstances which naturally belong to it. The objection to piers in the river for the purpose of supporting bridges is in any event so serious that the considerations which would determine the question of a bridge located at Sixty-sixth street ought not in such an indirect manner as is done by this bill be applied to a like structure at Twenty-third street.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 29, 1894.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without my approval House bill No. 4956, entitled "An act directing the coinage of the silver bullion held in the Treasury, and for other purposes."

My strong desire to avoid disagreement with those in both Houses of Congress who have supported this bill would lead me to approve it if I could believe that the public good would not be thereby endangered and that such action on my part would be a proper discharge of official duty. Inasmuch, however, as I am unable to satisfy myself that the proposed legislation is either wise or opportune, my conception of the obligations and responsibilities attached to the great office I hold forbids the indulgence of my personal desire and inexorably confines me to that course which is dictated by my reason and judgment and pointed out by a sincere purpose to protect and promote the general interests of our people.

The financial disturbance which swept over the country during the last year was unparalleled in its severity and disastrous consequences. There seemed to be almost an entire displacement of faith in our financial ability and a loss of confidence in our fiscal policy. Among those who attempted to assign causes for our distress it was very generally conceded that the operation of a provision of law then in force which required the Government to purchase monthly a large amount of silver bullion and issue its notes in payment therefor was either entirely or to a large extent responsible for our condition. This led to the repeal on the 1st day of November, 1893, of this statutory provision.

We had, however, fallen so low in the depths of depression and timidity and apprehension had so completely gained control in financial circles that our rapid recuperation could not be reasonably expected. Our recovery has, nevertheless, steadily progressed, and though less than five months have elapsed since the repeal of the mischievous silver-purchase requirement a wholesome improvement is unmistakably apparent. Confidence in our absolute solvency is to such an extent reinstated and faith in our disposition to adhere to sound financial methods is so far restored as to produce the most encouraging results both at home and abroad. The wheels of domestic industry have been slowly set in motion and the tide of foreign investment has again started in our direction.

Our recovery being so well under way, nothing should be done to check our convalescence; nor should we forget that a relapse at this time would almost surely reduce us to a lower stage of financial distress than that from which we are just emerging.

I believe that if the bill under consideration should become a law it would be regarded as a retrogression from the financial intentions indicated by our recent repeal of the provision forcing silver-bullion purchases; that it would weaken, if it did not destroy, returning faith and confidence in our sound financial tendencies, and that as a consequence our progress to renewed business health would be unfortunately checked and a return to our recent distressing plight seriously threatened.

This proposed legislation is so related to the currency conditions growing out of the law compelling the purchase of silver by the Government that a glance at such conditions and a partial review of the law referred to may not be unprofitable.

Between the 14th day of August, 1890, when the law became operative, and the 1st day of November, 1893, when the clause it contained directing the purchase of silver was repealed, there were purchased by the Secretary of the Treasury more than 168,000,000 ounces of silver bullion. In payment for this bullion the Government issued its Treasury notes, of various denominations, amounting to nearly $156,000,000, which notes were immediately added to the currency in circulation among our people. Such notes were by the law made legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, except when otherwise expressly stipulated, and were made receivable for customs, taxes, and all public dues, and when so received might be reissued. They were also permitted to be held by banking associations as a part of their lawful reserves.

On the demand of the holders these Treasury notes were to be redeemed in gold or silver coin, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury; but it was declared as a part of this redemption provision that it was "the established policy of the United States to maintain the two metals on a parity with each other upon the present legal ratio or such ratio as may be provided by law." The money coined from such bullion was to be standard silver dollars, and after directing the immediate coinage of a little less than 28,000,000 ounces the law provided that as much of the remaining bullion should be thereafter coined as might be necessary to provide for the redemption of the Treasury notes issued on its purchase, and that "any gain or seigniorage arising from such coinage shall be accounted for and paid into the Treasury."

This gain or seigniorage evidently indicates so much of the bullion owned by the Government as should remain after using a sufficient amount to coin as many standard silver dollars as should equal in number the dollars represented by the Treasury notes issued in payment of the entire quantity of bullion. These Treasury notes now outstanding and in circulation amount to $152,951,280, and although there has been thus far but a comparatively small amount of this bullion coined, yet the so-called gain or seigniorage, as above defined, which would arise from the coinage of the entire mass has been easily ascertained to be a quantity of bullion sufficient to make when coined 55,156,681 standard silver dollars.

Considering the present intrinsic relation between gold and silver, the maintenance of the parity between the two metals, as mentioned in this law, can mean nothing less than the maintenance of such a parity in the estimation and confidence of the people who use our money in their daily transactions. Manifestly the maintenance of this parity can only be accomplished, so far as it is affected by these Treasury notes and in the estimation of the holders of the same, by giving to such holders on their redemption the coin, whether it is gold or silver, which they prefer. It follows that while in terms the law leaves the choice of coin to be paid on such redemption to the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, the exercise of this discretion, if opposed to the demands of the holder, is entirely inconsistent with the effective and beneficial maintenance of the parity between the two metals.

If both gold and silver are to serve us as money and if they together are to supply to our people a safe and stable currency, the necessity of preserving this parity is obvious. Such necessity has been repeatedly conceded in the platforms of both political parties and in our Federal statutes. It is nowhere more emphatically recognized than in the recent law which repealed the provision under which the bullion now on hand was purchased. This law insists upon the "maintenance of the parity in value of the coins of the two metals and the equal power of every dollar at all times in the markets and in the payment of debts."

The Secretary of the Treasury has therefore, for the best of reasons, not only promptly complied with every demand for the redemption of these Treasury notes in gold, but the present situation as well as the letter and spirit of the law appear plainly to justify, if they do not enjoin upon him, a continuation of such redemption.

The conditions I have endeavored to present may be thus summarized:

First. The Government has purchased and now has on hand sufficient silver bullion to permit the coinage of all the silver dollars necessary to redeem in such dollars the Treasury notes issued for the purchase of said silver bullion, and enough besides to coin, as gain or seigniorage, 55,156,681 additional standard silver dollars.

Second. There are outstanding and now in circulation Treasury notes issued in payment of the bullion purchased amounting to $152,951,280. These notes are legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, except when otherwise expressly stipulated; they are receivable for customs, taxes, and all public dues; when held by banking associations they may be counted as part of their lawful reserves, and they are redeemed by the Government in gold at the option of the holders. These advantageous attributes were deliberately attached to these notes at the time of their issue. They are fully understood by our people to whom such notes have been distributed as currency, and have inspired confidence in their safety and value, and have undoubtedly thus induced their continued and contented use as money, instead of anxiety for their redemption.

Having referred to some incidents which I deem relevant to the subject, it remains for me to submit a specific statement of my objections to the bill now under consideration.

This bill consists of two sections, excluding one which merely appropriates a sum sufficient to carry the act into effect. The first section provides for the immediate coinage of the silver bullion in the Treasury which represents the so-called gain or seigniorage, or which would arise from the coinage of all the bullion on hand, which gain or seigniorage this section declares to be $55,156,681. It directs that the money so coined or the certificates issued thereon shall be used in the payment of public expenditures, and provides that if the needs of the Treasury demand it the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, issue silver certificates in excess of such coinage, not exceeding the amount of seigniorage in said section authorized to be coined.

The second section directs that as soon as possible after the coinage of this seigniorage the remainder of the bullion held by the Government shall be coined into legal-tender standard silver dollars, and that they shall be held in the Treasury for the redemption of the Treasury notes issued in the purchase of said bullion. It provides that as fast as the bullion shall be coined for the redemption of said notes they shall not be reissued, but shall be canceled and destroyed in amounts equal to the coin held at any time in the Treasury derived from the coinage provided for, and that silver certificates shall be issued on such coin in the manner now provided by law. It is, however, especially declared in said section that the act shall not be construed to change existing laws relating to the legal-tender character or mode of redemption of the Treasury notes issued for the purchase of the silver bullion to be coined.

The entire bill is most unfortunately constructed. Nearly every sentence presents uncertainty and invites controversy as to its meaning and intent. The first section is especially faulty in this respect, and it is extremely doubtful whether its language will permit the consummation of its supposed purposes. I am led to believe that the promoters of the bill intended in this section to provide for the coinage of the bullion constituting the gain or seigniorage, as it is called, into standard silver dollars, and yet there is positively nothing in the section to prevent its coinage into any description of silver coins now authorized under any existing law.

I suppose this section was also intended, in case the needs of the Treasury called for money faster than the seigniorage bullion could actually be coined, to permit the issue of silver certificates in advance of such coinage; but its language would seem to permit the issuance of such certificates to double the amount of seigniorage as stated, one-half of which would not represent an ounce of silver in the Treasury. The debate upon this section in the Congress developed an earnest and positive difference of opinion as to its object and meaning. In any event, I am clear that the present perplexities and embarrassments of the Secretary of the Treasury ought not to be augmented by devolving upon him the execution of a law so uncertain and confused.

I am not willing, however, to rest my objection to this section solely on these grounds. In my judgment sound finance does not commend a further infusion of silver into our currency at this time unaccompanied by further adequate provision for the maintenance in our Treasury of a safe gold reserve.

Doubts also arise as to the meaning and construction of the second section of the bill. If the silver dollars therein directed to be coined are, as the section provides, to be held in the Treasury for the redemption of Treasury notes, it is suggested that, strictly speaking, certificates can not be issued on such coin "in the manner now provided by law," because these dollars are money held in the Treasury for the express purpose of redeeming Treasury notes on demand, which would ordinarily mean that they were set apart for the purpose of substituting them for these Treasury notes. They are not, therefore, held in such a way as to furnish a basis for certificates according to any provision of existing law.

If however, silver certificates can properly be issued upon these dollars, there is nothing in the section to indicate the characteristics and functions of these certificates. If they were to be of the same character as silver certificates in circulation under existing laws, they would at best be receivable only for customs, taxes, and all public dues; and under the language of this section it is, to say the least, extremely doubtful whether the certificates it contemplates would be lawfully received even for such purposes.

Whatever else may be said of the uncertainties of expression in this bill, they certainly ought not to be found in legislation affecting subjects so important and far-reaching as our finances and currency. In stating other and more important reasons for my disapproval of this section I shall, however, assume that under its provisions the Treasury notes issued in payment for silver bullion will continue to be redeemed as heretofore, in silver or gold, at the option of the holders, and that if when they are presented for redemption or reach the Treasury in any other manner there are in the Treasury coined silver dollars equal in nominal value to such Treasury notes, then and in that case the notes will be destroyed and silver certificates to an equal amount be substituted.

I am convinced that this scheme is ill advised and dangerous. As an ultimate result of its operation Treasury notes, which are legal tender for all debts, public and private, and which are redeemable in gold or silver at the option of the holder, will be replaced by silver certificates, which, whatever may be their character and description, will have none of these qualities. In anticipation of this result and as an immediate effect the Treasury notes will naturally appreciate in value and desirability. The fact that gold can be realized upon them and the further fact that their destruction has been decreed when they reach the Treasury must tend to their withdrawal from general circulation to be immediately presented for gold redemption or to be hoarded for presentation at a more convenient season. The sequel of both operations will be a large addition to the silver currency in our circulation and a corresponding reduction of gold in the Treasury. The argument has been made that these things will not occur at once, because a long time must elapse before the coinage of anything but the seigniorage can be entered upon. If the physical effects of the execution of the second section of this bill are not to be realized until far in the future, this may furnish a strong reason why it should not be passed so much in advance; but the postponement of its actual operation can not prevent the fear and loss of confidence and nervous precaution which would immediately follow its passage and bring about its worst consequences. I regard this section of the bill as embodying a plan by which the Government will be obliged to pay out its scanty store of gold for no other purpose than to force an unnatural addition of silver money into the hands of our people. This is an exact reversal of the policy which safe finance dictates if we are to preserve parity between gold and silver and maintain sensible bimetallism.

We have now outstanding more than $338,000,000 in silver certificates issued under existing laws. They are serving the purpose of money usefully and without question. Our gold reserve, amounting to only a little more than $100,000,000, is directly charged with the redemption of $346,000,000 of United States notes. When it is proposed to inflate our silver currency it is a time for strengthening our gold reserve instead of depleting it. I can not conceive of a longer step toward silver monometallism than we take when we spend our gold to buy silver certificates for circulation, especially in view of the practical difficulties surrounding the replenishment of our gold.

This leads me to earnestly present the desirability of granting to the Secretary of the Treasury a better power than now exists to issue bonds to protect our gold reserve when for any reason it should be necessary. Our currency is in such a confused condition and our financial affairs are apt to assume at any time so critical a position that it seems to me such a course is dictated by ordinary prudence.

I am not insensible to the arguments in favor of coining the bullion seigniorage now in the Treasury, and I believe it could be done safely and with advantage if the Secretary of the Treasury had the power to issue bonds at a low rate of interest under authority in substitution of that now existing and better suited to the protection of the Treasury.

I hope a way will present itself in the near future for the adjustment of our monetary affairs in such a comprehensive and conservative manner as will accord to silver its proper place in our currency; but in the meantime I am extremely solicitous that whatever action we take on this subject may be such as to prevent loss and discouragement to our people at home and the destruction of confidence in our financial management abroad.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 7, 1894.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 2637, entitled "An act for the relief of Eugene Wells, late captain, Twelfth Infantry, and second lieutenant, First Artillery, United States Army."

This bill authorizes the President to nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint the beneficiary therein named a second lieutenant of artillery in the Army of the United States, and it directs that when so appointed he shall be placed upon the retired list on account of disability, thus dispensing with the usual examination and finding by a retiring board and all other ordinary prerequisites of retirement.

Appointments to the Army under the authority of special legislation which names the proposed appointee, and the purpose of which is the immediate retirement of the appointee, are open to serious objections, though I confess I have been persuaded through sympathy and sentiment on a number of occasions to approve such legislation. When, however, it is proposed to make the retirement compulsory and without reference to age or previous examination, a most objectionable feature is introduced.

The cases covered by the special enactments referred to are usually such as should, if worthy of any consideration, be provided for under general or private pension laws, leaving the retired list of the Army to serve the legitimate purpose for which it was established.

A recent discussion in the House of Representatives upon a bill similar to the one now before me drew from a member of the House Committee on Military Affairs the declaration that hundreds of such bills were before that committee and that there were fifty precedents for the passage of the particular one then under discussion.

It seems to me that this condition suggests such an encroachment upon the retired list of the Army as should lead to the virtual abandonment of the legislation referred to.

In addition to the objections to such legislation based upon sound policy and good administration, there are facts connected with the case covered by the bill now before me which, in my judgment, forbid its favorable consideration.

The beneficiary named in this bill entered the military service as first lieutenant in 1861. In September or October, 1870, then being a captain, a charge of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman was preferred against him with a view to his trial on said charge before a court-martial.

The Articles of War provide that any officer convicted of this offense shall be dismissed the service.

The first specification under this charge alleged that Captain Wells did violently and without just cause or provocation assault First Lieutenant P.H. Breslin "by furiously striking and hitting him (Lieutenant Breslin) upon the head with a hickory stick, the butt end of a billiard cue, and did continue the assault (upon Lieutenant Breslin) until forced to desist therefrom by First Lieutenant Carl Veitenhimer, Fourth United States Infantry, thereby endangering the life of Lieutenant Breslin and disgracing himself (Captain Wells) as an officer of the United States Army."

The second specification alleged that Captain Wells "did become so much under the influence of intoxicating liquor as to behave himself in a scandalous manner by violently attacking the person of First Lieutenant P.H. Breslin, Fourth United States Infantry."

These offenses were charged to have been committed on the 3d day of September, 1870, at Fort Fetterman, in Wyoming Territory.

On the 15th day of July, 1870, a law was passed, among other things, to bring about a reduction of the Army, which law provided that the President should before the 1st day of July, 1871, reduce the number of enlisted men in the Army to 30,000, and authorized him in his discretion to honorably discharge from the service of the United States officers of the Army who might apply therefor on or before January 1, 1871.

Before the trial by court-martial upon the charge then pending against him Captain Wells applied for his discharge under the provision of the law above recited, whereupon the charge against him was withdrawn and canceled, and on the 27th day of October, 1870, his application for a discharge was granted.

On the 6th day of July, 1875, he was again appointed to the Army as second lieutenant in the artillery, against which a remonstrance was made by certain officers in the Army.

In August, 1877, Second Lieutenant Wells was charged with being "drunk on duty, in violation of the thirty-eighth article of war."

He was also charged with "conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline."

The first specification under the latter charge alleged that the accused did "engage in an affray with First Lieutenant E. Van A. Andruss, First Artillery." The second specification under said charge alleged that the accused addressed his superior officer in a defiant and disrespectful manner and neglected and hesitated to promptly obey the order of said superior officer.

All these offenses were alleged to have been committed at Reading, Pa., on the 2d day of August, 1877.

Soon after these charges were preferred a court-martial was convened for the trial of the accused thereon. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and specifications, but was convicted of them all and sentenced "to be dismissed the service of the United States."

On the 6th day of October the proceedings, findings, and sentence of the court-martial were approved by the President, who ordered the sentence to be executed; and on the 13th day of October, 1877, in pursuance thereof, Lieutenant Eugene Wells was dismissed from the service.

Since that time repeated efforts have been made to vacate this judgment and restore the dismissed officer to the service. While a number of committees in Congress have made reports favorable to such action, at least two committees have recommended a denial of legislative relief. Both of these reports were made on behalf of House Committees on Military Affairs by distinguished soldiers, who, after patient examination and with an inclination to be not only just but generous to a fellow-soldier, were constrained to recommend a refusal of the application for restoration. One of these reports was made to the Forty-seventh and the other to the Forty-ninth Congress.

I am impressed with the belief that legislation of the kind proposed is of extremely doubtful expediency in any save very exceptional cases, and I am thoroughly convinced by the facts now before me that the discipline and efficiency of our Army, as well as justice to its meritorious members, do not permit my approval on any ground of the bill herewith returned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 11, 1894.

To the Senate:

I hereby return without my approval Senate bill No. 1438, entitled "An act for the relief of Louis A. Yorke."

In the year 1886 the beneficiary named in this bill was a passed assistant paymaster in the Navy. In December of that year he appeared before a naval examining board convened pursuant to law for the purpose of passing upon his fitness to be promoted to the grade of paymaster.

The investigation of the board was conducted fairly and thoroughly. Much of the evidence relating to the candidate's moral fitness for promotion was documentary, and the examination touching his professional competency was of the usual character in such cases.

Considerable evidence was before the board showing quite a large amount of personal indebtedness owing by the candidate, and it appeared that in a few instances his accounts with the Navy Department had not been promptly settled. It was also shown that he had not at all times deposited the Government money intrusted to his care in the places required by law and the regulations of the Navy. In connection with his personal indebtedness incidents and circumstances were brought to light which certainly indicated that he entertained very lax ideas of honest dealing and fairness and which developed a disregard of the obligations and requirements of his position as an officer in the Navy. He was given abundant opportunity to meet and explain every damaging allegation and every adverse inference arising from the evidence, and his claim, not without foundation it appeared, that the charges against him were instigated by malice was doubtless given full weight.

The examining board on the evidence made the following decisions and findings:

The written examination of the candidate shows that he is deficient in his knowledge of the duties appertaining to the next higher grade; and the record evidence puts in question his moral fitness, and he has failed to establish both his professional and moral qualifications for promotion to the satisfaction of the board.

Therefore we hereby certify that Passed Assistant Paymaster Louis A. Yorke, United States Navy, has the mental fitness to perform efficiently all the duties, both at sea and on shore, of the next higher grade, but he has not the professional and moral qualifications required, and we do not recommend him for promotion.

After the board had thus disposed of the case and had adjourned it was, at the request of the candidate, reconvened by order of the Secretary of the Navy, who issued for its guidance the following directions, among others:

The board will inform Passed Assistant Paymaster Yorke of its findings and of the evidence upon which it finds him to be not morally qualified for promotion, and will afford him a further hearing and an opportunity to present such evidence as he may desire as to his moral fitness for promotion.

The board met pursuant to such order on the 4th day of January, 1887, when the findings of the board were read to the candidate for promotion, and also the evidence upon which said findings were based, and he was informed that the board would accord him a further hearing as to his moral fitness for promotion and would afford him a reasonable time in which to submit his case. Thereupon he requested the board to allow him until the 26th day of January to produce the necessary witnesses in his behalf. This request was granted, but on the day appointed, upon his representation that he was then unable to submit his defense, he was upon his request allowed another day for that purpose.

In availing himself of the opportunity thus afforded him to present evidence in defense or explanation of the matters charged against him he examined no witnesses and contented himself with presenting his own statement, containing little more than a reiteration of statements he had already made before the board at previous hearings, supplemented by slight documentary evidence which established no new facts in his favor.

The board thereupon reviewed all the evidence and proofs which had been submitted during the entire examination, and after full consideration decided that there was nothing in the additional evidence produced to warrant a modification of the original finding, and the board therefore again certified and decided that the candidate had not the moral qualifications to perform efficiently the duties of the grade to which he sought promotion.

The Secretary of the Navy transmitted the record, proceedings, and findings of said examining board to the President, with a recommendation that the same be approved and that the candidate be discharged from the Navy with one year's pay, pursuant to a statute passed on the 5th day of August, 1882, directing a discharge from the service in such cases.

Thereupon, and on the 19th day of February, 1887, the record, proceedings, and findings of said board were approved by the President, and Passed Assistant Paymaster Yorke was ordered discharged from the naval service with one year's pay.

The bill now under consideration provides that the action of the examining board above recited "be set aside and declared null and void." It also authorizes the President "to appoint the beneficiary to the office to which he would have been promoted but for said action and to retire him in that grade as of the date he was wholly retired."

The authority attempted by the bill to be given to the President to thus make an appointment to the office of paymaster in the Navy without the interposition of the Senate appears to be inadmissible under that clause of the Constitution which only permits the President to appoint certain officers "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."

The bill provides for the immediate retirement of the beneficiary. He is now but 47 years old, thus lacking fifteen years of the time when he would be entitled to retirement on account of age. There is no suggestion that he is physically incapacitated. On the contrary, when he was examined for promotion a medical board certified that he was physically qualified to perform all his duties at sea, and the candidate himself not only certified to the same thing, but further declared that he was "free from all bodily ailments." If this condition continues and if he should be restored to the Navy at all, he should be sent to duty on the active list instead of being retired. On the facts as presented he would seem to be out of place among those who, though still compensated by the Government, have been on account of age, long and honorable service, or disabilities incurred in the discharge of duty relieved from further activity.

A careful investigation of the facts submitted to the examining board and a consideration of all the statements made on behalf of the beneficiary named in the bill utterly fail, in my opinion, to justify the impeachment of the findings and determination of the board.

I have no doubt malicious feeling growing out of domestic difficulties entered into the affair and gave impetus to the search after inculpating evidence, but facts were nevertheless established beyond any reasonable doubt which abundantly uphold these findings.

I feel obliged to disapprove the bill herewith returned because I believe the power to appoint a paymaster in the Navy ought not, under the Constitution, be conferred upon the President alone; because if the beneficiary were restored to the Navy there would be no justice or propriety in placing him upon the retired list, and because upon the merits of the case I am of the opinion the judgment of the examining board ought not to be reversed.

GROVER CLEVELAND.