VETO MESSAGES.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 28, 1896.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without my approval House bill No. 2769, entitled "An act to authorize the leasing of lands for educational purposes in Arizona."
This bill provides for the leasing of all the public lands reserved to the Territory of Arizona for the benefit of its universities and schools, "under such laws and regulations as may be hereafter prescribed by the legislature of said Territory."
If the proposed legislation granted no further authority than this, it would, in terms at least, recognize the safety and propriety of leaving the desirability of leasing these lands and the limitations and safeguards regulating such leasing to be determined by the local legislature chosen by the people to make their laws and protect their interests.
Instead of stopping here, however, the bill further provides that until such legislative action the governor, the secretary of the Territory, and the superintendent of public instruction shall constitute a board for the leasing of said lands under the rules and regulations heretofore prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. It is specifically declared that it shall not be necessary to submit said leases to the Secretary of the Interior for approval, and that no leases shall be made for a longer term than five years nor for a term extending beyond the date of the admission of the Territory to statehood.
Under these provisions the lands reserved for university and school purposes, whose value largely depends upon their standing timber, and in which every citizen of the Territory has a deep interest, may be leased and denuded of their timber by officers none of whom have been chosen by the people, and without the sanction of any law or regulation made by their representatives in the local legislature. Even the measure of protection which would be afforded the citizens of the Territory by a submission to the Secretary of the Interior of the leases proposed, and thus giving him an opportunity to ascertain whether or not they comply with his regulations, is especially withheld.
It was hardly necessary to provide in this bill that these lands might be leased "under such laws and regulations as may be hereafter prescribed by the legislature of said Territory" if the action of the legislature was to be forestalled and rendered nugatory by the immediate and unrestrained action of the officers constituted "a board for the leasing of said lands" pending such legislative consideration. These are inconsistencies which are not satisfactorily accounted for by the suggestion that the time that would elapse before the legislature could consider the subject would be important.
The protests I have received from numerous and influential citizens of the Territory indicate considerable opposition to this bill among those interested in the preservation and proper management of these school lands.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 21, 1896.
To the Senate:
I herewith return without my approval Senate bill No. 894, entitled "An act granting a pension to Nancy G. Allabach."
This bill provides for the payment of a pension of $30 a month to the beneficiary named as the widow of Peter H. Allabach.
This soldier served for nine months in the Army during the War of the Rebellion, having also served in the war with Mexico.
He was mustered out of his last service on the 23d day of May, 1863, and died on the 11th of February, 1892.
During his life he made no application for pension on account of disabilities. It is not now claimed that he was in the least disabled as an incident of his military service, nor is it alleged that his death, which occurred nearly twenty-nine years after his discharge from the Army, was in any degree related to such service.
His widow was pensioned after his death under the statute allowing pensions to widows of soldiers of the Mexican War without reference to the cause of the death of their husbands. Her case is also, indirectly, one of those provided for by the general act passed in 1890, commonly called the dependent-pension law.
It is proposed, however, by the special act under consideration to give this widow a pension of $30 a month without the least suggestion of the death or disability of her husband having been caused by his military service, and solely, as far as is discoverable, upon the ground that she is poor and needs the money.
This condition is precisely covered by existing general laws; and if a precedent is to be established by the special legislation proposed, I do not see how the same relief as is contained in this bill can be denied to the many thousand widows who in a similar situation are now on the pension rolls under general laws.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 21, 1896.
To the Senate:
I return herewith without my approval Senate bill No. 249, entitled "An act granting a pension to Charles E. Jones."
The beneficiary named in this bill was a photographer who accompanied one of the regiments of the Union Army in the War of the Rebellion. He was injured, apparently not very seriously, while taking photographs and when no battle was in actual progress. He was not enlisted, and was in no manner in the military service of the United States.
Aside from the question as to whether his present sad condition is attributable to the injury mentioned, it seems to me the extension of pension relief to such cases would open the door to legislation hard to justify and impossible to restrain from abuse.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 25, 1896.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without my approval House bill No. 1094, entitled "An act granting a pension to Francis E. Hoover."
It is proposed by this bill to grant a pension of $50 a month to the beneficiary named, who served as a private for about one year and nine months in the Union Army during the War of the Rebellion.
I do not understand it is claimed in any quarter that the present helpless condition of this soldier is at all attributable to his army service.
He himself never applied for a pension until after the passage of the law of 1890, providing for a pension for those who had served in the Army and are unable to maintain themselves by manual labor on account of disability not chargeable to army service. The committee of the House of Representatives in reporting this bill declare: "The testimony does not show the disease of the soldier to be of service origin."
The beneficiary is now receiving the largest pension permitted under the law of 1890.
His condition may well excite our sympathy, but to grant him a pension of $50 a month without the least suggestion that his pitiable disability is related to his army service, and in view of the fact that he is now receiving the highest pension allowed by a general law enacted to expressly meet such cases, it seems to me would result in an unfair discrimination as against many thousand worthy soldiers similarly situated, and would invite applications which, while difficult to refuse in the face of such a precedent, must certainly lead to the breaking down of all the limitations and restrictions provided by our laws regulating pensions.
The value of pension legislation depends as much upon fairness and justice in its administration as it does upon its liberality and generosity.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1896.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 1139, entitled "An act granting a pension to Caroline D. Mowatt."
The beneficiary mentioned in this bill was married in 1858 to Alfred B. Soule, who served as major of a Maine regiment of volunteers in the War of the Rebellion from September 10, 1862, to July 15, 1863, when he was mustered out of the service. He died in February, 1864, and in 1866 a pension was granted to the beneficiary as his widow at the rate of $25 a month, dating from the time of her husband's death, two years before.
The widow continued to receive the pension allowed her until June 17, 1869, when She was married to Henry T. Mowatt, which under the law terminated her pensionable right. It appears, however, that a small pension was allowed two minor children of the soldier at the time of their mother's remarriage, which continued until 1876, more than seven years after such remarriage, when the youngest of said children became 16 years of age.
In 1878, nine years after he became the second husband of the beneficiary, Henry T. Mowatt died.
Though twenty-seven years have passed since the beneficiary ceased to be the widow of the deceased soldier, and though she has been the widow of Henry T. Mowatt for eighteen years, it is proposed by the bill under consideration to again place her name upon the pension roll "as widow of Alfred B. Soule, late major of the Twenty-third Regiment Maine Volunteers."
Of course the propriety of the law which terminates the pension of a soldier's widow upon her remarriage will not be questioned. I suppose no one would suggest the renewal of such pension during the lifetime of her second husband. Her pensionable relation to the Government as the widow of her deceased soldier husband, under any reasonable pension theory, absolutely terminated with her remarriage.
If she is to be again pensioned because her second husband does not survive her, the transaction has more the complexion of an adjustment of a governmental insurance on the life of the second husband than the allowance of a pension on just and reasonable grounds.
Legislation of this description is sure to establish a precedent which it will be difficult to disclaim, and which if followed can not fail to lead to abuse.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 20, 1896.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 577, entitled "An act granting a pension to Lydia A. Taft."
In 1858 the beneficiary named in this bill became the wife of Lowell Taft, who afterwards enlisted in the Union Army as a private in a Connecticut regiment and served from August, 1862, until June, 1865. The records of the War Department show that he was captured by the enemy June 15, 1863, and paroled July 14, 1863.
No application for a pension was ever made by him, though he lived until 1891, when he died at a soldiers' home in Connecticut.
No suggestion is made that he incurred any disability in the service or that his death was in any manner related to such service.
In 1882, nearly twenty-four years after her marriage to the soldier and seventeen years after his discharge from the Army, the beneficiary obtained a divorce from him upon the grounds of habitual drunkenness and failure to afford her a support.
It is now proposed, five years after the soldier's death, to pension as his widow the wife who was divorced from him at her own instance fourteen years ago.
A government's generous care for widows deprived of a husband's support and companionship by the casualties or disabilities of war rests upon grounds which all must cheerfully approve; but it is difficult to place upon these grounds the case of this proposed beneficiary, who has renounced a wife's relation, with all its duties and all its rights, and who by her own act placed herself beyond the possibility of becoming the widow of her soldier husband.
If, as stated in the report of the House committee on this bill, the beneficiary for some reason contributed something toward the soldier's support after her divorce and paid the expense of his burial, the fact still remains that this soldier died in a soldiers' home wifeless and leaving no one surviving who, claiming to be his widow, should be allowed to profit by his death.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 21, 1896.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 1185, entitled "An act granting a pension to Rachel Patton."
John H. Patton, the husband of the beneficiary, was a captain in an Illinois regiment, and was killed in action June 25, 1863.
In December, 1863, the beneficiary was pensioned as his widow at the rate of $20 a month.
She received this pension for thirteen years and until 1876, when she married one William G. Culbertson. Thereupon, because of such marriage, her name was dropped from the pension rolls, pursuant to law.
In 1889, thirteen years after her remarriage and the termination of her pension, she procured a decree of divorce against her second husband on the ground of desertion.
She has a small income, but it does not appear that alimony was allowed her in the divorce proceedings.
It is proposed by this bill to pension her at the same rate which was allowed her while she remained the widow of the deceased soldier.
It can not be denied that the remarriage of this beneficiary terminated her pensionable relation to the Government as completely as if it never existed. The statute which so provides simply declares what is approved by a fair and sensible consideration of pension principles. As a legal proposition, the pensionable status of a soldier's widow, lost by her remarriage, can not be recovered by the dissolution of the second marriage. Waiving, however, the application of strictly legal principles to the subject, there does not appear to be any sentiment which should restore to the pension rolls as the widow of a deceased soldier a divorced wife who has relinquished the title of soldier's widow to again become a wife, and who to secure the expected advantages and comforts of a second marriage has been quite willing to forego the provision which was made for her by the Government solely on the grounds of her soldier widowhood.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 23, 1896.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 4804, entitled "An act to amend subdivision 10 of section 2238 of the Revised Statutes of the United States."
The subdivision of the section of the law proposed to be amended by this bill has reference to the fees allowed receivers and registers at public-land offices. This subdivision now reads as follows:
Tenth. Registers and receivers are allowed jointly at the rate of 15 cents per hundred words for testimony reduced by them to writing for claimants in establishing preemption and homestead rights.
The bill under consideration so amends this subdivision that in the first clause a compensation of 10 cents per hundred words is allowed to the registers and receivers for reducing to writing the testimony of claimants "in all cases," instead of 15 cents per hundred words for reducing to writing testimony "in establishing preemption and homestead rights," as provided in the old law.
Whether this reduction of fees preserves an adequate and just compensation to the officers affected I suppose has been duly considered by the Congress.
The bill, however, after providing for this change in compensation, contains the following words:
And in all cases where they [the registers and receivers] can secure a competent person to reduce the testimony to writing for a sum less per folio than the sum herein prescribed it shall be their duty to do so.
By the addition of these words the bill seems to give certain fees by way of official compensation to the officers named for certain services to be performed by them and at the same time to provide that if they can secure other persons willing to perform these services for a less sum than the amount allowed to them they shall forego their fees in favor of such persons.
It is very important that the fees and perquisites of public officers should be definitely and clearly fixed, so that the official may know precisely the items of his lawful compensation and the people be protected from extortion and imposition.
A public officer ought not to be expected to search very industriously for a person to underbid him for official work, and if such a person appeared the temptation to combination and conspiracy would in many cases lead to abuse.
It will be observed that the officers are not given by this amendment the option to do this work themselves at 10 cents per folio or secure a competent person to do it at a less rate, nor, if they desire, are they allowed to compete with those willing to accept a less compensation. They may charge a fixed rate for the service if performed by them, but in any event if they can procure another party to perform the services for a less sum they must do so.
I am convinced that this bill in its present form, perhaps through unfortunate phraseology, if it became a law would lead to confusion and uncertainty and would invite practices against which the public service ought to be carefully guarded.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 26, 1896.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 7161, entitled "An act for the relief of Benjamin F. Jones."
This bill directs the payment to the beneficiary, late postmaster at Beauregard, Miss., or to his order, of the sum of $50, in full compensation for services and expenses in carrying and distributing the mails between Wesson and Beauregard, in the State of Mississippi, in 1883.
It appears from the report of the House committee recommending the passage of this bill that on April 22, 1883, while Mr. Jones was postmaster at Beauregard, a cyclone destroyed every building in the place, including that in which the post-office was kept; that in consequence of this disaster the mails for Beauregard were for a period of thirty-five days, and until May 27, 1883, deposited at Wesson, 1 mile distant; that during that time it became necessary to transport such mails from Wesson to Beauregard, and that the postmaster caused this to be done, at an expense of $97.
A report from the Postmaster-General discloses the fact that this claim was presented to the Department in 1884 and was rejected on the ground that if the service was performed as alleged it was not authorized or directed by the Department.
In 1885 a suit was instituted against this postmaster and his sureties for a balance due the Government from him on his official accounts for the quarter ending June 30, 1883.
It will be observed that this quarter covered the period within which the alleged services were performed.
In the suit referred to a judgment was recovered by the Government against the postmaster for $190.45, being the balance found due from him. This judgment still remains unpaid.
In this condition of affairs it is quite plain that in fairness and justice no appropriation should be made in favor of the claimant.
It is the opinion of the Auditor of the Post-Office Department that even if this bill becomes a law payment of the money appropriated should be withheld under a section of the Revised Statutes which provides:
No money shall be paid to any person for his compensation who is in arrears to the United States until he has accounted for and paid into the Treasury all sums for which he may be liable.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 29, 1896.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 7977, entitled "An act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes."
There are 417 items of appropriation contained in this bill, and every part of the country is represented in the distribution of its favors.
It directly appropriates or provides for the immediate expenditure of nearly $14,000,000 for river and harbor work. This sum is in addition to appropriations contained in another bill for similar purposes amounting to a little more than $3,000,000, which have already been favorably considered at the present session of Congress.
The result is that the contemplated immediate expenditures for the objects mentioned amount to about $17,000,000.
A more startling feature of this bill is its authorization of contracts for river and harbor work amounting to more than $62,000,000. Though the payments on these contracts are in most cases so distributed that they are to be met by future appropriations, more than $3,000,000 on their account are included in the direct appropriations above mentioned. Of the remainder, nearly $20,000,000 will fall due during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1898, and amounts somewhat less in the years immediately succeeding. A few contracts of a like character authorized under previous statutes are still outstanding, and to meet payments on these more than $4,000,000 must be appropriated in the immediate future.
If, therefore, this bill becomes a law, the obligations which will be imposed on the Government, together with the appropriations made for immediate expenditure on account of rivers and harbors, will amount to about $80,000,000. Nor is this all. The bill directs numerous surveys and examinations which contemplate new work and further contracts and which portend largely increased expenditures and obligations.
There is no ground to hope that in the face of persistent and growing demands the aggregate of appropriations for the smaller schemes, not covered by contracts, will be reduced or even remain stationary. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1898, such appropriations, together with the installments on contracts which will fall due in that year, can hardly be less than $30,000,000; and it may reasonably be apprehended that the prevalent tendency toward increased expenditures of this sort and the concealment which postponed payments afford for extravagance will increase the burdens chargeable to this account in succeeding years.
In view of the obligation imposed upon me by the Constitution, it seems to me quite clear that I only discharge a duty to our people when I interpose my disapproval of the legislation proposed.
Many of the objects for which it appropriates public money are not related to the public welfare, and many of them are palpably for the benefit of limited localities or in aid of individual interests.
On the face of the bill it appears that not a few of these alleged improvements have been so improvidently planned and prosecuted that after an unwise expenditure of millions of dollars new experiments for their accomplishment have been entered upon.
While those intrusted with the management of public funds in the interest of all the people can hardly justify questionable expenditures for public work by pleading the opinions of engineers or others as to the practicability of such work, it appears that some of the projects for which appropriations are proposed in this bill have been entered upon without the approval or against the objections of the examining engineers.
I learn from official sources that there are appropriations contained in the bill to pay for work which private parties have actually agreed with the Government to do in consideration of their occupancy of public property.
Whatever items of doubtful propriety may have escaped observation or may have been tolerated in previous Executive approvals of similar bills, I am convinced that the bill now under consideration opens the way to insidious and increasing abuses and is in itself so extravagant as to be especially unsuited to these times of depressed business and resulting disappointment in Government revenue. This consideration is emphasized by the prospect that the public Treasury will be confronted with other appropriations made at the present session of Congress amounting to more than $500,000,000.
Individual economy and careful expenditure are sterling virtues which lead to thrift and comfort. Economy and the exaction of clear justification for the appropriation of public moneys by the servants of the people are not only virtues, but solemn obligations.
To the extent that the appropriations contained in this bill are instigated by private interests and promote local or individual projects their allowance can not fail to stimulate a vicious paternalism and encourage a sentiment among our people, already too prevalent, that their attachment to our Government may properly rest upon the hope and expectation of direct and especial favors and that the extent to which they are realized may furnish an estimate of the value of governmental care.
I believe no greater danger confronts us as a nation than the unhappy decadence among our people of genuine and trustworthy love and affection for our Government as the embodiment of the highest and best aspirations of humanity, and not as the giver of gifts, and because its mission is the enforcement of exact justice and equality, and not the allowance of unfair favoritism.
I hope I may be permitted to suggest, at a time when the issue of Government bonds to maintain the credit and financial standing of the country is a subject of criticism, that the contracts provided for in this bill would create obligations of the United States amounting to $62,000,000 no less binding than its bonds for that sum.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 29, 1896.
To the Senate:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 147, entitled "An act granting a pension to Elvira Bachelder."
This bill provides for a pension to the beneficiary as dependent mother of "J.K.P. Bachelder, late a private in Company D, Seventh New Hampshire Volunteer Infantry."
On the merits of the case I am satisfied this mother deserves a pension. I withhold my approval of the bill intended to grant her this relief solely because I am advised that the law would be inoperative for the reason that the deceased soldier never served in the Seventh New Hampshire Infantry, and should have been described in the bill as a member of Company D, First New Hampshire Heavy Artillery.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 29, 1896.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 900, entitled "An act to provide for the payment of the claim of William H. Mahoney."
This bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to receive and pay to W.H. Mahoney, without the indorsement of N.A. Rogers, a certain bond issued by the United States in 1861 for the sum of $500, such payment to be made upon the giving by said Mahoney of a bond to hold harmless the United States against repayment of said bond.
The bond mentioned is one of a large issue which was authorized under an act passed March 2, 1861, and known as Oregon war-debt bonds. They were made payable in 1881.
In 1864 an act was passed directing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue or cause to be issued to E.F. and Samuel A. Ward duplicates of nineteen of these bonds, particularly described by their numbers and otherwise. Among others are mentioned "Nos. 1352 to 1359, inclusive." This of course includes the bond numbered 1358, which is directed to be paid in the bill under consideration. Nothing can now be discovered to indicate the occasion for the issuance of these duplicates, but from the fact that a bond of indemnity was required it is inferred that they were issued because of the loss or destruction of the original bonds.
Pursuant to this act a duplicate of the bond in question, among others, was issued and made payable to the order of Thomas Pritchard, attorney, who was the payee in the original bond.
In 1881 this duplicate was paid by the Treasury Department and is now in possession of the Government. The indorsement of the payee, "Thomas Pritchard, attorney," appears thereon and all other proper indorsements to show title in the party to whom the payment was made.
The Government has therefore once paid the amount of this bond to the party apparently entitled to it. If the beneficiary named in this bill has a better right to the money, the Government, not being in default, should be protected against double payment. I suppose to sustain a claim upon the indemnity bond given when the duplicate was issued in 1864 we should be prepared to show that the second payment on the original bond was made upon such a state of facts as compelled or at least justified it. The passage of an act simply directing such payment would alone not be sufficient. The bond directed to be given by this bill would afford the Government no protection, since it only provides against repayment of the bond in the future, whereas the payment we should suffer from has already been made.
I suggest that an act be passed directing the Secretary of the Treasury to investigate the entire subject with a view of determining to whom this money should be paid, in a manner to bind, if possible, by the results of the examination the party to whom it has already been paid, and who should refund if another has a better right.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 30, 1896.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 6037, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Amanda Woodcock."
The bill provides for the granting of a pension to the beneficiary therein named, describing her as the "widow of Robert Woodcock, deceased, late a private in the Fourth United States Volunteer Infantry in the Mexican War."
My action in this case is based upon the following statement concerning the bill from the Pension Bureau:
The bill, if approved, would be inoperative, inasmuch as there was no such organization in the Mexican War as named in the bill (Fourth United States Volunteer Infantry), and the service alleged by the soldier having been in the Fourth Kentucky Volunteer Infantry.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 30, 1896.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 4526, entitled "An act granting a pension to Jonathan Scott."
This bill directs that the Secretary of the Interior place upon the pension roll, at the rate of $72 per month, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Jonathan Scott, late of Company M, Sixth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry.
The beneficiary was dropped from the pension roll in October, 1895, after a very thorough examination, for fraud, it appearing to the satisfaction of the Pension Bureau that the disability for which he was pensioned was not due to his army service. There certainly ought to be a strong presumption that the case was fairly and justly determined by the Bureau, and the evidence strongly tends to support the conclusion reached. If restored to the rolls, such restoration would still be "subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws," and he would not be exempt from further investigation if circumstances or newly developed facts justified such a course.
Whatever may be the merits of the case, however, I am advised by the Pension Bureau that the bill, if it becomes a law in its present form, would be inoperative for the reason that the beneficiary is therein described as having been a member of the Sixth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, whereas he actually served in the Fifth Regiment of the Volunteer Cavalry of that State.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 1, 1896.
To the Senate:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 149, entitled "An act granting a pension to Helen M. Jacob."
The purpose of this bill is to grant a pension of $12 per month to "Helen M. Jacob, of Rochester, Ind., widow of Benjamin Oden West."
It appears from the records of the War Department that Benjamin O. West served in the Mexican War from January to November in the year 1847. The beneficiary named in this bill was married to him in 1850, and he died in 1856. She was pensioned as his widow, and received such pension from the date of her husband's death until April 17, 1861. On that date she was married to William W. Jacob, whereupon her pension ceased, but two minor children were awarded pensions and continued in receipt of the same until January, 1873, when the youngest child became 16 years of age.
The entire absence of any fixed or reasonable principle or rule regulating private pension legislation at this time suggests the danger of its near approach in many cases to caprice and favoritism.
Though I have in a number of instances deferred to the judgment of Congress and refrained from interposing objections to bills of this character which seemed to me to be of doubtful merit, I am unwilling to follow such a wide departure from a palpably just pension theory and assent to the establishment of such an unfortunate precedent as this bill involves.
There is no duty or obligation due from the Government to a soldier's widow except it be worked out through the deceased soldier. She is pensioned only because he served his country and because through his death she as his wife has lost his support. In other words, she becomes a beneficiary of the Government because she is a soldier's widow. When she marries again, and thus displaces the memory of her soldier husband and surrenders all that belongs to soldier widowhood, she certainly ought not on the death of her second husband to be allowed to claim that she is again the soldier's widow.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 6, 1896.
To the House of Representatives:
I hereby return without my approval House bill No. 8293, entitled "An act making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1896, and for prior years, and for other purposes."
To the extent that the Constitution has devolved upon the President a participation in legislation I suppose his action on bills presented to him for approval involves a duty to be performed, like others pertaining to his office, with care and circumspection and in full view of his responsibility to the people and his obligation to subserve the public welfare. It is difficult to understand why under the Constitution it should be necessary to submit proposed legislation to Executive scrutiny and approval except to invoke the exercise of Executive judgment and invite independent Executive action.
The unpleasant incidents which accompany the use of the veto power would tempt its avoidance if such a course did not involve an abandonment of constitutional duty and an assent to legislation for which the Executive is not willing to share the responsibility.
I regret that I am constrained to disapprove an important appropriation bill so near the close of the present session of Congress. I have, however, by immediate action after the receipt of the bill, endeavored to delay as little as possible a reconsideration of this proposed legislation, though I am thus obliged to content myself with a less complete explanation of my objections than would otherwise be submitted.
This bill is in many of its features far removed from a legitimate deficiency bill, and it contains a number of appropriations which seem to me to be exceedingly questionable. Without noticing in detail many of these items, I shall refer to two of them which, in my judgment, justify my action in the premises.
The bill appropriates $1,027,314.09 for a partial payment upon claims which originated in depredations upon our commerce by French cruisers and vessels during the closing years of the last century. They have become quite familiar to those having Congressional experience, as they have been pressed for recognition and payment, with occasional intervals of repose, for nearly one hundred years.
These claims are based upon the allegations that France, being at war with England, seized and condemned many American vessels and cargoes in violation of the rules of international law and treaty provisions and contrary to the duty she owed to our country as a neutral power and to our citizens; that by reason of these acts claims arose in favor of such of our citizens as were demnified against the French nation, which claims our Government attempted to enforce, and that in concluding a treaty with France in the year 1800 these claims were abandoned or relinquished in consideration of the relinquishment of certain claims which France charged against us.
Upon these statements it is insisted by those interested that we as a nation having reaped a benefit in our escape from these French demands against us through the abandonment of the claims of our citizens against France, the Government became equitably bound as between itself and its citizens to pay the claims thus relinquished.
I do not understand it to be asserted that there exists any legal liability against the Government on account of its relation to these claims. At the term of the Supreme Court just finished the Chief Justice, in an opinion concerning them and the action of Congress in appropriating for their payment, said:
We think that payments thus prescribed to be made were purposely brought within the category of payments by way of gratuity—payments of grace and not of right.
From the time the plan was conceived to charge the Government with the payment of these claims they have abided in the atmosphere of controversy. Every proposition presented in their support has been stoutly disputed and every inference suggested in their favor has been promptly challenged.
Thus, inasmuch as it must, I think, be conceded that if a state of war existed between our country and France at the time these depredations were committed our Government was not justified in claiming indemnity for our citizens, it is asserted that we were at the time actually engaged in war with the French nation. This position seems to be sustained by an opinion of the Attorney-General of the United States written in 1798 and by a number of decisions of the Supreme Court delivered soon after that time.
We had certainly abrogated treaties with France, and our cruisers and armed ships were roaming the seas capturing her vessels and property.
So, also, when it is asserted that the validity of these claims was acknowledged in the treaty negotiations by the representatives of France, their declarations to a contrary purport are exhibited.
And when it is alleged that the abandonment of these claims against France was in consideration of great benefits to the Government, it is as confidently alleged that they were in point of fact abandoned because their enforcement was hopeless and that even if any benefit really accrued to us by insistence upon their settlement in the course of diplomatic negotiation such result gave no pretext for taxing the Government with liability to the claimants.
Without noticing other considerations and contentions arising from the alleged origin of these claims, a brief reference to their treatment in the past and the development of their presentation may be useful and pertinent.
It is, I believe, somewhat the fashion in interested quarters to speak of the failure by the Government to pay these claims as such neglect as amounts to repudiation and a denial of justice to citizens who have suffered. Of course the original claimants have for years been beyond the reach of relief; but as their descendants in each generation become more numerous the volume of advocacy, importunity, and accusation correspondingly increases. If injustice has been done in the refusal of these claims, it began early in the present century and may be charged against men then in public life more conversant than we can be with the facts involved and whose honesty and sense of right ought to be secure from suspicion.
As early as 1802 a committee of the House of Representatives reported the facts connected with these claims, but apparently without recommendation. No action was taken on the report. In 1803 a resolution declaring that indemnity ought to be paid was negatived by a vote of the same body. A favorable committee report was made in 1807, but it seems that no legislative action resulted. In 1818 an adverse report was made to the Senate, followed by the passage of a resolution declaring "that the relief asked by the memorialists and petitioners ought not to be granted." In 1822 and again in 1824 adverse committee reports on the subject were made to the House, concluding with similar resolutions.
The presumption against these claims arising from such unfavorable reports and resolutions and from the failure of Congress to provide for their payment at a time so near the events upon which they are based can not be destroyed by the interested cry of injustice and neglect of the rights of our citizens.
Until 1846 these claims were from time to time pressed upon the attention of Congress with varying fortunes, but never with favorable legislative action. In that year, however, a bill was passed for their ascertainment and satisfaction, and $5,000,000 were appropriated for their payment. This bill was vetoed by President Polk,[31] who declared that he could "perceive no legal or equitable ground upon which this large appropriation can rest." This veto was sustained by the House of Representatives.
Nine years afterwards, and in 1855, another bill was passed similar to the one last mentioned, and appropriating for the settlement of these claims a like sum of money. This bill was also vetoed,[32] President Pierce concluding a thorough discussion of its demerits with these words:
In view of what has been said there would seem to be no ground on which to raise a liability of the United States, unless it be the assumption that the United States are to be considered the insurer and the guarantor of all claims, of whatever nature, which any individual citizen may have against a foreign nation.
This veto was also sustained by the House of Representatives.
I think it will be found that in all bills proposed in former times for the payment of these claims the sum to be appropriated for that purpose did not exceed $5,000,000. It is now estimated that those already passed upon, with those still pending for examination in the Court of Claims, may amount to $25,000,000. This indicates either that the actual sufferers or those nearer to them in time and blood than the present claimants underestimated their losses or that there has been a great development in the manner of their presentation.
Notwithstanding persistent efforts to secure payment from the Government and the importunity of those interested, no appropriation has ever been made for that purpose except a little more than $1,300,000, which was placed in the general deficiency bill in the very last hours of the session of Congress on March 3, 1891.
In the long list of beneficiaries who are provided for in the bill now before me on account of these claims 152 represent the owners of ships and their cargoes and 186 those who lost as insurers of such vessels or cargoes.
These insurers by the terms of their policies undertook and agreed "to bear and take upon themselves all risks and perils of the sea, men-of-war, fire, enemies, rovers, thieves, jettison, letters of mart and counter mart, surprisals, takings at sea, arrests, restraints, and detainments of all kings, princes, or people of what nation, condition, or quality whatsoever."
The premiums received on these policies were large, and the losses were precisely those within the contemplation of the insurers. It is well known that the business of insurance is entered upon with the expectation that the premiums received will pay all losses and yield a profit to the insurance in addition; and yet, without any showing that the business did not result in a profit to these insurance claimants, it is proposed that the Government shall indemnify them against the precise risks they undertook, notwithstanding the fact that the money appropriated is not to be paid except "by way of gratuity—payments as of grace and not of right."
The appropriations to indemnify against insurance losses rest upon weaker grounds, it seems to me, than those of owners; but in the light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding these spoliation claims, as they are called, none of them, in my opinion, should be paid by the Government.
Another item in this bill which seems to me especially objectionable is an appropriation in favor of Charles P. Chouteau, survivor, etc., of $174,445.75, in full satisfaction of all claims arising out of the construction of the ironclad steam battery Etlah.
The contract for the construction of this battery was made by the Government with Charles W. McCord during the war, and he was to be paid therefor the sum of $386,000. He was paid this sum and $210,991 for extras, and in May, 1866, gave his receipt in full. The assignee of McCord in bankruptcy assigned to Chouteau and his associates in 1868 all claims of McCord against the United States for the precise extras for which he had receipted in full two years before. Chouteau brought suit in the Court of Claims for such extras and was defeated. I can not gather from the facts I have been able to collect concerning this appropriation that it is justified on any ground.
In 1890 my immediate predecessor vetoed a bill allowing the matter to be examined again by the Court of Claims.[33]
If the additional payment proposed in this bill was made, the cost of the battery in question would be almost double that of the contract price.
I have determined to submit this incomplete presentation of my objections to this bill at once in order that the Congress may act thereon without embarrassment or the interruption of plans for an early adjournment.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 10, 1896.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return without my approval House bill No. 225, entitled "An act to provide for the lease of Fort Omaha Military Reservation to the State of Nebraska."
This bill authorizes and directs the Secretary of War, when Fort Crook, near the city of Omaha, is ready for occupancy, to lease for a nominal rent to the State of Nebraska the possession of Fort Omaha Military Reservation, containing about 80 acres, with all the buildings, appurtenances, and improvements thereof. It is declared that the lease shall be conditional upon the use of said reservation by the State of Nebraska as a place of rendezvous and school of instruction for the National Guard of said State; that the State of Nebraska shall while it is in possession of said reservation keep the buildings and improvements thereon in as good condition and repair as at the date it shall enter into possession thereof, and that at any time when, in the judgment of the Secretary of War, the interests of the United States shall require such action he shall take possession of said military reservation for the use of the Government, together with all the buildings, appurtenances, and improvements thereon.
On the 23d day of July, 1888, an act was passed authorizing the Secretary of War to purchase suitable grounds, of not less than 640 acres in extent, to be situate within 10 miles of the city of Omaha, and to construct the necessary buildings thereon for a ten-company military post, to be known as Fort Omaha, and a necessary sum, not exceeding $200,000, was appropriated to enable the Secretary of War to carry out the provisions of said act.
The said act also authorized the Secretary of War, when the purchase of the new site should be effected, to sell the military reservation known as Fort Omaha and such of the buildings and improvements thereon as could not be economically removed to the new site, and to cause the said reservation, for the purposes of said sale, to be platted in blocks, streets, and alleys, if in his judgment it would inure to the benefit of the Government in making a sale of such site.
The new site provided for by this act has been purchased, a large sum of money has been spent by the Government in preparing it for use, and I understand it will soon be ready for occupancy. The authority to sell the old site has not been exercised. This may be accounted for by the fact that the Government has not thus far been able to dispense with its use or because the depression in land values at Omaha has rendered it unadvisable.
The authority to sell and to remove any of the buildings from the old reservation to the new site still remains, however, unimpaired. In this condition of affairs it is now proposed to lease this land and these buildings to the State of Nebraska at a nominal rent, allowing the Government to repossess it only "when the interests of the United States shall require such action."
Of course it would be claimed that this language, in view of the statute of 1888, should not be construed as permitting the Government to retake the property for the purpose of selling it, because that is not stipulated in the bill. For that reason it would be plausibly urged that the lease was paramount to the power of sale contained in the law of 1888 and that the omission of any provision that possession might be resumed for the purpose of sale plainly indicated that "the interests of the United States" which allow such resumption contemplate some other and different emergency.
As a practical question, we all know that transactions of this character relating to Government property amount to a permanent alienation, or certainly pave the way for an absolute grant.
I do not think there should be anything done with this valuable property which will in the least embarrass the Government in its sale, and to that extent reimbursing itself for the cost of the new military post, which was plainly contemplated in the law of 1888.
GROVER CLEVELAND.