VETO MESSAGES.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 28, 1872.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith return, for the further consideration of Congress, without my approval, House bill No. 1550, "An act for the relief of the estate of Dr. John F. Hanks," for the reason that the records of the Treasury Department show that the current moneys taken by Colonel S.B. Holabird from the Louisiana State Bank of New Orleans in the month of August, 1862, were accounted for by that officer to the Treasury Department, and the names of the depositors given, and that the name of Dr. John F. Hanks does not appear among them.
It also appears from the records of the Treasury Department that among the effects taken from the Louisiana State Bank of New Orleans was the sum of $1,729 of Confederate money, and that the said sum stood upon the books of said bank to the credit of J.F. Hanks. It is but justice, however, to the executors of the estate of Dr. Hanks to state that there is every reason to believe that the money deposited by Dr. Hanks in the Louisiana State Bank was in current funds, and that when application was made to Congress for the recovery of the same they believed, and had evidence to satisfy them, that such funds had found their way into the Treasury of the United States. There has unquestionably been a mistake made, either by the officers of the Louisiana State Bank or the persons engaged in removing the funds of that bank, by which the estate of Dr. Hanks is loser to the amount of relief afforded by House bill No. 1550.
Accompanying this I send the statement furnished by the Secretary of the Treasury of the funds covered into his Department, and accounted for through it, arising from the seizure of funds of the Louisiana State Bank of New Orleans in the month of August, 1862.
U.S. GRANT.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 1, 1872.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith, for the further consideration of Congress, House bill No. 1867, "An act for the relief of James T. Johnston," without my approval, for the reason that the records of the Treasury Department show that the lot sold in the name of J.T. Johnston, situate on Prince street, Alexandria, Va., for taxes due the United States, is numbered 162, instead of 163, as represented in this bill. With the exception of this discrepancy in the number of the lot there is no reason why the bill should not receive my approval.
U.S. GRANT.
WASHINGTON, April 10, 1872.
To the House of Representatives:
I have received and taken into consideration the bill entitled "An act for the relief of the children of John M. Baker, deceased," and, pursuant to the duty required of me by the Constitution, I return the same with my objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.
The bill proposes to pay a sum of money to the children of John M. Baker, deceased, late United States consul at Rio Janeiro, for services of that person as acting chargé d'affaires of the United States in the year 1834. So far as it can be ascertained it is apprehended that the bill may have received the sanction of Congress through some inadvertence, for upon inquiry at the proper Department it appears that Mr. Baker never did act as chargé d'affaires of the United States at Rio Janeiro, and that he was not authorized so to act, but, on the contrary, was expressly forbidden to enter into diplomatic correspondence with the Government of Brazil.
The letter of the 8th of February, 1854, a copy of which is annexed, addressed by William L. Marcy, then Secretary of State, to James M. Mason, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, specifies objections to the claim, which it is believed have not since diminished, and in which I fully concur.
U.S. GRANT.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 15, 1872.
To the Senate of the United States:
I return without my approval an act entitled "An act granting a pension to Abigail Ryan, widow of Thomas A. Ryan." The name of Mrs. Ryan is now borne upon the pension rolls, pursuant to an act of Congress entitled "An act for the relief of Mrs. Abigail Ryan," approved June 15, 1866 (14 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 590).
U.S. GRANT.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 22, 1872.
To the House of Representatives:
I return herewith House resolution No. 622, entitled "An act granting a pension to Richard B. Crawford," without my approval, for the reason that said Crawford is now drawing a pension as a private soldier, the wound on account of which he was pensioned having been received before his promotion to a lieutenancy.
U.S. GRANT.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 14, 1872.
To the Senate of the United States:
I have the honor to return herewith the bill (S. 955) entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Ann Montgomery, widow of William W. Montgomery, late captain in Texas Volunteers," without my approval, inasmuch as the concluding phrase, "and in respect to her minor children under 16 years of age," has obviously no meaning whatsoever. If it were the intention of the framer of the bill that the pension thereby granted should revert to said minor children upon the remarriage or death of the widow, the phrase referred to should read as follows: "And in the event of her remarriage or death, to her minor children under 16 years of age." I therefore return the bill for proper action.
U.S. GRANT.
WASHINGTON, June 1, 1872.
To the Senate of the United States:
I have examined the bill entitled "An act for the relief of J. Milton Best," and, being unable to give it my approval, return the same to the Senate, the House in which it originated, without my signature.
The bill appropriates the sum of $25,000 to compensate Dr. J. Milton Best for the destruction of his dwelling house and its contents by order of the commanding officer of the United States military forces at Paducah, Ky., on the 26th day of March, 1864. It appears that this house was one of a considerable number destroyed for the purpose of giving open range to the guns of a United States fort. On the day preceding the destruction the houses had been used as a cover for rebel troops attacking the fort, and, apprehending a renewal of the attack, the commanding officer caused the destruction of the houses. This, then, is a claim for compensation on account of the ravages of war. It can not be denied that the payment of this claim would invite the presentation of demands for very large sums of money; and such is the supposed magnitude of the claims that may be made against the Government for necessary and unavoidable destruction of property by the Army that I deem it proper to return this bill for reconsideration.
It is a general principle of both international and municipal law that all property is held subject not only to be taken by the Government for public uses, in which case, under the Constitution of the United States, the owner is entitled to just compensation, but also subject to be temporarily occupied, or even actually destroyed, in times of great public danger, and when the public safety demands it; and in this latter case governments do not admit a legal obligation on their part to compensate the owner. The temporary occupation of, injuries to, and destruction of property caused by actual and necessary military operations are generally considered to fall within the last-mentioned principle. If a government makes compensation under such circumstances, it is a matter of bounty rather than of strict legal right.
If it be deemed proper to make compensation for such losses, I suggest for the consideration of Congress whether it would not be better, by general legislation, to provide some means for the ascertainment of the damage in all similar cases, and thus save to claimants the expense, inconvenience, and delay of attendance upon Congress, and at the same time save the Government from the danger of having imposed upon it fictitious or exaggerated claims supported wholly by ex parte proof. If the claimant in this case ought to be paid, so ought all others similarly situated; and that there are many such can not be doubted. Besides, there are strong reasons for believing that the amount of damage in this case has been greatly overestimated. If this be true, it furnishes an illustration of the danger of trusting entirely to ex parte testimony in such matters.
U.S. GRANT.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 7, 1872.
To the Senate of the United States:
I have the honor to return herewith Senate bill No. 569, an act entitled "An act for the relief of Thomas B. Wallace, of Lexington, in the State of Missouri," without my approval.
This claim, for which $11,250 are appropriated by this bill, is of the same nature and character as the claim of Dr. J. Milton Best, which was returned to the Senate on the 1st instant without my signature.
The same reasons which prompted the return of that bill for reconsideration apply in this case, which also is a claim for compensation on account of the ravages of war, and comes under the same general principle of both international and municipal law, that all property is held subject not only to be taken by the Government for public uses, in which case, under the Constitution of the United States, the owner is entitled to just compensation, but also subject to be temporarily occupied, or even actually destroyed, in times of great public danger, and when the public safety demands it; and in the latter case governments do not admit a legal obligation on their part to compensate the owner.
The temporary occupation of, injuries to, and destruction of property caused by actual and necessary military operations are generally considered to fall within the last-mentioned principle, and if a government makes compensation under such circumstances it is a matter of bounty rather than of strict legal right. If it be deemed proper to make compensation for such losses, I renew my recommendation that provision be made by general legislation for all similar cases.
U.S. GRANT.