Upon an examination of the facts it appears to me to be clear that no legal location was made by the railway company prior to the acquisition of the lands by the occupying settlers. Some preliminary surveys had been made, but no map of location had been filed with the Secretary of the Interior. If the rights of this company at this point of its road as to right of way are derived from the general statute of the United States upon that subject (U. S. Revised Statutes, Supplement, p. 87), then section 4 distinctly saves the right of any settler who had located prior to the filing of a profile of the road and the approval by the Secretary of the Interior thereof. And if, on the other hand, the rights of the company at the point indicated are derived from the act of Congress of February 18, 1888, "to authorize the Choctaw Coal and Railway Company to construct and operate a railway through the Indian Territory, and for other purposes," section 6 of that act also plainly protects the right of any occupying claimant. The latter statute, it seems to me, was intended to grant a right of way only through Indian lands, and if these lands were not such the general statute to which I have referred would apply; but in either event the conclusion is the same.
It appears from the report of the committee that its favorable action, and, I must assume, the favorable action of Congress, proceeded upon the theory that there was a real controversy, doubtful as to its issue, as to the right of the railroad company to hold the line of its survey through the city.
Stripped, then, of this claim the proposition is nakedly one to authorize Oklahoma City to donate $40,000 to the Choctaw Coal and Railway Company. The general statute of the United States prohibits such grants, and this must stand until repealed as a continuing expression of legislative opinion. If a departure from this rule is to be allowed at all, certainly it should only be where the circumstances are exceptional. Such circumstances, in my opinion, do not exist in this case. Already I have received from other cities in the Territory protests against special legislation of this sort, accompanied by the suggestion that if this policy is admitted other cities shall also be allowed to encourage the building of roads by donation.
Oklahoma City, according to the report of the Census Office, has a population of about 4,100, and this donation would be equivalent to nearly $10 per capita. Very little real estate, whether town-site or country property, in this Territory is yet subject to assessment for taxation. The people have not yet had time to accumulate, and Congress has received appeals for aid to relieve a prevailing distress which the Territorial authorities have found themselves unable to deal with. It does not seem to me, in view of all these facts, that the wholesome rule prescribed by the general statute should be departed from.
BENJ. HARRISON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 26, 1891.
To the Senate:
I return to the Senate without my approval the bill (S. 4620) "to establish the Record and Pension Office of the War Department, and for other purposes."
This bill proposes to change the designation of one of the divisions of the War Department. It is now the "Record and Pension Division," and it is proposed that it shall hereafter be the "Record and Pension Office" of the War Department. The scope of the work assigned to this division or office is not changed, but the organization now existing under a classification made by the Secretary of War is by the bill made permanent and put beyond the control of the Secretary. The change of designation seems to have been intended to add dignity to the position, and the effect of the bill is probably to require that the chief of this office shall hereafter be appointed only by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, though it is not clear that any provision is made for a chief after the particular person designated in the bill has been separated from the place or in case he is not appointed.
The real object of the bill is disclosed in the following clause: