If before or after entering into this contract the claimant had examined these regulations, he would have found that they provided that "commercial intercourse with localities beyond the lines of actual military occupation by the United States forces is absolutely prohibited."
He would have also found that such regulations expressly provided that the power of the agent of the Government to make contracts should be founded upon the statement that the contractor then owned or controlled the products for which he contracted. And yet the permit of the President, which so completely put the claimant upon inquiry as to what he might or might not do, seems now to be relied upon as the source of equities in his favor, and is pressed into his service under the guise of a sanction of his unlawful proceedings.
Besides the general knowledge the claimant should have possessed of the commercial disabilities consequent upon a state of war, and the information afforded him by his contract and permit, a proclamation of the President publicly issued September 24, 1864,[17] furnished abundant notice of the kind of trading which would be permitted.
The property for which compensation is asked constitutes a part only of that agreed to be furnished. None of it ever reached the possession of the agent of the Government, but, as I understand the case, was at the time of its seizure or destruction still in the territory of the enemy and in rebellious possession. If in the circumstances detailed it was treated by our military forces in like manner as other property in the same situation, there would seem to be no hardship in holding that the contractor assumed this risk as one arising from his unauthorized and, if successful, his profitable venture.
Not being satisfied that there are any especial equities which entitle this claim to more consideration than many others where equities might be claimed in behalf of those who long ago violated our nonintercourse laws, I am unwilling to sanction a precedent which if followed might substantially work a repeal of these laws, regarded necessary and expedient by those charged with legislation during the War of the Rebellion, and who had in full view all the necessities of that period.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 12, 1888.
To the Senate:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 3276, entitled "An act granting restoration of pension to Sarah A. Woodbridge."
The first husband of this beneficiary, Anson L. Brewer, was an additional paymaster in the Army, and died February 2, 1866, from injuries received in an explosion of a steamer.