Section 3690, That--

All balances of appropriations contained in the annual appropriation bills, and made specifically for the service of any fiscal year, and remaining unexpended at the expiration of such fiscal year, shall only be applied to the payment of expenses properly incurred during that year or to the fulfillment of contracts properly made within that year; and balances not needed for such purposes shall be carried to the surplus fund. This section, however, shall not apply to appropriations known as permanent or indefinite appropriations.

The effect of the laws quoted, taken in connection with the constitutional provision referred to, is, as above stated, to prohibit any outlay of public money toward defraying even the current and necessary expenses of Government after the expiration of the year for which appropriated, excepting when those expenses are provided for by some permanent appropriation, and excepting in the War and Navy Departments, under section 3732.

The number of permanent appropriations are very limited, and cover but few of the necessary expenditures of the Government. They are nearly all, if not quite all, embraced in sections 3687, 3688, and 3689 of the Revised Statutes. That contained in section 3687 is applicable to expenses of collecting the revenue from customs, that in section 3688 to the payment of interest on the public debt, and that in section 3689 to various objects too numerous to detail here.

It will be observed that while section 3679, quoted above, provides that no Department shall in any one fiscal year involve the Government in any contract for the future payment of money in excess of the appropriation for that year, section 3732, also quoted above, confers, by clear implication, upon the heads of the War and Navy Departments full authority, even in the absence of any appropriation, to purchase or contract for clothing, subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters, or transportation not exceeding the necessities of the current year. The latter provision is special and exceptional in its character, and is to be regarded as excluded from the operation of the former more general one. But if any of the appropriation bills above enumerated should fail to be matured before the expiration of the current fiscal year, the Government would be greatly embarrassed for want of the necessary funds to carry on the service. Precluded from expending money not appropriated, the Departments would have to suspend the service so far as the appropriations for it should have failed to be made.

A careful examination of this subject will demonstrate the embarrassed condition all branches of the Government will be in, and especially the executive, if there should be a failure to pass the necessary appropriation bills before the 1st of July, or otherwise provide.

I commend this subject most earnestly to your consideration, and urge that some measure be speedily adopted to avert the evils which would result from nonaction by Congress. I will venture the suggestion, by way of remedy, that a joint resolution, properly guarded, might be passed through the two Houses of Congress, extending the provisions of all appropriations for the present fiscal year to the next in all cases where there is a failure on the 1st of July to supply such appropriation; each appropriation so extended to hold good until Congress shall have passed a corresponding appropriation applicable to the new fiscal year, when all moneys expended under laws enacted for this fiscal year shall be deducted from the corresponding appropriation for the next.

To make my ideas on this subject more clear, I have caused to be drawn up a joint resolution embodying them more fully.

U.S. GRANT.

JOINT RESOLUTION to provide for defraying temporarily the ordinary and necessary expenses of the public service.

Whereas the ordinary and necessary expenses of the public service in its various branches, comprising among others the expenses which especially pertain to the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Government, to the consular and diplomatic service, to the postal service, to the support of the Army, and to the maintenance of the Navy, are generally met by annual appropriations which expire at the end of the current fiscal year; and

Whereas no public funds will be available to defray these expenses as the same shall accrue after that period unless appropriations shall have been previously made therefor by law; and

Whereas, to avoid the great embarrassment to the public service that might otherwise ensue, it is expedient to make provision for defraying temporarily such of these expenses as would be unprovided for in case some one of the usual annual appropriation bills designed to provide therefor should fail to be matured by the end of the fiscal year now current: Therefore,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in case any of the following appropriation bills for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1877, shall not have passed by the commencement of such year, so that the funds to be appropriated thereby may then be available for expenditure--that is to say, the bill providing for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses; the bill providing for the consular and diplomatic expenses; the bill providing for the service of the Post-Office Department; the bill providing for the support of the Army, and the bill providing for the naval service--the appropriation act for the current fiscal year corresponding in its general description and object to such appropriation bill shall extend to the fiscal year next ensuing until such appropriation bill is enacted and takes effect, to the end that the provisions of such appropriation act which apply to the ordinary and necessary expenses of the public service for the current fiscal year shall in like manner be applicable to similar expenses which may accrue during the period intervening between the end of the current fiscal year and the time when such appropriation bill for the next ensuing fiscal year shall be enacted and take effect.

WASHINGTON, June 20, 1876.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

By the tenth article of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain signed in Washington on the 9th day of August, 1842, it was agreed that the two Governments should, upon mutual requisitions respectively made, deliver up to justice all persons who, being charged with certain crimes therein enumerated, committed within the jurisdiction of either, should seek an asylum or be found within the territories of the other.

The only condition or limitation contained in the treaty to the reciprocal obligation thus to deliver up the fugitive was that it should be done only upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged should be found, would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime or offense had there been committed.

In the month of February last a requisition was duly made, in pursuance of the provisions of the treaty, by this Government upon that of Great Britain for the surrender of one Ezra D. Winslow, charged with extensive forgeries and the utterance of forged paper, committed within the jurisdiction of the United States, who had sought an asylum and was found within the territories of Her Britannic Majesty and was apprehended in London. The evidence of the criminality of the fugitive was duly furnished and heard, and, being found sufficient to justify his apprehension and commitment for trial if the crimes had been committed in Great Britain, he was held and committed for extradition.

Her Majesty's Government, however, did not deliver up the fugitive in accordance with the terms of the treaty, notwithstanding every requirement thereof had been met on the part of the United States, but, instead of surrendering the fugitive, demanded certain assurances or stipulations not mentioned in the treaty, but foreign to its provisions, as a condition of the performance by Great Britain of her obligations under the treaty.

In a recent communication to the House of Representatives, and in answer to a call from that body for information on this case, I submitted the correspondence which has passed between the two Governments with reference thereto. It will be found in Executive Document No. 173 of the House of Representatives of the present session, and I respectfully refer thereto for more detailed information bearing on the question.

It appears from the correspondence that the British Government bases its refusal to surrender the fugitive and its demand for stipulations or assurances from this Government on the requirements of a purely domestic enactment of the British Parliament, passed in the year 1870.

This act was brought to the notice of this Government shortly after its enactment, and Her Majesty's Government was advised that the United States understood it as giving continued effect to the existing engagements under the treaty of 1842 for the extradition of criminals; and with this knowledge on its part, and without dissent from the declared views of the United States as to the unchanged nature of the reciprocal rights and obligations of the two powers under the treaty, Great Britain has continued to make requisitions and to grant surrenders in numerous instances, without suggestion that it was contemplated to depart from the practice under the treaty which has obtained for more than thirty years, until now, for the first time, in this case of Winslow, it is assumed that under this act of Parliament Her Majesty may require a stipulation or agreement not provided for in the treaty as a condition to the observance by her Government of its treaty obligations toward this country.

This I have felt it my duty emphatically to repel.

In addition to the case of Winslow, requisition was also made by this Government on that of Great Britain for the surrender of Charles J. Brent, also charged with forgery, committed in the United States, and found in Great Britain. The evidence of criminality was duly heard and the fugitive committed for extradition.

A similar stipulation to that demanded in Winslow's case was also asked in Brent's, and was likewise refused.

It is with extreme regret that I am now called upon to announce to you that Her Majesty's Government has finally released both of these fugitives, Winslow and Brent, and set them at liberty, thus omitting to comply with the provisions and requirements of the treaty under which the extradition of fugitive criminals is made between the two Governments.

The position thus taken by the British Government, if adhered to, can not but be regarded as the abrogation and annulment of the article of the treaty on extradition.

Under these circumstances it will not, in my judgment, comport with the dignity or self-respect of this Government to make demands upon that Government for the surrender of fugitive criminals, nor to entertain any requisition of that character from that Government under the treaty.

It will be a cause of deep regret if a treaty which has been thus far beneficial in its practical operation, which has worked so well and so efficiently, and which, notwithstanding the exciting and at times violent political disturbances of which both countries have been the scene during its existence, has given rise to no complaints on the part of either Government against either its spirit or its provisions, should be abruptly terminated.

It has tended to the protection of society and to the general interests of both countries. Its violation or annulment would be a retrograde step in international intercourse.

I have been anxious and have made the effort to enlarge its scope and to make a new treaty which would be a still more efficient agent for the punishment and prevention of crime. At the same time, I have felt it my duty to decline to entertain a proposition made by Great Britain, pending its refusal to execute the existing treaty, to amend it by practically conceding by treaty the identical conditions which that Government demands under its act of Parliament. In addition to the impossibility of the United States entering upon negotiations under the menace of an intended violation or a refusal to execute the terms of an existing treaty I deemed it inadvisable to treat of only the one amendment proposed by Great Britain while the United States desires an enlargement of the list of crimes for which extradition may be asked, and other improvements which experience has shown might be embodied in a new treaty.

It is for the wisdom of Congress to determine whether the article of the treaty relating to extradition is to be any longer regarded as obligatory on the Government of the United States or as forming part of the supreme law of the land. Should the attitude of the British Government remain unchanged, I shall not, without an expression of the wish of Congress that I should do so, take any action either in making or granting requisitions for the surrender of fugitive criminals under the treaty of 1842.

Respectfully submitted.

U.S. GRANT.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 8, 1876.

To the Senate of the United States:

I have the honor to transmit herewith a report from General W.T. Sherman [J.D. Cameron, Secretary of War], together with the most recent reports received from Brigadier-General A.H. Terry, as a response to the resolution of the Senate of the 7th instant, a copy of which is attached to this message.

U.S. GRANT.

WASHINGTON, July 13, 1876.

To the House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith, in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 1st ultimo, a report from the Secretary of State upon the subject.

U.S. GRANT.

WASHINGTON, July 19, 1876.

To the House of Representatives:

I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, in answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 1st of April last, on the subject of commercial intercourse with Mexico and Central America.

U.S. GRANT.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 31, 1876.

To the House of Representatives:

The act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1877, is so defective in what it omits to provide for that I can not announce its approval without at the same time pointing out what seems to me to be its defects. It makes but inadequate provision for the service at best, and in some instances fails to make any provision whatever.

Notably among the first class is the reduction in the ordinary annual appropriations for the Revenue-Cutter Service, to the prejudice of the customs revenue.

The same may be said of the Signal Service, as also the failure to provide for the increased expense devolved upon the mints and assay offices by recent legislation, and thus tending to defeat the objects of that legislation.

Of this class also are public buildings, for the protection, preservation, and completion of which there is no adequate appropriation, while the sum of $100,000 only is appropriated for the repairs of the different navy yards and stations and the preservation of the same, the ordinary and customary appropriations for which are not less than $1,000,000.

A similar reduction is made in the expenses for armories and arsenals.

The provision for the ordinary judicial expenses is much less than the estimated amount for that important service, the actual expenditures of the last fiscal year, and the certain demands of the current year.

The provision for the expenses of the surveys of public lands is less than one-half of the usual appropriation for that service and what are understood to be its actual demands.

Reduction in the expenditures for light-houses, beacons, and fog stations is also made in similar proportion.

Of the class for which no appropriation is made, among the most noticeable, perhaps, is that portion of the general expenses of the District of Columbia on behalf of the United States, as appropriated in former years, and the judgments of the Court of Claims. The failure to make a reasonable contribution to the expenses of the nation's capital is an apparent dereliction on the part of the United States and rank injustice to the people here who bear the burdens, while to refuse or neglect to provide for the payment of solemn judgments of its own courts is apparently to repudiate. Of a different character, but as prejudicial to the Treasury, is the omission to make provision to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to have the rebel archives and records of captured and abandoned property examined and information furnished therefrom for the use of the Government.

Finally, without further specification of detail, it may be said that the act which in its title purports to make provision for a diverse and greatly extended civil service unhappily appropriates an amount not more than 65 per cent of its ordinary demands.

The legislative department establishes and defines the service, and devolves upon the Executive Departments the obligation of submitting annually the needful estimates of expenses of such service. Congress properly exacts implicit obedience to the requirements of the law in the administration of the public service and rigid accountability in the expenditures therefor. It is submitted that a corresponding responsibility and obligation rest upon it to make the adequate appropriations to render possible such administration and tolerable such exaction. Anything short of an ample provision for a specified service is necessarily fraught with disaster to the public interests and is a positive injustice to those charged with its execution.

To appropriate and to execute are corresponding obligations and duties, and the adequacy of the former is the necessary measure of the efficiency of the execution.

In this eighth month of the present session of Congress--nearly one month of the fiscal year to which this appropriation applies having passed--I do not feel warranted in vetoing an absolutely necessary appropriation bill; but in signing it I deem it a duty to show where the responsibility belongs for whatever embarrassments may arise in the execution of the trust confided to me.

U.S. GRANT.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 31, 1876.

To the Senate of the United States:

In response to the resolution of the Senate of July 20, 1876, calling upon the President to communicate to the Senate, if in his opinion not incompatible with the public interest, any information in regard to the slaughter of American citizens at Hamburg, S.C., I have the honor to submit the following inclosures, to wit:

No. 1. Letter of the 22d of July, 1876, from Governor D.H. Chamberlain, of South Carolina, to me.

No. 2. My reply thereto.

No. 3. Report of Hon. William Stone, attorney-general of South Carolina.

No. 4. Report of General H.W. Purvis, adjutant and inspector general of South Carolina.

No. 5. Copy of evidence taken before a coroner's jury investigating facts relating to the Hamburg massacre.

No. 6. Printed copy of statement by M.C. Butler, of South Carolina.

No. 7. Printed letter from the same to the editors of the Journal of Commerce.

No. 8. Copy of letter from Governor Chamberlain to the Hon. T.J. Robertson.

No. 9. An address to the American people by the colored citizens of Charleston, S.C.

No. 10. An address by a committee appointed at a convention of leading representatives of Columbia, S.C.

No. 11. Copy of letter of July 15, 1876, from the district attorney of Mississippi to the Attorney-General of the United States.

No. 12. Letter from same to same.

No. 13. Copy of report of a grand jury lately in session in Oxford, Miss.

These inclosures embrace all the information in my possession touching the late disgraceful and brutal slaughter of unoffending men at the town of Hamburg, S.C. My letter to Governor Chamberlain contains all the comments I wish to make on the subject. As allusion is made in that letter to the condition of other States, and particularly to Louisiana and Mississippi, I have added to the inclosures letters and testimony in regard to the lawless condition of a portion of the people of the latter State.

In regard to Louisiana affairs, murders and massacres of innocent men for opinion's sake or on account of color have been of too recent date and of too frequent occurrence to require recapitulation or testimony here. All are familiar with their horrible details, the only wonder being that so many justify them or apologize for them.

But recently a committee of the Senate of the United States visited the State of Mississippi to take testimony on the subject of frauds and violence in elections. Their report has not yet been made public, but I await its forthcoming with a feeling of confidence that it will fully sustain all that I have stated relating to fraud and violence in the State of Mississippi.

U.S. GRANT.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 11, 1876.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a telegram of the 5th of August instant from Lieutenant-General Sheridan to General Sherman, a letter of the 11th of the present month from General Sherman to the Secretary of War, and a letter from the latter of the same date to me, all setting forth the possible needs of the Army in consequence of existing hostilities.

I would strongly urge upon Congress the necessity for making some provision for a contingency which may arise during the vacation--for more troops in the Indian country than it is now possible to send.

It would seem to me to be much more economical and better to authorize an increase of the present cavalry force by 2,500 privates, but if this is not deemed advisable, then that the President be authorized to call out not exceeding five regiments, 1,000 strong each, of volunteers, to serve for a period not exceeding six months.

Should this latter authority be given, I would not order out any volunteers unless in my opinion, based upon reports from the scene of war, I deemed it absolutely necessary, and then only the smallest number considered sufficient to meet the emergency.

U.S. GRANT.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 14, 1876.

To the House of Representatives:

In affixing my signature to the river and harbor bill, No. 3822, I deem it my duty to announce to the House of Representatives my objections to some features of the bill, and the reason I sign it. If it was obligatory upon the Executive to expend all the money appropriated by Congress, I should return the river and harbor bill with my objections, notwithstanding the great inconvenience to the public interests resulting therefrom and the loss of expenditures from previous Congresses upon incompleted works. Without enumerating, many appropriations are made for works of purely private or local interest, in no sense national. I can not give my sanction to these, and will take care that during my term of office no public money shall be expended upon them.

There is very great necessity for economy of expenditures at this time, growing out of the loss of revenue likely to arise from a deficiency of appropriations to insure a thorough collection of the same. The reduction of revenue districts, diminution of special agents, and total abolition of supervisors may result in great falling off of the revenue. It may be a question to consider whether any expenditure can be authorized under the river and harbor appropriation further than to protect works already done and paid for. Under no circumstances will I allow expenditures upon works not clearly national.

U.S. GRANT.

WASHINGTON, August 14, 1876.

To the House of Representatives:

In announcing, as I do, that I have attached my signature of official approval to the "Act making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic service of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1877, and for other purposes," it is my duty to call attention to a provision in the act directing that notice be sent to certain of the diplomatic and consular officers of the Government "to close their offices."

In the literal sense of this direction it would be an invasion of the constitutional prerogatives and duty of the Executive.

By the Constitution the President "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint, ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls," etc.

It is within the power of Congress to grant or withhold appropriation of money for the payment of salaries and expenses of the foreign representatives of the Government.

In the early days of the Government a sum in gross was appropriated, leaving it to the Executive to determine the grade of the officers and the countries to which they should be sent.

Latterly, for very many years, specific sums have been appropriated for designated missions or employments, and as a rule the omission by Congress to make an appropriation for any specific port has heretofore been accepted as an indication of a wish on the part of Congress which the executive branch of the Government respected and complied with.

In calling attention to the passage which I have indicated I assume that the intention of the provision is only to exercise the constitutional prerogative of Congress over the expenditures of the Government and to fix a time at which the compensation of certain diplomatic and consular officers shall cease, and not to invade the constitutional rights of the Executive, which I should be compelled to resist; and my present object is not to discuss or dispute the wisdom of failing to appropriate for several offices, but to guard against the construction that might possibly be placed on the language used, as implying a right in the legislative branch to direct the closing or discontinuing of any of the diplomatic or consular offices of the Government.

U.S. GRANT.

WASHINGTON, August 15, 1876.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to its resolution of the 24th ultimo, a report from the Secretary of State, with its accompanying statement.

U.S. GRANT.

VETO MESSAGES.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 3, 1876.

To the House of Representatives:

I have the honor to return herewith without my approval House bill No. 1561, entitled "An act transferring the custody of certain Indian trust funds from the Secretary of the Interior to the Treasurer of the United States," for the reasons set forth in the accompanying communication from the Secretary of the Interior.

U.S. GRANT.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, February 7, 1876.

The PRESIDENT.

SIR: I acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 29th ultimo, transmitting House bill No. 1561 and requesting this Department to report whether any objections to its becoming a law are known to exist.

In reply I have the honor to state that I am fearful that the act is not sufficiently definite in terms to accomplish the end desired, namely, the mere transfer of the custody of said trust funds, enabling this Department to receive the interest from the custodian and apply it as heretofore without the intervention of Congress. The nature of the guardianship and control over the Indians exercised by me as Secretary and trustee is such as to require this Department to keep an account of the funds to their credit or held in trust for them, and to receive the interest on their trust funds promptly when due. I am fearful that this bill may not allow me to do so, and to guard against any danger of embarrassment in the transaction of this business I inclose a draft of a bill which, if substituted for the one already passed, will, it is believed, obviate the difficulties which may arise if the present bill should become a law.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Z. CHANDLER, Secretary.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 27, 1876.

To the House of Representatives:

I have the honor to return herewith without my approval the bill (H.R. No. 83) entitled "An act for the relief of James A. Hile, of Lewis County, Mo.," for the reasons set forth in the accompanying communication of the Secretary of War.

U.S. GRANT.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington City, March 25, 1876.

The PRESIDENT.

SIR: I have the honor to return act H.R. 83, with the following report from the Adjutant-General:

"It appears from the records of this office that James A. Hile, private Company F, Twenty-first Missouri Volunteers, enlisted July 15, 1861; deserted June 14, 1862; returned August 2, 1862; was restored to duty by special order No. 38, headquarters District of Columbus, Department of Tennessee, dated Columbus, Ky., February 26, 1863. He reenlisted February 28, 1864, as a veteran volunteer; was tried by general court-martial for absence without leave from November 25, 1864, to December 13, 1864, and sentenced to forfeit all pay and allowances for time absent by general order No. 48, headquarters Second Division, Sixteenth Army Corps, dated May 22, 1865.

"On the muster-out roll of company dated April 19, 1866, he is reported, 'Deserted March 1, 1866, at Bladen Springs, Ala.'

"This man, in his application to this office for discharge, stated under oath (affidavit dated July 27, 1870) that he left his command without leave and returned to his home February 28, 1866, having previously applied for a furlough, which was refused.

"This man, according to his own statement under oath, did desert as reported, and if this bill becomes a law it will be an injustice to every soldier who served honorably with his command until his services were no longer required by the Government, in addition to falsifying the record, as the bill directs the record shall be made to show he is no deserter.

"This is only one of many similar cases."

The remarks of the Adjutant-General adverse to the passage of the bill are concurred in.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

ALPHONSO TAFT, Secretary of War.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 31, 1876.

To the Senate of the United States:

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, I have the honor to return herewith without my approval Senate bill No. 489, entitled "An act for the relief of G.B. Tyler and E.H. Luckett, assignees of William T. Cheatham."

U.S. GRANT.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 30, 1876.

The PRESIDENT:

Referring to the letter of the 25th instant, written by your direction, transmitting Senate bill No. 489, "for the relief of G.B. Tyler and B.H. Luckett, assignees of William T. Cheatham," and requesting my opinion as to the propriety of its approval by you, I have to say that there are no data on file in the Department, so far as I can learn, which indicate that the amount it is proposed by this bill to refund to the assignees of Mr. Cheatham was wrongfully collected or that the amount should be refunded.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in his report to me in reference to the matter, says:

"The reimbursement to the United States by said Cheatham of the salary paid to this storekeeper by the collector of internal revenue for the months of December, 1869, and January, 1870, was in accordance with the provisions of joint resolution of March 29, 1869 (16 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 52), and there appears to be no reason for the refunding by the United States to the assignees of said Cheatham the salary of this storekeeper that would not apply with equal force to similar payments by all other distillers who were operating their distilleries or had spirits in their warehouses at that time."

The facts above stated are considered by this office valid and serious objections to the approval of this bill, and they would have been communicated to the Congressional committee before the passage of the bill had they called the attention of this office to the subject.

The bill is herewith returned.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

B.H. BRISTOW, Secretary.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 18, 1876.

To the Senate of the United States:

Herewith I return Senate bill No. 172, entitled "An act fixing the salary of the President of the United States," without my approval.

I am constrained to this course from a sense of duty to my successors in office, to myself, and to what is due to the dignity of the position of Chief Magistrate of a nation of more than 40,000,000 people.

When the salary of the President of the United States, pursuant to the Constitution, was fixed at $25,000 per annum, we were a nation of but 3,000,000 people, poor from a long and exhaustive war, without commerce or manufactures, with but few wants and those cheaply supplied. The salary must then have been deemed small for the responsibilities and dignity of the position, but justifiably so from the impoverished condition of the Treasury and the simplicity it was desired to cultivate in the Republic.

The salary of Congressmen under the Constitution was first fixed at $6 per day for the time actually in session--an average of about one hundred and twenty days to each session--or $720 per year, or less than one-thirtieth of the salary of the President.

Congress have legislated upon their own salaries from time to time since, until finally it reached $5,000 per annum, or one-fifth that of the President, before the salary of the latter was increased.

No one having a knowledge of the cost of living at the national capital will contend that the present salary of Congressmen is too high, unless it is the intention to make the office one entirely of honor, when the salary should be abolished--a proposition repugnant to our republican ideas and institutions.

I do not believe the citizens of this Republic desire their public servants to serve them without a fair compensation for their services. Twenty-five thousand dollars does not defray the expenses of the Executive for one year, or has not in my experience. It is not now one-fifth in value of what it was at the time of the adoption of the Constitution in supplying demands and wants.

Having no personal interest in this matter, I have felt myself free to return this bill to the House in which it originated with my objections, believing that in doing so I meet the wishes and judgment of the great majority of those who indirectly pay all the salaries and other expenses of Government.

U.S. GRANT.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 26, 1876.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without my approval House bill No. 1922, entitled "An act providing for the recording of deeds, mortgages, and other conveyances affecting real estate in the District of Columbia."

The objection to affixing my signature to this bill may be found in the communication addressed to me by the Attorney-General, and which accompanies this message.

U.S. GRANT.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, May 23, 1876.

The PRESIDENT.

SIR: In reply to your note of the 19th instant, in which you request me to report whether there are objections to your approval of "An act providing for the recording of deeds, mortgages, and other conveyances affecting real estate in the District of Columbia," being House bill No. 1922, I have the honor to state that the bill seems to me objectionable because of indefiniteness and uncertainty as to the time which it purports to fix when deeds of trust, mortgages, etc., shall take effect and be valid as to creditors and subsequent purchasers for valuable consideration without notice. Although there is no constitutional objection to the act, yet for the reason above stated I hesitate to advise its approval.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

EDWARDS PIERREPONT, Attorney-General.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 9, 1876.

To the Senate of the United States:

I return herewith without my approval Senate bill No. 165, entitled "An act for the relief of Michael W. Brock, of Meigs County, Tenn., late a private in Company D, Tenth Tennessee Volunteers."

The objection to affixing my signature to this bill may be found in the indorsement (which accompanies this message) by the Adjutant-General of the Army.

U.S. GRANT.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

Washington, June 8, 1876.

Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War.

The records of this office show that Michael W. Brock, Company D, Tenth Tennessee Volunteers, deserted November 24, 1864, due United States for horse and horse equipments, carbine, saber, and pistol, all complete.

He presented satisfactory evidence of his having left the service by proper authority, and the charge of desertion has been removed and the soldier furnished an honorable discharge.

No evidence has been presented to this office to establish that he was erroneously charged with Government property.

If satisfactory evidence is furnished showing conclusively that this soldier was erroneously charged with Government property, taken at time of his reported desertion, the charge will be removed, and in that case the inclosed act for his relief will be unnecessary.

ED TOWNSEND, Adjutant-General.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 30, 1876.

To the Senate of the United States:

I return herewith without my approval Senate bill No. 692, entitled "An act to amend chapter 166 of the laws of the second session of the Forty-third Congress."

The objections to affixing my signature to this bill may be found in the report, which accompanies this message, of the Chief of Engineers of the Army to the Secretary of War.

U.S. GRANT.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington City, June 28, 1876.

The PRESIDENT:

SIR: I have the honor to return herewith Senate bill No. 692, "to amend