Section 536 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, Relating to

the division of the State of Illinois into judicial districts, and to provide for holding terms of court of the northern district at the city of Peoria.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 25, 1887.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, an additional article to the treaty of extradition concluded October 11, 1870, between the United States of America and the Republic of Guatemala.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 26, 1887.

To the Senate:

I transmit herewith, in reply to a resolution of the Senate of the 21st ultimo, a report from the Secretary of State, relative to the seizure and sale of the American schooner Rebecca at Tampico and the resignation of Henry R. Jackson, esq., as minister of the United States to Mexico. It is not thought compatible with the public interests to publish the correspondence in either case at the present time.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 28, 1887.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of 17th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, two agreements made with Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota under the provisions of the act of May 15, 1886 (24 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 44).

The papers are presented for the consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, March 1, 1887.

To the Senate of the United States:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 22d ultimo, requesting copies of certain letters, dated June 8, 1886, and September 20, 1886, addressed by the counsel of A.H. Lazare to the Secretary of State, in regard to the award against the Republic of Hayti in favor of A.H. Lazare under the protocol signed by the Secretary of State and the minister of Hayti on May 24, 1884, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State upon the subject.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, March 1, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:.

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 28th ultimo (the Senate concurring), I return herewith the bill of the House (H.R. 7310) granting a pension to Mrs. Arlanta T. Taylor.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 2, 1887.

To the Senate of the United States:

In response to the resolution of the Senate of the 14th ultimo, requesting information concerning the service rendered by Count Casimir Pulaski, a brigadier-general of the Army of the United States in the years 1777, 1778, and 1779, and also respecting his pay and compensation, I transmit herewith reports upon the subject from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of War.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, March 2, 1887.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers, furnished in response to the resolution of the Senate of the 26th ultimo, calling for information touching the conditions under which certain transatlantic telegraph companies have been permitted to land their cables in the United States, and touching contracts of such companies with each other or with other cable or telegraph companies.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

VETO MESSAGES.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 19, 1887.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2269, entitled "An act granting a pension to William Dickens."

The beneficiary named in this bill filed his application for pension in the Pension Bureau in 1880, and in December, 1886, the same was granted, taking effect from the 15th day of October, 1864.

If the bill herewith returned should become a law, it would permit the payment of a pension only from the date of its approval. Thus, if it did not result in loss to the claimant by superseding the action of the Pension Bureau, it is plain that it would be a useless enactment.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 27, 1887.

To the Senate:

I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 2173, entitled "An act granting a pension to Benjamin Obekiah."

This bill directs that the beneficiary named therein be placed upon the pension roll, "subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws."

In July, 1886, the person named in this bill was placed upon the pension roll at a rate determined upon by the Pension Bureau, pursuant to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws; and it is entirely certain that the special act now presented to me would give the claimant no new rights or additional benefits.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 27, 1887.

To the Senate:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 127, entitled "An act for the relief of H.K. Belding."

This bill directs the sum of $1,566 to be paid to the said H.K. Belding "for carrying the mails of the United States between the years 1858 and 1862."

In April, 1858, a contract was awarded to the said Belding for carrying the mails from Brownsville, Minn., to Carimona, in the same State, a distance of 63 miles, and return, three times a week, for the sum of $1,800 per annum, said service to begin on the 1st day of July, 1858, and to terminate on the 30th day of June, 1862. This contract contained a provision that the Post-Office Department might discontinue the service in whole or in part, allowing to the contractor one month's extra pay therefor.

On May 9, 1859, in consequence of a failure on the part of the Congress to make the necessary appropriation, a general reduction of mail service was ordered, and the service under the contract with the claimant was reduced to two trips per week from May 10, 1859, instead of three, as stipulated in the contract, and a deduction of one-third of the annual sum to be paid by the contract was made for such reduced service; and thereupon one month's extra pay was allowed and paid the contractor on account of said reduction.

It is conceded that payment was made in full according to the terms of the contract up to the 10th day of May, 1859, but it is claimed that notwithstanding the reduction of the service to two trips per week and the receipt by the contractor of one month's extra pay by reason thereof, he continued to perform the full service of three trips per week from the 10th day of May, 1859, to the 30th day of September, 1860, being seventeen months.

Of the sum directed to be paid to him in the bill under consideration, $850 is allowed him on account of this service, he having been paid for the period stated at the rate of $1,200 per annum. The contractor claims that this full service was performed after the reduction by the Post-Office Department because he had received an intimation from the Postmaster-General that if the full service was continued after such reduction there was no doubt that the Congress would at its next session make provision for the payment of the sum deducted.

Of course no legal claim in favor of the contractor can be predicated upon the facts which he alleges; and if he did continue full service under the circumstances stated, it must be conceded that his conduct was hardly in accordance with the rules which regulate transactions of this kind.

But a thorough search of the correspondence and records in the Post-Office Department fails to disclose any letter, document, or record giving the least support to the allegation that any such intimation or assurance as is claimed was given; nor is there the least evidence in the Department that the full service was actually performed. There is, however, on the files of the Department a letter from the claimant, dated August 25, 1860, containing the following statement:

When I received official information of the curtailing service, the reasons why, I wrote to the Department that I would, if allowed, continue service three times a week and take certificates, if I could be allowed to connect with La Crosse at pro rata rates. That letter was never answered and I continued service three times a week till 3d of September following, then run twice a week.

Thus it appears that this contractor, who in August, 1860, claimed that he continued full service upon the invitation of his own unanswered letter for less than four months, insists twenty-seven years after the date of the alleged service that he performed such service for seventeen months, and up to October, 1860. Not only has he himself in this manner almost conclusively shown that the claim now made and allowed is exorbitant, but the evidence gives rise to a strong presumption that it is entirely fictitious.

The remainder of the amount allowed to the claimant in this bill is based upon an alleged performance by the contractor of the same mail service which has been referred to from October 1, 1860, to February 14, 1861, a period of four months and fourteen days.

Prior to October 1, 1860, the claimant's contract was annulled and a new or more extended route established, entirely covering that upon which he had carried the mails. Thereupon a month's extra pay was allowed to him, and new contractors undertook the service and were paid therefor by the Government for the period covered by the claimant's alleged service. From the 14th day of February, 1861, Mr. Belding's contract with the Government was reinstated; but if he performed the service alleged during the period of four months and fourteen days immediately prior to that date, it is quite clear that he did so under an arrangement with the new contractors, and not under circumstances creating any legal or equitable claim against the Government.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 31, 1887.

To the Senate:

I hereby return without approval Senate bill No. 2167, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Margaret Dunlap."

By this bill it is proposed to grant a pension to the beneficiary therein named as the mother of James F. Dunlap, who enlisted in the Seventh Missouri State Militia Cavalry in 1862 and died in July, 1864, of wounds received at the hand of a comrade.

The favorable action of the Senate upon this bill appears to be based, so far as the cause of death is concerned, upon an affidavit contained in the report of the committee to which the bill was referred, made by one G. Will Houts, second lieutenant in the company to which the deceased soldier belonged, in which the affiant deposes that some of the comrades of the deceased being engaged in an affray he attempted to separate the combatants, whereupon one of them, without cause or provocation, stabbed the deceased in the breast, from which, in a few days thereafter, he died; to which affidavit is added the finding of a court-martial that the party inflicting the wound was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

Upon this showing it might be difficult to spell out the facts that the injury to the soldier was received in the line of duty or that any theory of granting pensions covered the case.

But the weak features of this application are not alluded to in the committee's report.

The record of the soldier's death states that he was "killed by one of his comrades in a difficulty."

The same Lieutenant Houts who in 1872 made oath that the soldier was wounded while attempting to separate comrades who were fighting testified in 1864 before the court-martial upon the trial of the man who did the wounding, and whose name was Capehart, that Dunlap, the deceased, stated to him "that he was more to blame than Capehart, and that they had been scuffling, at first good-naturedly, and then both got angry; that he was rougher with Capehart than he ought to have been."

Another witness testified that the affray took place between Dunlap and Capehart; that Dunlap handled Capehart very roughly, kicking him, etc., and that finally Capehart stabbed Dunlap, upon which the latter attempted to get his gun, but was prevented from doing so by the witness.

Of course there can be no pretense of any kind of claim against the Government arising from these facts.

It is quite evident that the affidavit presented to the Senate committee was contrived to deceive, and it is to be feared that it is but a sample of many that are made in support of claims for pensions.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 3, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 6443, entitled "An act granting a pension to Alexander Falconer."

This claimant filed his application for pension in 1879, alleging that in 1837, being then an enlisted man in the United States Army, he received a gunshot wound in his right leg below the knee at the battle of Okeechobee Lake, Florida.

The records disclose the fact that this soldier enlisted in 1834, and was almost continuously in the service and attached to the same company until 1846.

It further appears that he is reported sick during the month in which the battle was fought. The list of casualties does not contain his name among the wounded.

He reenlisted in 1846 and again in 1847, and was finally discharged in 1848. These latter enlistments were for service in the Mexican War.

His claim for pension was denied in 1885 on the ground that no disability existed in a pensionable degree from the alleged gunshot wound in his leg.

It is perfectly clear that the only pretexts for giving this claimant a pension are military service, old age, and poverty.

Inasmuch as he was a soldier in the Mexican War, his case is undoubtedly provided for by a general law approved within the last few days.

Under this bill the amount to be paid him is fixed, while if the bill herewith returned were approved the sum to be paid him would depend upon the determination of the Pension Bureau as to the extent of his disability as the result of his wound. As that Bureau has quite lately determined that there was no disability, it is evident that this old soldier can better rely upon the general law referred to.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 3, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6132, entitled "An act granting a pension to William Lynch."

The claimant mentioned in this bill enlisted in the Fifth Regiment United States Infantry in 1849, and was discharged, after a reenlistment, September 8, 1859.

He filed a claim for pension more than twenty-four years afterwards, in April, 1884, claiming that he contracted rheumatism of the right hip and leg in the winter of 1857-58, while serving in Utah. He admitted that he was not under treatment while in the service and that he never consulted a physician in regard to his disability until he commenced proceedings for a pension.

The evidence disclosed to me falls far short of establishing this claim for pension upon its merits.

The application made to the Pension Bureau is still pending and awaiting answer to inquiries made by the Bureau in January, 1886.

I do not understand that the Congress intends to pass special acts in cases thus situated.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 7698, entitled "An act granting a pension to Robert K. Bennett."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted in September, 1862, and it appears that very soon after that he was detailed to the cook shop. This seems to be the only military service he rendered, and on February 7, 1863, five months after enlistment, he was received into the marine hospital at New Orleans for varicocele. He was discharged from the service February 22, 1863, and the cause of discharge is stated to be "varicocele, to which he was subject four years before enlistment."

Seventeen years thereafter, and in June, 1880, this claimant filed an application for pension in the Pension Bureau, alleging that about the 10th day of February, 1863, in unloading a barrel it fell upon him, producing a hernia, shortly after which he was affected by piles.

It will be seen that he fixes this injury as occurring three days after his admission to the hospital, but he might well be honestly mistaken as to this date. If the injury, however, was such as he stated, it is difficult to see why no mention was made of it in the hospital records.

He persisted at all times, as I understand the case, until the rejection of his claim in 1883, that his disability arose from hernia and piles. The reason of this rejection is stated to be that varicocele existed prior to enlistment and that there was no evidence of the existence of piles in the service or at discharge. From a medical examination made in December, 1882, it appears that there was "no evidence or symptoms of disability resulting from piles or hernia."

Subsequent to the rejection of this claim some proof was filed tending to show that the disability was in the right leg, but it is of such a nature, in the light of the claimant's own previous allegations, that I think the Pension Bureau did entirely right in informing his attorney that the additional evidence did not change the status of the case.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 7540, entitled "An act to increase the pension of Franklin Sweet."

This soldier was pensioned in 1863 as sergeant, though before that time he had been acting as captain, and was in command of his company when he was wounded. He is entitled in equity, and, I think, upon the theory of an act very recently approved, in law, to be treated in regard to his pension as a captain; and the Pension Bureau has within the last few days ordered a certificate for pension to issue to him as captain as of the date of his discharge.

I fully approve this action of the Bureau, and as this is much more favorable to a deserving soldier than his remedy under this bill, I am not willing that the action, so lately and so justly taken in his behalf under the general law should be superseded by the approval of this act.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 8834, entitled "An act granting a pension to Abraham P. Griggs."

The claimant mentioned in this bill enlisted in a New Jersey regiment August 14, 1861, and was discharged for disability November 17, 1863.

He entered hospital January 2, 1863, and was transferred to general hospital at Newark, N.J., March 28, 1863, with "debility." He was discharged from that hospital and from the service in November, 1863, as above stated, and the following statement from his certificate of discharge, if trustworthy, sheds some light upon the kind of debility with which he was afflicted:

This man has been in this hospital for the past eight months. We do not believe him sick, or that he has been sick, but completely worthless. He is obese and a malingerer to such an extent that he is almost an imbecile--worthlessness, obesity, and imbecility and laziness. He is totally unfit for the Invalid Corps or for any other military duty.

I do not regard it at all strange that this claimant, encouraged by the ease with which special acts are passed, seeks relief through such means, after his application, filed in the Pension Bureau nearly twenty years after his discharge, had been rejected.

Of the four comrades who make affidavit in support of his claim, two of them are recorded as deserters.

His claim is predicated upon rheumatism. He alleges that after his discharge from his enlistment he was drafted and served in the Third New York Cavalry, but the Adjutant-General reports that his name does not appear on the rolls of the company to which he says he was attached.

The board of United States examining surgeons at Trenton, N.J., report as the result of an examination as late as May 27, 1885, that they found "no disease of heart or lungs, no thickening or wasting of any of the joints of the body, no evidence of any rheumatic diathesis, no rupture or hemorrhoids, no disease of his spleen or kidney; hands are hard and indicate an ability to work."

I can not think that the official statements referred to, and which militate so strongly against the merits of the claimant, should be impeached or set aside by any of the other testimony which has been brought to my attention.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 927, entitled "An act granting a pension to Cudbert Stone."

The report of the committee of the House of Representatives to whom this bill was referred states that the claimant enlisted October 3, 1861, in Company H, Fourteenth Kentucky Volunteers, and was honorably discharged on the 31st day of January, 1865; that he filed his claim for pension July 20, 1881, more than sixteen years thereafter, alleging that he contracted piles while in the service, from exposure while in the line of duty, and that his claim was rejected in October, 1884, on the ground that the allegation of the claimant shows that his disability originated while undergoing the sentence of a court-martial, and therefore not in the line of duty.

The report of the committee closes with the statement that--

In view of the long and faithful service and high character of the claimant and the well-established facts that claimant was a stout and able-bodied man, free from any and all disease when he enlisted, and that by reason of his faithful service to his country and the great suffering and hardship through which he passed while in said service his health was permanently destroyed, the committee earnestly recommend the passage of the bill.

The records of the War Department show that the claimant enlisted October 25, 1861, and that on the muster-in roll of his company dated December 10, 1861, he is reported as present; that on the roll dated December 31, 1861, he is reported as absent without leave; that on the roll for January and February, 1862, he is reported as deserted; that he is not borne on subsequent rolls until that for November, 1864, when he is reported as gained from desertion; he was mustered out with his company January 31, 1865, and the records offered no evidence of disability; that in his claim for pension, filed in 1881, he alleges that he contracted piles in the winter of 1863.

In a subsequent statement he alleges that this date is erroneous, and that his disability was contracted in October, 1864, and that he believes it was the result of his having diarrhea for about twelve months prior to that date, contracted while he was being carried from place to place as a prisoner, he having been tried by a court-martial in May, 1862, for desertion and sentenced to imprisonment until the expiration of his term of enlistment.

Thus it quite plainly appears that this claimant spent the most of his term of enlistment in desertion or in imprisonment as a punishment of that offense; and thus is exhibited the "long and faithful service and the high character of the claimant" mentioned as entitling him to consideration by the committee who reported favorably upon this bill.

I withhold my assent from this bill because, if the facts before me, derived from the army records and the statements of the claimant are true, the allowance of this claim would, in my opinion, be a travesty upon our whole scheme of pensions and an insult to every decent veteran soldier.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 8150, entitled "An act granting a pension to Jesse Campbell."

The claim for a pension made by the beneficiary named in this bill to the Pension Bureau, and rejected in 1881, was reopened upon further proof in January, 1887, and the claimant was ordered before a board of examining surgeons, upon which a report has not yet been made.

Inasmuch as the only ground for the rejection of his claim was the nonexistence of pensionable disability from the cause he alleged, and in view of the fact that he now alleges a different disability, which the new evidence seems to support, there is no doubt that justice will be done the claimant under the general law.

This bill if passed would only place the name of the beneficiary upon the pension roll, "subject to the restrictions and limitations of the pension laws." Whether any sum was allowed him or not would still depend upon the existence of a disability; and if this is found upon the examination lately ordered, he will undoubtedly be put upon the pension roll, under existing law, in accordance with his supplementary claim.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I hereby return without approval House bill No. 6832, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Catharine Sattler."

The beneficiary named in this bill claims a pension as the surviving widow of Julius Sattler, who enlisted in Company A, Seventh New York Volunteers, and was in the service from March 10, 1864, to March 22, 1865, when he was discharged because of the amputation of his left forearm in consequence of a wound received in the battle of Deep Bottom, Virginia, on the 14th day of August, 1864. He was pensioned in 1865 at the rate of $8 per month, which was afterwards increased to $15 per month, dating from June 6, 1866.

In October, 1867, he was employed as a watchman in the United States bonded warehouse in the city of New York, and on the 31st day of that month he received his monthly pay of $50. He disappeared on that day, and on the 13th day of November, 1867, his body was found in the North River, at the foot of West Thirteenth street, in the city of New York without his hat, coat, watch, or money.

These facts, with the further statement that he was a strong and healthy man at the time of his death, constitute the case on the part of the widow, who filed her application for a pension July 8, 1884, nearly seventeen years after her husband's death, alleging that she was married to the deceased in 1865, after the amputation of his arm.

Her claim was rejected in November, 1884, upon the ground that the soldier's death was not due to his military service.

This rejection was clearly right, unless the Government is to be held as an insurer against every fatal casualty incurred by those who have served in the Army, without regard to the manner of its occurrence.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6825, entitled "An act granting a pension to James R. Baylor."

The claim of the beneficiary named in this bill is based upon an injury to his left ankle in 1862.

A medical examination in 1877 showed no appearance of there ever having been a fracture of the left ankle, as alleged by the claimant, and it was determined that there was no disability. A later examination in the same year was had with the same result. Still another medical examination was had in June, 1884, which, although nearly agreeing with the previous ones, and giving rise to some suspicion that the claimant was inclined to exaggerate and prevent a free and fair examination, still does not absolutely exclude a very slight disability.

Upon the report of this last examination the case has been reopened for further proof of disability since discharge, which if found will entitle the claimant to a pension under general laws. On the question to be determined he would have no advantage under a special act, inasmuch as there must be a ratable disability to entitle him to any payment in pursuance of its provisions.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 11, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without my approval House bill No. 10457, entitled "An act for the relief of dependent parents and honorably discharged soldiers and sailors who are now disabled and dependent upon their own labor for support."

This is the first general bill that has been sanctioned by the Congress since the close of the late civil war permitting a pension to the soldiers and sailors who served in that war upon the ground of service and present disability alone, and in the entire absence of any injuries received by the casualties or incidents of such service.

While by almost constant legislation since the close of this war there has been compensation awarded for every possible injury received as a result of military service in the Union Army, and while a great number of laws passed for that purpose have been administered with great liberality and have been supplemented by numerous private acts to reach special cases, there has not until now been an avowed departure from the principle thus far adhered to respecting Union soldiers, that the bounty of the Government in the way of pensions is generously bestowed when granted to those who, in this military service and in the line of military duty, have to a greater or less extent been disabled.

But it is a mistake to suppose that service pensions, such as are permitted by the second section of the bill under consideration, are new to our legislation. In 1818, thirty-five years after the close of the Revolutionary War, they were granted to the soldiers engaged in that struggle, conditional upon service until the end of the war or for a term not less than nine months, and requiring every beneficiary under the act to be one "who is, or hereafter by reason of his reduced circumstances in life shall be, in need of assistance from his country for support." Another law of a like character was passed in 1828, requiring service until the close of the Revolutionary War; and still another, passed in 1832, provided for those persons not included in the previous statute, but who served two years at some time during the war, and giving a proportionate sum to those who had served not less than six months.

A service-pension law was passed for the benefit of the soldiers of 1812 in the year 1871, fifty-six years after the close of that war, which required only sixty days' service; and another was passed in 1878, sixty-three years after the war, requiring only fourteen days' service.

The service-pension bill passed at this session of Congress, thirty-nine years after the close of the Mexican War, for the benefit of the soldiers of that war, requires either some degree of disability or dependency or that the claimant under its provisions should be 62 years of age, and in either case that he should have served sixty days or been actually engaged in a battle.

It will be seen that the bill of 1818 and the Mexican pension bill, being thus passed nearer the close of the wars in which its beneficiaries were engaged than the others--one thirty-five years and the other thirty-nine years after the termination of such wars--embraced persons who were quite advanced in age, assumed to be comparatively few in number, and whose circumstances, dependence, and disabilities were clearly defined and could be quite easily fixed.

The other laws referred to appear to have been passed at a time so remote from the military service of the persons which they embraced that their extreme age alone was deemed to supply a presumption of dependency and need.

The number of enlistments in the Revolutionary War is stated to be 309,791, and in the War of 1812 576,622; but it is estimated that on account of repeated reenlistments the number of individuals engaged in these wars did not exceed one-half of the number represented by these figures. In the war with Mexico the number of enlistments is reported to be 112,230, which represents a greater proportion of individuals engaged than the reported enlistments in the two previous wars.

The number of pensions granted under all laws to soldiers of the Revolution is given at 62,069; to soldiers of the War of 1812 and their widows, 60,178; and to soldiers of the Mexican War and their widows, up to June 30, 1885, 7,619. The latter pensions were granted to the soldiers of a war involving much hardship for disabilities incurred as a result of such service; and it was not till within the last month that the few remaining survivors were awarded a service pension.

The War of the Rebellion terminated nearly twenty-two years ago; the number of men furnished for its prosecution is stated to be 2,772,408. No corresponding number of statutes have ever been passed to cover every kind of injury or disability incurred in the military service of any war. Under these statutes 561,576 pensions have been granted from the year 1861 to June 30, 1886, and more than 2,600 pensioners have been added to the rolls by private acts passed to meet cases, many of them of questionable merit, which the general laws did not cover.

On the 1st day of July, 1886, 365,763 pensioners of all classes were upon the pension rolls, of whom 305,605 were survivors of the War of the Rebellion and their widows and dependents. For the year ending June 30, 1887, $75,000,000 have been appropriated for the payment of pensions, and the amount expended for that purpose from 1861 to July 1, 1886, is $808,624,811.51.

While annually paying out such a vast sum for pensions already granted, it is now proposed by the bill under consideration to award a service pension to the soldiers of all wars in which the United States has been engaged, including of course the War of the Rebellion, and to pay those entitled to the benefits of the act the sum of $12 per month.

So far as it relates to the soldiers of the late civil war, the bounty it affords them is given thirteen years earlier than it has been furnished the soldiers of any other war, and before a large majority of its beneficiaries have advanced in age beyond the strength and vigor of the prime of life.

It exacts only a military or naval service of three months, without any requirement of actual engagement with an enemy in battle, and without a subjection to any of the actual dangers of war.

The pension it awards is allowed to enlisted men who have not suffered the least injury, disability, loss, or damage of any kind, incurred in or in any degree referable to their military service, including those who never reached the front at all and those discharged from rendezvous at the close of the war, if discharged three months after enlistment. Under the last call of the President for troops, in December, 1864, 11,303 men were furnished who were thus discharged.

The section allowing this pension does, however, require, besides a service of three months and an honorable discharge, that those seeking the benefit of the act shall be such as "are now or may hereafter be suffering from mental or physical disability, not the result of their own vicious habits or gross carelessness, which incapacitates them for the performance of labor in such a degree as to render them unable to earn a support, and who are dependent upon their daily labor for support."

It provides further that such persons shall, upon making proof of the fact, "be placed on the list of invalid pensioners of the United States, and be entitled to receive for such total inability to procure their subsistence by daily labor $12 per month; and such pension shall commence from the date of the filing of the application in the Pension Office, upon proof that the disability then existed, and continue during the existence of the same in the degree herein provided: Provided, That persons who are now receiving pensions under existing laws, or whose claims are pending in the Pension Office, may, by application to the Commissioner of Pensions, in such form as he may prescribe, receive the benefit of this act."

It is manifestly of the utmost importance that statutes which, like pension laws, should be liberally administered as measures of benevolence in behalf of worthy beneficiaries should admit of no uncertainty as to their general objects and consequences.

Upon a careful consideration of the language of the section of this bill above given it seems to me to be so uncertain and liable to such conflicting constructions and to be subject to such unjust and mischievous application as to alone furnish sufficient ground for disapproving the proposed legislation.

Persons seeking to obtain the pension provided by this section must be now or hereafter--

1. "Suffering from mental or physical disability."

2. Such disability must not be "the result of their own vicious habits or gross carelessness."

3. Such disability must be such as "incapacitates them for the performance of labor in such a degree as to render them unable to earn a support."

4. They must be "dependent upon their daily labor for support."

5. Upon proof of these conditions they shall "be placed on the lists of invalid pensioners of the United States, and be entitled to receive for such total inability to procure their subsistence by daily labor $12 per month."

It is not probable that the words last quoted, "such total inability to procure their subsistence by daily labor," at all qualify the conditions prescribed in the preceding language of the section. The "total inability" spoken of must be "such" inability--that is, the inability already described and constituted by the conditions already detailed in the previous parts of the section.

It thus becomes important to consider the meaning and the scope of these last-mentioned conditions.

The mental and physical disability spoken of has a distinct meaning in the practice of the Pension Bureau and includes every impairment of bodily or mental strength and vigor. For such disabilities there are now paid 131 different rates of pension, ranging from $1 to $100 per month.

This disability must not be the result of the applicant's "vicious habits or gross carelessness." Practically this provision is not important. The attempt of the Government to escape the payment of a pension on such a plea would of course in a very large majority of instances, and regardless of the merits of the case, prove a failure. There would be that strange but nearly universal willingness to help the individual as between him and the public Treasury which goes very far to insure a state of proof in favor of the claimant.

The disability of applicants must be such as to "incapacitate them for the performance of labor in such a degree as to render them unable to earn a support."

It will be observed that there is no limitation or definition of the incapacitating injury or ailment itself. It need only be such a degree of disability from any cause as renders the claimant unable to earn a support by labor. It seems to me that the "support" here mentioned as one which can not be earned is a complete and entire support, with no diminution on account of the least impairment of physical or mental condition. If it had been intended to embrace only those who by disease or injury were totally unable to labor, it would have been very easy to express that idea, instead of recognizing, as is done, a "degree" of such inability.

What is a support? Who is to determine whether a man earns it, or has it, or has it not? Is the Government to enter the homes of claimants for pension and after an examination of their surroundings and circumstances settle those questions? Shall the Government say to one man that his manner of subsistence by his earnings is a support and to another that the things his earnings furnish are not a support? Any attempt, however honest, to administer this law in such a manner would necessarily produce more unfairness and unjust discrimination and give more scope for partisan partiality, and would result in more perversion of the Government's benevolent intentions, than the execution of any statute ought to permit.

If in the effort to carry out the proposed law the degree of disability as related to earnings be considered for the purpose of discovering if in any way it curtails the support which the applicant, if entirely sound, would earn, and to which he is entitled, we enter the broad field long occupied by the Pension Bureau, and we recognize as the only difference between the proposed legislation and previous laws passed for the benefit of the surviving soldiers of the Civil War the incurrence in one case of disabilities in military service and in the other disabilities existing, but in no way connected with or resulting from such service.

It must be borne in mind that in no case is there any grading of this proposed pension. Under the operation of the rule first suggested, if there is a lack in any degree, great or small, of the ability to earn such a support as the Government determines the claimant should have, and, by the application of the rule secondly suggested, if there is a reduction in any degree of the support which he might earn if sound, he is entitled to a pension of $12.

In the latter case, and under the proviso of the proposed bill permitting persons now receiving pensions to be admitted to the benefits of the act, I do not see how those now on the pension roll for disabilities incurred in the service, and which diminish their earning capacity, can be denied the pension provided in this bill.

Of course none will apply who are now receiving $12 or more per month. But on the 30th day of June, 1886, there were on the pension rolls 202,621 persons who were receiving fifty-eight different rates of pension from $1 to $11.75 per month. Of these, 28,142 were receiving $2 per month; 63,116, $4 per month; 37,254, $6 per month, and 50,274, whose disabilities were rated as total, $8 per month.

As to the meaning of the section of the bill under consideration there appears to have been quite a difference of opinion among its advocates in the Congress. The chairman of the Committee on Pensions in the House of Representatives, who reported the bill, declared that there was in it no provision for pensioning anyone who has a less disability than a total inability to labor, and that it was a charity measure. The chairman of the Committee on Pensions in the Senate, having charge of the bill in that body, dissented from the construction of the bill announced in the House of Representatives, and declared that it not only embraced all soldiers totally disabled, but, in his judgment, all who are disabled to any considerable extent; and such a construction was substantially given to the bill by another distinguished Senator, who, as a former Secretary of the Interior, had imposed upon him the duty of executing pension laws and determining their intent and meaning.

Another condition required of claimants under this act is that they shall be "dependent upon their daily labor for support."

This language, which may be said to assume that there exists within the reach of the persons mentioned "labor," or the ability in some degree to work, is more aptly used in a statute describing those not wholly deprived of this ability than in one which deals with those utterly unable to work.

I am of the opinion that it may fairly be contended that under the provisions of this section any soldier whose faculties of mind or body have become impaired by accident, disease, or age, irrespective of his service in the Army as a cause, and who by his labor only is left incapable of gaining the fair support he might with unimpaired powers have provided for himself, and who is not so well endowed with this world's goods as to live without work, may claim to participate in its bounty; that it is not required that he should be without property, but only that labor should be necessary to his support in some degree; nor is it required that he should be now receiving support from others.

Believing this to be the proper interpretation of the bill, I can not but remember that the soldiers of our Civil War in their pay and bounty received such compensation for military service as has never been received by soldiers before since mankind first went to war; that never before on behalf of any soldiery have so many and such generous laws been passed to relieve against the incidents of war; that statutes have been passed giving them a preference in all public employments; that the really needy and homeless Union soldiers of the rebellion have been to a large extent provided for at soldiers' homes, instituted and supported by the Government, where they are maintained together, free from the sense of degradation which attaches to the usual support of charity; and that never before in the history of the country has it been proposed to render Government aid toward the support of any of its soldiers based alone upon a military service so recent, and where age and circumstances appeared so little to demand such aid.

Hitherto such relief has been granted to surviving soldiers few in number, venerable in age, after a long lapse of time since their military service, and as a parting benefaction tendered by a grateful people.

I can not believe that the vast peaceful army of Union soldiers, who, having contentedly resumed their places in the ordinary avocations of life, cherish as sacred the memory of patriotic service, or who, having been disabled by the casualties of war, justly regard the present pension roll on which appear their names as a roll of honor, desire at this time and in the present exigency to be confounded with those who through such a bill as this are willing to be objects of simple charity and to gain a place upon the pension roll through alleged dependence.

Recent personal observation and experience constrain me to refer to another result which will inevitably follow the passage of this bill. It is sad, but nevertheless true, that already in the matter of procuring pensions there exists a widespread disregard of truth and good faith, stimulated by those who as agents undertake to establish claims for pensions heedlessly entered upon by the expectant beneficiary, and encouraged, or at least not condemned, by those unwilling to obstruct a neighbor's plans.

In the execution of this proposed law under any interpretation a wide field of inquiry would be opened for the establishment of facts largely within the knowledge of the claimants alone, and there can be no doubt that the race after the pensions offered by this bill would not only stimulate weakness and pretended incapacity for labor, but put a further premium on dishonesty and mendacity.

The effect of new invitations to apply for pensions or of new advantages added to causes for pensions already existing is sometimes startling.

Thus in March, 1879, large arrearages of pensions were allowed to be added to all claims filed prior to July 1, 1880. For the year from July 1, 1879, to July 1, 1880, there were filed 110,673 claims, though in the year immediately previous there were but 36,832 filed, and in the year following but 18,455.

While cost should not be set against a patriotic duty or the recognition of a right, still when a measure proposed is based upon generosity or motives of charity it is not amiss to meditate somewhat upon the expense which it involves. Experience has demonstrated, I believe, that all estimates concerning the probable future cost of a pension list are uncertain and unreliable and always fall far below actual realization.

The chairman of the House Committee on Pensions calculates that the number of pensioners under this bill would be 33,105 and the increased cost $4,767,120. This is upon the theory that only those who are entirely unable to work would be its beneficiaries. Such was the principle of the Revolutionary pension law of 1818, much more clearly stated, it seems to me, than in this bill. When the law of 1818 was upon its passage in Congress, the number of pensioners to be benefited thereby was thought to be 374; but the number of applicants under the act was 22,297, and the number of pensions actually allowed 20,485, costing, it is reported, for the first year, $1,847,900, instead of $40,000, the estimated expense for that period.

A law was passed in 1853 for the benefit of the surviving widows of Revolutionary soldiers who were married after January 1, 1800. It was estimated that they numbered 300 at the time of the passage of the act; but the number of pensions allowed was 3,742, and the amount paid for such pensions during the first year of the operation of the act was $180,000, instead of $24,000, as had been estimated.

I have made no search for other illustrations, and the above, being at hand, are given as tending to show that estimates can not be relied upon in such cases.

If none should be pensioned under this bill except those utterly unable to work, I am satisfied that the cost stated in the estimate referred to would be many times multiplied, and with a constant increase from year to year; and if those partially unable to earn their support should be admitted to the privileges of this bill, the probable increase of expense would be almost appalling.

I think it may be said that at the close of the War of the Rebellion every Northern State and a great majority of Northern counties and cities were burdened with taxation on account of the large bounties paid our soldiers; and the bonded debt thereby created still constitutes a large item in the account of the tax gatherer against the people. Federal taxation, no less borne by the people than that directly levied upon their property, is still maintained at the rate made necessary by the exigencies of war. If this bill should become a law, with its tremendous addition to our pension obligation, I am thoroughly convinced that further efforts to reduce the Federal revenue and restore some part of it to our people will, and perhaps should, be seriously questioned.

It has constantly been a cause of pride and congratulation to the American citizen that his country is not put to the charge of maintaining a large standing army in time of peace. Yet we are now living under a war tax which has been tolerated in peaceful times to meet the obligations incurred in war. But for years past, in all parts of the country, the demand for the reduction of the burdens of taxation upon our labor and production has increased in volume and urgency.

I am not willing to approve a measure presenting the objections to which this bill is subject, and which, moreover, will have the effect of disappointing the expectation of the people and their desire and hope for relief from war taxation in time of peace.

In my last annual message the following language was used:

Every patriotic heart responds to a tender consideration for those who, having served their country long and well, are reduced to destitution and dependence, not as an incident of their service, but with advancing age or through sickness or misfortune. We are all tempted by the contemplation of such a condition to supply relief, and are often impatient of the limitations of public duty. Yielding to no one in the desire to indulge this feeling of consideration, I can not rid myself of the conviction that if these ex-soldiers are to be relieved they and their cause are entitled to the benefit of an enactment under which relief may be claimed as a right, and that such relief should be granted under the sanction of law, not in evasion of it; nor should such worthy objects of care, all equally entitled, be remitted to the unequal operation of sympathy or the tender mercies of social and political influence, with their unjust discriminations.

I do not think that the objects, the conditions, and the limitations thus suggested are contained in the bill under consideration.

I adhere to the sentiments thus heretofore expressed. But the evil threatened by this bill is, in my opinion, such that, charged with a great responsibility in behalf of the people, I can not do otherwise than to bring to the consideration of this measure my best efforts of thought and judgment and perform my constitutional duty in relation thereto, regardless of all consequences except such as appear to me to be related to the best and highest interests of the country.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 16, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without my approval House bill No. 10203, entitled "An act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in the drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation therefor."

It is represented that a long-continued and extensive drought has existed in certain portions of the State of Texas, resulting in a failure of crops and consequent distress and destitution.

Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people's needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

It is within my personal knowledge that individual aid has to some extent already been extended to the sufferers mentioned in this bill. The failure of the proposed appropriation of $10,000 additional to meet their remaining wants will not necessarily result in continued distress if the emergency is fully made known to the people of the country.

It is here suggested that the Commissioner of Agriculture is annually directed to expend a large sum of money for the purchase, propagation, and distribution of seeds and other things of this description, two-thirds of which are, upon the request of Senators, Representatives, and Delegates in Congress, supplied to them for distribution among their constituents.

The appropriation of the current year for this purpose is $100,000, and it will probably be no less in the appropriation for the ensuing year. I understand that a large quantity of grain is furnished for such distribution, and it is supposed that this free apportionment among their neighbors is a privilege which may be waived by our Senators and Representatives.

If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops, the constituents for whom in theory this grain is intended could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 19, 1887.

To the Senate:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 859, entitled "An act granting a pension to Charlotte O'Neal."

This bill proposes to grant a pension to the beneficiary therein named as the widow of Richard O'Neal, late colonel of the Twenty-sixth Regiment Indiana Volunteers.

In the report of the committee in the Senate to whom this bill was referred it is stated that the deceased soldier was the first colonel of the regiment named; that he resigned from the Army, and was by order of the governor of Indiana put in charge of the United States camps at Indianapolis. A military order is made part of the report, announcing that the funeral of Lieutenant-Colonel Richard O'Neal will take place January 6, 1863, and reciting the fact that the deceased had charge of the camps near Indianapolis for the preceding four months.

It is distinctly alleged in the report that the beneficiary did not apply to the Pension Bureau for relief because the disease of which her husband died was incurred after his resignation.

The records of the War Department fail to show that there was a colonel of the Twenty-sixth Indiana Regiment named Richard O'Neal, but it does appear that Richard Neal was lieutenant-colonel of said regiment; that he was mustered in August 31, 1861, and resigned June 30, 1862.

If this is the officer whose widow is named in the bill, the proposition is to pension a widow of a soldier who, after ten months' service, resigned, and who seven months after his resignation died of disease which was in no manner related to his military service.

There is besides such a discrepancy between the name given in the bill and the name of the officer who served as lieutenant-colonel in the regiment mentioned that if the merits were with the widow the bill would need further Congressional consideration.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 19, 1887.

To the Senate:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 1626, entitled "An act granting a pension to John Reed, Sr."

The report of the Senate Committee on Pensions merely states that the mother of John Reed was granted a pension, commencing the 5th day of December, 1862; that she has since died, and that the proposed bill is to secure a pension to John Reed, Sr., the aged and dependent father of the deceased soldier.

The records show that the beneficiary named in this bill filed an application for a pension in 1877, alleging that he was the father of John Reed, who died in the service, and that his wife, the mother of the deceased soldier, died May 10, 1872, and that he, the father, was mainly dependent upon his son for support. He filed evidence of the mother's death, and one witness alleged that he was present at her death and attended her funeral.

In 1864 Martha Reed, the mother of the soldier, filed her application for pension, in which she at first claimed to be the widow of John Reed. She afterwards, however, alleged that her husband, John Reed, abandoned his family in 1859 and had not thereafter contributed to their support, and that the soldier was her main support after such abandonment. She was allowed a pension as dependent mother, which commenced in 1862, the date of her son's death, and seems to have terminated July 22, 1884, when she died.

The claim of the father was rejected in 1883 for the reason that the mother, who had a prior right, was still living, and when his claim was again pressed in 1886 he was informed that his abandonment of his family in 1859 precluded the idea that he was entitled to a pension as being dependent upon the soldier for support.

Of course these decisions were correct in law, in equity, and in morals.

This case demonstrates the means employed in attempts to cheat the Government in applications for pensions--too often successful.

The allegation in 1877 of the man who now poses as the aged and dependent father of a dead soldier that the mother died in 1872, when at that time her claim was pending for pension largely based upon his abandonment; the affidavit of the man who testified that he saw her die in 1872; the effrontery of this unworthy father renewing his claim after the detection of his fraud and the actual death of the mother, and the allegation of the mother that she was a widow when in fact she was an abandoned wife, show the processes which enter into these claims for pensions and the boldness with which plans are sometimes concocted to rob the Government by actually trafficking in death and imposing upon the sacred sentiments of patriotism and national gratitude.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 21, 1887.

To the Senate:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 2452, entitled "An act granting a pension to Rachel Ann Pierpont."

At the time this bill was introduced and passed an application for pension on behalf of the beneficiary named was pending in the Pension Bureau. This application was filed in December, 1879. Within the last few days, and on the 17th day of February, 1887, a pension was granted upon said application and a certificate issued at precisely the same rate which the bill herewith returned authorizes.

But the pension under the general laws dates from the time of filing the application in 1879, while under a special act it would date only from the time of its passage.

In the interest of the beneficiary and for her advantage the special bill is therefore disapproved.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 21, 1887.

To the Senate:

I return herewith without approval Senate bill No. 2111, entitled "An act granting a pension to Jacob Smith."

The beneficiary named in this bill filed his claim for a pension November 11, 1882. He seems upon the facts presented to be justly entitled to it, and since this bill has been in my hands the Commissioner of Pensions has reported to me that a certificate therefor would at once be issued.

Under such a certificate this disabled soldier's pension will commence November 11, 1882. Under this bill, if approved, it would date only from the time of its approval. I suppose his certificate has already been issued, and I am unwilling to jeopardize the advantages he has gained thereunder, as might be done if the bill herewith returned became a law.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 21, 1887.

To the Senate:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 1768, entitled "An act granting a pension to John D. Fincher."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted August 6, 1862, and was discharged for disability February 24, 1863.

The surgeon's certificate of disability given at the time of the soldier's discharge recites "general debility, which will disable him from performing the duties of a soldier for a good period of time. The disease was contracted by exposure and fatigue while performing the duties of a soldier."

The claimant filed his application for pension in September, 1882, nearly twenty years after his discharge, alleging that in November, 1862, he was attacked with bilious fever, followed by chronic diarrhea and lung trouble.

In support of his application an affidavit of a comrade was filed, setting forth the fact that the claimant was taken sick, as he alleged, in the fall of 1862, and that he was sent to the hospital on that account. The affidavit further expresses the belief that the claimant still suffers from the effects of his sickness and exposure.

So far as I am informed, and so far as the committee's report discloses, this is the only proof furnished of any continuance of disability at the time of filing the application for pension, and this proof, if it may be so regarded, is the mere expression of an opinion or belief, not necessarily based upon any personal knowledge, and which might have been honestly expressed if derived from representations of the claimant himself.

In this condition of the case the claimant was examined by a surgeon in 1882, whose report seems to negative all ailments except as one may be found in the fact alleged therein that he had pneumonia in 1868, and that there might be some pleuritic adhesions, plainly inferring that if such adhesions existed they were the result of the sickness to which he refers.

In February, 1885, the claimant was again examined by a board of surgeons. This examination seems to have been very carefully and thoroughly made, and as a result of the same the board reported that there was no disability. On this ground the claim was rejected.

There is no doubt as to the sickness of the claimant during his service and his disability at the time of his discharge, but unless the report of the board of surgeons is to be impeached without apparent reason there is as little doubt of the claimant's complete recovery.

No case has been presented to me in which the evidence afforded of a continuance of disability seems so inconclusive. In these circumstances the report of the board of surgeons appears to be upon the evidence before me almost uncontradicted.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 23, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No 7327, entitled "An act granting a pension to Anthony McRobertson."

The beneficiary named in this bill was badly wounded in a battle which occurred about the 17th day of November, 1863.

He applied for pension in 1874, and the same was granted in November, 1886, to date from the time of his disability, November 17, 1863.

He is now receiving the highest rate allowed under the general law for cases such as his, and he would be entitled to no more under the special act.

It could not, therefore, by any possibility be of the least benefit to him, but, on the other hand, might jeopardize his advantages already gained.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 23, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 8002, entitled "An act to increase the pension of Loren Burritt."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted in October, 1863, and in December of that year was mustered in as major of the Eighth Regiment United States Colored Troops; was promoted to lieutenant-colonel and very badly wounded in February, 1864, and was mustered out with his regiment November 10, 1865.

His condition at the present time is most pitiable, and his helplessness is such that he needs the constant care and assistance of others. He was obliged to give up business about the year 1873.

In 1866 he was pensioned for his wound, which was in the right leg; and such pension has been increased from time to time until he is now in the receipt of $72 per month, the highest pension allowed under general laws. This rate was awarded him under a law passed in 1880, increasing from $50 to $72 per month the pensions of those who were rendered permanently and totally helpless, so that they required the regular and personal attendance of another.

On the 30th day of June, 1886, there were 1,009 persons on the rolls receiving this rate of pension.

This bill was reported upon adversely by the House Committee on Pensions, and they, while fully acknowledging the distressing circumstances surrounding the case, felt constrained to adverse action on the ground, as stated in the language of their report, that "there are many cases just as helpless and requiring as much attention as this one, and were the relief asked for granted in this instance it might reasonably be looked for in all."

No man can check, if he would, the feeling of sympathy and pity aroused by the contemplation of utter helplessness as the result of patriotic and faithful military service; but in the midst of all this I can not put out of mind the soldiers in this condition who were privates in the ranks, who sustained the utmost hardships of war, but who, because they were privates and in the humble walks of life, are not so apt to share in special favors of Congressional action. I find no reason why this beneficiary should be singled out from his class, except it be that he was a lieutenant-colonel instead of a private.

I am aware of a precedent for the legislation proposed, which is furnished by an enactment of the last session of Congress, to which I assented, as I think improvidently; but I am certain that exact equality and fairness in the treatment of our veterans is, after all, more just, beneficent, and useful than unfair discrimination in favor of officers or the special benefit born of sympathy in individual cases.

I am constrained, therefore, to agree with the House Committee on Pensions in their views of this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 23, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 10082, entitled "An act to increase the pension of Margaret R. Jones."

The beneficiary mentioned in this bill is now receiving the highest rate of pension allowed in cases such as hers under the general law.

All the information which is available to me fails to furnish any reason why this pension should be specially increased, except the general statement in the claimant's petition that she is in necessitous circumstances and that the rate now allowed her is insufficient for her support.

The further statement in the petition that her husband's death "was caused prematurely by his endeavor to comply with unusual, disrespectful, and indefinite orders" to go to League Island Navy-Yard certainly does not in all its bearings furnish conclusive proof that his widow's pension should be increased beyond that furnished others in her situation.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 23, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5877, entitled "An act for the relief of William H. Morhiser."

This beneficiary, though apparently not regularly enlisted in the military service of the country during the time covered by this bill for his relief, performed military duty, was captured and imprisoned. No technicality should be interposed in considering this bill to prevent the receipt by him of the same pay and allowances awarded under like circumstances to soldiers regularly enlisted.

But this bill proposes to appropriate for the benefit of this claimant such sum as pay and allowances as would be allowed a private of cavalry from November 30, 1863, to January 1, 1865. It appears from the records of the War Department that he has already been paid for at least two months of that time.

The bill also provides that there shall also be allowed to the claimant such additional pay and allowances, as commutation of rations and so forth, as were allowed prisoners of war, from July 30, 1864, to January 1, 1865. The records disclose the fact that he has been allowed commutation of rations from July 30, 1864, to December 11, 1864.

As the purpose of this bill, as gathered from the report of the committee to whom it was referred, appears to be to secure for the claimant therein named compensation "at the rate at which other soldiers in the same situation were paid," and as he seems already to have received a considerable part of the compensation provided for in the bill, I am led to suppose that a mistake has been made in framing the same.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 24, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 7648, entitled "An act for the relief of the estate of the late John How, Indian agent, and his sureties."

John How was appointed Indian agent in July, 1878, and upon such appointment gave a bond to the Government in the penal sum of $10,000 conditioned for the faithful performance of his duties as such agent and to protect the Government from loss by mismanagement or malfeasance in his official conduct. The parties named in the bill were his sureties on said bond.

On the 23d day of December, 1881, upon a report of inspectors connected with the Indian Bureau suggesting frauds and mismanagement in the conduct of this agency, Mr. How was suspended from his office, which suspension was approved by the President in January, 1882.

After such suspension the accounts of the agent were examined and various explanations offered by him in relation thereto. It is stated, however, in a report from the Indian Office now before me, that such explanations were deemed by that office sufficient to remove only a small part of the items in the accounts which were questioned. The matter was thereupon referred to the Treasury Department for further examination and adjustment.

The Second Comptroller reports that the final settlement of this agent's accounts was pending before the accounting officers for upward of eighteen months, affording ample opportunity for any explanation which might be deemed necessary and proper, and that on the 21st day of July, 1885, a final adjustment was made of the said accounts, by which a sum very much in excess of the penalty of his bond was found due from said agent to the Government.

A suit was afterwards instituted against the agent and his sureties to recover the amount thus found due, so far as the bond covered the same.

This suit is still pending.

The object of the bill now under consideration is to wholly release and discharge these sureties from any liability upon said bond.

It seems to be the opinion of all the officers of the Government who have examined the matter at all that a debt exists in favor of the Government upon this bond. It is reported that a large amount of evidence has been taken, and that in the opinion of these officers the amount due the Government can not be reduced to a less amount than the penalty of the bond.

The Second Comptroller states, as results of examinations made in his office and by the Second Auditor, that it appears that many of the vouchers presented by the agent were fictitious, the persons in whose names they were given testifying that services and supplies therein mentioned were never rendered or furnished; that in other cases parties denied the genuineness of vouchers purporting to be made by them; that a large voucher apparently given for cattle was actually given for money loaned, and that supplies bought with Government funds were appropriated for the agent's personal benefit.

I do not suppose that it was intended by the Congress to entirely relieve these sureties if a condition exists such as is above set out, which results in an indebtedness to the Government. The proposed legislation, judging from the report of the House Committee on Claims, seems rather to proceed upon the theory that no sum is due the Government in the premises.

I think it will hardly be claimed that the patient investigation of the accounting officers should be lightly discredited in this case; and it seems to me that justness to the Government and fairness to the sureties seeking relief will presumably be secured by the further prosecution of the suit already instituted, in which the truth of all matters involved can be thoroughly tested.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 25, 1887.

To the Senate:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 1162, entitled "An act for the erection of a post-office building at Lynn, Mass."

The title of this bill sufficiently indicates its purpose.

Congressional action in its favor appears to be based, as usual in such cases, upon representations concerning the population of the town in which it is proposed to erect the building, and the increase in such population, the number of railroad trains arriving and departing daily, and various other items calculated to demonstrate the importance of the city selected for Federal decoration.

These statements are supplemented by a report from the postmaster, setting forth that his postal receipts are increasing, giving the number of square feet now occupied by his office, the amount of rent paid, and the number of his employees.

This bill, unlike others of its class which seek to provide a place for a number of Federal offices, simply authorizes the construction of a building for the accommodation of the post-office alone.

The report of the postmaster differs also in this case from those which are usually furnished, inasmuch as it is therein distinctly stated that the space now furnished for his office is sufficient for its present operations. He adds, however, that from present indications there will be a large increase in the business of the office during the next ten years.

It is quite apparent that there is no necessity for the expenditure of $100,000, the amount limited in this bill, or any other sum, for the construction of the proposed building to meet the wants of the Government, and for this reason I am constrained to disapprove the proposed legislation.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 26, 1887.

To the Senate:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 2045, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Sarah Hamilton."

Thomas Hamilton, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted September 2, 1862. Upon the records he is reported present to April 30, 1863; deserted May 27, 1863. His name is dropped from subsequent rolls to February 29, 1864, when he is reported as a deserter in arrest. He is not borne upon the rolls for March and April, 1864; for May and June, 1864, he is reported absent in arrest; for July and August, present under arrest; and for September and October, present for duty. He was mustered out with his company May 24, 1865.

He applied for a pension in 1872, alleging that he received an injury to his left leg about February 15, 1863, at St. Louis, by falling from a ladder, causing varicose veins and stiffening of the leg.

He was granted a pension January 29, 1881, to commence May 25, 1865.

He subsequently applied for an increase of pension, claiming that his eyes had become affected as a result of his varicose veins. This application was rejected upon the ground that the disability for which he was pensioned had not increased and that the disease of his eyes was not a result of such disability.

The pensioner died April 22, 1883, twenty years after his alleged injury, of cerebral apoplexy; and a physician states it as his judgment that the varicosed condition of the venous system was primarily the cause of his disabilities and death.

His widow filed an application for pension October 31, 1883, which was rejected upon the ground that the soldier's death was not the result of his military service.

Notwithstanding the record of the deceased soldier, stained as it is with the charge of desertion, and the entire absence of any record proof of sickness and injury, I should consider myself, in favor of his widow, bound by the act of the Pension Bureau in allowing him a pension, and should cheerfully aid her attempt to procure a pension for herself in her needy condition, if I was not thoroughly convinced that her husband's death had no relation to his military service or any injury for which he was pensioned.

To the ordinary mind it seems impossible that apoplexy could result from such a varicosed condition as is described in this case. I do not understand that the physician who gives a contrary opinion bases his judgment upon actual observation at the time the soldier died. The last medical examination by the Pension Bureau before the soldier's death was in October, 1882, and resulted in the following report of the examining surgeon:

Weight, 180 pounds; age, 69 years; has varicose veins of left leg, but not to such an extent as to increase the size of the leg or result in marked disability; he is entirely blind in both eyes from glaucoma, which does not in any degree, in my opinion, depend upon the pensioned disability--varicose veins.

It appears that the benefit proposed by this bill can neither be properly regarded as a gratuity, based upon the honorable service and record of the soldier, nor predicated on his death resulting from a disability incurred in such service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 26, 1887.

To the Senate:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 2210, entitled "An act granting a pension to Anna Wright."

The beneficiary named in this bill was granted a pension on the 17th day of November, 1886, dating from May 25, 1863, and is now under the general law receiving precisely the pension which she would receive under the bill herewith returned if the same should be approved.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 26, 1887.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 6976, entitled "An act to erect a public building at Portsmouth, Ohio."

It is represented in support of this bill that Portsmouth by its last census had a population of 11,321, and that, it contains at present not less than 15,000 inhabitants; that it is a place of considerable manufacturing and commercial importance, and that there is no public building for the transaction of the business of the General Government nearer than Columbus or Cincinnati, both about 100 miles distant.

It is further stated in a communication from the promoter of this bill that--

There is not a Federal public building in the State of Ohio east of the line drawn on the accompanying map from Cleveland through Columbus to Cincinnati; and when wealth and population and the needs of the public service are considered, the distribution of public buildings in the State is an unfair one.

Here is disclosed a theory of expenditure for public buildings which I can hardly think should be adopted. If an application for the erection of such a building is to be determined by the distance between its proposed location and another public building, or upon the allegation that a certain division of a State is without a Government building, or that the distribution of these buildings in a particular State is unfair, we shall rapidly be led to an entire disregard of the considerations of necessity and public need which it seems to me should alone justify the expenditure of public funds for such a purpose.

The care and protection which the Government owes to the people do not embrace the grant of public buildings to decorate thriving and prosperous cities and villages, nor should such buildings be erected upon any principle of fair distribution among localities.

The Government is not an almoner of gifts among the people, but an instrumentality by which the people's affairs should be conducted upon business principles, regulated by the public needs.

Applying these principles to the case embraced in the bill under consideration, we find that at Portsmouth there is a post-office and an internal revenue collector's office for which the Government should provide.

It is represented that the quarters now furnished for these offices are inadequate and that more spacious rooms are desirable. In the post-office there are six employees, and the collector of internal revenue has five assistants. The annual rent paid for both these offices is $600.

Upon these facts the proposition is to expend $60,000 for a building to accommodate these offices, entailing after its completion quite a large sum annually for its care and superintendence.

Though the sum of $60,000 is the limit fixed for the cost of this building, if it should be completed for this sum it would be an exception to the rule in such cases; and if it is absolutely impossible to do the public business in the quarters now occupied by these offices, which does not appear to be claimed, there can be no difficulty in securing in this enterprising city adequate accommodations at a rent not largely in excess of that at present paid.

Upon the whole it does not appear, as a business proposition, that the building proposed should be undertaken.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 28, 1887.

To the Senate:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 531, entitled "An act to provide for the erection of a public building at Lafayette, Ind."

This bill appropriates $50,000 for the purpose indicated in its title.

It is represented that a deputy internal-revenue collector is located at Lafayette, but no information is furnished that he has an office there which is or ought to be furnished by the Government. It is not claimed that the Federal business at this point requires other accommodation except for the post-office located there.

As usual in such cases, the postmaster reports, in reply to inquiries, that his present quarters are inadequate, and, as usual, it appears that the postal business is increasing. The rent paid for the rooms or building in which the post-office is kept is $1, 100 per annum.

I have been informed since this bill has been in my hands that last spring a building was erected at Lafayette with special reference to its use for the post-office, and that a part of it was leased by the Government for that purpose for the term of five years. Upon the faith of such lease the premises thus rented were fitted up and furnished by the owner of the building in a manner especially adapted to postal uses, and an account of such fitting up and furnishing is before me, showing the expense of the same to have been more than $2,500.

In view of such new and recent arrangements made by the Government for the transaction of its postal business at this place, it seems that the proposed expenditure for the erection of a building for that purpose is hardly necessary or justifiable.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

PROCLAMATIONS.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas satisfactory proof has been given to me by the Government of the Netherlands that no light-house and light dues, tonnage dues, or beacon and buoy dues are imposed in the ports of the Kingdom of the Netherlands; that no other equivalent tax of any kind is imposed upon vessels in said ports, under whatever flag they may sail; that vessels belonging to the United States of America and their cargoes are not required in the Netherlands to pay any fee or due of any kind or nature, or any import due higher or other than is payable by vessels of the Netherlands or their cargoes; that no export duties are imposed in the Netherlands; and that in the free ports of the Dutch East Indies, to wit, Riouw (in the island of Riouw), Pabean, Sangrit, Loloan, and Tamboekoes (in the island of Bali), Koepang (in the island of Timor), Makassar, Menado, Kema, and Gorontalo (in the island of Celebes), Amboina, Saparoa, Banda, Ternate, and Kajeli (in the Moluccas), Olehleh and Bengkalis (in the island of Sumatra), vessels are subjected to no fiscal tax, and no import or export duties are there levied:

Now, therefore, I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by section 11 of the act of Congress entitled "An act to abolish certain fees for official services to American vessels, and to amend the laws relating to shipping commissioners, seamen, and owners of vessels, and for other purposes," approved June 19, 1886, do hereby declare and proclaim that from and after the date of this my proclamation shall be suspended the collection of the whole of the duty of 6 cents per ton, not to exceed 30 cents per ton per annum (which is imposed by said section of said act), upon vessels entered in the ports of the United States from any of the ports of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Europe, or from any of the above named free ports of the Dutch East Indies.

Provided, That there shall be excluded from the benefits of the suspension hereby declared and proclaimed the vessels of any foreign country in whose ports the fees or dues of any kind or nature imposed on vessels of the United States, or the import or export duties on their cargoes, are in excess of the fees, dues, or duties imposed on the vessels of such foreign country or their cargoes, or of the fees, dues, or duties imposed on the vessels of the country in which are the ports mentioned in this proclamation, or the cargoes of such vessels.

And the suspension hereby declared and proclaimed shall continue so long as the reciprocal exemption of vessels belonging to citizens of the United States and their cargoes shall be continued in the said ports of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Europe and the said free ports of the Dutch East Indies, and no longer.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 22d day of April, A.D. 1887, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and eleventh.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

By the President: T.F. BAYARD, Secretary of State.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas satisfactory proof has been given to me by the Government of Spain that no discriminating duties of tonnage or imposts are imposed or levied in the islands of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, and all belonging to the Crown of Spain, upon vessels wholly belonging to citizens of the United States, or upon the produce, manufactures, or merchandise imported in the same from the United States or from any foreign country; and

Whereas notification of such abolition of discriminating duties of tonnage and imposts as aforesaid has been given to me by a memorandum of agreement signed this day at the city of Washington between the Secretary of State of the United States and the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Her Majesty the Queen Regent of Spain accredited to the Government of the United States of America:

Now, therefore, I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by section 4228 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, do hereby declare and proclaim that from and after the date of this my proclamation, being also the date of the notification received as aforesaid, the foreign discriminating duties of tonnage and imposts within the United States are suspended and discontinued so far as respects the vessels of Spain and the produce, manufactures, or merchandise imported in said vessels into the United States from the islands of Cuba and Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and all other countries belonging to the Crown of Spain, or from any other foreign country; such suspension to continue so long as the reciprocal exemption of Vessels belonging to citizens of the United States and their cargoes shall be continued in the said islands of Cuba and Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, and all other Spanish possessions, and no longer.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this 21st day of September, A.D. 1887, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and twelfth.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

By the President: T.F. BAYARD, Secretary of State.

A PROCLAMATION

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

The goodness and the mercy of God, which have followed the American people during all the days of the past year, claim their grateful recognition and humble acknowledgment. By His omnipotent power He has protected us from war and pestilence and from every national calamity; by His gracious favor the earth has yielded a generous return to the labor of the husbandman, and every path of holiest toil has led to comfort and contentment; by His loving kindness the hearts of our people have been replenished with fraternal sentiment and patriotic endeavor, and by His unerring guidance we have been directed in the way of national prosperity.

To the end that we may with one accord testify our gratitude for all these blessings, I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States, do hereby designate and set apart Thursday, the 24th day of November next, as a day of thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by all the people of the land.

On that day let all secular work and employment be suspended, and let our people assemble in their accustomed places of worship and with prayer and songs of praise give thanks to our Heavenly Father for all that He has done for us, while we humbly implore the forgiveness of our sins and a continuance of His mercy.

Let families and kindred be reunited on that day, and let their hearts, filled with kindly cheer and affectionate reminiscence, be turned in thankfulness to the source of all their pleasures and the giver of all that makes the day glad and joyous.

And in the midst of our worship and our happiness let us remember the poor, the needy, and the unfortunate, and by our gifts of charity and ready benevolence let us increase the number of those who with grateful hearts shall join in our thanksgiving.

In witness whereof I have set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 25th day of October, A.D. 1887, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and twelfth.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

By the President: T.F. BAYARD, Secretary of State.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

JANUARY 4, 1887.

In the exercise of the power vested in the President by the Constitution, and by virtue of the seventeen hundred and fifty-third section of the Revised Statutes and of the civil-service act approved January 16, 1883, the following regulations governing promotions in the customs service at the city of New York are hereby approved and promulgated:

REGULATION 1.

The board of examiners at the New York customs district may at any time, with the approval of the Civil Service Commission, order an examination for promotion, and at least five days before the examination is to take place shall cause a notice to be posted conspicuously in the office for which such examination is to be held, and shall state in said notice the class or classes to test fitness for promotion to which the examination is to be held and the time and place of examination. Promotions shall be from class to class, and the examination of persons in one class shall be to test their fitness for promotion to the next higher class: Provided, however, That if in any examination for promotion the competitors in the next lower class shall not exceed three in number, the board may, at its discretion, open the competition to one or more of the classes below the class in which there are not more than three competitors. All persons in the class immediately below the class for which promotions are to be made, and who have been in said class at least six months, must be examined for promotion.

REGULATION 2.

The examination must be held upon such subjects as in the opinion of the board of examiners, with the approval of the Commission, the general nature of the business of the office and the special nature of the positions to be filled may require. In grading the competitors due weight must be given to the efficiency with which the several competitors shall have performed their duties in the office; but none who shall fail to attain a minimum standard of 75 per cent in the written examination shall be certified for promotion.

REGULATION 3.

The whole list of eligibles from which the promotion is to be made shall be certified to the nominating officer.

REGULATION 4.

Any person employed in any of the offices to which these regulations apply may be transferred without examination, after service of six months consecutively since January 16, 1883, from one office to a class no higher in another office, upon certification by the board of examiners that he has passed an examination for the class in which he is doing duty, and with the consent of the heads of the respective offices and the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.

REGULATION 5.

The Civil Service Commission may at any time amend these regulations or substitute other regulations therefor.

The foregoing regulations are adopted and approved.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

In the exercise of the power vested in the President by the Constitution, and by virtue of the seventeen hundred and fifty-third section of the Revised Statutes and of the civil-service act approved January 16, 1883, the following rule for the regulation and improvement of the executive civil service is hereby amended and promulgated, as follows:

RULE IV.

1. The Civil Service Commission shall have authority to appoint the following-named boards of civil-service examiners:

The central board.--This board shall be composed of seven members, who shall be detailed from the Departments in which they may be serving at the time of appointment for continuous service at the office of the Civil Service Commission. Under the supervision of the Commission, the central board shall examine and mark the papers of all examinations for entrance to the departmental service, and also such of the papers of examinations for entrance to either the customs or the postal service as shall be submitted to it by the Commission. The Commission shall have authority to require any customs or postal board to send the papers of any examination conducted by said board to be examined and marked by the central board. The persons composing this board shall be in the departmental service.

Special boards.--These boards shall mark the papers of special examinations for the classified departmental service, and shall be composed of persons in the public service.

Supplementary boards.--These boards shall mark the papers of supplementary examinations for the classified departmental service, and shall be composed of persons in the public service.

Local departmental boards.--These boards shall be organized at one or more places in each State and Territory where examinations for the departmental service are to be held, and shall each be composed of persons in the public service residing in the State or Territory in which the board is to act.

Customs boards.--One for each classified customs district, to be composed of persons in the customs service in the district for which the board is to act. These boards shall conduct examinations for entrance to and promotion in the classified customs service.

Postal boards.--One for each classified post-office, to be composed of persons in the postal service at the post-office for which said board is to act. These boards shall conduct examinations for entrance to and promotions in the postal service.

2. No person shall be appointed a member of any board of examiners named herein until after consultation by the Civil Service Commission with the head of the Department or office in which the person whom it desires to appoint is serving.

3. It shall be the duty of the head of any classified customs office or classified post-office to promptly inform the Civil Service Commission, in writing, of the removal or resignation from the public service, or of the death, of any member of a board of examiners appointed from his office; and upon request of the Commission such officer shall state to the Commission which of the persons employed in his office he regards as most competent to fill the vacancy thus occasioned, or any vacancy which may otherwise occur; and in making this statement the officer shall mention generally the qualifications of each of the persons named therein by him.

4. The duties of a member of a special, supplementary, local, departmental, customs, or postal board of examiners shall be regarded as a part of the public duties of such examiner, and each examiner shall be allowed time during office hours to perform the duties required of him.

5. The Civil Service Commission shall have authority to adopt regulations which shall (1) prescribe the manner of organizing the several boards of civil-service examiners herein named, (2) more particularly state the powers of each of said boards, and (3) specifically define the duties of the members thereof.

6. The Civil Service Commission shall have authority to change at any time the membership of any of the above-named boards of civil-service examiners.

Approved, January 15, 1887.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

REGULATIONS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF ARMS, ORDNANCE STORES, QUARTERMASTER'S STORES, AND CAMP EQUIPAGE TO THE TERRITORIES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PRESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SECOND SECTION OF THE ACT ENTITLED "AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 1661, REVISED STATUTES, MAKING AN ANNUAL APPROPRIATION TO PROVIDE ARMS AND EQUIPMENTS FOR THE MILITIA."

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 22, 1887.

1. Each Territory shall, if included within the provisions of said act, annually receive arms, ordnance stores, quartermaster's stores, and camp equipage equivalent to the quota of a State having the least representation in Congress, and the District of Columbia shall annually receive arms, ordnance stores, quartermaster's stores, and camp equipage not exceeding double the quota of a State having the least representation in Congress.

2. Arms, ordnance stores, quartermaster's stores, and camp equipage shall be issued to the Territories on requisitions of the governors thereof and to the District of Columbia on requisitions approved by the senior general of the District Militia present for duty. Returns shall be made annually by the senior general of the District Militia in the manner as required by sections 3 and 4 of the act above referred to in the case of States and Territories.

3. It is forbidden to make issues to States and Territories in excess of the amount to their credit under the provisions of section 1161, Revised Statutes, as amended by the above act.

4. The regulations established by President Pierce April 30, 1855, under the act approved March 30, 1855, are hereby revoked.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

In the exercise of the power vested in the President by the Constitution, and by virtue of the seventeen hundred and fifty-third section of the Revised Statutes and of the civil-service act approved January 16, 1883, Rules IV, VI, XIX, XXI of the rules for the regulation and improvement of the executive civil service are hereby amended and promulgated as follows:

RULE IV.

I. The Commission may appoint boards of examiners as follows:

The central board.--A board composed of seven members, who shall be detailed from the Departments in which they are serving when appointed for continuous service at the office of the Commission. This board shall mark such papers of examinations for admission to the departmental, customs, and postal services as the Commission may direct.

Departmental special boards.--These boards shall mark such papers of special examinations for the departmental service as the Commission may direct, and shall be composed of persons in the public service.

Departmental supplementary boards.--These boards shall mark the papers of such supplementary examinations for the departmental service as the Commission may direct, and shall be composed of persons in the public service.

Departmental promotion boards.--One for each of the Executive Departments, of three members, and one auxiliary member for each bureau of the Department for which the board is to act.

Departmental local boards.--These boards shall be organized at one or more places in each State and Territory where examinations for the departmental service are to be held, and shall each be composed of persons in the public service residing in the State or Territory in which the board is to act.

Customs boards.--One for each classified customs district, to be composed of persons in the customs service in the district for which said board is to act. These boards shall conduct examinations for entrance to and promotions in the classified customs service, and shall mark such of the examination papers for that service as the Commission shall direct. They shall also conduct such departmental examinations as the Commission may direct.

Postal boards.--One for each classified post-office, to be composed of persons in the postal service at the post-office in which said board is to act. These boards shall conduct examinations for entrance to and promotions in the postal service, and shall mark such of the examination papers for that service as the Commission may direct. They shall also conduct such departmental examinations as the Commission may direct.

2. No person shall be appointed an examiner until after consultation by the Commission with the head of the Department or office in which the person whom it desires to appoint is serving.

3. It shall be the duty of the head of any classified customs office or post-office to promptly give written information to the Commission of the removal or resignation from the public service, or of the inability or refusal to act, of any examiner in his office; and on request of the Commission such officer shall state which of the persons in his office he regards as most competent to fill the vacancy, and shall mention generally the qualifications of each person named by him.

4. The duties of an examiner shall be regarded as a part of his public duties, and each examiner shall be allowed time during office hours to perform the duties required of him.

5. The Commission may adopt regulations which shall prescribe (1) the manner of organizing the boards of examiners, (2) the powers of each board, and (3) the duties of the members thereof.

6. The Commission may create additional boards of examiners and may change the membership of any board; and boards of examiners shall perform such other appropriate duties as the Commission may impose upon them.

RULE VI.

1. There shall be open competitive examinations for testing the fitness of applicants for admission to the service. Such examinations shall be practical in their character, and so far as may be shall relate to those matters which will fairly test the relative capacity and fitness of the persons examined to discharge the duties of the branch of the service which they seek to enter.

2. And for the purpose of establishing in the classified service the principle of compulsory competitive examination for promotion there shall be, so far as practicable and useful, such examinations of a suitable character to test the fitness of persons for promotion in the service, and the Commission may make regulations applying them to any classified Department, customs office, or post-office, under which regulations examinations for promotion shall be conducted and all promotions made; but until regulations made by the Commission in accordance herewith have been applied to a classified Department, customs office, or post-office, promotions therein may be made upon any test of fitness determined upon by the promoting officer. And in any classified Department, customs office, or post-office in which promotions are made under examinations as herein provided the Commission may, in special session, if the exigencies of the service require such action, provide noncompetitive examinations for promotion.

RULE XIX.

There are excepted from examination the following: (1) The confidential clerk or secretary of any head of a Department or office; (2) cashiers of collectors; (3) cashiers of postmasters; (4) superintendents of money-order divisions in post-offices; (5) the direct custodians of money for whose fidelity another officer is under official bond, and disbursing officers having the custody of money, who give bonds; but these exceptions shall not extend to any official below the grade of assistant cashier or teller; (6) persons employed exclusively in the secret service of the Government, or as translators or interpreters or stenographers; (7) persons whose employment is exclusively professional, but medical examiners are not included among such persons; (8) chief clerks, deputy collectors, deputy naval officers, deputy surveyors of customs, and superintendents or chiefs of divisions or bureaus. But no person so excepted shall be either transferred, appointed, or promoted, unless to some excepted place, without an examination under the Commission, which examination shall not take place within six months after entering the service.

RULE XXI.

1. No person, unless excepted under Rule XIX, shall be admitted into the classified civil service from any place not within said service without an examination and certification under the rules, with this exception, that any person who shall have been an officer for one year or more last preceding in any Department or office in a grade above the classified service thereof may be transferred or appointed to any place in the service of the same without examination.

2. No person who has passed only a limited examination under clause 4 of Rule VII for the lower classes or grades in the departmental or customs service shall be appointed or be promoted within two years after appointment to any position giving a salary of $1,000 or upward without first passing an examination under clause 1 of said rule; and such examination shall not be allowed within the first year after appointment.

3. But a person who has passed the examination under said clause 1 and has accepted a position giving a salary of $900 or less shall have the same right of promotion as if originally appointed to a position giving a salary of $1,000 or more.

4. The Commission may at any time certify for a $900 or any lower place in the classified service any person upon the register who has passed the examination under clause 1 of Rule VII, if such person does not object before such certification is made.

5. The provisions of this rule relating to promotions shall cease to be operative in any classified Department, customs office, or post-office when regulations for promotions have been applied thereto by the Commission under the authority conferred by clause 2 of Rule VI.

Approved, May 5, 1887.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, May 9, 1887.

The executive offices and Departments at the seat of Government, including the public printing establishment, will be closed at noon on Thursday, the 12th instant, to enable persons employed therein to attend the exercises at the unveiling of the statue of the late President Garfield.

And employees in such offices and Departments who desire to accompany any organization to which they belong in the parade or other exercises preceding on that day the unveiling ceremonies may, by permission of the heads of their respective offices or Departments, also be granted such leave of absence as may be necessary for that purpose.

Members of the Society of the Army of the Cumberland desiring to attend any meeting of such society on Wednesday, the 11th instant, may, by special permission of the respective heads of Departments and offices, be excused from duty during the hours on that day as said meetings may be held.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, April 30, 1887.

HON. WILLIAM C. ENDICOTT, Secretary of War.

SIR: I have the honor to state that there are now in this office, stored in one of the attic rooms of the building, a number of Union flags captured in action, but recovered on the fall of the Confederacy and forwarded to the War Department for safe-keeping, together with a number of Confederate flags which the fortunes of war placed in our hands during the late Civil War.

While in the past favorable action has been taken on applications properly supported for the return of Union flags to organizations representing survivors of the military regiments in the service of the Government, I beg to submit that it would be a graceful act to anticipate future requests of this nature, and venture to suggest the propriety of returning all the flags (Union and Confederate) to the authorities of the respective States in which the regiments which bore these colors were organized, for such final disposition as they may determine.

While in all the civilized nations of the world trophies taken in war against foreign enemies have been carefully preserved and exhibited as proud mementos of the nation's military glories, wise and obvious reasons have always excepted from the rule evidences of past internecine troubles which by appeals to the arbitrament of the sword have disturbed the peaceful march of a people to its destiny.

Over twenty years have elapsed since the termination of the late Civil War. Many of the prominent leaders, civil and military, of the late Confederate States are now honored representatives of the people in the national councils, or in other eminent positions lend the aid of their talents to the wise administration of affairs of the whole country; and the people of the several States composing the Union are now united, treading the broader road to a glorious future.

Impressed with these views, I have the honor to submit the suggestion made in this letter for the careful consideration it will receive at your hands.

Very truly, yours,

R.C. DRUM, Adjutant-General.

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 26, 1887.

The within recommendation approved by the President, and the Adjutant-General will prepare letters to governors of those States whose troops carried the colors and flags now in this Department, with the offer to return them as herein proposed. The history of each flag and the circumstances of its capture or recapture should be given.

HON. WILLIAM C. ENDICOTT, Secretary of War.

WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, June 7, 1887.

Honorable GOVERNOR OF ----.

SIR: The President of the United States having approved the recommendation that all the flags in the custody of the War Department be returned to the authorities of the respective States in which the regiments which bore them were organized, for such final disposition as they may determine, I am instructed by the honorable Secretary of War to make you, in the name of the War Department, a tender of the flags now in this office belonging to the late volunteer organizations of the State of ----.

In discharging this pleasant duty I beg you will please advise me of your wishes in this matter. It is the intention in returning each flag to give its history as far as it is possible to do so, stating the circumstances of its capture and recovery.

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

R.C. DRUM, Adjutant-General.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, June 16, 1887.

The SECRETARY OF WAR:

I have to-day considered with more care than when the subject was orally presented me the action of your Department directing letters to be addressed to the governors of all the States offering to return, if desired, to the loyal States the Union flags captured in the War of the Rebellion by the Confederate forces and afterwards recovered by Government troops, and to the Confederate States the flags captured by the Union forces, all of which for many years have been packed in boxes and stored in the cellar and attic of the War Department.

I am of the opinion that the return of these flags in the manner thus contemplated is not authorized by existing law nor justified as an executive act.

I request, therefore, that no further steps be taken in the matter except to examine and inventory these flags and adopt proper measures for their preservation. Any direction as to the final disposition of them should originate with Congress.

Yours, truly,

GROVER CLEVELAND.

WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, June --, 1887.

Hon. ---- ----, Governor of ----.

SIR: Referring to the letter from this office dated June --, 1887, on the subject of the return to the respective States of the flags now in the custody of the War Department, I am instructed by the Secretary of War to inform you of the withdrawal of the offer made therein, as on a more careful consideration of the legal points involved in the proposed action the President of the United States is of the opinion that the return of these flags is not authorized by existing law nor justified as an executive act, and that any direction as to their final disposition should originate with Congress.

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

---- ----, Adjutant-General.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, August 25, 1887.

It appearing to me that the promoters of the International Military Encampment to be held in Chicago in October proximo, in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the settlement of that city, have extended to the militia organizations of foreign countries, in behalf of the citizen soldiers of the State of Illinois, an invitation to take part in said encampment as the guests of the city of Chicago, and that representatives of the soldiery of certain foreign countries have accepted such invitation and are about to arrive in the United States:

I hereby direct the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the collectors of customs at the several ports of entry that upon being satisfied that such visitors come as guests, in pursuance of the aforesaid invitation, they shall permit the entrance of such foreign soldiers into the United States, with their personal baggage, uniforms, arms, and equipments, without payment of customs duties thereon, and without other formality than such as may be necessary to insure the reexportation of said uniforms, baggage, arms, and equipments.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 24, 1887.

By direction of the President the undersigned is charged with the sad duty of announcing the death, on the 22d instant, at 4 o'clock p.m., at his residence, Chicago, Ill., of Elihu B. Washburne, an illustrious citizen, formerly Secretary of State of the United States.

Mr. Washburne rendered great service to the people of the United States in many and important capacities. As a Representative from the State of Illinois in the National Legislature, and subsequently as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to France, his career was marked by eminent usefulness, in which abilities of a high order were applied with unsparing devotion and fidelity in the performance of the trusts of public power.

His private life was unstained, his public service unquestionably great, and his memory will be cherished with affection and respect by his grateful countrymen.

On the day of his funeral this Department will be closed for all public business, and be draped in mourning for ten days thereafter.

The diplomatic and consular officers of the United States in foreign countries will be directed to make proper expression of the public sorrow experienced by the death of Mr. Washburne.

T.F. BAYARD, Secretary of State.

THIRD ANNUAL MESSAGE.

WASHINGTON, December 6, 1887.

To the Congress of the United States:

You are confronted at the threshold of your legislative duties with a condition of the national finances which imperatively demands immediate and careful consideration.

The amount of money annually exacted, through the operation of present laws, from the industries and necessities of the people largely exceeds the sum necessary to meet the expenses of the Government.

When we consider that the theory of our institutions guarantees to every citizen the full enjoyment of all the fruits of his industry and enterprise, with only such deduction as may be his share toward the careful and economical maintenance of the Government which protects him, it is plain that the exaction of more than this is indefensible extortion and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and justice. This wrong inflicted upon those who bear the burden of national taxation, like other wrongs, multiplies a brood of evil consequences. The public Treasury, which should only exist as a conduit conveying the people's tribute to its legitimate objects of expenditure, becomes a hoarding place for money needlessly withdrawn from trade and the people's use, thus crippling our national energies, suspending our country's development, preventing investment in productive enterprise, threatening financial disturbance, and inviting schemes of public plunder.

This condition of our Treasury is not altogether new, and it has more than once of late been submitted to the people's representatives in the Congress, who alone can apply a remedy. And yet the situation still continues, with aggravated incidents, more than ever presaging financial convulsion and widespread disaster.

It will not do to neglect this situation because its dangers are not now palpably imminent and apparent. They exist none the less certainly, and await the unforeseen and unexpected occasion when suddenly they will be precipitated upon us.

On the 30th day of June, 1885, the excess of revenues over public expenditures, after complying with the annual requirement of the sinking-fund act, was $17,859,735.84; during the year ended June 30, 1886, such excess amounted to $49,405,545.20, and during the year ended June 30, 1887, it reached the sum of $55,567,849.54.

The annual contributions to the sinking fund during the three years above specified, amounting in the aggregate to $138,058,320.94, and deducted from the surplus as stated, were made by calling in for that purpose outstanding 3 per cent bonds of the Government. During the six months prior to June 30, 1887, the surplus revenue had grown so large by repeated accumulations, and it was feared the withdrawal of this great sum of money needed by the people would so affect the business of the country, that the sum of $79,864,100 of such surplus was applied to the payment of the principal and interest of the 3 per cent bonds still outstanding, and which were then payable at the option of the Government. The precarious condition of financial affairs among the people still needing relief, immediately after the 30th day of June, 1887, the remainder of the 3 per cent bonds then outstanding, amounting with principal and interest to the sum of $18,877,500, were called in and applied to the sinking-fund contribution for the current fiscal year. Notwithstanding these operations of the Treasury Department, representations of distress in business circles not only continued, but increased, and absolute peril seemed at hand. In these circumstances the contribution to the sinking fund for the current fiscal year was at once completed by the expenditure of $27,684,283.55 in the purchase of Government bonds not yet due bearing 4 and 4-1/2 per cent interest, the premium paid thereon averaging about 24 per cent for the former and 8 per cent for the latter. In addition to this, the interest accruing during the current year upon the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the Government was to some extent anticipated, and banks selected as depositories of public money were permitted to somewhat increase their deposits.

While the expedients thus employed to release to the people the money lying idle in the Treasury served to avert immediate danger, our surplus revenues have continued to accumulate, the excess for the present year amounting on the 1st day of December to $55,258,701.19, and estimated to reach the sum of $113,000,000 on the 30th of June next, at which date it is expected that this sum, added to prior accumulations, will swell the surplus in the Treasury to $140,000,000.

There seems to be no assurance that, with such a withdrawal from use of the people's circulating medium, our business community may not in the near future be subjected to the same distress which was quite lately produced from the same cause. And while the functions of our National Treasury should be few and simple, and while its best condition would be reached, I believe, by its entire disconnection with private business interests, yet when, by a perversion of its purposes, it idly holds money uselessly subtracted from the channels of trade, there seems to be reason for the claim that some legitimate means should be devised by the Government to restore in an emergency, without waste or extravagance, such money to its place among the people.

If such an emergency arises, there now exists no clear and undoubted executive power of relief. Heretofore the redemption of 3 per cent bonds, which were payable at the option of the Government, has afforded a means for the disbursement of the excess of our revenues; but these bonds have all been retired, and there are no bonds outstanding the payment of which we have a right to insist upon. The contribution to the sinking fund which furnishes the occasion for expenditure in the purchase of bonds has been already made for the current year, so that there is no outlet in that direction.

In the present state of legislation the only pretense of any existing executive power to restore at this time any part of our surplus revenues to the people by its expenditure consists in the supposition that the Secretary of the Treasury may enter the market and purchase the bonds of the Government not yet due, at a rate of premium to be agreed upon. The only provision of law from which such a power could be derived is found in an appropriation bill passed a number of years ago, and it is subject to the suspicion that it was intended as temporary and limited in its application, instead of conferring a continuing discretion and authority. No condition ought to exist which would justify the grant of power to a single official, upon his judgment of its necessity, to withhold from or release to the business of the people, in an unusual manner, money held in the Treasury, and thus affect at his will the financial situation of the country; and if it is deemed wise to lodge in the Secretary of the Treasury the authority in the present juncture to purchase bonds, it should be plainly vested, and provided, as far as possible, with such checks and limitations as will define this official's right and discretion and at the same time relieve him from undue responsibility.

In considering the question of purchasing bonds as a means of restoring to circulation the surplus money accumulating in the Treasury, it should be borne in mind that premiums must of course be paid upon such purchase, that there may be a large part of these bonds held as investments which can not be purchased at any price, and that combinations among holders who are willing to sell may unreasonably enhance the cost of such bonds to the Government.

It has been suggested that the present bonded debt might be refunded at a less rate of interest and the difference between the old and new security paid in cash, thus finding use for the surplus in the Treasury. The success of this plan, it is apparent, must depend upon the volition of the holders of the present bonds; and it is not entirely certain that the inducement which must be offered them would result in more financial benefit to the Government than the purchase of bonds, while the latter proposition would reduce the principal of the debt by actual payment instead of extending it.

The proposition to deposit the money held by the Government in banks throughout the country for use by the people is, it seems to me, exceedingly objectionable in principle, as establishing too close a relationship between the operations of the Government Treasury and the business of the country and too extensive a commingling of their money, thus fostering an unnatural reliance in private business upon public funds. If this scheme should be adopted, it should only be done as a temporary expedient to meet an urgent necessity. Legislative and executive effort should generally be in the opposite direction, and should have a tendency to divorce, as much and as fast as can be safely done, the Treasury Department from private enterprise.

Of course it is not expected that unnecessary and extravagant appropriations will be made for the purpose of avoiding the accumulation of an excess of revenue. Such expenditure, besides the demoralization of all just conceptions of public duty which it entails, stimulates a habit of reckless improvidence not in the least consistent with the mission of our people or the high and beneficent purposes of our Government.

I have deemed it my duty to thus bring to the knowledge of my countrymen, as well as to the attention of their representatives charged with the responsibility of legislative relief, the gravity of our financial situation. The failure of the Congress heretofore to provide against the dangers which it was quite evident the very nature of the difficulty must necessarily produce caused a condition of financial distress and apprehension since your last adjournment which taxed to the utmost all the authority and expedients within executive control; and these appear now to be exhausted. If disaster results from the continued inaction of Congress, the responsibility must rest where it belongs.

Though the situation thus far considered is fraught with danger which should be fully realized, and though it presents features of wrong to the people as well as peril to the country, it is but a result growing out of a perfectly palpable and apparent cause, constantly reproducing the same alarming circumstances--a congested National Treasury and a depleted monetary condition in the business of the country. It need hardly be stated that while the present situation demands a remedy, we can only be saved from a like predicament in the future by the removal of its cause.

Our scheme of taxation, by means of which this needless surplus is taken from the people and put into the public Treasury, consists of a tariff or duty levied upon importations from abroad and internal-revenue taxes levied upon the consumption of tobacco and spirituous and malt liquors. It must be conceded that none of the things subjected to internal-revenue taxation are, strictly speaking, necessaries. There appears to be no just complaint of this taxation by the consumers of these articles, and there seems to be nothing so well able to bear the burden without hardship to any portion of the people.

But our present tariff laws, the vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary taxation, ought to be at once revised and amended. These laws, as their primary and plain effect, raise the price to consumers of all articles imported and subject to duty by precisely the sum paid for such duties. Thus the amount of the duty measures the tax paid by those who purchase for use these imported articles. Many of these things, however, are raised or manufactured in our own country, and the duties now levied upon foreign goods and products are called protection to these home manufactures, because they render it possible for those of our people who are manufacturers to make these taxed articles and sell them for a price equal to that demanded for the imported goods that have paid customs duty. So it happens that while comparatively a few use the imported articles, millions of our people, who never used and never saw any of the foreign products, purchase and use things of the same kind made in this country, and pay therefor nearly or quite the same enhanced price which the duty adds to the imported articles. Those who buy imports pay the duty charged thereon into the public Treasury, but the great majority of our citizens, who buy domestic articles of the same class, pay a sum at least approximately equal to this duty to the home manufacturer. This reference to the operation of our tariff laws is not made by way of instruction, but in order that we may be constantly reminded of the manner in which they impose a burden upon those who consume domestic products as well as those who consume imported articles, and thus create a tax upon all our people.

It is not proposed to entirely relieve the country of this taxation. It must be extensively continued as the source of the Government's income; and in a readjustment of our tariff the interests of American labor engaged in manufacture should be carefully considered, as well as the preservation of our manufacturers. It may be called protection or by any other name, but relief from the hardships and dangers of our present tariff laws should be devised with especial precaution against imperiling the existence of our manufacturing interests. But this existence should not mean a condition which, without regard to the public welfare or a national exigency, must always insure the realization of immense profits instead of moderately profitable returns. As the volume and diversity of our national activities increase, new recruits are added to those who desire a continuation of the advantages which they conceive the present system of tariff taxation directly affords them. So stubbornly have all efforts to reform the present condition been resisted by those of our fellow-citizens thus engaged that they can hardly complain of the suspicion, entertained to a certain extent, that there exists an organized combination all along the line to maintain their advantage.

We are in the midst of centennial celebrations, and with becoming pride we rejoice in American skill and ingenuity, in American energy and enterprise, and in the wonderful natural advantages and resources developed by a century's national growth. Yet when an attempt is made to justify a scheme which permits a tax to be laid upon every consumer in the land for the benefit of our manufacturers, quite beyond a reasonable demand for governmental regard, it suits the purposes of advocacy to call our manufactures infant industries still needing the highest and greatest degree of favor and fostering care that can be wrung from Federal legislation.

It is also said that the increase in the price of domestic manufactures resulting from the present tariff is necessary in order that higher wages may be paid to our workingmen employed in manufactories than are paid for what is called the pauper labor of Europe. All will acknowledge the force of an argument which involves the welfare and liberal compensation of our laboring people. Our labor is honorable in the eyes of every American citizen; and as it lies at the foundation of our development and progress, it is entitled, without affectation or hypocrisy, to the utmost regard. The standard of our laborers' life should not be measured by that of any other country less favored, and they are entitled to their full share of all our advantages.

By the last census it is made to appear that of the 17,392,099 of our population engaged in all kinds of industries 7,670,493 are employed in agriculture, 4,074,238 in professional and personal service (2,934,876 of whom are domestic servants and laborers), while 1,810,256 are employed in trade and transportation and 3,837,112 are classed as employed in manufacturing and mining.

For present purposes, however, the last number given should be considerably reduced. Without attempting to enumerate all, it will be conceded that there should be deducted from those which it includes 375,143 carpenters and joiners, 285,401 milliners, dressmakers, and seamstresses, 172,726 blacksmiths, 133,756 tailors and tailoresses, 102,473 masons, 76,241 butchers, 41,309 bakers, 22,083 plasterers, and 4,891 engaged in manufacturing agricultural implements, amounting in the aggregate to 1,214,023, leaving 2,623,089 persons employed in such manufacturing industries as are claimed to be benefited by a high tariff.

To these the appeal is made to save their employment and maintain their wages by resisting a change. There should be no disposition to answer such suggestions by the allegation that they are in a minority among those who labor, and therefore should forego an advantage in the interest of low prices for the majority. Their compensation, as it may be affected by the operation of tariff laws, should at all times be scrupulously kept in view; and yet with slight reflection they will not overlook the fact that they are consumers with the rest; that they too have their own wants and those of their families to supply from their earnings, and that the price of the necessaries of life, as well as the amount of their wages, will regulate the measure of their welfare and comfort.

But the reduction of taxation demanded should be so measured as not to necessitate or justify either the loss of employment by the working-man or the lessening of his wages; and the profits still remaining to the manufacturer after a necessary readjustment should furnish no excuse for the sacrifice of the interests of his employees, either in their opportunity to work or in the diminution of their compensation. Nor can the worker in manufactures fail to understand that while a high tariff is claimed to be necessary to allow the payment of remunerative wages, it certainly results in a very large increase in the price of nearly all sorts of manufactures, which, in almost countless forms, he needs for the use of himself and his family. He receives at the desk of his employer his wages, and perhaps before he reaches his home is obliged, in a purchase for family use of an article which embraces his own labor, to return in the payment of the increase in price which the tariff permits the hard-earned compensation of many days of toil.

The farmer and the agriculturist, who manufacture nothing, but who pay the increased price which the tariff imposes upon every agricultural implement, upon all he wears, and upon all he uses and owns, except the increase of his flocks and herds and such things as his husbandry produces from the soil, is invited to aid in maintaining the present situation; and he is told that a high duty on imported wool is necessary for the benefit of those who have sheep to shear, in order that the price of their wool may be increased. They, of course, are not reminded that the farmer who has no sheep is by this scheme obliged, in his purchases of clothing and woolen goods, to pay a tribute to his fellow-farmer as well as to the manufacturer and merchant, nor is any mention made of the fact that the sheep owners themselves and their households must wear clothing and use other articles manufactured from the wool they sell at tariff prices, and thus as consumers must return their share of this increased price to the tradesman.

I think it may be fairly assumed that a large proportion of the sheep owned by the farmers throughout the country are found in small flocks, numbering from twenty-five to fifty. The duty on the grade of imported wool which these sheep yield is 10 cents each pound if of the value of 30 cents or less and 12 cents if of the value of more than 30 cents. If the liberal estimate of 6 pounds be allowed for each fleece, the duty thereon would be 60 or 72 cents; and this may be taken as the utmost enhancement of its price to the farmer by reason of this duty. Eighteen dollars would thus represent the increased price of the wool from twenty-five sheep and $36 that from the wool of fifty sheep; and at present values this addition would amount to about one-third of its price. If upon its sale the farmer receives this or a less tariff profit, the wool leaves his hands charged with precisely that sum, which in all its changes will adhere to it until it reaches the consumer. When manufactured into cloth and other goods and material for use, its cost is not only increased to the extent of the farmer's tariff profit, but a further sum has been added for the benefit of the manufacturer under the operation of other tariff laws. In the meantime the day arrives when the farmer finds it necessary to purchase woolen goods and material to clothe himself and family for the winter. When he faces the tradesman for that purpose, he discovers that he is obliged not only to return in the way of increased prices his tariff profit on the wool he sold, and which then perhaps lies before him in manufactured form, but that he must add a considerable sum thereto to meet a further increase in cost caused by a tariff duty on the manufacture. Thus in the end he is aroused to the fact that he has paid upon a moderate purchase, as a result of the tariff scheme, which when he sold his wool seemed so profitable, an increase in price more than sufficient to sweep away all the tariff profit he received upon the wool he produced and sold.

When the number of farmers engaged in wool raising is compared with all the farmers in the country and the small proportion they bear to our population is considered; when it is made apparent that in the case of a large part of those who own sheep the benefit of the present tariff on wool is illusory; and, above all, when it must be conceded that the increase of the cost of living caused by such tariff becomes a burden upon those with moderate means and the poor, the employed and unemployed, the sick and well, and the young and old, and that it constitutes a tax which with relentless grasp is fastened upon the clothing of every man, woman, and child in the land, reasons are suggested why the removal or reduction of this duty should be included in a revision of our tariff laws.

In speaking of the increased cost to the consumer of our home manufactures resulting from a duty laid upon imported articles of the same description, the fact is not overlooked that competition among our domestic producers sometimes has the effect of keeping the price of their products below the highest limit allowed by such duty. But it is notorious that this competition is too often strangled by combinations quite prevalent at this time, and frequently called trusts, which have for their object the regulation of the supply and price of commodities made and sold by members of the combination. The people can hardly hope for any consideration in the operation of these selfish schemes.

If, however, in the absence of such combination, a healthy and free competition reduces the price of any particular dutiable article of home production below the limit which it might otherwise reach under our tariff laws, and if with such reduced price its manufacture continues to thrive, it is entirely evident that one thing has been discovered which should be carefully scrutinized in an effort to reduce taxation.

The necessity of combination to maintain the price of any commodity to the tariff point furnishes proof that someone is willing to accept lower prices for such commodity and that such prices are remunerative; and lower prices produced by competition prove the same thing. Thus where either of these conditions exists a case would seem to be presented for an easy reduction of taxation.

The considerations which have been presented touching our tariff laws are intended only to enforce an earnest recommendation that the surplus revenues of the Government be prevented by the reduction of our customs duties, and at the same time to emphasize a suggestion that in accomplishing this purpose we may discharge a double duty to our people by granting to them a measure of relief from tariff taxation in quarters where it is most needed and from sources where it can be most fairly and justly accorded.

Nor can the presentation made of such considerations be with any degree of fairness regarded as evidence of unfriendliness toward our manufacturing interests or of any lack of appreciation of their value and importance.

These interests constitute a leading and most substantial element of our national greatness and furnish the proud proof of our country's progress. But if in the emergency that presses upon us our manufacturers are asked to surrender something for the public good and to avert disaster, their patriotism, as well as a grateful recognition of advantages already afforded, should lead them to willing cooperation. No demand is made that they shall forego all the benefits of governmental regard; but they can not fail to be admonished of their duty, as well as their enlightened self-interest and safety, when they are reminded of the fact that financial panic and collapse, to which the present condition tends, afford no greater shelter or protection to our manufactures than to other important enterprises. Opportunity for safe, careful, and deliberate reform is now offered; and none of us should be unmindful of a time when an abused and irritated people, heedless of those who have resisted timely and reasonable relief, may insist upon a radical and sweeping rectification of their wrongs.

The difficulty attending a wise and fair revision of our tariff laws is not underestimated. It will require on the part of the Congress great labor and care, and especially a broad and national contemplation of the subject and a patriotic disregard of such local and selfish claims as are unreasonable and reckless of the welfare of the entire country.

Under our present laws more than 4,000 articles are subject to duty. Many of these do not in any way compete with our own manufactures, and many are hardly worth attention as subjects of revenue. A considerable reduction can be made in the aggregate by adding them to the free list. The taxation of luxuries presents no features of hardship; but the necessaries of life used and consumed by all the people, the duty upon which adds to the cost of living in every home, should be greatly cheapened.

The radical reduction of the duties imposed upon raw material used in manufactures, or its free importation, is of course an important factor in any effort to reduce the price of these necessaries. It would not only relieve them from the increased cost caused by the tariff on such material, but the manufactured product being thus cheapened that part of the tariff now laid upon such product, as a compensation to our manufacturers for the present price of raw material, could be accordingly modified. Such reduction or free importation would serve besides to largely reduce the revenue. It is not apparent how such a change can have any injurious effect upon our manufacturers. On the contrary, it would appear to give them a better chance in foreign markets with the manufacturers of other countries, who cheapen their wares by free material. Thus our people might have the opportunity of extending their sales beyond the limits of home consumption, saving them from the depression, interruption in business, and loss caused by a glutted domestic market and affording their employees more certain and steady labor, with its resulting quiet and contentment.

The question thus imperatively presented for solution should be approached in a spirit higher than partisanship and considered in the light of that regard for patriotic duty which should characterize the action of those intrusted with the weal of a confiding people. But the obligation to declared party policy and principle is not wanting to urge prompt and effective action. Both of the great political parties now represented in the Government have by repeated and authoritative declarations condemned the condition of our laws which permit the collection from the people of unnecessary revenue, and have in the most solemn manner promised its correction; and neither as citizens nor partisans are our countrymen in a mood to condone the deliberate violation of these pledges.

Our progress toward a wise conclusion will not be improved by dwelling upon the theories of protection and free trade. This savors too much of bandying epithets. It is a condition which confronts us, not a theory. Relief from this condition may involve a slight reduction of the advantages which we award our home productions, but the entire withdrawal of such advantages should not be contemplated. The question of free trade is absolutely irrelevant, and the persistent claim made in certain quarters that all the efforts to relieve the people from unjust and unnecessary taxation are schemes of so-called free traders is mischievous and far removed from any consideration for the public good.

The simple and plain duty which we owe the people is to reduce taxation to the necessary expenses of an economical operation of the Government and to restore to the business of the country the money which we hold in the Treasury through the perversion of governmental powers. These things can and should be done with safety to all our industries, without danger to the opportunity for remunerative labor which our workingmen need, and with benefit to them and all our people by cheapening their means of subsistence and increasing the measure of their comforts.

The Constitution provides that the President "shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union." It has been the custom of the Executive, in compliance with this provision, to annually exhibit to the Congress, at the opening of its session, the general condition of the country, and to detail with some particularity the operations of the different Executive Departments. It would be especially agreeable to follow this course at the present time and to call attention to the valuable accomplishments of these Departments during the last fiscal year; but I am so much impressed with the paramount importance of the subject to which this communication has thus far been devoted that I shall forego the addition of any other topic, and only urge upon your immediate consideration the "state of the Union" as shown in the present condition of our Treasury and our general fiscal situation, upon which every element of our safety and prosperity depends.

The reports of the heads of Departments, which will be submitted, contain full and explicit information touching the transaction, of the business intrusted to them and such recommendations relating to legislation in the public interest as they deem advisable. I ask for these reports and recommendations the deliberate examination and action of the legislative branch of the Government.

There are other subjects not embraced in the departmental reports demanding legislative consideration, and which I should be glad to submit. Some of them, however, have been earnestly presented in previous messages, and as to them I beg leave to repeat prior recommendations.

As the law makes no provision for any report from the Department of State, a brief history of the transactions of that important Department, together with other matters which it may hereafter be deemed essential to commend to the attention of the Congress, may furnish the occasion for a future communication.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

SPECIAL MESSAGES.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, December 14, 1887.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, a final protocol, signed at Paris on the 7th day of July, 1887, by the plenipotentiaries of the United States and of the other powers parties to the convention of March 14, 1884, for the protection of submarine cables, fixing the 1st day of May, 1888, as the date on which the said convention of March 14, 1884, shall take effect, provided that those of the contracting Governments that have not adopted the measures provided for by article 12 of the said convention shall have conformed to that stipulation.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, December 14, 1887.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, a convention between the United States and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the extradition of criminals, signed at Washington on the 2d day of June, 1887.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 19, 1887.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, in relation to the invitation from Her Britannic Majesty to this Government to participate in the international exhibition which is to be held at Melbourne in 1888 to celebrate the centenary of the founding of New South Wales, the first Australian colony.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 19, 1887.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, in relation to an invitation which has been extended to this Government to appoint a delegate or delegates to the International Exposition of Labor to be held in April, 1888, at Barcelona, Spain, and commend its suggestions to the favorable attention of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, December 20, 1887.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of State, accompanied by the report of Mr. Edward Atkinson, of Massachusetts, who was specially designated by me, under the provisions of successive acts of Congress in that behalf, to visit the financial centers of Europe in order to ascertain the feasibility of establishing by international arrangement a fixity of rates between the two precious metals in free coinage of both.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 4, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of 23d ultimo from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill to amend section 2148 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to trespasses upon Indian lands.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 4, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of 23d ultimo from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill granting a right of way to the Jamestown and Northern Railroad Company through the Devils Lake Indian Reservation, in the Territory of Dakota.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 4, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 22d ultimo from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill to amend section 5388 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to timber trespasses upon the public lands, so as to include Indian lands.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 4, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of 27th December, 1887, from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, draft of a bill "to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to fix the amount of compensation to be paid for the right of way for railroads through Indian reservations in certain contingencies."

The matter is commended to the consideration of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 4, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of 22d ultimo from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill to accept and ratify an agreement made with the Indians of the Yakima Reservation, in Washington Territory, for the right of way of the Northern Pacific Railroad across said reservation, etc.

The matter is presented for the consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 4, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of 24th ultimo from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill to accept and ratify an agreement made by the Pi-Ute Indians, and granting a right of way to the Carson and Colorado Railroad Company through the Walker River Reservation, in Nevada.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 4, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 24th ultimo from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill to accept and ratify an agreement made with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Indians, and to grant a right of way for the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway through the Lake Traverse Indian Reservation, in Dakota.

The matter is presented for the consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 5, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 23d ultimo from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting a draft of a bill "to provide for the reduction of the Round Valley Indian Reservation, in the State of California, and for other purposes," with accompanying papers relating thereto. The documents thus submitted exhibit extensive and entirely unjustifiable encroachments upon lands set apart for Indian occupancy and disclose a disregard of Indian rights so long continued that the Government can not further temporize without positive dishonor. Efforts to dislodge trespassers upon these lands have in some cases been resisted upon the ground that certain moneys due from the Government for improvements have not been paid. So far as this claim is well founded the sum necessary to extinguish the same should be at once appropriated and paid. In other cases the position of these intruders is one of simple and barefaced wrongdoing, plainly questioning the inclination of the Government to protect its dependent Indian wards and its ability to maintain itself in the guaranty of such protection.

These intruders should forthwith feel the weight of the Government's power. I earnestly commend the situation and the wrongs of the Indians occupying the reservation named to the early attention of the Congress, and ask for the bill herewith transmitted careful and prompt attention.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 5, 1888.

To the Senate:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 28th of February last, requesting the President of the United States to obtain certain information from the Government of Great Britain relative to the proceedings of the authorities of New Zealand concerning the titles to lands in that colony claimed by American citizens, I transmit a report of the Secretary of State, together with the accompanying documents.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, January 5, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, a treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation between the United States and the Republic of Peru, signed at Lima on the 31st day of August, 1887.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, January 5, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit, with a view to its ratification, an additional article, signed October 22, 1887, to the treaty for the extradition of criminals concluded October 11, 1870, between the United States and the Republic of Guatemala, and, for the reasons suggested by the Secretary of State in his report, request the return of the additional article to the above-mentioned treaty signed February 4, 1887, and transmitted to the Senate on February 24[*25] of the same year.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 9, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of 30th of December, 1887, from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, two additional reports from the commission appointed to conduct negotiations with certain tribes and bands of Indians for reduction of reservations, etc., under the provisions of the act of May 15, 1886 (24 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 44), providing therefor.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 9, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of State, relative to the requests which have been received from various maritime associations and chambers of commerce of this country asking that measures be taken to convoke an international conference at Washington of representatives of all maritime nations to devise measures for the greater security of life and property at sea.

I commend this important subject to the favorable consideration of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 9, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, recommending that this Government take action to approve the resolutions of the Washington International Meridian Conference, held in October, 1884, in favor of fixing a prime meridian and a universal day, and to invite the powers with whom this country has diplomatic relations to accede to the same.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 9, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, relative to the legislation required to carry into effect the international convention of March 14, 1884, for the protection of submarine cables, to which this country is a party.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 12, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, in relation to the invitation from the Government of France to this Government to participate in the international exhibition which is to be held at Paris in 1889.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, January 16, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith, in response to a resolution of the Senate of the 21st ultimo, a report of the Secretary of State touching correspondence of this Government with that of Hawaii, or of any foreign country, concerning any change or proposed change in the Government of the Hawaiian Islands.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 17, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

On the 3d day of March last an act was passed authorizing the appointment of three commissioners who should investigate the affairs of such railroads as have received aid from the United States Government. Among other things, the contemplated investigation included a history of the construction of these roads, their relations and indebtedness to the Government, and the question whether in the interest of the United States any extension of the time for the performance of the obligations of said roads to the Government should be granted; and if so, the said commissioners were directed to submit a scheme for such extension.

The commissioners were further directed by said act to report in full to the President upon all the matters submitted to them, and he was by said act required to forward said report to Congress with such recommendations or comments as he should see fit to make in the premises.

The commissioners immediately after their selection entered upon the discharge of their duties, and have prosecuted their inquiries with commendable industry, intelligence, and thoroughness. A large amount of testimony has been taken, and all the facts have been developed which appear to be necessary for the consideration of the questions arising from the condition of these aided railroads and their relations to the Government.

The commissioners have, however, been unable to agree upon the manner in which these railroads should be treated respecting their indebtedness to the United States, or to unite upon the plan best calculated to secure the payment of such indebtedness.

This disagreement has resulted in the preparation of two reports, both of which are herewith submitted to the Congress.

These reports exhibit such transactions and schemes connected with the construction of the aided roads and their management, and suggest the invention of such devices on the part of those having them in charge, for the apparent purpose of defeating any chance for the Government's reimbursement, that any adjustment or plan of settlement should be predicated upon the substantial interests of the Government rather than any forbearance or generosity deserved by the companies.

The wide publication which has already been given to the substance of the commissioners' reports obviates the necessity of detailing in this communication the facts found upon the investigation.

The majority report, while condemning the methods adopted by those who formerly had charge of the Union Pacific Railroad, declares that since its present management was inaugurated, in 1884, its affairs have been fairly and prudently conducted, and that the present administration "has devoted itself honestly and intelligently to the herculean task of rescuing the Union Pacific Railway from the insolvency which seriously threatened it at the inception of its work;" that it "has devoted itself, by rigid economy, by intelligent management, and by an application of every dollar of the earning capacity of the system to its improvement and betterment, to place that company on a sound and enduring financial foundation."

The condition of the present management of the Union Pacific Company has an important bearing upon its ability to comply with the terms of any settlement of its indebtedness which may be offered by the Government.

The majority of the commission are in favor of an extension of the time for the payment of the Government indebtedness of these companies, upon certain conditions; but the chairman of the commission, presenting the minority report, recommends, both upon principle and policy, the institution of proceedings for the forfeiture of the charters of the corporations and the winding up of their affairs.

I have been furnished with a statement or argument in defense of the transactions connected with the construction of the Central Pacific road and its branch lines, from which it may not be amiss to quote for the purpose of showing how some of the operations of the directors of such road, strongly condemned by the commissioners, are defended by the directors themselves. After speaking of a contract for the construction of one of these branch lines by a corporation called the Contract and Finance Company, owned by certain directors of the Central Pacific Railroad, this language is used:

It may be said of this contract, as of many others that were let to the different construction companies in which the directors of the Central Pacific have been stockholders, that they built the road with the moneys furnished by themselves and had the road for their outlay. In other words, they paid to the construction company the bonds and stock of the railroad so constructed, and waited until such time as they could develop sufficient business on the road built to induce the public to buy the bonds or the stock. If the country through which the railroad ran developed sufficient business, then the project was a success; if it did not, then the operation was a loss. These gentlemen took all the responsibility; any loss occurring was necessarily theirs, and of right the profit belonged to them.

But it is said that they violated a well-known rule of equity in dealing with themselves; that they were trustees, and that they were representing both sides of the contract.

The answer is that they did not find anybody else to deal with. They could not find anyone who would take the chances of building a road through what was then an almost uninhabited country and accept the bonds and stock of the road, in payment. And when it is said that they were trustees, if they did occupy such relation it was merely technical, for they represented only their own interests on both sides, there being no one else concerned in the transaction. They became the incorporators of the company that was to build the road, subscribed for its stock, and were the only subscribers; therefore it is difficult to see how anyone was wronged by their action. The rule of equity invoked, which has its origin in the injunction "No man can serve two masters," certainly did not apply to them, because they were acting in their own interests and were not charged with the duty of caring for others' rights, there being no other persons interested in the subject-matter.

In view of this statement and the facts developed in the commissioners' reports, it seems proper to recall the grants and benefits derived from the General Government by both the Union and Central Pacific companies for the purpose of aiding the construction of their roads.

By an act passed in 1862 it was provided that there should be advanced to said companies by the United States, to aid in such construction, the bonds of the Government amounting to $16,000 for every mile constructed, as often as a section of 40 miles of said roads should be built; that there should also be granted to said companies, upon the completion of every said section of 40 miles of road, five entire sections of public land for each mile so built; that the entire charges earned by said roads on account of transportation and service for the Government should be applied to the reimbursement of the bonds advanced by the United States and the interest thereon, and that to secure the repayment of the bonds so advanced, and interest, the issue and delivery to said companies of said bonds should constitute a first mortgage on the whole line of their roads and on their rolling stock, fixtures, and property of every kind and description.

The liberal donations, advances, and privileges provided for in this law were granted by the General Government for the purpose of securing the construction of these roads, which would complete the connection between our eastern and western coasts; and they were based upon a consideration of the public benefits which would accrue to the entire country from such consideration.

But the projectors of these roads were not content, and the sentiment which then seemed to pervade the Congress had not reached the limit of its generosity. Two years after the passage of this law it was supplemented and amended in various important particulars in favor of these companies by an act which provided, among other things, that the bonds, at the rate already specified, should be delivered upon the completion of sections of 20 miles in length instead of 40; that the lands to be conveyed to said companies on the completion of each section of said road should be ten sections per mile instead of five; that only half of the charges for transportation and service due from time to time from the United States should be retained and applied to the advances made to said companies by the Government, thus obliging immediate payment to its debtor of the other half of said charges, and that the lien of the United States to secure the reimbursement of the amount advanced to said companies in bonds, which lien was declared by the law of 1862 to constitute a first mortgage upon all the property of said companies, should become a junior lien and be subordinated to a mortgage which the companies were by the amendatory act authorized to execute to secure bonds which they might from time to time issue in sums not exceeding the amount of the United States bonds which should be advanced to them.

The immense advantages to the companies of this amendatory act are apparent; and in these days we may well wonder that even the anticipated public importance of the construction of these roads induced what must now appear to be a rather reckless and unguarded appropriation of the public funds and the public domain.

Under the operation of these laws the principal of the bonds which have been advanced is $64,023,512, as given in the reports of the commissioners; the interest to November 1, 1887, is calculated to be $76,024,206.58, making an aggregate at the date named of $140,047,718.58. The interest calculated to the maturity of the bonds added to the principal produces an aggregate of $178,884,759.50. Against these amounts there has been repaid by the companies the sum of $30,955,039.61.

It is almost needless to state that the companies have availed themselves to the utmost extent of the permission given them to issue their bonds and to mortgage their property to secure the payment of the same, by an incumbrance having preference to the Government's lien and precisely equal to it in amount.

It will be seen that there was available for the building of each mile of these roads $16,000 of United States bonds, due in thirty years, with 6 per cent interest; $16,000 in bonds of the companies, secured by a first mortgage on all their property, and ten sections of Government land, to say nothing of the stock of the companies.

When the relations created between the Government and these companies by the legislation referred to is considered, it is astonishing that the claim should be made that the directors of these roads owed no duty except to themselves in their construction; that they need regard no interests but their own, and that they were justified in contracting with themselves and making such bargains as resulted in conveying to their pockets all the assets of the companies. As a lienor the Government was vitally interested in the amount of the mortgage to which its security had been subordinated, and it had the right to insist that none of the bonds secured by this prior mortgage should be issued fraudulently or for the purpose of division among these stockholders without consideration.

The doctrine of complete independence on the part of the directors of these companies and their freedom from any obligation to care for other interests than their own in the construction of these roads seems to have developed the natural consequences of its application, portrayed as follows in the majority report of the commissioners:

The result is that those who have controlled and directed the construction and development of these companies have become possessed of their surplus assets through issues of bonds, stocks, and payment of dividends voted by themselves, while the great creditor, the United States, finds itself substantially without adequate security for the repayment of its loans.

The laws enacted in aid of these roads, while they illustrated a profuse liberality and a generous surrender of the Government's advantages, which it is hoped experience has corrected, were nevertheless passed upon the theory that the roads should be constructed according to the common rules of business, fairness, and duty, and that their value and their ability to pay their debts should not be impaired by unfair manipulations; and when the Government subordinated its lien to another it was in the expectation that the prior lien would represent in its amount only such bonds as should be necessarily issued by the companies for the construction of their roads at fair prices, agreed upon in an honest way between real and substantial parties. For the purpose of saving or improving the security afforded by its junior lien the Government should have the right now to purge this paramount lien of all that is fraudulent, fictitious, or unconscionable. If the transfer to innocent hands of bonds of this character secured by such first mortgage prevents their cancellation, it might be well to seek a remedy against those who issued and transferred them. If legislation is needed to secure such a remedy, the Congress can readily supply it.

I desire to call attention also to the fact that if all that was to be done on the part of the Government to fully vest in these companies the grants and advantages contemplated by the acts passed in their interest has not yet been perfected, and if the failure of such companies to perform in good faith their part of the contract justifies such a course, the power rests with the Congress to withhold further performance on the part of the Government. If donated lands are not yet granted to these companies, and if their violation of contract and of duty are such as in justice and morals forfeit their rights to such lands, Congressional action should intervene to prevent further consummation. Executive power must be exercised according to existing laws, and Executive discretion is probably not broad enough to reach such difficulties.

The California and Oregon Railroad is now a part of the Central Pacific system, and is a land-grant road. Its construction has been carried on with the same features and incidents which have characterized the other constructions of this system, as is made apparent on pages 78, 79, and 80 of the report of the majority of the commissioners. I have in my hands for approval the report of the commissioners appointed to examine two completed sections of this road. Upon such approval the company or the Central Pacific Company will be entitled to patents for a large quantity of public lands. I especially commend to the attention of Congress this condition of affairs, in order that it may determine whether or not it should intervene to save these lands for settlers, if such a course is justifiable.

It is quite time that the troublesome complications surrounding this entire subject, which has been transmitted to us as a legacy from former days, should be adjusted and settled.

No one, I think, expects that these railroad companies will be able to pay their immense indebtedness to the Government at its maturity.

Any proceeding or arrangement that would result now, or at any other time, in putting these roads, or any portion of them, in the possession and control of the Government is, in my opinion, to be rejected, certainly as long as there is the least chance for indemnification through any other means.

I suppose we are hardly justified in indulging the irritation and indignation naturally arising from a contemplation of malfeasance to such an extent as to lead to the useless destruction of these roads or loss of the advances made by the Government. I believe that our efforts should be in a more practical direction, and should tend, with no condonation of wrongdoing, to the collection by the Government, on behalf of the people, of the public money now in jeopardy.

While the plan presented by a majority of the commission appears to be well devised and gives at least partial promise of the results sought, the fact will not escape attention that its success depends upon its acceptance by the companies and their ability to perform its conditions after acceptance. It is exceedingly important that any adjustment now made should be final and effective. These considerations suggest the possibility that the remedy proposed in the majority report might well be applied to a part only of these aided railroad companies.

The settlement and determination of the questions involved are peculiarly within the province of the Congress. The subject has been made quite a familiar one by Congressional discussion. This is now supplemented in a valuable manner by the facts presented in the reports herewith submitted.

The public interest urges prompt and efficient action.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 23, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith the first report of the board of control created by the act of Congress approved August 4, 1886 (24 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 252), for the management of an industrial home in the Territory of Utah, containing a statement of the action of the board in establishing the home and an account of expenditures from the appropriation made for that purpose in the act above mentioned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, January 30, 1888.

To the Senate:

I transmit herewith, in response to the resolution of the Senate of the 21st of December last, a report from the Secretary of State, in relation to Midway Island.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 7, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit, with a view to its ratification, a declaration, signed December 1, 1886, and March 23, 1887, for Germany, by the delegates of the powers signatories of the convention of March 14, 1884, for the protection of submarine cables, defining the sense of articles 2 and 4 of the said convention.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 7, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of 4th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with other papers, a draft of a bill to accept and ratify an agreement made with the Shoshone and Bannock Indians for the surrender and relinquishment to the United States of a portion of the Fort Hall Reservation, in the Territory of Idaho, for the purposes of a town site, and for the grant of a right of way through said reservation to the Utah and Northern Railway Company, and for other purposes.

The matter is presented for the consideration of the Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 20, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith a report furnished by the Secretary of State in response to a resolution of the Senate of the 2d instant, making inquiry respecting the present condition of the Virginius indemnity fund.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 20, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith and commend to your favorable consideration a report from the Secretary of State, in relation to an invitation which this Government has received from the Belgian Government to participate in an international exhibition of sciences and industry which will open at Brussels in the month of May next.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 20, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

In my annual message transmitted to the Congress in December, 1886, it was stated that negotiations were then pending for the settlement of the questions growing out of the rights claimed by American fishermen in British North American waters.

As a result of such negotiations a treaty has been agreed upon between Her Britannic Majesty and the United States, concluded and signed in this capital, under my direction and authority, on the 15th of February instant, and which I now have the honor to submit to the Senate with the recommendation that it shall receive the consent of that body, as provided in the Constitution, in order that the ratifications thereof may be duly exchanged and the treaty be carried into effect.

Shortly after Congress had adjourned in March last, and in continuation of my efforts to arrive at such an agreement between the Governments of Great Britain and the United States as would secure to the citizens of the respective countries the unmolested enjoyment of their just rights under existing treaties and international comity in the territorial waters of Canada and of Newfoundland, I availed myself of opportune occurrences indicative of a desire to make without delay an amicable and final settlement of a long-standing controversy, productive of much irritation and misunderstanding between the two nations, to send through our minister in London proposals that a conference should take place on the subject at this capital.

The experience of the past two years had demonstrated the dilatory and unsatisfactory consequences of our indirect transaction of business through the foreign office in London, in which the views and wishes of the government of the Dominion of Canada were practically predominant, but were only to find expression at second hand.

To obviate this inconvenience and obstruction to prompt and well-defined settlement, it was considered advisable that the negotiations should be conducted in this city and that the interests of Canada and Newfoundland should be directly represented therein.

The terms of reference having been duly agreed upon between the two Governments and the conference arranged to be held here, by virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution I duly authorized Thomas F. Bayard, the Secretary of State of the United States, William L. Putnam, a citizen of the State of Maine, and James B. Angell, a citizen of the State of Michigan, for and in the name of the United States, to meet and confer with the plenipotentiaries representing the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, for the purpose of considering and adjusting in a friendly spirit all or any questions relating to rights of fishery in the seas adjacent to British North America and Newfoundland which were in dispute between the Government of the United States and that of Her Britannic Majesty, and jointly and severally to conclude and sign any treaty or treaties touching the premises; and I herewith transmit for your information full copies of the power so given by me.

In execution of the powers so conveyed the said Thomas F. Bayard, William L. Putnam, and James B. Angell, in the month of November last, met in this city the plenipotentiaries of Her Britannic Majesty and proceeded in the negotiation of a treaty as above authorized. After many conferences and protracted efforts an agreement has at length been arrived at, which is embodied in the treaty which I now lay before you.

The treaty meets my approval, because I believe that it supplies a satisfactory, practical, and final adjustment, upon a basis honorable and just to both parties, of the difficult and vexed question to which it relates.

A review of the history of this question will show that all former attempts to arrive at a common interpretation, satisfactory to both parties, of the first article of the treaty of October 20, 1818, have been unsuccessful, and with the lapse of time the difficulty and obscurity have only increased.

The negotiations in 1854 and again in 1871 ended in both cases in temporary reciprocal arrangements of the tariffs of Canada and Newfoundland and of the United States, and the payment of a money award by the United States, under which the real questions in difference remained unsettled, in abeyance, and ready to present themselves anew just so soon as the conventional arrangements were abrogated.

The situation, therefore, remained unimproved by the results of the treaty of 1871, and a grave condition of affairs, presenting almost identically the same features and causes of complaint by the United States against Canadian action and British default in its correction, confronted us in May, 1886, and has continued until the present time.

The greater part of the correspondence which has taken place between the two Governments has heretofore been communicated to Congress, and at as early a day as possible I shall transmit the remaining portion to this date, accompanying it with the joint protocols of the conferences which resulted in the conclusion of the treaty now submitted to you.

You will thus be fully possessed of the record and history of the case since the termination on June 30, 1885, of the fishery articles of the treaty of Washington of 1871, whereby we were relegated to the provisions of the treaty of October 20, 1818.

As the documents and papers referred to will supply full information of the positions taken under my Administration by the representatives of the United States, as well as those occupied by the representatives of the Government of Great Britain, it is not considered necessary or expedient to repeat them in this message. But I believe the treaty will be found to contain a just, honorable, and therefore satisfactory solution of the difficulties which have clouded our relations with our neighbors on our northern border.

Especially satisfactory do I believe the proposed arrangement will be found by those of our citizens who are engaged in the open-sea fisheries adjacent to the Canadian coast, and resorting to those ports and harbors under treaty provisions and rules of international law.

The proposed delimitation of the lines of the exclusive fisheries from the common fisheries will give certainty and security as to the area of their legitimate field. The headland theory of imaginary lines is abandoned by Great Britain, and the specification in the treaty of certain named bays especially provided for gives satisfaction to the inhabitants of the shores, without subtracting materially from the value or convenience of the fishery rights of Americans.

The uninterrupted navigation of the Strait of Canso is expressly and for the first time affirmed, and the four purposes for which our fishermen under the treaty of 1818 were allowed to enter the bays and harbors of Canada and Newfoundland within the belt of 3 marine miles are placed under a fair and liberal construction, and their enjoyment secured without such conditions and restrictions as in the past have embarrassed and obstructed them so seriously.

The enforcement of penalties for unlawfully fishing or preparing to fish within the inshore and exclusive waters of Canada and Newfoundland is to be accomplished under safeguards against oppressive or arbitrary action, thus protecting the defendant fishermen from punishment in advance of trial, delays, and inconvenience and unnecessary expense.

The history of events in the last two years shows that no feature of Canadian administration was more harassing and injurious than the compulsion upon our fishing vessels to make formal entry and clearance on every occasion of temporarily seeking shelter in Canadian ports and harbors.

Such inconvenience is provided against in the proposed treaty, and this most frequent and just cause of complaint is removed.

The articles permitting our fishermen to obtain provisions and the ordinary supplies of trading vessels on their homeward voyages, and under which they are accorded the further and even more important privilege on all occasions of purchasing such casual or needful provisions and supplies as are ordinarily granted to trading vessels, are of great importance and value.

The licenses, which are to be granted without charge and on application, in order to enable our fishermen to enjoy these privileges, are reasonable and proper checks in the hands of the local authorities to identify the recipients and prevent abuse, and can form no impediment to those who intend to use them fairly.

The hospitality secured for our vessels in all cases of actual distress, with liberty to unload and sell and transship their cargoes, is full and liberal.

These provisions will secure the substantial enjoyment of the treaty rights for our fishermen under the treaty of 1818, for which contention has been steadily made in the correspondence of the Department of State and our minister at London and by the American negotiators of the present treaty.

The right of our fishermen under the treaty of 1818 did not extend to the procurement of distinctive fishery supplies in Canadian ports and harbors, and one item supposed to be essential--to wit, bait--was plainly denied them by the explicit and definite words of the treaty of 1818, emphasized by the course of the negotiation and express decisions which preceded the conclusion of that treaty.

The treaty now submitted contains no provision affecting tariff duties, and, independently of the position assumed upon the part of the United States that no alteration in our tariff or other domestic legislation could be made as the price or consideration of obtaining the rights of our citizens secured by treaty, it was considered more expedient to allow any change in the revenue laws of the United States to be made by the ordinary exercise of legislative will and in the promotion of the public interests. Therefore the addition to the free list of fish, fish oil, whale and seal oil, etc., recited in the last article of the treaty, is wholly left to the action of Congress; and in connection therewith the Canadian and Newfoundland right to regulate sales of bait and other fishing supplies within their own jurisdiction is recognized, and the right of our fishermen to freely purchase these things is made contingent by this treaty upon the action of Congress in the modification of our tariff laws.

Our social and commercial intercourse with those populations who have been placed upon our borders and made forever our neighbors is made apparent by a list of United States common carriers, marine and inland, connecting their lines with Canada, which was returned by the Secretary of the Treasury to the Senate on the 7th day of February, 1888, in answer to a resolution of that body; and this is instructive as to the great volume of mutually profitable interchanges which has come into existence during the last half century.

This intercourse is still but partially developed, and if the amicable enterprise and wholesome rivalry between the two populations be not obstructed the promise of the future is full of the fruits of an unbounded prosperity on both sides of the border.

The treaty now submitted to you has been framed in a spirit of liberal equity and reciprocal benefits, in the conviction that mutual advantage and convenience are the only permanent foundation of peace and friendship between States, and that with the adoption of the agreement now placed before the Senate a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse between the two countries will be established so as to secure perpetual peace and harmony.

In connection with the treaty herewith submitted I deem it also my duty to transmit to the Senate a written offer or arrangement, in the nature of a modus vivendi, tendered after the conclusion of the treaty on the part of the British plenipotentiaries, to secure kindly and peaceful relations during the period that may be required for the consideration of the treaty by the respective Governments and for the enactment of the necessary legislation to carry its provisions into effect if approved.

This paper, freely and on their own motion signed by the British conferees, not only extends advantages to our fishermen pending the ratification of the treaty, but appears to have been dictated by a friendly and amicable spirit.

I am given to understand that the other Governments concerned in this treaty will within a few days, in accordance with their methods of conducting public business, submit said treaty to their respective legislatures, when it will be at once published to the world. In view of such action it appears to be advisable that by publication here early and full knowledge of all that has been done in the premises should be afforded to our people.

It would also seem to be useful to inform the popular mind concerning the history of the long-continued disputes growing out of the subject embraced in the treaty and to satisfy the public interests touching the same, as well as to acquaint our people with the present status of the questions involved, and to give them the exact terms of the proposed adjustment, in place of the exaggerated and imaginative statements which will otherwise reach them.

I therefore beg leave respectfully to suggest that said treaty and all such correspondence, messages, and documents relating to the same as may be deemed important to accomplish those purposes be at once made public by the order of your honorable body.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 20, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, relative to an invitation from the Imperial German Government to the Government of the United States to become a party to the International Geodetic Association.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 27, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith a report furnished by the Secretary of State in response to a resolution of the Senate of January 12, 1888, making various inquiries respecting the awards of the late Spanish and American Claims Commission and the disposition of moneys received in satisfaction thereof.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 5, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America:

I transmit herewith, for the information and consideration of Congress, a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying correspondence, touching the action of the Government of Venezuela in conveying to that country for interment the remains of the distinguished Venezuelan soldier and statesman, General Jose Antonio Paez, and take pleasure in expressing my concurrence in the suggestion therein referred to, that the employment of a national vessel of war for the transportation of General Paez's remains from New York to La Guayra be authorized and provided for by Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 5, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, relative to an invitation which the Royal Bavarian Government has extended to this Government to participate in the Third International Exhibition of the Fine Arts, which is to be held at Munich, Bavaria, during the present year.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 5, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I herewith transmit a letter from the Secretary of State, accompanied by documents and correspondence, in relation to the recent negotiations with Great Britain concerning American fishing interests in British North American waters.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 5, 1888.

To the Senate:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, with its inclosures, in response to the resolution of the Senate of the 21st of December, 1887, and the 16th of January, 1888, touching the awards of the late Mexican Claims Commission, and especially those in favor of Benjamin Weil and La Abra Silver Mining Company.

It will be seen that the report concludes with a suggestion that these claims be referred to the Court of Claims, or such other court as may be deemed proper, in order that the charges of fraud made in relation to said claims may be fully investigated.

If for any reason this proceeding be considered inadvisable, I respectfully ask that some final and definite action be taken directing the executive department of the Government what course to pursue in the premises.

In view of the long delay that has already occurred in these cases, it would seem but just to all parties concerned that the Congress should speedily signify its final judgment upon the awards referred to and make the direction contemplated by the act of 1878, in default of which the money now on hand applicable to such awards now remains undistributed.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 7, 1888.

To the Senate:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 24th of February, 1888, calling for information as to whether the Government of France has prohibited the importation into the country of any American products, and, if so, what products of the United States are affected thereby, and also as to whether any correspondence upon said subject has passed between the Governments of the United States and France, I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State on the subject, with the accompanying correspondence.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 8, 1888.

To the Senate:

A copy of the following resolution, passed by the Senate on the 1st day of the present month, was delivered to me on the 3d instant:

Resolved, That in view of the difficulties and embarrassments that have attended the regulation of the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States under the limitations of our treaties with China, the President of the United States be requested to negotiate a treaty with the Emperor of China containing a provision that no Chinese laborer shall enter the United States.

The importance of the subject referred to in this resolution has by no means been overlooked by the executive branch of the Government, charged under the Constitution with the formulation of treaties with foreign countries.

Negotiation with the Emperor of China for a treaty such as is mentioned in said resolution was commenced many months ago and has been since continued. The progress of the negotiation thus inaugurated has heretofore been freely communicated to such members of the Senate and of its Committee on Foreign Relations as sought information concerning the same. It is, however, with much gratification that I deem myself now justified in expressing to the Senate, in response to its resolution, the hope and expectation that a treaty will soon be concluded concerning the immigration of Chinese laborers which will meet the wants of our people and the approbation of the body to which it will be submitted for confirmation.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, March 12, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, a treaty between the United States of America and Zanzibar, concluded July 3, 1886, enlarging and defining the stipulations of the treaty of September 21, 1833, between the United States of America and His Majesty Seyed Syed bin Sultan of Muscat and Sovereign of Zanzibar, which treaty has continued in force as to Zanzibar and its dependencies after the separation of Zanzibar from Muscat, and has been accepted, ratified, and confirmed by the Sultan of Zanzibar on October 20, 1879.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, March 16, 1888.

To the Senate:

I have the honor to transmit herewith and recommend for your constitutional approval a convention signed and concluded in this city on the 12th instant, under my direction, between the United States and China, for the exclusion hereafter of Chinese laborers from coming into this country.

This treaty is accompanied by a letter from the Secretary of State in recital of its provisions and explanatory of the reasons for its negotiation, and with it are transmitted sundry documents giving the history of events connected with the presence and treatment of Chinese subjects in the United States.

In view of the public interest which has for a long time been manifested in relation to the question of Chinese immigration, it would seem advisable that the full text of this treaty should be made public, and I respectfully recommend that an order to that effect be made by your honorable body.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 16, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

I herewith transmit, in compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 16th ultimo, a report from the Secretary of State, accompanied by certain correspondence in regard to the Mexican zona libre.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 20, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 13th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, with accompanying papers, and submitting the draft of a proposed bill to forfeit lands granted to the State of Oregon for the construction of certain wagon roads, and for other purposes.

The presentation of facts by the Secretary of the Interior herewith transmitted is the result of an examination made under his direction, which has developed, as it seems to me, the most unblushing frauds upon the Government, which, if remaining unchallenged, will divert several hundred thousand acres of land from the public domain and from the reach of honest settlers to those who have attempted to prevent and prostitute the beneficent designs of the Government. The Government sought by the promise of generous donations of land to promote the building of wagon roads for public convenience and for the purpose of encouraging settlement upon the public lands. The roads have not been built, and yet an attempt is made to claim the lands under a title which depends for its validity entirely upon the construction of these roads.

The evidence which has been collected by the Secretary of the Interior, plainly establishing this attempt to defraud the Government and exclude the settlers who are willing to avail themselves of the liberal policy adopted for the settlement of the public lands, is herewith submitted to the Congress, with the recommendation that the bill which has been prepared, and which is herewith transmitted, may become a law, and with the earnest hope that the opportunity thus presented to demonstrate a sincere desire to preserve the public domain for settlers and to frustrate unlawful attempts to appropriate the same may not be neglected.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, March 22, 1888.

To the Senate:

I transmit herewith, for your advice and consent to the ratification thereof, a convention between the United States and Venezuela, signed the 15th instant, supplementary to the convention between the same powers for the settlement of claims signed December 5, 1885.

I transmit also a report of the Secretary of State thereon and copies of correspondence had with the diplomatic representative of Venezuela at this capital in relation thereto.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 22, 1888.

To the Senate:

In response to the resolution adopted by your honorable body on the 16th instant, as follows--

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested, if in his judgment not incompatible with the public interest, to transmit to the Senate copies of the minutes and daily protocols of the meetings of the commissioners who negotiated the treaty with Great Britain submitted by the President to the Senate on the 20th of February, 1888--

I submit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, which I hope will satisfactorily meet the request for information embraced in said resolution.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 27, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report from Hon. George H. Pendleton, our minister to Germany, dated January 30, 1888, from which it appears that trichinosis prevails to a considerable extent in certain parts of Germany and that a number of persons have already died from the effects of eating the meat of diseased hogs which were grown in that country.

I also transmit a report from our consul at Marseilles, dated February 4, 1888, representing that for a number of months a highly contagious and fatal disease has prevailed among the swine of a large section of France, which disease is thought to be very similar to hog cholera by the Commissioner of Agriculture, whose statement is herewith submitted.

It is extremely doubtful if the law passed April 29, 1878, entitled "An act to prevent the introduction of contagious or infectious diseases into the United States," meets cases of this description.

In view of the danger to the health and lives of our people and the contagion that may be spread to the live stock of the country by the importation of swine or hog products from either of the countries named, I recommend the passage of a law prohibiting such importation, with proper regulations as to the continuance of such prohibition, and permitting such further prohibitions in other future cases of a like character as safety and prudence may require.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, April 2, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, with its inclosures, in response to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 8th ultimo, in relation to affairs in Samoa.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 5, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 3d instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill to provide for the revocation of the withdrawal of lands made for the benefit of certain railroads, and for other purposes.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 9, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 6th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of proposed legislation, prepared in the Office of Indian Affairs, to authorize the use of certain funds therein specified in the purchase of lands in the State of Florida upon which to locate the Seminole Indians in that State.

The matter is presented for the favorable consideration of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 12, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith and commend to your favorable consideration a letter from the Secretary of State, outlining a plan for publishing the important collections of historical manuscripts now deposited in the Department of State.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 12, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

In response to the resolution of the Senate dated March 8, calling for the correspondence respecting the seizure of the American steamships Hero, San Fernando, and Nutrias, the property of the Venezuela Steam Transportation Company of New York, and the imprisonment of their officers by the authorities in Venezuela, I transmit herewith the report of the Secretary of State on the subject, together with the accompanying documents.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 18, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 5th of March last, calling upon the Secretary of State for copies of the correspondence relating to the claim of William H. Frear against the Government of France for money due him for provisions furnished in March, 1871, for revictualing Paris, I transmit a report from that officer, together with the correspondence called for by the resolution.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, April 23, 1888.

To the Senate:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State and accompanying papers, in response to the resolution of the Senate of the 25th of January last, requesting correspondence and other information in relation to the claims convention of December 5, 1885, between the United States and Venezuela.

This resolution was adopted in open session; but in view of the change of circumstances since its adoption, by the signature on the 15th ultimo of the convention which I transmitted to the Senate with my message of the 22d ultimo, and which is now under consideration there in executive session, I transmit the accompanying report as a confidential document also.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, May 8, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

I retransmit herewith a convention for the surrender of criminals between the United States and the Republic of Guatemala, concluded October 11, 1870, and ratified by the President of the United States, as amended by the Senate, on April 11, 1871, calling attention to the accompanying report of the Secretary of State as explanatory of my action.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 8, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of April 12, directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the Senate a copy of the correspondence in his Department in regard to the case of John Fruchier, an American citizen who has been impressed into the military service of France, I transmit herewith a report in relation thereto from the Secretary of State, together with the accompanying papers, not considering their communication to be incompatible with the public interests.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, May 14, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, relative to the claim of Mr. Rudolph Lobsiger, a Swiss citizen, against the United States, and recommend that provision be made by law for referring the matter to the Court of Claims for examination on its merits.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, May 14, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of State, accompanied by a report of Mr. Somerville P. Tuck, appointed to carry out certain provisions of section 5 of an act entitled "An act to provide for the ascertainment of claims of American citizens for spoliations committed by the French prior to the 31st day of July, 1801," approved January 20, 1885.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 15, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

In compliance with a resolution originating in the House of Representatives and concurred in by the Senate, I return herewith the bill (H.R. 2699) entitled "An act for the relief of the heirs of the late Solomon Spitzer."

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, June 14, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith, in response to a resolution of the Senate of the 11th instant, a report of the Secretary of State, to whom said resolution was addressed, together with a copy of the letter addressed by William H. Seward, Secretary of State, to the governors of certain States of the Union, under date of October 14, 1861, as described in said resolution.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 26, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, accompanied with selected correspondence relating to foreign affairs for the year 1887.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, July 5, 1888.

To the Senate:

I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, a convention for the extradition of criminals between the United States of America and the Republic of Colombia, signed at Bogota on the 7th of May, 1888, and I at the same time call attention to the accompanying report of the Secretary of State, suggesting certain amendments to the convention.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, July 18, 1888.

To the Senate:

I transmit, with a view to its ratification, a convention between the United States and Mexico, signed July 11, 1888, regulating the crossing and recrossing of the frontier between the two countries by pasturing estray or stolen cattle, and I at the same time call attention to the report of the Secretary of State and accompanying papers, relating to the convention in question.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 18, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of State, submitting a series of reports on taxation, prepared by the consular officers of the United States.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 18, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State, accompanying the annual reports of the consuls of the United States on the trade and industries of foreign countries.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 18, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a letter from the Acting Secretary of State and accompanying documents, being reports from the consuls of the United States on the production of and trade in coffee among the Central and South American States.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 23, 1888.

To the Congress of the United States:

Pursuant to the second section of chapter 27 of the laws of 1883, entitled "An act to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States," I herewith transmit the fourth report of the United States Civil Service Commission, covering the period between the 16th day of January, 1886, and the 1st day of July, 1887.

While this report has especial reference to the operations of the Commission during the period above mentioned, it contains, with its accompanying appendixes, much valuable information concerning the inception of civil-service reform and its growth and progress which can not fail to be interesting and instructive to all who desire improvement in administrative methods.

During the time covered by the report 15,852 persons were examined for admission in the classified civil service of the Government in all its branches, of whom 10,746 passed the examination and 5,106 failed. Of those who passed the examination 2,977 were applicants for admission to the departmental service at Washington, 2,547 were examined for admission to the customs service, and 5,222 for admission to the postal service. During the same period 547 appointments were made from the eligible lists to the departmental service, 641 to the customs service, and 3,254 to the postal service.

Concerning separations from the classified service, the report only informs us of such as have occurred among employees in the public service who had been appointed from eligible lists under civil-service rules. When these rules took effect, they did not apply to the persons then in the service, comprising a full complement of employees, who obtained their positions independently of the new law. The Commission has no record of the separations in this numerous class. And the discrepancy apparent in the report between the number of appointments made in the respective branches of the service from the lists of the Commission and the small number of separations mentioned is to a great extent accounted for by vacancies, of which no report was made to the Commission, occurring among those who held their places without examination and certification, which vacancies were filled by appointment from the eligible lists.

In the departmental service there occurred between the 16th day of January, 1886, and the 30th day of June, 1887, among the employees appointed from the eligible lists under civil-service rules, 17 removals, 36 resignations, and 5 deaths. This does not include 14 separations in the grade of special pension examiners--4 by removal, 5 by resignation, and 5 by death.

In the classified customs and postal services the number of separations among those who received absolute appointments under civil-service rules is given for the period between the 1st day of January, 1886, and the 30th day of June, 1887. It appears that such separations in the customs service for the time mentioned embraced 21 removals, 5 deaths, and 18 resignations, and in the postal service 256 removals, 23 deaths, and 469 resignations.

More than a year has passed since the expiration of the period covered by the report of the Commission. Within the time which has thus elapsed many important changes have taken place in furtherance of a reform in our civil service. The rules and regulations governing the execution of the law upon the subject have been completely remodeled in such manner as to render the enforcement of the statute more effective and greatly increase its usefulness.

Among other things, the scope of the examinations prescribed for those who seek to enter the classified service has been better defined and made more practical, the number of names to be certified from the eligible lists to the appointing officers from which a selection is made has been reduced from four to three, the maximum limitation of the age of persons seeking entrance to the classified service to 45 years has been changed, and reasonable provision has been made for the transfer of employees from one Department to another in proper cases. A plan has also been devised providing for the examination of applicants for promotion in the service, which, when in full operation, will eliminate all chance of favoritism in the advancement of employees, by making promotion a reward of merit and faithful discharge of duty.

Until within a few weeks there was no uniform classification of employees in the different Executive Departments of the Government. As a result of this condition, in some of the Departments positions could be obtained without civil-service examination, because they were not within the classification of such Department, while in other Departments an examination and certification were necessary to obtain positions of the same grade, because such positions were embraced in the classifications applicable to those Departments.

The exception of laborers, watchmen, and messengers from examination and classification gave opportunity, in the absence of any rule guarding against it, for the employment, free from civil-service restrictions, of persons under these designations, who were immediately detailed to do clerical work.

All this has been obviated by the application to all the Departments of an extended and uniform classification embracing grades of employees not theretofore included, and by the adoption of a rule prohibiting the detail of laborers, watchmen, or messengers to clerical duty.

The path of civil-service reform has not at all times been pleasant nor easy. The scope and purpose of the reform have been much misapprehended; and this has not only given rise to strong opposition, but has led to its invocation by its friends to compass objects not in the least related to it. Thus partisans of the patronage system have naturally condemned it. Those who do not understand its meaning either mistrust it or, when disappointed because in its present stage it is not applied to every real or imaginary ill, accuse those charged with its enforcement with faithlessness to civil-service reform. Its importance has frequently been underestimated, and the support of good men has thus been lost by their lack of interest in its success. Besides all these difficulties, those responsible for the administration of the Government in its executive branches have been and still are often annoyed and irritated by the disloyalty to the service and the insolence of employees who remain in place as the beneficiaries and the relics and reminders of the vicious system of appointment which civil-service reform was intended to displace.

And yet these are but the incidents of an advance movement which is radical and far-reaching. The people are, notwithstanding, to be congratulated upon the progress which has been made and upon the firm, practical, and sensible foundation upon which this reform now rests.

With a continuation of the intelligent fidelity which has hitherto characterized the work of the Commission; with a continuation and increase of the favor and liberality which have lately been evinced by the Congress in the proper equipment of the Commission for its work; with a firm but conservative and reasonable support of the reform by all its friends, and with the disappearance of opposition which must inevitably follow its better understanding, the execution of the civil-service law can not fail to ultimately answer the hopes in which it had its origin.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 26, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith, in response to a resolution of the Senate of 11th April last, a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying correspondence, relating to the pending dispute between the Government of Venezuela and the Government of Great Britain concerning the boundaries between British Guiana and Venezuela.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 6, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

It becomes my painful duty to announce to the Congress and to the people of the United States the death of Philip H. Sheridan, General of the Army, which occurred at a late hour last night at his summer home in the State of Massachusetts.

The death of this valiant soldier and patriotic son of the Republic, though his long illness has been regarded with anxiety, has nevertheless shocked the country and caused universal grief.

He had established for himself a stronghold in the hearts of his fellow-countrymen, who soon caught the true meaning and purpose of his soldierly devotion and heroic temper.

His intrepid courage, his steadfast patriotism, and the generosity of his nature inspired with peculiar warmth the admiration of all the people.

Above his grave affection for the man and pride in his achievements will struggle for mastery, and too much honor can not be accorded to one who was so richly endowed with all the qualities which make his death a national loss.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 7, 1888.

To the Senate:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 3d instant (the House of Representatives concurring), I return herewith the enrolled bill (S. 3303) amendatory of "An act relating to postal crimes and amendatory of the statutes therein mentioned," approved June 18, 1888.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of State, accompanied by a report of the delegate on the part of the United States to the Fourth International Conference of the Red Cross Association, held at Carlsruhe, in the Grand Duchy of Baden, in September last.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 23, 1888.

To the Congress:

The rejection by the Senate of the treaty lately negotiated for the settlement and adjustment of the differences existing between the United States and Great Britain concerning the rights and privileges of American fishermen in the ports and waters of British North America seems to justify a survey of the condition to which the pending question is thus remitted.

The treaty upon this subject concluded in 1818, through disagreements as to the meaning of its terms, has been a fruitful source of irritation and trouble. Our citizens engaged in fishing enterprises in waters adjacent to Canada have been subjected to numerous vexatious interferences and annoyances; their vessels have been seized upon pretexts which appeared to be entirely inadmissible, and they have been otherwise treated by the Canadian authorities and officials in a manner inexcusably harsh and oppressive.

This conduct has been justified by Great Britain and Canada by the claim that the treaty of 1818 permitted it and upon the ground that it was necessary to the proper protection of Canadian interests. We deny that treaty agreements justify these acts, and we further maintain that aside from any treaty restraints of disputed interpretation the relative positions of the United States and Canada as near neighbors, the growth of our joint commerce, the development and prosperity of both countries, which amicable relations surely guarantee, and, above all, the liberality always extended by the United States to the people of Canada furnished motives for kindness and consideration higher and better than treaty covenants.

While keenly sensitive to all that was exasperating in the condition and by no means indisposed to support the just complaints of our injured citizens, I still deemed it my duty, for the preservation of important American interests which were directly involved, and in view of all the details of the situation, to attempt by negotiation to remedy existing wrongs and to finally terminate by a fair and just treaty these ever-recurring causes of difficulty.

I fully believe that the treaty just rejected by the Senate was well suited to the exigency, and that its provisions were adequate for our security in the future from vexatious incidents and for the promotion of friendly neighborhood and intimacy, without sacrificing in the least our national pride or dignity.

I am quite conscious that neither my opinion of the value of the rejected treaty nor the motives which prompted its negotiation are of importance in the light of the judgment of the Senate thereupon. But it is of importance to note that this treaty has been rejected without any apparent disposition on the part of the Senate to alter or amend its provisions, and with the evident intention, not wanting expression, that no negotiation should at present be concluded touching the matter at issue.

The cooperation necessary for the adjustment of the long-standing national differences with which we have to deal by methods of conference and agreement having thus been declined, I am by no means disposed to abandon the interests and the rights of our people in the premises or to neglect their grievances; and I therefore turn to the contemplation of a plan of retaliation as a mode which still remains of treating the situation.

I am not unmindful of the gravity of the responsibility assumed in adopting this line of conduct, nor do I fail in the least to appreciate its serious consequences. It will be impossible to injure our Canadian neighbors by retaliatory measures without inflicting some damage upon our own citizens. This results from our proximity, our community of interests, and the inevitable commingling of the business enterprises which have been developed by mutual activity.

Plainly stated, the policy of national retaliation manifestly embraces the infliction of the greatest harm upon those who have injured us, with the least possible damage to ourselves. There is also an evident propriety, as well as an invitation to moral support, found in visiting upon the offending party the same measure or kind of treatment of which we complain, and as far as possible within the same lines. And above all things, the plan of retaliation, if entered upon, should be thorough and vigorous.

These considerations lead me at this time to invoke the aid and counsel of the Congress and its support in such a further grant of power as seems to me necessary and desirable to render effective the policy I have indicated.

The Congress has already passed a law, which received Executive assent on the 3d day of March, 1887, providing that in case American fishing vessels, being or visiting in the waters or at any of the ports of the British dominions of North America, should be or lately had been deprived of the rights to which they were entitled by treaty or law, or if they were denied certain other privileges therein specified or vexed and harassed in the enjoyment of the same, the President might deny to vessels and their masters and crews of the British dominions of North America any entrance into the waters, ports, or harbors of the United States, and also deny entry into any port or place of the United States of any product of said dominions or other goods coming from said dominions to the United States.

While I shall not hesitate upon proper occasion to enforce this act, it would seem to be unnecessary to suggest that if such enforcement is limited in such a manner as shall result in the least possible injury to our own people the effect would probably be entirely inadequate to the accomplishment of the purpose desired.

I deem it my duty, therefore, to call the attention of the Congress to certain particulars in the action of the authorities of the Dominion of Canada, in addition to the general allegations already made, which appear to be in such marked contrast to the liberal and friendly disposition of our country as in my opinion to call for such legislation as will, upon the principles already stated, properly supplement the power to inaugurate retaliation already vested in the Executive.

Actuated by the generous and neighborly spirit which has characterized our legislation, our tariff laws have since 1866 been so far waived in favor of Canada as to allow free of duty the transit across the territory of the United States of property arriving at our ports and destined to Canada, or exported from Canada to other foreign countries.

When the treaty of Washington was negotiated, in 1871, between the United States and Great Britain, having for its object very largely the modification of the treaty of 1818, the privileges above referred to were made reciprocal and given in return by Canada to the United States in the following language, contained in the twenty-ninth article of said treaty:

It is agreed that for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this treaty goods, wares, or merchandise arriving at the ports of New York, Boston, and Portland, and any other ports in the United States which have been or may from time to time be specially designated by the President of the United States, and destined for Her Britannic Majesty's possessions in North America, may be entered at the proper custom-house and conveyed in transit, without the payment of duties, through the territory of the United States, under such rules, regulations, and conditions for the protection of the revenue as the Government of the United States may from time to time prescribe; and, under like rules, regulations, and conditions, goods, wares, or merchandise may be conveyed in transit, without the payment of duties, from such possessions through the territory of the United States, for export from the said ports of the United States.

It is further agreed that for the like period goods, wares, or merchandise arriving at any of the ports of Her Britannic Majesty's possessions in North America, and destined for the United States, may be entered at the proper custom-house and conveyed in transit, without the payment of duties, through the said possessions, under such rules and regulations and conditions for the protection of the revenue as the governments of the said possessions may from time to time prescribe; and, under like rules, regulations, and conditions, goods, wares, or merchandise may be conveyed in transit, without payment of duties, from the United States through the said possessions to other places in the United States, or for export from ports in the said possessions.

In the year 1886 notice was received by the representatives of our Government that our fishermen would no longer be allowed to ship their fish in bond and free of duty through Canadian territory to this country, and ever since that time such shipment has been denied.

The privilege of such shipment, which had been extended to our fishermen, was a most important one, allowing them to spend the time upon the fishing grounds which would otherwise be devoted to a voyage home with their catch, and doubling their opportunities for profitably prosecuting their vocation.

In forbidding the transit of the catch of our fishermen over their territory in bond and free of duty the Canadian authorities deprived us of the only facility dependent upon their concession and for which we could supply no substitute.

The value to the Dominion of Canada of the privilege of transit for their exports and imports across our territory and to and from our ports, though great in every aspect, will be better appreciated when it is remembered that for a considerable portion of each year the St. Lawrence River, which constitutes the direct avenue of foreign commerce leading to Canada, is closed by ice.

During the last six years the imports and exports of British Canadian Provinces carried across our territory under the privileges granted by our laws amounted in value to about $270,000,000, nearly all of which were goods dutiable under our tariff laws, by far the larger part of this traffic consisting of exchanges of goods between Great Britain and her American Provinces brought to and carried from our ports in their own vessels.

The treaty stipulation entered into by our Government was in harmony with laws which were then on our statute book and are still in force.

I recommend immediate legislative action conferring upon the Executive the power to suspend by proclamation the operation of all laws and regulations permitting the transit of goods, wares, and merchandise in bond across or over the territory of the United States to or from Canada.

There need be no hesitation in suspending these laws arising from the supposition that their continuation is secured by treaty obligations, for it seems quite plain that Article XXIX of the treaty of 1871, which was the only article incorporating such laws, terminated the 1st day of July, 1885.

The article itself declares that its provisions shall be in force "for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this treaty." Turning to Article XXXIII, we find no mention of the twenty-ninth article, but only a provision that Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusive, and Article XXX shall take effect as soon as the laws required to carry them into operation shall be passed by the legislative bodies of the different countries concerned, and that "they shall remain in force for the period of ten years from the date at which they may come into operation, and, further, until the expiration of two years after either of the high contracting parties shall have given notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same."

I am of the opinion that the "term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII," referred to in Article XXIX as the limit of its duration, means the period during which Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusive, and Article XXX, commonly called the "fishery articles," should continue in force under the language of said Article XXXIII.

That the joint high commissioners who negotiated the treaty so understood and intended the phrase is certain, for in a statement containing an account of their negotiations, prepared under their supervision and approved by them, we find the following entry on the subject:

The transit question was discussed, and it was agreed that any settlement that might be made should include a reciprocal arrangement in that respect for the period for which the fishery articles should be in force.

In addition to this very satisfactory evidence supporting this construction of the language of Article XXIX, it will be found that the law passed by Congress to carry the treaty into effect furnishes conclusive proof of the correctness of such construction.

This law was passed March 1, 1873, and is entitled "An act to carry into effect the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain signed in the city of Washington the 8th day of May, 1871, relating to the fisheries." After providing in its first and second sections for putting in operation Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusive, and Article XXX of the treaty, the third section is devoted to Article XXIX, as follows:

SEC. 3. That from the date of the President's proclamation authorized by the first section of this act, and so long as the articles eighteenth to twenty-fifth, inclusive, and article thirtieth of said treaty shall remain in force according to the terms and conditions of article thirty-third of said treaty, all goods, wares, and merchandise, arriving

etc., etc., following in the remainder of the section the precise words of the stipulation on the part of the United States as contained in Article XXIX, which I have already fully quoted.

Here, then, is a distinct enactment of the Congress limiting the duration of this article of the treaty to the time that Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusive, and Article XXX should continue in force. That in fixing such limitation it but gave the meaning of the treaty itself is indicated by the fact that its purpose is declared to be to carry into effect the provisions of the treaty, and by the further fact that this law appears to have been submitted before the promulgation of the treaty to certain members of the joint high commission representing both countries, and met with no objection or dissent.

There appearing to be no conflict or inconsistency between the treaty and the act of the Congress last cited, it is not necessary to invoke the well-settled principle that in case of such conflict the statute governs the question.

In any event, and whether the law of 1873 construes the treaty or governs it, section 29 of such treaty, I have no doubt, terminated with the proceedings taken by our Government to terminate Articles XVIII to XXV, inclusive, and Article XXX of the treaty. These proceedings had their inception in a joint resolution of Congress passed May 3, 1883, declaring that in the judgment of Congress these articles ought to be terminated, and directing the President to give the notice to the Government of Great Britain provided for in Article XXXIII of the treaty. Such notice having been given two years prior to the 1st day of July, 1885, the articles mentioned were absolutely terminated on the last-named day, and with them Article XXIX was also terminated.

If by any language used in the joint resolution it was intended to relieve section 3 of the act of 1873, embodying Article XXIX of the treaty, from its own limitations, or to save the article itself, I am entirely satisfied that the intention miscarried.

But statutes granting to the people of Canada the valuable privileges of transit for their goods from our ports and over our soil, which had been passed prior to the making of the treaty of 1871 and independently of it, remained in force; and ever since the abrogation of the treaty, and notwithstanding the refusal of Canada to permit our fishermen to send their fish to their home market through her territory in bond, the people of that Dominion have enjoyed without diminution the advantages of our liberal and generous laws.

Without basing our complaint upon a violation of treaty obligations, it is nevertheless true that such refusal of transit and the other injurious acts which have been recited constitute a provoking insistence upon rights neither mitigated by the amenities of national intercourse nor modified by the recognition of our liberality and generous considerations.

The history of events connected with this subject makes it manifest that the Canadian government can, if so disposed administer its laws and protect the interests of its people without manifestation of unfriendliness and without the unneighborly treatment of our fishing vessels of which we have justly complained, and whatever is done on our part should be done in the hope that the disposition of the Canadian government may remove the occasion of a resort to the additional executive power now sought through legislative action.

I am satisfied that upon the principles which should govern retaliation our intercourse and relations with the Dominion of Canada furnish no better opportunity for its application than is suggested by the conditions herein presented, and that it could not be more effectively inaugurated than under the power of suspension recommended.

While I have expressed my clear conviction upon the question of the continuance of section 29 of the treaty of 1871, I of course fully concede the power and the duty of the Congress, in contemplating legislative action, to construe the terms of any treaty stipulation which might upon any possible consideration of good faith limit such action, and likewise the peculiar propriety in the case here presented of its interpretation of its own language, as contained in the laws of 1873 putting in operation said treaty and of 1883 directing the termination thereof; and if in the deliberate judgment of Congress any restraint to the proposed legislation exists, it is to be hoped that the expediency of its early removal will be recognized. I desire also to call the attention of the Congress to another subject involving such wrongs and unfair treatment to our citizens as, in my opinion, require prompt action.

The navigation of the Great Lakes and the immense business and carrying trade growing out of the same have been treated broadly and liberally by the United States Government and made free to all mankind, while Canadian railroads and navigation companies share in our country's transportation upon terms as favorable as are accorded to our own citizens.

The canals and other public works built and maintained by the Government along the line of the lakes are made free to all.

In contrast to this condition, and evincing a narrow and ungenerous commercial spirit, every lock and canal which is a public work of the Dominion of Canada is subject to tolls and charges.

By Article XXVII of the treaty of 1871 provision was made to secure to the citizens of the United States the use of the Welland, St. Lawrence, and other canals in the Dominion of Canada on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the Dominion, and to also secure to the subjects of Great Britain the use of the St. Clair Flats Canal on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United States.

The equality with the inhabitants of the Dominion which we were promised in the use of the canals of Canada did not secure to us freedom from tolls in their navigation, but we had a right to expect that we, being Americans and interested in American commerce, would be no more burdened in regard to the same than Canadians engaged in their own trade; and the whole spirit of the concession made was, or should have been, that merchandise and property transported to an American market through these canals should not be enhanced in its cost by tolls many times higher than such as were carried to an adjoining Canadian market. All our citizens, producers and consumers as well as vessel owners, were to enjoy the equality promised.

And yet evidence has for some time been before the Congress, furnished by the Secretary of the Treasury, showing that while the tolls charged in the first instance are the same to all, such vessels and cargoes as are destined to certain Canadian ports are allowed a refund of nearly the entire tolls, while those bound for American ports are not allowed any such advantage.

To promise equality, and then in practice make it conditional upon our vessels doing Canadian business instead of their own, is to fulfill a promise with the shadow of performance.

I recommend that such legislative action be taken as will give Canadian vessels navigating our canals, and their cargoes, precisely the advantages granted to our vessels and cargoes upon Canadian canals, and that the same be measured by exactly the same rule of discrimination.

The course which I have outlined and the recommendations made relate to the honor and dignity of our country and the protection and preservation of the rights and interests of all our people. A government does but half its duty when it protects its citizens at home and permits them to be imposed upon and humiliated by the unfair and over-reaching disposition of other nations. If we invite our people to rely upon arrangements made for their benefit abroad, we should see to it that they are not deceived; and if we are generous and liberal to a neighboring country, our people should reap the advantage of it by a return of liberality and generosity.

These are subjects which partisanship should not disturb or confuse. Let us survey the ground calmly and moderately; and having put aside other means of settlement, if we enter upon the policy of retaliation let us pursue it firmly, with a determination only to subserve the interests of our people and maintain the high standard and the becoming pride of American citizenship.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 27, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 27th instant (the Senate concurring), I return herewith House bill No. 10060, entitled "An act prescribing the times for sales and for notice of sales of property in the District of Columbia for overdue taxes."

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 7, 1888.

To the Senate of the United States:

In reply to the resolution of the Senate in the words following--

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, September 5, 1888.

Resolved, That the President is requested, if not incompatible with the public interests, to inform the Senate whether the recent treaty with China and the amendments adopted by the Senate have been ratified by the Emperor of China--

I have to communicate the annexed copies of dispatches from our minister to China, giving the only official information at hand in relation to the matter to which reference is had.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 12, 1888.

To the Senate:

Responding to the inquiries contained in the subjoined resolution of the Senate of the 28th ultimo, I have the honor to state in reply to the subject first therein mentioned, calling upon the Executive for "copies of all communications, if any, addressed by his direction to the Government of Great Britain, remonstrating with that Government against the wrongs and unfair treatment to our citizens by the action of the Canadian Government in refunding to vessels and cargoes which pass through the Welland and other Canadian canals nearly the entire tolls if they are destined to Canadian ports, while those bound for American ports are not allowed any such advantage, and the breach of the engagement contained in the treaty of 1871 whereby Great Britain promised to the United States equality in the matter of such canal transportation; also copies of any demand made by his direction upon Great Britain for the redress of such wrongs, and the replies of Great Britain to such communication and demand," that I herewith transmit copies of all communications between the Department of State and the United States consul at Ottawa, which are accompanied by copies of the orders of the Canadian officials in relation to the subject inquired of; also correspondence between the Department of State and the British minister at this capital, with copies of the documents therein referred to.

I also inclose, as connected therewith, a copy of Executive Document No. 406, House of Representatives, Fiftieth Congress, first session, containing the answer of the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, dated July 23, 1888, in reply to a resolution of the House of Representatives relating to the navigation of the Welland Canal, and the documents thus transmitted comprise the entire correspondence in relation to the subjects referred to in that portion of the resolution of inquiry which is above quoted.

The second branch of inquiry is in the words following:

And also that there be communicated to the Senate copies of all papers, correspondence, and information touching the matter of the refusal of the British Government, or that of any of her North American dominions, to allow the entry at Dominion seaports of American fish or other cargoes for transportation in bond to the United States since the 1st day of July, 1885.

It will be remembered that though the fishing articles of the treaty of 1871 expired on the said 1st day of July, 1885, a temporary arrangement was made whereby the privileges accorded to our fishermen under said articles were continued during the remainder of that year's fishing season.

No instance of refusal by the Canadian authorities since July 1, 1885, up to the present time to allow the entry at Dominion seaports of American cargoes other than fish for transportation in bond across the territory of Canada to the United States has been made known to the Department of State.

The case of the fishing steamer Novelty, involving, among other things, a refusal, on July 1, 1886, of the right to permit the transshipment of fish in bond at the port of Pictou, Nova Scotia, was duly communicated to Congress in my message of December 8, 1886, a copy of which I herewith transmit. (Ex. Doc. No. 19, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, p. 1.)

On page 16 of this document will be found a copy of a communication addressed by the Secretary of State to the British minister, dated June 14, 1886, on the subject of the refusal of transshipment of fish in bond. At page 24 of the same publication will be found the protest of the Secretary of State in the case of the Novelty, and at pages 49-50 are the response of the British minister and report of the Canadian privy council.

On the 26th of January, 1887, a revised list of cases of alleged ill treatment of our fishing vessels in Canadian waters was furnished by the Secretary of State to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, in which the above case is included, a copy of which, being Senate Executive Document No. 55 of the second session Forty-ninth Congress, is herewith inclosed; and in the report by Mr. Edmunds, from the Committee on Foreign Relations (No. 1683 of the same session), the case referred to was again published. And, as relating to the subject of the resolution now before me, the following pertinent passage, taken from the said report, may be of interest:

As regards commercial and other friendly business intercourse between ports and places in the Dominion and the United States, it is, of course, of much importance that regulations affecting the same should be mutually reasonable and fairly administered. If an American vessel should happen to have caught a cargo of fish at sea 100 miles distant from some Canadian port, from which there is railway communication to the United States, and should be denied the privilege of landing and shipping its cargo therefrom to the United States, as the Canadians do, it would be, of course, a serious disadvantage; and there is, it is thought, nothing in the treaty of 1818 which would warrant such an exclusion. But the Dominion laws may make such a distinction, and it is understood that in fact the privilege of so shipping fish from American vessels has been refused during the last year.

I also respectfully refer to Senate Miscellaneous Document No. 54, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, being a communication from the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries to Hon. George F. Edmunds, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, dated February 5, 1887, which is accompanied by a partial list of vessels injuriously treated by the Canadian authorities, based upon information furnished to the United States Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries.

This list is stated to be supplementary to the revised list which had been transmitted to the committee by the Secretary of State January 26, 1887.

Of the sixty-eight vessels comprised in this list it is stated that six, to wit, the Nellie M. Snow, Andrew Burnham, Harry G. French, Col. J.H. French, W.H. Wellington, and Ralph Hodgdon, were refused permission to transship fish. None of these cases, however, were ever reported to the Department of State by the parties interested, or were accompanied by affidavit; nor does it appear the facts ever were investigated in any of the cases by the parties making the reports, which were obtained by circulars issued by order of the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries. The concluding inquiry is as follows:

And also that he communicate to the Senate what instances have occurred since the 3d of March, 1887, of wrongs to American fishing vessels or other American vessels in the ports or waters of British North America, and what steps, if any, have been taken in respect thereto.

Soon after the passage of the act of March 3, 1887, the negotiation which had been proceeding for several months previously progressed actively, and the proposed conference and the presence at this capital of the plenipotentiaries of the two Governments, out of which the since rejected treaty of February 7, 1888, eventuated, had their natural influence in repressing causes of complaint in relation to the fisheries. Therefore since March 3, 1887, no case has been reported to the Department of State wherein complaint was made of unfriendly or unlawful treatment of American fishing vessels on the part of the Canadian authorities in which reparation was not promptly and satisfactorily obtained by the United States consul-general at Halifax.

A single case of alleged unjust treatment of an American merchant vessel, not engaged in fishing, has been reported since March 3, 1887. This was the ship Bridgewater, which was first brought to the attention of the Department of State by the claimant by petition filed June 1, 1888.

On June 18, 1888, legal counsel, who appeared and desired to be heard, filed their formal authority and the claim was at once duly investigated, and on June 22, 1888, a communication was addressed by the Secretary of State to the British minister, which sets forth the history of the claim, and a copy of which is herewith transmitted; and of this formal acknowledgment was made, but no further reply has been received.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 18, 1888.

To the Senate:

I herewith transmit, in reply to the resolution of the Senate of the 11th instant, a copy of a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying documents, relative to the pending treaty with China.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 1, 1888.

To the Congress:

I have this day approved House bill No. 11336, supplementary to an act entitled "An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese," approved the 6th day of May, 1882.

It seems to me that some suggestions and recommendations may properly accompany my approval of this bill.

Its object is to more effectually accomplish by legislation the exclusion from this country of Chinese laborers.

The experiment of blending the social habits and mutual race idiosyncrasies of the Chinese laboring classes with those of the great body of the people of the United States has been proved by the experience of twenty years, and ever since the Burlingame treaty of 1868, to be in every sense unwise, impolitic, and injurious to both nations. With the lapse of time the necessity for its abandonment has grown in force, until those having in charge the Government of the respective countries have resolved to modify and sufficiently abrogate all those features of prior Conventional arrangements which permitted the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States.

In modification of prior conventions the treaty of November 17, 1880, was concluded, whereby, in the first article thereof, it was agreed that the United States should at will regulate, limit, or suspend the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, but not absolutely prohibit it; and under this article an act of Congress, approved on May 6, 1882 (see 22 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 58), and amended July 5, 1884 (23 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 115), suspended for ten years the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, and regulated the going and coming of such Chinese laborers as were at that time in the United States.

It was, however, soon made evident that the mercenary greed of the parties who were trading in the labor of this class of the Chinese population was proving too strong for the just execution of the law, and that the virtual defeat of the object and intent of both law and treaty was being fraudulently accomplished by false pretense and perjury, contrary to the expressed will of both Governments.

To such an extent has the successful violation of the treaty and the laws enacted for its execution progressed that the courts in the Pacific States have been for some time past overwhelmed by the examination of cases of Chinese laborers who are charged with having entered our ports under fraudulent certificates of return or seek to establish by perjury the claim of prior residence.

Such demonstration of the inoperative and inefficient condition of the treaty and law has produced deep-seated and increasing discontent among the people of the United States, and especially with those resident on the Pacific Coast. This has induced me to omit no effort to find an effectual remedy for the evils complained of and to answer the earnest popular demand for the absolute exclusion of Chinese laborers having objects and purposes unlike our own and wholly disconnected with American citizenship.

Aided by the presence in this country of able and intelligent diplomatic and consular officers of the Chinese Government, and the representations made from time to time by our minister in China under the instructions of the Department of State, the actual condition of public sentiment and the status of affairs in the United States have been fully made known to the Government of China.

The necessity for remedy has been fully appreciated by that Government, and in August, 1886, our minister at Peking received from the Chinese foreign office a communication announcing that China, of her own accord, proposed to establish a system of strict and absolute prohibition of her laborers, under heavy penalties, from coming to the United States, and likewise to prohibit the return to the United States of any Chinese laborer who had at any time gone back to China, "in order" (in the words of the communication) "that the Chinese laborers may gradually be reduced in number and causes of danger averted and lives preserved."

This view of the Chinese Government, so completely in harmony with that of the United States, was by my direction speedily formulated in a treaty draft between the two nations, embodying the propositions so presented by the Chinese foreign office.

The deliberations, frequent oral discussions, and correspondence on the general questions that ensued have been fully communicated by me to the Senate at the present session, and, as contained in Senate Executive Document O, parts 1 and 2, and in Senate Executive Document No. 272, may be properly referred to as containing a complete history of the transaction.

It is thus easy to learn how the joint desires and unequivocal mutual understanding of the two Governments were brought into articulated form in the treaty, which, after a mutual exhibition of plenary powers from the respective Governments, was signed and concluded by the plenipotentiaries of the United States and China at this capital on March 12 last.

Being submitted for the advice and consent of the Senate, its confirmation, on the 7th day of May last, was accompanied by two amendments which that body ingrafted upon it.

On the 12th day of the same month the Chinese minister, who was the plenipotentiary of his Government in the negotiation and the conclusion of the treaty, in a note to the Secretary of State gave his approval to these amendments, "as they did not alter the terms of the treaty," and the amendments were at once telegraphed to China, whither the original treaty had previously been sent immediately after its signature on March 12.

On the 13th day of last month I approved Senate bill No. 3304, "to prohibit the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States." This bill was intended to supplement the treaty, and was approved in the confident anticipation of an early exchange of ratifications of the treaty and its amendments and the proclamation of the same, upon which event the legislation so approved was by its terms to take effect.

No information of any definite action upon the treaty by the Chinese Government was received until the 21st ultimo--the day the bill which I have just approved was presented to me--when a telegram from our minister at Peking to the Secretary of State announced the refusal of the Chinese Government to exchange ratifications of the treaty unless further discussion should be had with a view to shorten the period stipulated in the treaty for the exclusion of Chinese laborers and to change the conditions agreed on, which should entitle any Chinese laborer who might go back to China to return again to the United States.

By a note from the chargé d'affaires ad interim of China to the Secretary of State, received on the evening of the 25th ultimo (a copy of which is herewith transmitted, together with the reply thereto), a third amendment is proposed, whereby the certificate under which any departing Chinese laborer alleging the possession of property in the United States would be enabled to return to this country should be granted by the Chinese consul instead of the United States collector, as had been provided in the treaty.

The obvious and necessary effect of this last proposition would be practically to place the execution of the treaty beyond the control of the United States.

Article I of the treaty proposed to be so materially altered had in the course of the negotiations been settled in acquiescence with the request of the Chinese plenipotentiary and to his expressed satisfaction.

In 1886, as appears in the documents heretofore referred to, the Chinese foreign office had formally proposed to our minister strict exclusion of Chinese laborers from the United States without limitation, and had otherwise and more definitely stated that no term whatever for exclusion was necessary, for the reason that China would of itself take steps to prevent its laborers from coming to the United States.

In the course of the negotiations that followed suggestions from the same quarter led to the insertion in behalf of the United States of a term of "thirty years," and this term, upon the representations of the Chinese plenipotentiary, was reduced to "twenty years," and finally so agreed upon.

Article II was wholly of Chinese origination, and to that alone owes its presence in the treaty.

And it is here pertinent to remark that everywhere in the United States laws for the collection of debts are equally available to all creditors without respect to race, sex, nationality, or place of residence, and equally with the citizens or subjects of the most favored nations and with the citizens of the United States recovery can be had in any court of justice in the United States by a subject of China, whether of the laboring or any other class.

No disability accrues from nonresidence of a plaintiff, whose claim can be enforced in the usual way by him or his assignee or attorney in our courts of justice.

In this respect it can not be alleged that there exists the slightest discrimination against Chinese subjects, and it is a notable fact that large trading firms and companies and individual merchants and traders of that nation are profitably established at numerous points throughout the Union, in whose hands every claim transmitted by an absent Chinaman of a just and lawful nature could be completely enforced.

The admitted and paramount right and duty of every government to exclude from its borders all elements of foreign population which for any reason retard its prosperity or are detrimental to the moral and physical health of its people must be regarded as a recognized canon of international law and intercourse. China herself has not dissented from this doctrine, but has, by the expressions to which I have referred, led us confidently to rely upon such action on her part in cooperation with us as would enforce the exclusion of Chinese laborers from our country.

This cooperation has not, however, been accorded us. Thus from the unexpected and disappointing refusal of the Chinese Government to confirm the acts of its authorized agent and to carry into effect an international agreement, the main feature of which was voluntarily presented by that Government for our acceptance, and which had been the subject of long and careful deliberation, an emergency has arisen, in which the Government of the United States is called upon to act in self-defense by the exercise of its legislative power. I can not but regard the expressed demand on the part of China for a reexamination and renewed discussion of the topics so completely covered by mutual treaty stipulations as an indefinite postponement and practical abandonment of the objects we have in view, to which the Government of China may justly be considered as pledged.

The facts and circumstances which I have narrated lead me, in the performance of what seems to me to be my official duty, to join the Congress in dealing legislatively with the question of the exclusion of Chinese laborers, in lieu of further attempts to adjust it by international agreement.

But while thus exercising our undoubted right in the interest of our people and for the general welfare of our country, justice and fairness seem to require that some provision should be made by act or joint resolution under which such Chinese laborers as shall actually have embarked on their return to the United States before the passage of the law this day approved, and are now on their way, may be permitted to land, provided they have duly and lawfully obtained and shall present certificates heretofore issued permitting them to return in accordance with the provisions of existing law.

Nor should our recourse to legislative measures of exclusion cause us to retire from the offer we have made to indemnify such Chinese subjects as have suffered damage through violence in the remote and comparatively unsettled portions of our country at the hands of lawless men. Therefore I recommend that, without acknowledging legal liability therefor, but because it was stipulated in the treaty which has failed to take effect, and in a spirit of humanity befitting our nation, there be appropriated the sum of $276,619.75, payable to the Chinese minister at this capital on behalf of his Government, as full indemnity for all losses and injuries sustained by Chinese subjects in the manner and under the circumstances mentioned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, October 12, 1888.

To the Senate:

I transmit, with a view to its ratification, a convention between the United States of America and Venezuela to further extend the period for the exchange of ratifications of the claims convention of December 5, 1885, between the said contracting parties and to extend the period for the exchange of ratifications of the convention of March 15, 1888, between the same contracting parties, also relating to claims.

I invite attention to the accompanying report of the Secretary of State and the papers inclosed therein.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

VETO MESSAGES.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, April 4, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill 2477, entitled "An act for the relief of Nathaniel McKay and the executors of Donald McKay."

It is proposed by this bill to allow the beneficiaries named therein to present to the Court of Claims for determination certain demands made by them against the Government on account of the construction of two ironclad monitors called the Squando and the Nauset and a side-wheel steamer called the Ashuelot.

The contracts for building these vessels were made early in 1863. It was agreed that they should be completed within six or eight months. It was also provided in these contracts that the Government "should have the privilege of making alterations and additions to the plans and specifications at any time during the progress of the work, as it may deem necessary and proper," and that if said alterations and additions should cause extra expense to the contractors the Government would "pay for the same at fair and reasonable rates."

It thus appears that the time allowed for the completion of these vessels was with the assent of the contractors made exceedingly short; that notwithstanding this fact they consented to permit such alterations of plans as must almost necessarily prolong the time, fixing no limit to such extension, and that in the same breath they fix their measure of compensation for such alterations and an extended time consequent thereon at "a fair and reasonable rate" for the extra expense caused thereby.

Almost immediately upon the beginning of their work alterations and changes were made in the original plans for these vessels, and they were repeated and continued to such a degree that the completion of the vessels was delayed many months.

In the latter part of the year 1864 and early in the year 1865 payments in excess of the contract price were made by the Navy Department to the contractors under the provisions of the contract above recited. The contract price for the Squando was $395,000. The contractors claimed extra compensation amounting to $337,329.46, and there was allowed $194,525.70. The contract price of the Nauset was $386,000, the extra compensation claimed was $314,768.93, and the amount allowed $192,110.98. The contract price of the side-wheel steamer Ashuelot was $275,000, the extra compensation claimed was $81,447.50, and the amount allowed was $22,415.92. The different sums as thus adjusted were received by the contractors in settlement of their claims for extra expense, and receipts in full were given by them to the Government.

A number of other contractors had done like work for the Government and claimed to have demands growing out of the same for extra compensation.

Evidently with the view of investigating and settling these claims, on the 9th day of March, 1865, the Senate passed the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to organize a board of not less than three persons, whose duty it shall be to inquire into and determine how much the vessels of war and steam machinery contracted for by the Department in the years 1862 and 1863 cost the contractors over and above the contract price and allowance for extra work, and report the same to the Senate at its next session; none but those that have given satisfaction to the Department to be considered.

This board was appointed by the Secretary of the Navy on the 25th day of May, 1865, and consisted of a commodore, a chief engineer, and a paymaster in the Navy. Its powers were broad and liberal, and comprehended an inquiry touching all things that made up "the cost to the contractors" of their work in excess of the contract price and allowances for extra work.

The board convened on the 6th day of June, 1865, and sat continuously until the 23d day of December following, and made numerous awards to contractors. The parties mentioned in the bill now under consideration were notified on the 9th and 15th days of June, 1865, to prepare and submit testimony to the board in support of their claims, and they repeatedly signified their intention to do so.

Donald McKay was the contractor for the construction of the monitor Nauset and the steamer Ashuelot. The proceedings of the board show that on the 11th day of August, 1865, he notified the board that the only claim he made for loss was on the hull, boiler, and machinery of the Ashuelot, which he would be prepared to present in about six weeks.

Neither of these parties presented any statement to the board, and no claim of theirs was passed upon.

On the 2d day of March, 1867, an act was passed directing the Secretary of the Navy to investigate the claims of all contractors for building vessels of war and steam machinery for the same under contracts made after May 1, 1861, and before January 1, 1864. He was by said act required "to ascertain the additional cost which was necessarily incurred by each contractor in the completion of his work by reason of any changes or alterations in the plans and specifications required and delays in the prosecution of the work occasioned by the Government which were not provided for in the original contract." It was further provided that there should be reported to Congress a tabular statement of each case, which should contain "the name of the contractor, a description of the work, the contract price, the whole increased cost of the work over the contract price, and the amount of such increased cost caused by the delay and action of the Government as aforesaid, and the amount already paid the contractor over and above the contract price."

Under this act Commodore J.A. Marchand, Chief Engineer J.W. King, and Paymaster Edward Foster, of the Navy, were designated by the Secretary of the Navy to make the investigation required. These officers on the 26th day of November, 1867, made a report of their proceedings, which was submitted to the Senate with a tabulated statement of all the claims examined by them and their findings thereon.

It appears by this report that the claims of the beneficiaries mentioned in the bill herewith returned were examined by the board, and that nothing was found due thereon under the terms of the law directing their examination.

These claims have frequently been before Congress since that time. They have been favorably reported and acted upon a number of times, and have also been more than once strongly condemned by committees to whom they were referred.

A resolution was passed in 1871 by the Congress referring these and other claims of a like character to the Court of Claims for adjudication, but it was vetoed by the President for reasons not necessarily affecting the merits of the claims.

The case of Chouteau vs. The United States, reported in Fifth Otto, page 61, which arose out of the contract to build a vessel called the Etlah, appears to present the same features that belong to the claims here considered. It is stated in the report of the House committee on this bill that "the Squando and Nauset were identical in the original plans and the changes and alterations thereon with the Etlah and Shiloh, built in St. Louis;" and yet the Supreme Court of the United States distinctly decided in the Etlah case that the only pretext for further compensation should be sought for in the contract, where the contractor had evidently been content to provide for all the remedy he desired.

It seems, then, that the contractors mentioned in this bill, after entering into contracts plainly indicating that changes of plans and consequent delay in their work were in their contemplation, availed themselves of the remedy which they themselves had provided, and thereupon received about 50 per cent in the case of two of these vessels of the contract price for extra work, giving the Government a receipt in full. When soon thereafter opportunity was offered them to make further claim of as broad a nature as they could desire, they failed to do so, and one of them disclaimed any right to recover on account of one of the vessels, though all are now included in the present bill. In 1867 the claims were fully examined under a law of Congress and rejected, and the Supreme Court in an exactly similar case finds neither law nor equity supporting them.

If it be claimed that no compensation has been yet allowed solely for the increase in the price of labor and material caused by delay in construction, it is no hardship to say that as the contractors made provision for change of plans and delay they must be held to have taken the risk of such rise in price and be satisfied with the provision they have made against it. Besides, much of the increase in the price of labor and material is included in the extra cost which has already been reimbursed to them.

But the bill does not provide that these contractors shall be limited in the Court of Claims to a recovery solely for loss occasioned by increase of the cost of labor and material during the delay caused by the Government. By the terms of the proposed act the court is directed to ascertain the additional cost necessarily incurred in building the vessels by reason of any changes or alterations in the plans and specifications and delays in the prosecution of the work. This, it seems to me, would enable these contractors to open the whole question of compensation for extra work.

It hardly seems fair to the Government to permit these claims to be presented after a lapse of twenty-three years since a settlement in full was made and receipts given, after the opportunity which has been offered for establishing further claims if they existed, and when, as a consequence of the contractor's neglect, the Government would labor under great disadvantages in its defense.

I am of the opinion, in view of the history of these claims and the suspicion naturally excited as to their merit, that no injustice will be done if they are laid at rest instead of being given new life and vigor in the Court of Claims.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 16, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 445, entitled "An act granting a pension to Laura A. Wright."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of Charles H. Wright, who was pensioned for a gunshot wound received in the military service of the United States on the 19th day of September, 1864. He continued in the receipt of such pension until June 25, 1884, when he committed suicide by hanging.

It is alleged on behalf of his widow that the pain caused by his wound was so great that it caused temporary insanity, under the influence of which he destroyed himself.

There is not a particle of proof that I can discover tending to show an unsound mind, unless it be the fact of his suicide. He suffered much pain at intervals. He was a farmer in comfortable circumstances, and according to the testimony of one of the physicians, filed in support of the widow's claim, his health was good up to the time of his death, except for the wound and its results. The day before his death he was engaged in work connected with his farming occupation, though he complained of pain from his wound. Early the next morning, still complaining, as it is alleged, of his wound, he went out, declaring he was going out to milk, and not returning in due time, upon search his body was found and his self-destruction discovered. This was nearly twenty years after the deceased received his wound, and there is not a suggestion of any act or word of his in all that time indicating insanity. It seems to me it can hardly be assumed in such circumstances that the insanity and death of the soldier resulted from pain arising from his wound, merely because no other explanation can be given. In numerous cases of suicide no cause or motive for self-destruction is discovered.

We have within our borders thousands of widows living in poverty, and some of them in need, whose dead husbands fought bravely and well in defense of the Government, but whose deaths were not occasioned by any incident of military service. In these cases the wife's long vigil at the bed of wasting disease, the poverty that came before the death, and the distressing doubt and uncertainty which darkened the future have not secured to such widows the aid of our pension laws.

With these in sight the bounty of the Government may without injustice be withheld from one whose soldier husband received a pension for nearly twenty years, though all that time able to labor, and who, having reached a stage of comfortable living, made his wife a widow by destroying his own life.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 16, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return herewith without approval Senate bill No. 809, entitled "An act granting a pension to Betsey Mannsfield."

It is proposed to grant a pension to the beneficiary named in this bill as the mother of Franklin J. Mannsfield, who enlisted as a private April 27, 1861, and died in camp of disease on the 14th day of November, in the same year. His mother filed an application for pension in June, 1882.

The testimony filed in the Pension Bureau discloses the following facts:

At the time of the death of the soldier the family, besides himself, consisted of three persons--his father and mother and an unmarried sister. They owned and resided upon a homestead in Wisconsin comprising 293 acres, 20 of which were cleared, the balance being in timber, all unencumbered. The assessed valuation was $1,170, the real value being considerably more. The father was a farmer and blacksmith, healthy and able-bodied, and furnishing a comfortable support, but shortly after the soldier's death he began to drink and his health began to fail. Upon the marriage of the daughter he deeded her 50 acres of the land. He became indebted, and from time to time sold portions of his homestead to pay debts; but in 1882, at the time the mother's application for pension was filed, there still remained 110 acres of land, valued at about $3,300, 40 acres of which was mortgaged in 1880 for $600. Since 1879 the farm had been rented, except 8 or 10 acres reserved for a residence for the family. They owned two cows, and the rent averaged about $125 a year.

This was the condition of affairs as late as 1886, when the claim of the mother for a pension was, after investigation, rejected by the Pension Bureau, and it is supposed to be substantially the same now.

It also appears that a son, born since the soldier's death, and upward of 18 years of age, resides with his parents and furnishes them some assistance.

The claimant certainly was not dependent in the least degree upon the soldier at the time of his death, and she did not file her claim for pension until nearly twenty-one years thereafter.

Though the lack of dependence at the date of the soldier's death is sufficient to defeat a parent's claim for pension under our laws, I believe that in proper cases a relaxation of rules and a charitable liberality should be shown to parents old and in absolute need through default of the help which, it may be presumed, a son would have furnished if his life had not been sacrificed in his country's service.

But it seems to me the case presented here can not be reached by any theory of pensions which has yet been suggested.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 16, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return herewith without approval Senate bill No. 549, entitled "An act granting a pension to Hannah R. Langdon."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill entered the military service of the United States as assistant surgeon in a Vermont regiment on the 7th day of October, 1862, and less than six months thereafter tendered his resignation, based upon a surgeon's certificate of disability on account of chronic hepatitis (inflammation of the liver) and diarrhea.

On the 12th day of June, 1880, more than seventeen years after his discharge, he filed a claim for pension, alleging chronic diarrhea and resulting piles. He was allowed a pension in January, 1881, and died of consumption on the 24th day of September, in the same year.

Prior to the allowance of his claim for pension he wrote to the Bureau of Pensions a full history of his disability as resulting from chronic diarrhea and piles, and in that letter he made the following statement:

I have had no other disease, except last September (1880) I had pleurisy and congestion of my left lung.

From other sources the Bureau derived the information that the deceased had suffered an attack of pleuro-pneumonia on his left side, and that his recovery had been partial.

In December, 1880, he was examined by two members of the board of surgeons at Burlington, Vt., of which board he was also a member, and the following facts were certified:

For the past fifteen years claimant has practiced his profession in this city, and has up to within a year or a year and a half of this date shown a vigor and power of endurance quite equal to the labor imposed upon him by the popular demand for his services. About a year ago he evinced symptoms of breaking down, cough, emaciation, and debility.

These results--"breaking down, cough, emaciation, and debility"--are the natural effects of such an attack as the deceased himself reported, though not made by him any ground of a claim for pension, and it seems quite clear that his death in September, 1881, must be chargeable to the same cause.

His widow, the beneficiary named in this bill, filed her claim for pension December 5, 1881, based upon the ground that her husband's death from consumption was due to the chronic diarrhea for which he was pensioned. Upon such application the testimony of Dr. H.H. Atwater was filed, to the effect that about 1879 he began to treat the deceased regularly for pleuro-pneumonia, followed by abscesses and degeneration of lung tissue, which finally resulted in death, and that these diseased conditions were complicated with digestive affections, such as diarrhea, dyspepsia, and indigestion. Another affidavit of Dr. Atwater, made in 1886, will be found in the report upon this bill made by the House Committee on Invalid Pensions.

The claimant's application for a pension was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the cause of her husband's death was not shown to have been connected in any degree with the disease on account of which he was pensioned or with his military service.

I am entirely satisfied that this determination was correct.

I am constrained to disapprove the bill under consideration, because it is thus far our settled and avowed policy to grant pensions only to widows whose husbands have died from causes related to military service, and because the proposed legislation would, in my opinion, result in a discrimination in favor of this claimant unfair and unjust toward thousands of poor widows who are equally entitled to our sympathy and benevolence.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 18, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 258, entitled "An act for the relief of Major Daniel N. Bash, paymaster, United States Army."

The object of this bill is to release Paymaster Bash from all liability to the Government for the loss by theft of $7,350.93, which was intrusted to him for the payment of United States troops at various posts, one of which was Fort McKinney, in Wyoming Territory.

He started from Cheyenne Depot, accompanied by his clerk, D.F. Bash. Before starting he attempted to procure an iron safe in which he could deposit the money which he should have in his possession during his absence, but was unable to do so. It is alleged that it is customary for paymasters in such cases to be furnished with safes by the Government.

On the 17th day of March, 1887, Major Bash arrived at Douglas, Wyoming Territory, having in his possession $350.93, which was a balance left in his hands after making previous payments on the way. At Douglas he received by express $7,000, $250 of which were in silver. He was met here by an escort consisting of a sergeant and private soldier, who had been sent from Fort McKinney, and who were under orders to report to the paymaster at Douglas and to act as guard from that place to Fort McKinney.

Another unsuccessful attempt having been made at Douglas to obtain a safe or treasure box in which to carry the money, the same was put in a leather valise as the best thing that could be done in the circumstances. The money was first handed by the paymaster to his clerk, and by the clerk put in the valise and handed to the sergeant of the escort. There is evidence that the sergeant was told not to permit it to be out of his sight. Immediately after supper at Douglas the entire party entered the stage and proceeded upon their journey, the sergeant carrying the valise. Major Bash asserts that he said to the sergeant, "You must take good care of the valise; it contains the money."

The next morning, on the 18th day of March, the party arrived at Dry Cheyenne. When the paymaster went in to breakfast at that place, he found all the party at the breakfast table. After breakfast he walked out to the stage, the sergeant going at the same time. He asked him what he had done with the valise, and received the reply that it was in the stage. He then said to the sergeant, "You ought to have brought it in with you; you should take better care of that valise." The valise was then examined and the money was found untouched.

Pursuing their journey, the party arrived at Antelope Springs, Wyoming Territory, at half past 10 o'clock the same morning. The paymaster alleges that he asked the sergeant if he should take dinner there, and that, being answered in the negative, he remarked to him that he might then stay at the stage; that he then went to the stage station, leaving the two soldiers and the clerk at the stage; that he remained at the station warming himself a short time, finding there three citizens, one of whom he afterwards learned was Parker, the thief; that he left the room in which he had been warming himself and went to the dining room, passing along the front of the house, and as he did so noticed the stage standing there with no one near it except a stock tender; that on reaching the dining room he found his entire party at the table; that he looked "pretty sharp" at the sergeant, as he was surprised to see him there, but as he was just eating his pie he (the paymaster) said nothing to him; that not more than a minute after that the sergeant and driver got up and went out; that three or four minutes after they went out they rushed back and said that the valise had been taken.

It was found that the valise and money had been taken by Parker, who had mounted a horse and ridden away. He was pursued so closely that revolver shots were exchanged between the sergeant, who was badly mounted, and the thief. The sergeant alleged that he could have shot Parker if he had been provided with a gun instead of a revolver.

The facts in relation to this subject were developed upon a court of inquiry called for that purpose; and much of the above recited is derived from the evidence of Major Bash himself, taken upon such inquiry.

The following is the finding of the court concerning the conduct of the paymaster in the premises:

That Major Daniel N. Bash, paymaster, United States Army, did not give such direct and detailed orders to the members of the escort as to the manner in which they should guard the public money in his (Bash's) possession while en route to Fort McKinney as the importance of the matter required, and that he did not take the proper and necessary pains to see that any orders which he had given on this subject were duly obeyed.

This finding defines a case of negligence which renders the paymaster liable for the loss of these funds. But a number of army officers, including the members of the court of inquiry, suggest that the paymaster thus found at fault should be relieved from responsibility. This is much the fashion in these days.

It is said that a safe should have been provided; that the paymaster had the right to rely upon the fidelity and efficiency of the escort, and that the two men furnished him as an escort were unintelligent and negligent; that they should have been armed with guns instead of pistols, and that the instructions given to the escort by the paymaster were sufficient to acquit him of culpable neglect.

It seems to me that the omissions of care on the part of this officer are of such a nature as to render much that is urged in his favor irrelevant. He had the charge of this money. It was his care, vigilance, and intelligence which were the safeguards of its protection. If he had as full an appreciation as he indicates of the importance of having a safe, he must have known that in its absence additional care and watchfulness on his part were necessary, whatever his escort or his clerk might do.

But notwithstanding all this he seemed quite content to leave this large sum of money in the hands of those sent to him, not to have the custody of his funds, but to guard him from violence and robbery. On the very morning of the day the theft was committed he had found fault with the sergeant for leaving the money in the stage while he took breakfast, and had said to him that he (the sergeant) ought to have brought it in with him. He here furnishes his own definition of the kind of care which should have been taken of the money--the sergeant "ought to have brought it in with him;" and this suggests the idea that it would have been quite consistent with his duty, and perhaps not much beneath his dignity, if he had taken it in himself. (Chief Paymaster Terrell, in a letter favoring leniency, states that the coin could not have weighed less than 15 pounds.)

It must certainly be conceded that what then took place plainly warned him that to insure the safety of this money he must either take personal charge of it or he must at least be sure that those to whom he surrendered it were watchful and vigilant. And yet when, a few hours later, on the same day, upon arriving at Antelope Springs, he was informed by the sergeant that he did not propose to take dinner there, the paymaster almost casually said to him, "Then you stay at the stage," and he himself went to a room at the station to warm himself. When, as he went from there to the dining room, he passed the stage and saw no one near it except a stock tender, a very conservative idea of duty and care would have induced him to stop at the stage and ascertain the condition of affairs. If he had done so, he probably would have found the money there, and could have taken it in with him or watched it until some of his party came out from dinner. Instead of doing this, he himself went to the dining room, and indicated his surprise at seeing the sergeant there by looking at him sharply. However, as he was just eating his pie, nothing was said.

It is not improbable that the thief waited for the clerk and escort, and lastly the paymaster himself, to enter the dining room before venturing to take, entirely unmolested, the valise containing the money. When it is considered that after finishing his pie the sergeant came out to the stage so nearly the exact moment of the theft that, though badly mounted, he was able to approach near enough in pursuit of the fleeing thief to exchange revolver shots with him, it is quite apparent that the loss might have been prevented if the paymaster had remained a short time by the stage when he saw it unprotected, or had taken the valise in with him, or promptly diverted the attention of the sergeant from his pie to the money which all had abandoned.

When, therefore, it is said that this loss can be charged in any degree to the neglect or default of the Government, it is answered that the direct and immediate cause of the loss was the omission on the part of this paymaster of the Government, in whose custody these funds were placed, of the plainest and simplest acts of prudence and care.

The temptation is very strong to yield assent to the proposition for the relief of a citizen from liability to the Government arising from conduct not absolutely criminal; but the bonds and the security wisely exacted by the Government from its officers to insure proper discharge of public duty will be of very limited value if everything is to be excused except actual dishonesty.

I am thoroughly convinced that the interests of the public would be better protected if fewer private bills were passed relieving officials, upon slight and sentimental grounds, from their pecuniary responsibilities; and the readiness with which army officers join in applications for the condonation of negligence on the part of their army comrades does not tend, in my opinion, to maintain that regard for discipline and that scrupulous observance of duty which should characterize those belonging to their honorable profession.

I can not satisfy myself that the negligence made apparent in this case should be overlooked.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 21, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 823, entitled "An act granting a pension to Hannah C. De Witt."

An act the precise duplicate of this was passed at the present session of the Congress, and received Executive approval on the 10th day of March, 1888. Pursuant to said act the name of the beneficiary mentioned in the bill herewith returned has been placed upon the pension rolls. The second enactment is of course entirely useless, and was evidently passed by mistake.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 21, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 418, entitled "An act granting a pension to William H. Brokenshaw."

The history of the military service of the beneficiary mentioned in this bill, as derived from the records of the War Department, shows that he was received at draft rendezvous at Jackson, Mich., on the 25th day of March, 1865; that he was sent to the Twenty-fourth Regiment of Michigan Volunteers on the 29th day of the same month, and that he was present with his command, without any record of disability, from that date until the 30th day of June, 1865, when he was mustered out with his company. It will thus be seen that he was in the service a few days more than three months, just at the close of the war. It is not alleged that he did any actual fighting.

In 1883 he filed an application for pension, alleging that on the evening of the 25th of March, 1865, being the day he was received at rendezvous, he was injured in his ribs while getting into his bunk by three other recruits, who were scuffling in the room and who jumped upon him or crushed him against the side of his bunk.

An examination upon such application made in 1884 tended to show an injury to his ribs, but the claim was rejected upon the ground that no injury was incurred in the line of duty. It must be conceded that upon the claimant's own showing he was not injured as an incident to military service.

Aside from this objection, it is hardly possible that an injury of this kind, producing the consequences which it is alleged followed its infliction, could have been sustained by this soldier and not in the least interrupted the performance of his military service, though such service was very short and probably not severe. When with this it is considered that eighteen years elapsed between the date of the alleged injury and the soldier's application for pension, I am satisfied that no injustice will be done if the disposition made of this case by the Pension Bureau is allowed to stand.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 21, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4633, entitled "An act granting a pension to Morris T. Mantor."

The records in this case show that the beneficiary named in this bill enlisted on the 25th day of February, 1864, and that he was mustered out July 18, 1865.

It is also shown that though he was reported sick a considerable part of his period of service there is no mention of any trouble with his eyes.

In the year 1880 he filed an application for pension, alleging dropsy and disease of his eyes, caused by an explosion of ammunition.

The case was examined in 1882 and 1883, and was again specially examined very thoroughly and critically in 1885.

The evidence thus secured seemed to establish the fact that the claimant's eyes were sore for many years before enlistment, and that their condition before that date, during his service, and after his discharge did not materially differ. It also appeared that no pensionable disability from dropsy had existed since the filing of his application.

On these grounds the application was rejected, and I am convinced such action was entirely justified.

The reported conduct of the claimant on the last examination and his attempts to influence witnesses in their testimony add weight to the proposition, quite well established by the proof, that his claim to a pension lacks merit.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 24, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5247, entitled "An act granting a pension to William H. Brimmer."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted September 5, 1864, as a wagon master, and was discharged on the 30th day of May, 1865. There is no record of any disability during his short service.

In February, 1888, nearly twenty-three years after his discharge, he filed an application for a pension, alleging that in the fall of 1864 he was made to carry sacks of corn, which produced a weakness of the walls of the abdomen, resulting in rupture. In an affidavit filed upon said application the claimant testifies that he said nothing about his injury or disability to anyone while in the service and can furnish no evidence except his own statement.

The first and only medical evidence presented touching this claim is that of Dr. Reynolds, who examined him in 1880 or 1881, who then came to the conclusion that the claimant was suffering from an incomplete hernia, which a few months thereafter developed in the right groin. From this examination and testimony no hint is furnished that the injury was due to military service, nor any intimation that it might be.

In February, 1888, a medical examination was made under direction of the Pension Bureau, when it was found that the claimant had the general appearance of being healthy and well nourished, but that he had a small uncomplicated inguinal hernia on the right side, which was easily retained.

I can not believe upon the facts presented that an injury of the character alleged could have been sustained in the service and still permitted the performance of all the duties of wagon master for months thereafter, remaining undeveloped for so many years, and that there should now be such a lack of testimony connecting it with any incident of military service.

I believe the rejection of this claim was right and just upon its merits.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 24, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill 6908, entitled "An act granting a pension to William P. Witt."

The beneficiary named in the bill was enrolled for one hundred days' service on the 13th day of July, 1864, and was mustered out on the 16th day of November, in the same year. The record shows that he was reported present on all rolls until he was mustered out.

He filed a claim for pension in 1884, alleging that he incurred chronic diarrhea, liver disease, rheumatism, and a disease of the head affecting his hearing during his military service. Two comrades testify to his being sick and being in the hospital to such an extent as to wholly discredit his presence with his company. A physician testifies that he prescribed for him some time in the month of November, 1864, for liver disease and jaundice, to which rheumatism supervened, confining him six weeks or more.

There seems to be a complete hiatus of any medical or other evidence concerning his physical condition from that time until nearly twenty years thereafter, in July, 1884, when he was examined, and it was found that he had impaired hearing in both ears, but no symptoms of rheumatism, and that his liver was normal.

Without further detailing particulars, the entire complexion of this case satisfies me that the claimant contracted no pensionable disability during his one hundred days of service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 24, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4550, entitled "An act granting a pension to Chloe Quiggle, widow of Phillip Quiggle."

The husband of the beneficiary named enlisted February 11, 1865, and was discharged September 27, 1865. The records show that he was reported August 31, 1865, as "absent, confined in post prison at Chattanooga since August 18, 1865."

He filed a claim for pension June 25, 1880, alleging that after a march from Chattanooga to a point 1-1/2 miles distant and back he upon his return drank some water, which produced diarrhea, since which time he had been troubled also with disease of kidneys and rheumatism.

He died in September, 1882, and the claim then pending on his behalf was completed by his widow. After a special examination the claim for diarrhea was, on the 21st day of April, 1887, allowed from September 28, 1865, to January 1, 1870, when it was shown that any disability from this cause ceased. The claim for disease of kidneys and rheumatism was rejected upon the ground that no such disabilities were shown to be due to military service.

The widow filed a claim on her own behalf August 27, 1883, alleging the death of the soldier from the results of prostration by heat while marching near Nashville, Tenn., and also from disease of kidneys, rheumatism, and chronic diarrhea.

It is reported to me that the evidence taken during a special examination of this case established that before and after enlistment the soldier was addicted to the excessive use of intoxicating liquors.

One physician stated to the examiner that shortly after the soldier's discharge he found him suffering from disease of kidneys and from rheumatism and diarrhea, but that he concluded the disease of the kidneys had been coming on for a year; that it could not have been caused by a sunstroke a few weeks previously, and that the diseases were of longer standing than that.

Another physician who attended the soldier during his last illness testified that he did not know that he suffered from any disease until the summer of 1882; that he found him suffering from retention of urine, and that the difficulty rapidly developed into an acute attack of Bright's disease; that no indications of rheumatism were found, but that the disease progressed steadily and was a well-marked case of Bright's disease of the kidneys. He also testified that the origin of the disease was no doubt recent, though possibly it might have existed in a low form for some years.

A medical examination in May, 1882, developed no disease of the kidneys.

It seems to me that all the reliable testimony in the case tends to show beyond a doubt that the soldier's death was not due to any incident of his military service. I do not find that the medical testimony given by his neighbors makes a suggestion that it was, and upon all the facts I am of the opinion that the pension which has been already allowed was a liberal disposition of the case.

The beneficiary named in this bill is aged, and it would certainly be a gratification to grant her relief; but the question is whether we do well to establish a precedent for the allowance of claims of this character in the distribution of pension funds.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 30, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 465, entitled "An act granting a pension to William Sackman, sr."

The beneficiary named in this bill served from December 24, 1861, to February 29, 1864, in the Fifth Regiment of the Missouri Militia Cavalry.

He was discharged on the day last named for disability. His certificate of discharge states his disability as follows:

Palpitation of the heart and defective lungs, the disability caused by falling off his horse near Fredericktown, Mo., while intoxicated, on detached service, in the month of September, 1862. Not having done any duty since, a discharge would benefit the Government and himself.

It appears that a claim for pension was filed in the year 1881, in which the claimant alleged that--

At Fredericktown, Mo., about the 10th or 12th of April, 1863, he had three ribs broken by falling from his horse while surrounded by guerrillas.

It will be seen that while the certificate of discharge mentions a fall in September, 1862, no allusion is made to any fracture of ribs, while the claimant alleges such an injury occurred in April, 1863.

In 1885 the surgeon who made the medical certificate attached to the discharge, in answer to an inquiry made by the Commissioner of Pensions, says:

I have to state that I remember the case very distinctly. I made the examination in person, and was thoroughly acquainted with the case. I read the statement on which the application for discharge was based to the man, and he consented to have the papers forwarded as they read. The application for pension is fraudulent and should not be allowed.

I have omitted references made to the habits of the soldier by this medical officer.

Of course much reliance should be placed upon these statements made by an officer whose business it was to know the exact facts, and who made his certificate at a time when such facts were fresh in his mind. There is no intimation that the surgeon who made the statement referred to was inimical to the soldier or influenced by any unjust motive.

The attempt to impeach the record thus made is based upon affidavits made by a number of the soldier's comrades, who testify to his character and habits, and only three of whom speak of an injury to the soldier caused by falling from his horse. Two of these affiants allege that they were with the claimant on detached duty when his horse took fright and ran away with him, injuring him so that he could not rise and get on his horse without assistance. So far as these affidavits are before me, no date of this occurrence is given, nothing is said as to the character of the injuries, and no reference is made to the condition of the soldier at the time. The third affiant, who speaks of an injury, says that it occurred while on duty on the march from Pilot Knob to Cape Girardeau, in the year 1862 or 1863, and that it was caused by the soldier's being thrown from his horse. He says further that the soldier was not intoxicated at that time.

No mention is made that I can discover of any fracture of the ribs except in the claimant's application for pension made in 1881, seventeen years after his discharge, and in a report of an examining surgeon made in 1882.

With no denial of the soldier's condition, as stated by the surgeon, on the part of the only parties who claim to have been present at the time of the injury, I can not satisfy myself, in view of the other circumstances surrounding this case, that the allegations contained in the claimant's discharge are discredited.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 30, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 838, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Sullivan."

On the 1st day of July, 1886, an act was approved which is an exact copy of the one herewith returned. In pursuance of that act the beneficiary's name was placed upon the pension rolls.

A second law for the same purpose is of course unnecessary.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 1, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 19, entitled "An act for the relief of H.B. Wilson, administrator of the estate of William Tinder, deceased."

The purpose of this bill is to refund to the estate of William Tinder the sum of $5,000, which was paid to the Government by his administrator in June, 1880, upon the following facts:

In 1876 two indictments were found against one Evans, charging him with passing counterfeit money. In May, 1878, he was tried upon one of said indictments and the jury failed to agree. Thereupon the prisoner entered into two recognizances in the sum of $5,000 each, with W.R. Evans and William Tinder as sureties, conditioned for the appearance of the prisoner Evans at the next term of the court, in November, 1878, for trial upon said indictment. Before that date, however, the prisoner fled the country and failed to appear according to the condition of his bond. In the meantime William Tinder died and H.B. Wilson was appointed his administrator.

Suits were brought upon the two bail bonds, and, the liability of the sureties not being admitted, the suits were tried in March, 1880, resulting in two judgments in favor of the United States and against the surety Evans and the estate of Tinder for $5,000 each and the costs.

Soon thereafter an application was made by the administrator of the estate of William Tinder for relief, and an offer was made by him to pay $5,000 and the costs in compromise and settlement of the liability of said estate upon said two judgments.

These judgments were a preferred claim against the estate, which was represented to be worth sixteen or eighteen thousand dollars. The other surety, Evans, was alleged to be worthless, and it was claimed that neither the administrator of the Tinder estate nor his attorneys had known the whereabouts of the indicted party since his flight, and that some time would elapse before certain litigation in which the estate was involved could be settled and the claims against it paid.

It was considered best by the officers of the Government to accept the proposition of the administrator, which was done in June, 1880. The sum of $5,099.06, the amount of one of said judgments, with interest and costs, was paid into the United States Treasury, and the estate of Tinder was in consideration thereof released and discharged from all liability upon both of said judgments.

Thus was the transaction closed, in exact accordance with the wishes and the prayer of the representative of this estate and by the favor and indulgence of the Government upon his application. There was, so far as I can learn, no condition attached, and no understanding or agreement that any future occurrence would affect the finality of the compromise by which the Government had accepted one-half of its claim in full settlement.

It appears that in 1881 the party indicted was arrested and brought to trial, which resulted in his conviction; and apparently for this reason alone it is proposed by the bill under consideration to open the settlement made at the request of the administrator and refund to him the sum which he paid on such settlement pursuant to his own offer.

I can see no fairness or justice to the Government in such a proposition. I do not find any statement that the administrator delivered the prisoner to the United States authorities for trial. On the contrary, it appears from an examination made in the First Comptroller's Office that he was arrested by the marshal on the 25th day of May, 1881, who charged and was paid his fees therefor. And if the administrator had surrendered the prisoner to justice it would not entitle him to the repayment of the money he has paid to compromise the two judgments against him.

The temptation to relieve from contracts with the Government upon plausible application is, in my opinion, not sufficiently resisted; but to refund money paid into the public Treasury upon such a liberal compromise as is exhibited in this case seems like a departure from all business principles and an unsafe concession that the interests of the Government are to be easily surrendered.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 3, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4534, entitled "An act for the relief of Emily G. Mills."

The object of this bill is to provide a pension for the beneficiary named therein as the widow of Oscar B. Mills, late a second assistant engineer, retired, in the United States Navy. The deceased was appointed an acting third assistant engineer in October, 1862, and in 1864 he was promoted to the place of second assistant engineer.

It is supposed that while in active service he did his full duty, though I am not informed of any distinguished acts of bravery or heroism. In February, 1871, he was before a naval retiring board, which found that he was incapacitated for active service on account of malarious fever, contracted in 1868, and recommended that he be allowed six months' leave of absence to recover his health.

In December, 1871, he was again examined for retirement, and the board found that he was not in any way incapacitated from performing the duties of his office. The next year, in 1872, another retiring board, upon an examination of his case, found that he was "laboring under general debility, the effect of intermittent fever acting upon an originally delicate constitution," and he was thereupon placed upon the retired list of the Navy.

On the 10th day of August, 1873, he was accidentally shot and killed by a neighbor, who was attempting to shoot an owl.

As long as there is the least pretense of limiting the bestowal of pensions to disability or death in some way related to the incidents of military and naval service, claims of this description can not consistently be allowed.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 1406, entitled "An act to provide for the sale of certain New York Indian lands in Kansas."

Prior to the year 1838 a number of bands and tribes of New York Indians had obtained 500,000 acres of land in the State of Wisconsin, upon which they proposed to reside. In the year above named a treaty was entered into between the United States and these Indians whereby they relinquished to the Government these Wisconsin lands. In consideration thereof, and, as the treaty declares, "in order to manifest the deep interest of the United States in the future peace and prosperity of the New York Indians," it was agreed there should be set apart as a permanent home for all the New York Indians then residing in the State of New York, or in Wisconsin, or elsewhere in the United States, who had no permanent home, a tract of land amounting to 1,824,000 acres, directly west of the State of Missouri, and now included in the State of Kansas--being 320 acres for each Indian, as their number was then computed--"to have and to hold the same in fee simple to the said tribes or nations of Indians by patent from the President of the United States."

Full power and authority was also given to said Indians "to divide said lands among the different tribes, nations, or bands in severalty," with the right to sell and convey to and from each other under such rules and regulations as should be adopted by said Indians in their respective tribes or in general council.

The treaty further provided that such of the tribes of these Indians as did not accept said treaty and agree to remove to the country set apart for their new homes within five years or such other time as the President might from time to time appoint should forfeit all interest in the land so set apart to the United States; and the Government guaranteed to protect and defend them in the peaceable possession and enjoyment of their new homes.

I have no positive information that any considerable number of these Indians removed to the lands provided for them within the five years limited by the treaty. Their omission to do so may have been owing to the failure of the Government to appropriate the money to pay the expense of such removal, as it agreed to do in the treaty.

It is, however, stated in a letter of the Secretary of the Interior dated April 6, 1878, contained in the report of the Senate committee to whom the bill under consideration was referred, that in the year 1842 some of these Indians settled upon the lands described in the treaty; and it is further alleged in said report that in 1846 about two hundred more of them were removed to said lands.

The letter of the Secretary of the Interior above referred to contains the following statement concerning these Indian occupants:

From death and the hostility of the settlers, who were drawn in that direction by the fertility of the soil and other advantages, all of the Indians gradually relinquished their selections, until of the Indians who had removed thither from the State of New York only thirty-two remained in 1860.

And the following further statement is made:

The files of the Indian Office show abundant proof that they did not voluntarily relinquish their occupation.

The proof thus referred to is indeed abundant, and is found in official reports and affidavits made as late as the year 1859. By these it appears that during that year, in repeated instances, Indian men and widows of deceased Indians were driven from their homes by the threats of armed men; that in one case at least the habitation of an Indian woman was burned, and that the kind of outrages were resorted to which too often follow the cupidity of whites and the possession of fertile lands by defenseless and unprotected Indians.

An agent, in an official letter dated August 9, 1859, after detailing the cruel treatment of these occupants of the lands which the Government had given them, writes:

Since these Indians have been placed under my charge, which was, I think, in 1855, I have endeavored to protect them; but complaint after complaint has reached me, and I have reported their situation again and again; and I hope that it will not be long when the Indians who are entitled to land under the decision of the Indian Office shall have it set apart to them.

The same agent, under date of January 18, 1860, referring to these Indians, declares:

These Indians have been driven off their land and claims upon the New York tract by the whites, and they are now very much scattered and many of them are very destitute.

It was found in 1860 that of all the Indians who had prior to that date selected and occupied part of these lands but thirty-two remained, and it seems to have been deemed but justice to them to confirm their selections by some kind of governmental grant or declaration, though it does not appear that any of them had been able to maintain actual possession of all their selected lands against white intrusion. Thus certain special commissioners appointed to examine this subject, under date of May 29, 1860, make the following statement:

In this connection it may be proper to remark that many of the tracts so selected were claimed by lawless men who had compelled the Indians to abandon them under threats of violence; but we are confident that no serious injury will be done to anyone, as the improvements are of but little value.

On the 14th day of September, 1860, certificates were issued to the thirty-two Indians who had made selections of lands and who still survived, with a view of securing to them such selections and at the same time granting to them the number of acres which it was provided they should have by the treaty of 1838. These certificates were made by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and declared that in conformity with the provisions of the treaty of 1838 there had been assigned and allotted to the person named therein 320 acres of the land designated in said treaty, which land was particularly described in said certificates, which concluded as follows:

And the selection of said tract for the exclusive use and benefit of said reserve, having been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, is not subject to be alienated in fee, leased, or otherwise disposed of except to the United States.

In a letter dated September 13, 1860, from the Indian Commissioner to the agent in the neighborhood of these lands reference is made to the conduct of white intruders upon the same, and the following instructions were given to said agent:

In view of these representations and the fact that these white persons who are in possession of the land are intruders, I have to direct that you will visit the New York Reserve in Kansas at your earliest convenience, accompanied by those Indians living among the Osages to whom said lands have been allotted, with a view to place them in possession of the lands to which they are entitled; and if you should meet with any forcible resistance from white settlers you will report their names to this office, in order that appropriate action may be taken in the premises, and you will inform them that if they do not immediately abandon said lands they will be removed by force. When you shall have given the thirty-two Indians peaceable possession of their lands, or attempted to do so and have been prevented by forcible resistance, you will make a report of your action to this Bureau.

The records of the Indian Bureau do not disclose that any report was ever made by the agent to whom these instructions were given.

In 1861 and 1862 mention was made by the agents of the destitute condition of these Indians and of their being deprived of their lands, and in these years petitions were presented in their behalf asking that justice be done them on account of the failure of the Government to provide them with homes.

In the meantime, and in December, 1860, the remainder of the reserve not allotted to the thirty-two survivors was thrown open to settlement by Executive proclamation. Of course this was followed by increased conflict between the settlers and the Indians. It is presumed that it became dangerous for those to whom lands had been allotted to attempt to gain possession of them. On the 4th day of December, 1865, Agent Snow returned twenty-seven of the certificates of allotment which had not been delivered, and wrote as follows to the Indian Bureau:

A few of these Indians were at one time put in possession of their lands. They were driven off by the whites; one Indian was killed, others wounded, and their houses burned. White men at this time have possession of these lands, and have valuable improvements on them. The Indians are deterred even asking for possession. I would earnestly ask, as agent for these wronged and destitute people, that some measure be adopted by the Government to give these Indians their rights.

An official report made to the Secretary of the Interior dated February 16, 1871, gives the history of these lands, and concludes as follows:

These lands are now all or nearly all occupied by white persons who have driven the Indians from their homes--in some instances with violence. There is great necessity that some relief should be afforded to them by legislation of Congress, authorizing the issue of patents to the allottees or giving them power to sell and convey.

In this way they will be enabled to realize something from the land, and the occupants can secure titles for their homes.

Apparently in the line of this recommendation, and in an attempt to remedy the condition of affairs then existing, an act was passed on the 19th day of February, 1873, permitting heads of families and single persons over 21 years of age who had made settlements and improvements upon and were bona fide claimants and occupants of the lands for which the thirty-two certificates of allotments were issued to enter and purchase at the proper land office such lands so occupied by them, not exceeding 160 acres, upon paying therefor the appraised value of said tracts respectively, to be ascertained by three disinterested and competent appraisers, to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, who should report the value of such lands, exclusive of improvements, but that no sale should be made under said act for less than $3.75 per acre.

It was further provided that the entries allowed should be made within twelve months after the promulgation by the Secretary of the Interior of regulations to carry said act into effect, and that the money arising upon such sales should be paid into the Treasury of the United States in trust for and to be paid to the Indians respectively to whom such certificates of allotment had been issued, or to their heirs, upon satisfactory proof of their identity, at any time within five years from the passage of the act, and that in default of such proof the money should become a part of the public moneys of the United States.

It was also further provided that any Indian to whom any certificate of allotment had been issued, and who was then occupying the land allotted thereby, should be entitled to receive a patent therefor.

Pursuant to this statute these lands were appraised. The lowest value per acre fixed by the appraisers was $3.75, and the highest was $10, making the average for the whole $4.90 per acre.

It is reported that only eight pieces, containing 879.76 acres of land taken from six of these Indian allotments, were sold under this statute to the settlers thereon, producing the sum of $4,058.06, and that the price paid in no case was less than $4.50 per acre.

It is proposed by the bill under consideration to sell the remainder of this allotted land to those who failed to avail themselves of the law of 1873 for the sum of $2.50 per acre.

Whatever may be said of the effect of the action of the Indian Bureau in issuing certificates of allotment to individual Indians as it relates to the title of the lands described therein, it was the only way that the Government could perform its treaty obligation to furnish homes for any number of Indians less than a tribe or band; and if these allotments did not vest a title in these individual Indians they secured to them such rights to the lands as the Government was bound to protect and which it could not refuse to confirm if it became necessary by the issuance of patents therefor.

These rights are fully recognized by the statute of 1873, as well as by the bill under consideration.

The right and power of the Government to divest these allottees of their interests under their certificates is so questionable that perhaps it could only be done under the plan proposed, through an estoppel arising from the acceptance of the price for which their allotted lands were sold.

But whatever the effect of a compliance with the provisions of this bill would be upon the title of the settlers to these lands, I can see no fairness or justice in permitting them to enter and purchase such lands at a sum much less than their appraised value in 1873 and for hardly one-half the price paid by their neighbors under the law passed in that year.

The occupancy upon these lands of the settlers seeking relief, and of their grantors, is based upon wrong, violence, and oppression. A continuation of the wrongful exclusion of these Indians from their lands should not inure to the benefit of the wrongdoers. The opportunities afforded by the law of 1873 were neglected, perhaps, in the hope and belief that death would remove the Indians who by their appeals for justice annoyed those who had driven them from their homes, and perhaps in the expectation that the heedlessness of the Government concerning its obligations to the Indians would supply easier terms. The idea is too prevalent that, as against those who by emigration and settlement upon our frontier extend our civilization and prosperity, the rights of the Indians are of but little consequence. But it must be absolutely true that no development is genuine or valuable based upon the violence and cruelty of individuals or the faithlessness of a government.

While it might not result in exact justice or precisely rectify the wrong committed, it may well be that in existing circumstances the interests of the allottees or their heirs demand an adjustment of the kind now proposed. But their lands certainly are worth much more than they were in 1873, and the settlers, if they are not subjected to a reappraisement, should at least pay the price at which the lands were appraised in that year.

If the holders of the interests of the allottees have such a title as will give them a standing in the courts of Kansas, I do not think they need fear defeat by being charged with improvements under the occupying claimants' act, for it has been decided in a case to be found in the twentieth volume of Kansas Reports, at page 374, that--

Neither the title nor possession of the Indian owner, secured by treaty with the United States Government, can be disturbed by State legislation; and the occupying claimants' act has no application in this case.

And yet the delay, uncertainty, and expense of legal contests should be considered.

I suggest that any bill which is passed to adjust the rights of these Indians by such a general plan as is embodied in the bill herewith returned should provide for the payment by the settlers within a reasonable time of an appraised value, and that in case the same is not paid by the respective occupants that the lands be sold at public auction for a price not less than the appraisement.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 9, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4357, entitled "An act to erect a public building at Allentown, Pa."

The accommodation of the postal business is the only public purpose for which the Government can be called on to provide, which is suggested as a pretext for the erection of this building. It is proposed to expend $100,000 for a structure to be used as a post-office. It is said that a deputy collector of internal revenue and a board of pension examiners are located at Allentown, but I do not understand that the Government is obliged to provide quarters for these officers.

The usual statement is made in support of this bill setting forth the growth of the city where it is proposed to locate the building and the amount and variety of the business which is there transacted; and the postmaster in stereotyped phrase represents the desirability of increased accommodation for the transaction of the business under his charge.

But I am thoroughly convinced that there is no present necessity for the expenditure of $100,000 for any purpose connected with the public business at this place.

The annual rent now paid for the post-office is $1,300.

The interest, at 3 per cent, upon the amount now asked for this new building is $3,000. As soon as it is undertaken the pay of a superintendent of its construction will begin, and after its completion the compensation of janitors and other expenses of its maintenance will follow.

The plan now pursued for the erection of public buildings is, in my opinion, very objectionable. They are often built where they are not needed, of dimensions and at a cost entirely disproportionate to any public use to which they can be applied, and as a consequence they frequently serve more to demonstrate the activity and pertinacity of those who represent localities desiring this kind of decoration at public expense than to meet any necessity of the Government.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7715, entitled "An act for the relief of Georgia A. Stricklett."

By the terms of this bill a pension is allowed to the beneficiary above named, whose husband died on the 21st day of July, 1873. It appears from the records that he was mustered into the service to date from October 10, 1863, to serve for one year. It is alleged in the report of the committee of the House who reported this bill that he was wounded with buckshot in the face and head by bushwhackers, when on recruiting service, on the 23d day of July, 1863. If these dates are correct, he was wounded before he entered the service; but this fact is not made the basis of the disapproval of the widow's application for relief. There seems, however, to be no mention of any such injury during his term of service, though he is reported sick much of the time when present with his regiment, and is reported as once in hospital for a disease which, to say the least of it, can not be recognized as related to the service.

The soldier himself made no application for pension.

A physician testifies that he was present on the 21st day of July, 1873, when the soldier died; that he examined the body after death, and to the best of his knowledge such death was caused partially by epilepsy, and that the epilepsy was the result of "wounds about the face and head received during his service during the war."

Another physician testifies that the soldier applied to him for treatment in 1868, and that his disability was the development of confirmed epilepsy, and he expresses the opinion that this was due to a wound from a buckshot. This physician, while not giving epilepsy as the cause of death, says that "had he lived to die a natural death he certainly would have died an insane epileptic."

The report speaks of his death by "an accidental shot."

The truth appears to be that he was killed by a pistol shot in an altercation with another man.

Unless it shall be assumed that the epilepsy was caused by the buckshot wound spoken of, and unless a pension should be allowed because, if the soldier had not been killed in an altercation, he might have soon died from such epilepsy, this bill is entirely devoid of merit.

Surely no one will seriously propose that a claim for pension should rest upon a conjecture as to what would have caused death if it had not occurred in an entirely different way.

The testimony of the physician who testified in this case that death was caused partially by epilepsy suggests the extreme recklessness which may characterize medical testimony in applications for pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 18, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 2282, entitled "An act to pension Mrs. Theodora M. Piatt."

The deceased husband of the beneficiary named in this bill served faithfully and well in the volunteer service, and after his discharge as major entered the Regular Army and was on the retired list at the time of his death, which occurred on the 17th day of April, 1885. At that time he seems to have been engaged in the practice of the law at Covington, Ky.

He does not appear to have contracted any distinct and definite disability in his army service, though his health and strength were doubtless somewhat impaired by hardship and exposure.

It is conceded that he committed suicide by shooting himself with a pistol.

A coroner's inquest was held and the following verdict was returned:

Benjamin M. Piatt came to his death from a pistol bullet through the brain, fired from a pistol in his own hand, with suicidal intent, while laboring under a fit of temporary insanity, caused by morbid sensitiveness of wasted opportunities and constantly brooding over imaginary troubles and financial difficulties.

It is said in support of his widow's claim for pension that, being lame as a result, in part at least, of his military service, he, by reason of such lameness, fell from a staircase a few months before his death, the injury from which affected his mind, causing insanity, which in its turn resulted in his suicide.

Much interest is manifested in this case, based upon former friendship and intimacy with the deceased and kind feeling and sympathy for his widow. I should be glad to respond to these sentiments to the extent of approving this bill, but it is one of the misfortunes of public life and official responsibility that a sense of duty frequently stands between a conception of right and a sympathetic inclination.

The verdict returned upon the coroner's inquest, founded upon a friendly examination of all the facts surrounding the melancholy death of this soldier, made at the time of death and in the midst of his neighbors and friends, both by what it contains and by what is omitted, together with the other facts developed, leads me to the conclusion that if a pension is granted in this case no soldier's widow's application based upon suicide can be consistently rejected.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 18, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5545, entitled "An act granting a pension to Nancy F. Jennings."

William Jennings, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted in October, 1861, and was discharged June 24, 1862, upon a surgeon's certificate of disability, the cause of disability being therein stated as "hemorrhoids."

He never applied for a pension, and died in 1877 of apoplexy.

In the report of the committee which reported this bill the allegation is made that the deceased came home from the Army with chronic diarrhea and suffered from the same to the date of his death.

The widow filed a claim for pension in 1878, which was rejected on the ground that the fatal disease (apoplexy) was not due to military service nor the result of either of the complaints mentioned.

If we are to adhere to the rule that in order to entitle the widow of a soldier to a pension the death of her husband must be in some way related to his military service, there can be no doubt that upon its merits this case was properly disposed of by the Pension Bureau.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 18, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval a joint resolution, which originated in the House of Representatives, "authorizing the use and improvement of Castle Island, in Boston Harbor."

This island is separated from the mainland of the city of Boston by a channel over one-half mile wide. Fort Independence is located on the island, and it is regarded by our military authorities as quite important to the defense of the city.

The proposition contained in the joint resolution is to permit the city of Boston, through its park commissioners, to improve and beautify this island in connection with a public park to be laid out in the city, with the intention of joining the mainland and the island by the construction of a viaduct or causeway across the water now separating the same.

It is quite plain that the occupancy of this island as a place of pleasure and recreation, as contemplated under this resolution, would be entirely inconsistent with military or defensive uses. I do not regard the control reserved in the resolution to the Secretary of War over such excavations, fillings, and structures upon the island as may be proposed as of much importance. When a park is established there, the island is no longer a defense in time of need.

This scheme, or one of the same character, was broached more than four years ago, and met the disapproval of the Secretary of War and the Engineer Department.

I am now advised by the Secretary of War, the Chief of Engineers, and the Lieutenant-General of the Army, in quite positive terms, that the resolution under consideration should not, for reasons fully stated by them, become operative.

I deem the opinions of these officers abundant justification for my disapproval of the resolution without further statement of objections.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 18, 1888.

To the Senate.

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1064, entitled "An act for the relief of L.J. Worden."

This bill directs the Postmaster-General to allow to L.J. Worden, recently the postmaster at Lawrence, Kans., the sum of $625 paid out by him as such postmaster for clerk hire during the period from July 1, 1882, to June 30, 1883.

The allowances to these officers for clerk hire and other like expenses are fixed in each case by the Post-Office Department and are paid out of an appropriation made in gross to cover them all. The excess of receipts for box rents and commissions over and above the salary of the postmaster is adopted by law as the maximum amount of such allowances in each case, and within that limit the amount appropriated is apportioned by the Post-Office Department to the different offices according to their needs.

The allowances to the Lawrence post-office for the year ending June 30, 1883, was $3,100. This was fully its proportion of the appropriation made by Congress for that year, and as much as was in most cases given to other offices of the same grade. In September, 1882, during the first quarter of the year in question, the postmaster made application for an increase of his allowances, which was declined, and a similar application in December of the same year was also declined. The reason given for noncompliance with this request in both cases was a lack of funds. It is the rule to make only such allowances in any year as can be paid from the appropriation made for that period.

No further application for increase of allowances was made by Mr. Worden until March, 1884, when the same were increased $300 for the year, to date from the 1st day of January preceding.

It was found at that time, after a full and fair investigation by the Department, which had in hand abundant funds for an increase of these allowances, that notwithstanding the increase of business at this post-office, $300 added to the allowances for the year from July 1, 1882, to June 30, 1883, was sufficient; and yet more than twice that sum is added by the bill under consideration to the allowances for the year last named.

Forty-four postmasters have submitted vouchers, amounting to nearly $9,000, for clerk hire during that year in excess of allowances; but they were all rejected, and I understand have not been insisted upon.

I assume that the Post-Office Department in 1884 dealt justly and fairly by the postmaster at Lawrence, and upon this theory, if he should be reimbursed any expenditure for a previous year, the demand he now makes is excessive.

But the cases should be exceedingly rare in which postmasters are awarded any more than the allowances made by the Department officers. They have the very best means of ascertaining the amount necessary to meet the demands of the service in any particular case, and it certainly may be assumed that they desire to properly accommodate the public in the matter of postal facilities. When the appropriation is sufficient, the decision of the Department should be final; and when the money in hand does not admit of adequate allowances, postmasters should only be reimbursed money voluntarily expended by them when recommended by the Postmaster-General.

Any other course leads to the expenditure of money by postmasters for work which they should do themselves and to the employment of clerks which are unnecessary. The least encouragement that they may be repaid such expenditure by a special appropriation would dangerously tend to the substitution of their judgment for that of the Department and to the relaxation of wholesome discipline.

I think, when the application of Mr. Worden for an increase in his allowances was twice declined for any cause during the year covering his present demand, that if he made personal expenditures for clerk hire, and especially if he did so without the encouragement of the Department, they were made at his own risk. It appears, too, that the amount of his claim is larger than can be justified in any event.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

The time allowed the Executive by the Constitution for the examination of bills presented to him by Congress for his action expired in the case of the bill herewith returned on Saturday, May 19. The Senate adjourned or took a recess on Thursday afternoon, May 17, until to-day, the 21st of May.

On the day of said recess or adjournment the above message, disapproving said bill and accompanying its return to the Senate, where it originated, was drawn, and on May 18 was engrossed and signed. On Saturday, the 19th of May, the Senate not being in session, the message and the bill were tendered to the Secretary of the Senate, who declined to receive them, and thereupon they were on the same day tendered to the President of the Senate, who also declined to receive the same, both of these officials claiming that the return of said bill and the delivery of said message could only properly be made to the Senate when in actual session.

They are therefore transmitted as soon as the Senate reconvenes after its recess, with this explanation.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 88, entitled "An act granting a pension to Sally A. Randall."

Antipas Taber enlisted in the War of 1812 and was discharged in the year 1814. There is no claim made that he received any injury in the Army or that his death, which happened long after his discharge, was in the slightest degree related to his military service. It does not appear that he ever made any application for a pension or was ever upon the pension rolls. He died at Trinidad, in the island of Cuba, April 11, 1831, leaving as his widow the beneficiary mentioned in this bill. About twenty-two years after his death, and in February, 1853, she married Albert Randall, and twenty years thereafter, in October, 1873, Randall died, leaving her again a widow.

It is alleged in the report of the committee in the House to which this bill was referred that Mrs. Randall is a worthy woman, 75 years of age, in needy circumstances, with health much impaired, and that the petition for her relief was signed by prominent citizens of Norwich, Conn., where she now resides.

All this certainly commends her case to the kindness and benevolence of the citizens mentioned, and the State of Connecticut ought not to allow her to be in needy circumstances.

It seems to me, however, that it would establish a bad precedent to provide for her from the Federal Treasury. From the statement of her present age she must have been born during the time of her first husband's enlistment. She knew nothing of his military service except as the same may have been detailed to her. Her first widowhood had no connection with any incident or condition of health traceable to such service, and her second husband, with whom she lived for twenty years, never entered the military service of the Government.

I do not see how the relief proposed can be granted in this case without an unjustifiable departure from the rules under which applications for pension should be determined.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 879, entitled "An act granting a pension to Royal J. Hiar."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted November 11, 1861, in the First Regiment of Michigan Engineers and Mechanics. He is reported as absent without proper authority from May 24, 1862, to January 15, 1863, when he was discharged by reason of varicose veins of the left leg and thigh, claimed to have existed before enlistment.

He filed a claim for pension August 30, 1876, alleging disease of the right side and hip, due to typhoid pneumonia, contracted while repairing a hospital tent in March, 1862.

There is no record of this disease. The proof he furnishes of the same is extremely slight, though he was furnished ample opportunity. The disability of which he complains has no natural relation to the sickness he claims to have had during his service, but is quite a natural result of "an injury while logging," to which some of the witnesses examined in a special examination of the case attribute it.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5234, entitled "An act granting a pension to Cyrenius G. Stryker."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted for nine months in September, 1862, and was discharged June 27, 1863.

His enlistment was in Company A, Thirtieth New Jersey Regiment. The bill proposes to pension him as "a private in Company A, Thirtieth Regiment New York Volunteers."

He alleges that he was pushed or fell from the platform of a car in which he was transported to Washington after enlistment and injured his spine. On the claim which he presented to the Pension Bureau in June, 1879, repeated medical examinations failed to reveal any disability from the cause alleged, and after a special examination his claim was rejected because, with the assistance of such special examination, the claimant did not prove the origin of alleged injury in service and the line of duty or a pensionable degree of disability therefrom since discharge.

The evidence now offered in support of this claim appears to have reference to a time long anterior to its rejection by the Pension Bureau in 1886, and does not impeach the finding of the Bureau that at the latter date there existed no pensionable disability.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 3579, entitled "An act granting a pension to Ellen Shea."

This beneficiary is an old lady and a widow. Her son, Michael Shea, enlisted in January, 1862. The records show that he was sick on one or two occasions during his service. He is also reported as a deserter and absent without leave and in arrest and confinement fully as often as he was sick. He was discharged January 20, 1865.

No application for a pension has been made on his behalf. The mother filed a claim for pension in July, 1884, alleging that her son contracted a fever in the service which resulted in insanity, which was the cause of his death on the 10th day of March, 1884.

He was killed by a snow slide in the State of Colorado. The only hint that his death was in any way connected with the service is the suggestion that not having the proper use of his mind he wandered away and was killed.

His mother now lives in Chicago and, I suppose, lived there at the time of her son's death. There is very little evidence offered of any unsoundness of mind, and his death occurring at Woodstock, Colo., it is hardly to be supposed that he wandered that far. And as tending to show that unsoundness of mind had nothing to do with his death it may be mentioned that an attorney having the mother's application for pension in charge withdrew from the case in October, 1884, for the reason that, having made inquiries at the place where the soldier was killed, he found that his death was caused by a snow slide, and that he was informed that a number of other persons lost their lives at the same time.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8164, entitled "An act granting a pension to William H. Hester."

It is claimed that the beneficiary named in this bill was injured by sand blowing in his eyes during a sand storm while in the service in the year 1869, resulting in nearly if not quite total blindness.

It is conceded in the report of the committee to which this bill was referred in the House that the claim for pension made by this man to the Pension Bureau was largely supported by perjury and forgery; but the criminality of these methods is made to rest upon three rogues and scoundrels who undertook to obtain a pension for the soldier, and it is stated by the committee as their opinion that the claimant himself was innocent of any complicity in the crimes committed and attempted.

I have quite a full report of the papers filed and proceedings taken in relation to the claim presented to the Pension Bureau, and I am sorry that I can not agree with the committee of the House as to the merits of the application now made or the good faith and honesty of the beneficiary named in the bill herewith returned.

Among the facts presented I shall refer to but one or two touching the conduct of the claimant himself.

Upon his examination, under oath, by a special examiner, he stated that he was brought to Washington to further his claim by a man named Miller, one of the rascally attorneys spoken of in the committee's report; that Miller was to pay his expenses while in Washington, and was to receive one-third of the money paid upon the claim.

This is not the conduct of a man claiming in good faith a pension from the Government.

He further stated under oath that his eyes became affected about January 15, 1869, by reason of a sand storm; that the sand blew into them and cut them all to pieces; that he was thereafter hardly able to see or get around and wait on himself, and that Edward N. Baldwin took care of him in his tent.

This Mr. Baldwin was found by the special examiner and testified that he knew the claimant and served in same regiment and bunked with him; that he never knew of the sand storm spoken of by Hester; that he never knew that he had sore eyes in the service; that he (Baldwin) did not take care of him when he was suffering with sore eyes, and that he never knew of Hester being sick but once, and that was when he had eaten too much. He was shown an affidavit purporting to be made by him and declared the entire thing to be false and a forgery.

I believe this claim for pension to be a fraud from beginning to end, and the effrontery with which it has been pushed shows the necessity of a careful examination of these cases.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 6609, entitled "An act for the relief of Sarah E. McCaleb."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill was wounded in the head at the battle of Fort Donelson on the 15th day of February, 1862. He served thereafter and was promoted, and was discharged June 30, 1865.

He died by suicide in 1878.

He never applied for a pension.

The suggestion is made that the wound in his head predisposed him to mental unsoundness, but it does not appear to be claimed that he was insane.

I can not believe that his suicide had any connection with his army service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4580, entitled "An act granting a pension to Farnaren Ball."

In the report of the committee to which this bill was referred the name of this beneficiary is given as "Farnaren Ball," and in a report from the Pension Bureau it is insisted that the correct name is "Tamezen Ball."

Her son, Augustus F. Coldecott, was pensioned for disease of the lungs up to the time of his death, which occurred June 2, 1872.

The cause of his death was an overdose of laudanum, and whether it was taken by mistake or design is uncertain.

The mother is not entirely destitute, deriving an income, though small, from the interest upon a mortgage given to her upon a sale of some real estate.

The proofs with which I have been furnished fail to satisfy me that the Government should grant a pension on account of death produced by a self-administered narcotic in the circumstances which surround this case.

As a general proposition I see nothing unjust or unfair in holding that if a pensioner is sick and through ignorance or design takes laudanum without the direction or regulation of a physician the Government should not be held responsible for the consequences.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 26, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 339, entitled "An act for the relief of J.E. Pilcher."

This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the party named therein the sum of $905, being the amount of one bond of $100 and $805 in paper money of the Republic of Texas.

It is directed, however, that this money be paid out of the Texas indemnity fund.

This fund was created under a law passed on the 28th day of February, 1855, appropriating the sum of $7,750,000 to pay certain claims against the Republic of Texas. By the terms of said law a certain time was fixed within which such claims were to be presented to the Treasury Department.

Between the passage of said act and the year 1870 the sum of $7,648,786.73 was paid upon said claims, leaving of the money appropriated an unexpended balance of $101,213.27.

This balance was on the 30th day of June, 1877, carried to the surplus fund and covered into the Treasury, pursuant to section 5 of chapter 328 of the laws of 1874.

Thus since that date it seems there has been no Texas indemnity fund, nor is there any such fund now from which the money mentioned in the bill herewith returned can be paid.

In this condition of affairs the proposed law could not be executed and would be of no possible use.

If the claims mentioned are such as should be paid by the United States, there appears to be no difficulty in making an appropriation for their payment from the general funds of the Government. I notice an item to meet a similar claim was inserted in a deficiency bill passed on the 7th day of July, 1884.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 28, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 347, entitled "An act to provide for the erection of a public building in the city of Youngstown, Ohio."

By the census of 1880 the population of Youngstown appears to be 15,435. It is claimed by those urging the erection of a public building there that its population has nearly doubled since that date. The amount appropriated in the bill herewith returned is $75,000. There does not seem to be any governmental purpose to which such a building could be properly devoted except the accommodation of the post-office.

I have listened to an unusual amount of personal representation in favor of this bill from parties whose desires I should be glad to meet on this or any other question; but none of them have insisted that there is any present governmental need of the proposed new building even for postal purposes. On the contrary, I am informed that the post-office is at present well accommodated in quarters held under a lease which does not expire, I believe, until 1892. A letter addressed to the postmaster at Youngstown containing certain questions bearing upon the necessity of a new building failed to elicit a reply. This fact is very unusual and extraordinary, for the postmaster can almost always be relied upon to make an exhibit of the great necessity of larger quarters when a new public building is in prospect.

The fact was communicated to me early in the present session of the Congress that the aggregate sum of the appropriations contained in bills for the erection and extension of public buildings which had up to that time been referred to the House Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds was about $37,000,000.

Of course this fact would have no particular relevancy if all the buildings asked for were necessary for the transaction of public business, as long as we have the money to pay for them; but inasmuch as a large number of the buildings proposed are unnecessary and their erection would be wasteful and extravagant, besides furnishing precedents for further and more extended reckless expenditures of a like character, it seems to me that applications for new and expensive public buildings should be carefully scrutinized.

I am satisfied that the appropriation of $75,000 for a building at Youngstown is at present not justified.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 28, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1237, entitled "An act granting a pension to Anna Mertz."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of Charles A. Mertz, who served in the Army as captain from April, 1862, to June, 1863, when he resigned on account of impaired health. It is stated in the committee's report that after his return from the Army he worked occasionally at his trade, though subject to attacks of very severe diarrhea, accompanied with acute catarrhal pains in the head and face, which he constantly attributed to his army service.

It is alleged that he had several times taken morphine, under medical advice, to allay pain caused by these attacks.

He did not apply for a pension.

On the 1st day of December, 1884, more than twenty-one years after his discharge from the Army, he died from an overdose of morphine self-administered, for the purpose, it is claimed, of alleviating his suffering.

I do not think that in this case the death of the soldier was so related to his military service as to entitle his widow to a pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 28, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 820, entitled "An act granting a pension to David A. Servis."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted August 14, 1862, and was discharged June 8, 1865.

It is alleged that about the month of January, 1863, a comrade, by way of a joke, put powder into a pipe which the beneficiary was accustomed to smoke and covered it with tobacco, so that when he lighted it the powder exploded and injured his eyes. The report of the Senate committee states that it does not appear that "any notice was taken of this wanton act of his tent mate."

There is no mention of any disability or injury in the record of the soldier's service. He seems to have served nearly two years and a half after the injury. He filed an application for a pension in May, 1885, more than twenty-two years thereafter.

Whatever may be the extent of the injury sustained, in regard to which the evidence is apparently quite meager, I can not see that it was such a result of military service as to entitle the applicant to a pension.

The utmost liberality to those who were in our Army hardly justifies a compensation by way of pension for injuries incurred in sport or pastime or as the result of a practical joke.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 28, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 835, entitled "An act for the relief of Elisha Griswold."

The beneficiary named in this bill, which awards him a pension, enlisted in January, 1864, and was discharged February 12, 1866.

His claim for pension, as developed in the report of the Senate Committee on Pensions, is based upon the allegation that in January, 1866, he fell from a swing which had been put up in the building occupied as a barrack and struck on his head and shoulder.

The committee report in favor of the bill upon the grounds that the soldier was injured "while engaged in recreation" and that "such recreation is a necessary part of a soldier's life."

The beneficiary filed an application in January, 1880, and in support of such application he filed on the 16th day of July, 1886, an affidavit in which he testifies that at the time of the injury he was in prison at San Antonio, Tex., upon charges the character of which he could not ascertain, and that the swing from which he fell was erected by himself and others for pastime and exercise.

It will be seen that the injury complained of is alleged to have been sustained less than a month before his discharge. There is, however, no record of any disability.

His claim based upon this injury was, in my opinion, properly rejected as having no connection with his military service, and I think the facts in his case as herein detailed do not justify the award of a pension to him by special enactment.

On the 23d day of March, 1888, after the introduction of the bill herewith returned, the beneficiary, apparently having abandoned the claim upon which the bill is predicated, filed another application for a pension in the Pension Bureau, alleging that he contracted diarrhea and malarial poisoning in the service. This application is still pending.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 29, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 1275, entitled "An act for the erection of a public building at Columbus, Ga., and appropriating money therefor."

The city of Columbus, Ga., is undoubtedly a thriving, growing city. The only present necessity for a public building there is for the accommodation of its post-office. It is stated in the report of the House committee that the gross revenues of the office for the year ending June 30, 1887, were $16,700. The postmaster, in a letter upon the subject, makes the following statement:

I estimate the gross receipts at $17,500 for the fiscal year ending March 31, which will be an increase of nearly 7 per cent over last year's receipts.

There are nine persons employed in the post-office at present, including the postmaster. The present quarters are leased by the Government at an annual rent of $900. The postmaster represents that his accommodations are not adequate or convenient, and that instead of a space of 1,900 square feet, which he now has, he should be provided with 2,500 square feet.

The population of the city in 1880 was 10,123. It is claimed that it is now about 20,000.

In my opinion the facts presented do not exhibit the necessity of the expenditure of $100,000 to afford the increased room for the post-office which may be desirable. I believe a private person would erect a building abundantly sufficient for all our postal needs in that city for many years to come for one-third of that sum.

Business prudence and good judgment seem to dictate that the erection of the proposed building should be delayed until its necessity is more manifest, and so that it can be better determined what expenditure for such a purpose will be justified by the continued growth of the city and the needs of the Government.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 5, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 4467, entitled "An act for the erection of a public building at Bar Harbor, in Maine."

The entire town within which Bar Harbor is situated contained in 1880 1,639 inhabitants, as appears by the census of that year.

There is no pretense that there is any need of a public building there except to accommodate the post-office.

This is a third-class office, and the Government does not pay the rent for offices of that class. The gross receipts of the office for the year ended June 30, 1887, are reported by the Postmaster-General at $5,337. The postmaster reports that he employs five clerks in the summer and three in the winter. The fact that Bar Harbor is a place of very extensive summer resort makes its population exceedingly variable, and during a part of the year it is quite likely that the influx of pleasure seekers may make a more commodious post-office desirable, though there does not seem to be much complaint of present inconvenience.

The postmaster pays a rent of $500 per annum for his present quarters.

The amount appropriated by the bill is quite moderate, being only $25,000, but the postmaster expresses the opinion that a proper site alone would cost from twenty to thirty thousand dollars.

I am decidedly of the opinion that if a public building is to be erected at this place, of which at present there appears to be no necessity, it should be done under a system which will not give the post-office and the postmaster there an advantage over others of their class.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 5, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 1394, entitled "An act authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase additional ground for the accommodation of Government offices in Council Bluffs, Iowa."

A new public building at Council Bluffs will be completed in a short time. The ground upon which it is located has a frontage of 192 feet and a depth of 106 feet and 10 inches. The proposition is to add 30 feet to its depth. The act under which this building has been thus far constructed provides that the ground purchased therefor shall be of such dimensions as to leave the building unexposed to fire by an open space of at least 40 feet, including streets and alleys. The building is located on land now belonging to the Government sufficient in size to comply with this provision, and in point of fact more than the open space required is left on all sides of the same. There is no pretense that any enlargement of the building is necessary or contemplated.

The report of the committee to which this bill was referred in the House simply states that "the grounds on which said building is situated are inadequate for its proper accommodation and safety."

If this is so, I can see no reason why additional ground should not be purchased for "the proper accommodation and safety" of a large proportion of the public buildings completed and in process of erection, since the provision that there shall exist 40 feet of open space on all sides is, I think, contained in all the bills authorizing their construction. In this view the proposed legislation would establish a very bad precedent.

It is provided in the bill that the additional 30 feet mentioned shall be purchased for a sum not to exceed $10,000. The adjoining 106 feet and 10 inches, located on the corner of two streets, were purchased in the year 1882 by the Government for $15,000. The permission to purchase this addition at a price per foot greatly in excess of that already owned by the Government seems so unnecessary, except to benefit the owner, that I am of the opinion it should not be granted.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 5, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 739, entitled "An act granting a pension to Johanna Loewinger."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill enlisted June 28, 1861, and was discharged May 8, 1862, upon a surgeon's certificate of disability. He was pensioned for chronic diarrhea. He died July 17, 1876. A coroner's inquest was held, who found by their verdict that the deceased came to his death "from suicide by cutting his throat with a razor, caused by long-continued illness."

This inquest was held immediately after the soldier's death, and it appears that the case was fully investigated, with full opportunities to discover the truth. Upon the verdict found, in the absence of insanity caused by any disability, it can hardly be claimed that his death was caused by his military service. The attempts afterwards to impeach this verdict and introduce another cause of death do not seem to be successful.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 12, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1772, entitled "An act for the relief of John H. Marion."

It is proposed by this bill to relieve the party named therein from an indebtedness to the Government amounting to $1,042.45, arising from the nonfulfillment of a contract made by him in 1884 with the Government, by which he agreed to furnish for the use of the Quartermaster's Department a quantity of grama hay.

The contractor wholly failed to furnish the hay as agreed, and thereupon the Government, pursuant to the terms of the contract, obtained the hay in other quarters, paying therefor a larger sum by $1,042.45 than it would have been obliged to pay the contractor if he had fulfilled his agreement. This amount was charged against the contractor.

It is alleged that the crop of the particular kind of hay which was to be furnished under the contract failed the season in which it was to be supplied on account of drought, and that thus performance became impossible on the part of the contractor.

Between individuals no injustice could be claimed if the contractor in such circumstances should be held to have taken the chances of the crop; and if an equitable adjustment should be suggested in such a case as is here presented it would hardly be asked that the party suffering from the default or failure of the other should sustain all the loss.

It seems that the contractor was the proprietor of a newspaper in Arizona, and that he did some printing for the Government besides agreeing to furnish hay to the Quartermaster's Department. After the ascertainment of the loss to the Government arising out of the hay transactions, certain accounts for printing presented by the contractor were credited against the amount of such loss charged against him. In this way his debt to the Government has been reduced more than $700. The proposed legislation would cause to be paid to the contractor the sums so retained for printing and to relieve him from the remainder of the Government's claims.

Inquiry at the Quartermaster-General's Office fails to substantiate the allegation that there is any understanding when such contracts are made that their performance is to be at all relaxed by the failure of the crop.

There really seems to be no good reason why the contractor should not make good the entire loss consequent upon his default. If, however, strict rights are to be relinquished and the liberality of the Government invoked, it should not be taxed beyond the limit of sharing the loss with the delinquent. This result would be accomplished by discharging the remainder of the contractor's debt after crediting the bills for printing above referred to.

The Government is obliged in the transaction of its business to make numerous contracts with private parties, and if these contracts are to be of any use or protection they should not be lightly set aside on behalf of citizens who are disappointed as to their profitable nature or their ability to perform them.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 12, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1017, entitled "An act granting a pension to Stephen Schiedel."

The beneficiary named in this bill served in the First Regiment Missouri Light Artillery from October 24, 1861, to October, 1864. There is no record of any injury or disability while in the service.

In March, 1880, sixteen years after his discharge, he filed an application for a pension, alleging that about June, 1862, while carrying logs to aid in building quarters, a log slipped and fell upon a lever, which flew up and struck him, injuring his back and shoulder.

He furnished the testimony of two witnesses tending to support his statement of the manner in which he was injured, but upon investigation this evidence was found to be unreliable.

Medical examinations failed to disclose any disability from the cause alleged, but do tend to show that he was disabled since his discharge by an injury to his right hand and arm and some rheumatic trouble.

It is not claimed that he incurred any disability from rheumatism while in the Army. It appears distinctly that he was wounded in the right wrist and arm while firing a cannon at the village of Hamburg, Erie County, N.Y., on the 4th day of July, 1866. The doctor who testifies to this injury and who dressed the wound negatives any other illness before the accident.

Even if he has, since his discharge, suffered from rheumatism, he does not claim that this was incurred in the Army. He bases his right to a pension entirely upon an injury which he particularly describes, and which the medical examination does not sustain. It will be observed, too, that he continued his military service for two years and four months after the date of his alleged injury. It seems hardly possible that he could have done this if he had been injured in the manner he alleges.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 18, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 3959, entitled "An act granting a pension to Dolly Blazer."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill was apparently a good soldier and was confined for a time in a Confederate prison. He was mustered out of the service in June, 1865, and never applied for a pension.

He died in 1878, leaving as survivors his widow and several children, two of whom are alleged to be still under 16 years of age.

The cause of the soldier's death was yellow fever. There is in my mind no doubt of this fact, and the attempt to establish any other cause of death, if successful, would go far toward fixing a precedent for the rejection of all evidence which stood in the way of a claim for pension.

The bill herewith returned is disapproved for the reason that the death of the soldier had no relation to his military service, and I do not think there should be a discrimination in favor of this applicant and against many thousands of widows fully as well entitled.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 18, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5522, entitled "An act for the relief of Elijah Martin."

By this bill it is proposed to increase the pension now paid to the beneficiary therein named, who was a soldier in the War of 1812, from $8 to $20 per month.

Prior to May 22, 1888, an application was made for reimbursement of the expenses attending the last sickness and burial of this pensioner, and on the day mentioned such application was transmitted to the proper auditing officer for adjustment.

I have no other information of the death of this soldier, but as his age is stated in the report of the House committee to be 87 years, and as there can hardly be a mistake as to the identity of the person named in the application mentioned, I am satisfied that the beneficiary has died since the introduction of the bill for his relief.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 488, entitled "An act granting a pension to Elizabeth Burr."

It is proposed by this bill to grant a pension to the beneficiary therein named as the widow of William Burr, who enlisted for one hundred days in 1864 and was discharged on the 3d day of September in that year.

He is reported as present on all roll calls during his service. He died April 7, 1867, of dropsy, never having made any application for a pension.

His widow filed an application for pension in 1880, thirteen years after the soldier's death, alleging that the disease of which he died, claimed to be dropsy, was contracted in the service.

The claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the dropsy causing his death was not due to his military service, but that he was subject to the same before his enlistment.

I am perfectly satisfied that the rejection upon the ground claimed was correct.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 19, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1957, entitled "An act granting a pension to Virtue Smith."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of David M. Smith (incorrectly named David W. Smith in the bill), who served as a bugler in a Minnesota regiment from August 22, 1862, to September 28, 1862, in a campaign against the Sioux Indians.

He received a gunshot wound in the right elbow, for which in 1867 he was granted a pension of $6 a month, which was very soon thereafter increased to $8, and in August, 1875, said pension was further increased to $10 a month, which he received to the date of his death.

He died in the city of Washington on the 22d day of January, 1880.

He obtained a position in the Second Auditor's Office of the Treasury Department in 1864, and worked steadily there until about six months before his death.

Medical examinations had from time to time up to 1877 seem to have found him in excellent physical condition except the wound in his right elbow, which caused stiffness, and an injury to his left forearm not received in the Army.

In 1879 he was examined by a physician of this city who stands among the best in the profession, and found in the last stages of consumption, and this physician declares he died from that cause. A female physician certified that the cause of death was "wounds in the Army."

The pensioner was 64 years old at the time of his death.

I am perfectly satisfied from the medical testimony and from other facts connected with this case that the death of the husband of the beneficiary was in no manner related to his military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 3016, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary F. Harkins."

The husband of this beneficiary was discharged from the military service in 1865, and was pensioned for a gunshot wound in the right foot at the rate of $6 per month.

He died in 1882, seventeen years after his discharge, "from rupture of the heart, caused by the bursting and parting of the fibers of the right ventricle."

The claim is now made that the death was the result of the wound in the foot.

An application to the Pension Bureau was rejected on the ground that the death cause was not the result of the wound.

I am satisfied that this was a just conclusion.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 600, entitled "An act increasing the pension of Mary Minor Hoxey."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill was, while on military duty, wounded in the left hand and afterwards in the thigh. He was pensioned in 1871 on account of these wounds, and in 1879 was allowed arrearages from time of his discharge. He died in December, 1881, of consumption, being at that time in the receipt of a pension at the rate of $17 per month.

In 1884 his widow was allowed a pension at the same rate, with $2 a month each for two minor children. The children have now attained the age of 16 years, but the widow still receives the pension awarded to her, which is the same as that allowed to all widows of her class.

I discover no reason of any substance why this pension should be increased, and if it should be done it would only be a manifestation of unjust favoritism.

I can not forget the thousands of poor widows with claims superior to this beneficiary, but with no interested friends to push their claims for increase of pension, who would be discriminated against if this proposed bill becomes a law.

It seems to me that there is a chance to do injustice by unfair caprice in fixing the rates of pension, as well as by refusing them altogether when they should be granted.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8281, entitled "An act for the relief of Lieutenant James G.W. Hardy."

It is proposed by this bill to award a pension to the beneficiary above named.

In the month of January, 1864, he was on recruiting service in the State of Indiana. On the 15th day of that month he was traveling between Indianapolis and Lafayette in a railroad car, and he alleges that he raised a window of the car to obtain air, and placed his arm on the window sill, when it was struck by something from the outside and one of the bones of his arm broken.

In February, 1865, he resigned on account of disability caused by the accident above mentioned, the medical certificate then stating that he had a fracture of the right humerus of ten months' standing which had not been properly adjusted.

He made an application for a pension to the Pension Bureau, which was rejected.

Although it is stated in a general way that he was traveling on business connected with his recruiting service at the time of his injury, he has given no information as to the precise purpose of his journey; and it is conceded that he was guilty of such negligence that he had no right of action against the railroad company.

It also appears by the medical certificate upon which his resignation was permitted that the fracture, not necessarily serious, was never properly treated. It seems, too, that he remained in the service ten months after the injury.

I am unable to discover why a pension should be granted in this case, unless the Government is to be held as an insurer of the safety of every person in the military service in all circumstances and at all times and places.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8174, entitled "An act granting a pension to Ellen Sexton."

The husband of the beneficiary served in the Union Volunteer Army from October, 1862, to June, 1864, having been during the last seven months of his service in the Veteran Reserve Corps. He was discharged for a disability which, to say the least of it, certainly had no relation to his military service, unless the Government is to be held responsible for injury arising from vicious indulgence.

He died in the city of Cork, Ireland, May 29, 1875, of consumption, certified by the health authorities there to have been of seven years' duration.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 22, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 2215, entitled "An act granting a pension to Charles Glamann."

This beneficiary served in an Illinois regiment from September, 1864, to July, 1865, and his record shows no injury or sickness except an attack of remittent fever.

He filed a claim for pension in 1880, alleging that he was struck accidentally with a half brick by a comrade and injured in his left arm.

There is no doubt that whatever disability he thus incurred was the result of a personal altercation between himself and the man who threw the brick.

The extent to which the power to grant pensions by special act has been made to cover all sorts of claims is illustrated by the fact that, in the light of many pensions that have been allowed, this case, though presenting an absurd claim, does not appear to be much out of the way. The effect of precedent as an inducement to increase and expand claims and causes for pensions is also shown by the allegation in the report of the House committee, as follows:

Your committee and Congress have, however, frequently relaxed the rule, and granted pension for injuries and disabilities incurred in such circumstances.

I believe that if the veterans of the war knew all that was going on in the way of granting pensions by private bills they would be more disgusted than any class of our citizens.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 26, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 845, entitled "An act granting a pension to the widow of John A. Turley."

The husband of this beneficiary belonged to a Kentucky regiment of volunteers, and in 1863, having been in camp and on leave of absence, he and others of the regiment embarked on a steamboat, in charge of a lieutenant, to be taken to Louisville, whither they had been ordered.

While on the steamboat an altercation arose between two of the soldiers, and the deceased interfered to prevent, as is alleged, an affray. By so doing he was pushed or struck by one of the parties quarreling and fell upon the deck of the boat, striking his head against a plank, thus receiving a fatal injury.

It is quite clear to me that the death of this soldier was not the result of his military service. His presence on the boat was in the line of duty, but he had no charge of the rest of the men and was in no degree responsible for them, and whether he should be in any way implicated in the dispute which occurred was a matter entirely within his own control and determined by his own volition. If he had refrained from interference, he would have saved himself and performed to the utmost his military duty.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 432, entitled "An act for the relief of Joel B. Morton."

Calvin Morton, the son of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted in the volunteer infantry in 1861, and after his discharge again enlisted in the United States cavalry, from which he was discharged in 1867.

It is alleged by his father that he was killed in the battle with the Indians at Little Big Horn, called the "Custer massacre," June 25, 1876.

His name does not appear in any record of the soldiers engaged in that battle. The casualty records of the affair are reported as very complete, but they contain no mention of any soldier of that name.

His father claims in his application before the Pension Bureau to have had a letter from his son in the fall of 1875, dated at some place in the Black Hills, stating that he was a lieutenant in the army under General Custer, but that the letter was lost. He also alleges that he read an account of the massacre in a newspaper, the name of which he has forgotten, and that his son was there mentioned as among the slain.

The report of the House committee states that the only evidence of the death of this soldier is found in a letter of Anderson G. Shaw, who writes that he was present on the field of the battle mentioned when the killed were buried, and that one of the burial party called a corpse found there Morton's. It is further claimed that the description of this body agreed with that given by the father of his son.

Considering the complete list of the casualties attending this battle now in the War Department, it must be conceded that the death of the son of the beneficiary is far from being satisfactorily established.

The claim of the father is still pending in the Pension Bureau, and perhaps with further effort more information on the subject can be obtained.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 43, entitled "An act granting a pension to Polly H. Smith."

John H. Smith, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted in the Regular Army in 1854 and served until the year 1870.

In 1868 a fistula developed, which was probably the result of quite continuous riding in the saddle. In 1870 he was placed upon the retired list as first lieutenant on account of the incapacity arising from such fistula.

In September, 1885, fifteen years after his retirement, he died suddenly at Portland, Oreg., of heart disease, while attempting to raise a trunk to his shoulder.

I can not see how the cause of death can be connected with his service or with the incapacity for which he was placed upon the retired list.

The application made by the widow for a pension is still pending before the Pension Bureau, and I understand that she or her friends prefer taking the chance of favorable consideration there to the approval of this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1547, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Ann Dougherty."

A large share of the report of the Senate committee to which this bill was referred, and which report is adopted by the committee of the House, as is usual in such cases, consists of a petition signed by Mary Ann Dougherty, addressed to the Congress, in which she states that she resides in Washington, having removed here with her husband in 1863 from New Jersey; that shortly after their arrival in this city her husband, Daniel Dougherty, returned to New Jersey and enlisted in the Thirty-fourth Regiment New Jersey Volunteers; that she obtained employment in the United States arsenal making cartridges, and that while so engaged she was injured by an explosion.

She also states that she had a young son killed by machinery in the navy-yard, and that at the grand review of the Army after the close of the war another son, 6 years old, was stolen by an officer of the Army and has not been heard of since. She further says that her husband left his home in 1865 and has not been heard of since, and that she believes he deserted her on account of her infirmities.

It is alleged in the report that she received a pension as the widow of Daniel Dougherty until it was discovered that he was alive, when her name was dropped from the rolls.

The petition of this woman is indorsed by the Admiral and several other officers of the Navy and a distinguished clergyman of Washington, certifying that they know Mrs. Dougherty and believe the facts stated to be true.

There is no pretense made now that this beneficiary is a widow, though she at one time claimed to be, and was allowed a pension on that allegation. Her present claim rests entirely upon injuries received by her when she was concededly not employed in the military service. If the pension now proposed is allowed her, it will be a mere act of charity.

Her husband, Daniel Dougherty, is now living in Philadelphia, and is a pensioner in his own right for disability alleged to have been incurred while serving in the Thirty-fourth New Jersey Volunteers. Of this fact this beneficiary has been repeatedly informed; and yet she states in her petition that her husband deserted her in 1865 and has not been heard of since.

It is alleged in the Pension Bureau that in 1878 she succeeded in securing a pension as the widow of Daniel Dougherty through fraudulent testimony and much false swearing on her part.

The police records of the precinct in which she has lived for years show that she is a woman of very bad character, and that she has been under arrest nine times for drunkenness, larceny, creating disturbance, and misdemeanors of that sort.

It happens that this claimant, by reason of her residence here, has been easily traced and her character and untruthfulness discovered. But there is much reason to fear that this case will find its parallel, in many that have reached a successful conclusion.

I can not spell out any principle upon which the bounty of the Government is bestowed through the instrumentality of the flood of private pension bills that reach me. The theory seems to have been adopted that no man who served in the Army can be the subject of death or impaired health except they are chargeable to his service. Medical theories are set at naught and the most startling relation is claimed between alleged incidents of military service and disability or death. Fatal apoplexy is admitted as the result of quite insignificant wounds, heart disease is attributed to chronic diarrhea, consumption to hernia, and suicide is traced to army service in a wonderfully devious and curious way.

Adjudications of the Pension Bureau are overruled in the most peremptory fashion by these special acts of Congress, since nearly all the beneficiaries named in these bills have unsuccessfully applied to that Bureau for relief.

This course of special legislation operates very unfairly.

Those with certain influence or friends to push their claims procure pensions, and those who have neither friends nor influence must be content with their fate under general laws. It operates unfairly by increasing in numerous instances the pensions of those already on the rolls, while many other more deserving cases, from the lack of fortunate advocacy, are obliged to be content with the sum provided by general laws.

The apprehension may well be entertained that the freedom with which these private pension bills are passed furnishes an inducement to fraud and imposition, while it certainly teaches the vicious lesson to our people that the Treasury of the National Government invites the approach of private need.

None of us should be in the least wanting in regard for the veteran soldier, and I will yield to no man in a desire to see those who defended the Government when it needed defenders liberally treated. Unfriendliness to our veterans is a charge easily and sometimes dishonestly made.

I insist that the true soldier is a good citizen, and that he will be satisfied with generous, fair, and equal consideration for those who are worthily entitled to help.

I have considered the pension list of the Republic a roll of honor, bearing names inscribed by national gratitude, and not by improvident and indiscriminate almsgiving.

I have conceived the prevention of the complete discredit which must ensue from the unreasonable, unfair, and reckless granting of pensions by special acts to be the best service I can render our veterans.

In the discharge of what has seemed to me my duty as related to legislation, and in the interest of all the veterans of the Union Army, I have attempted to stem the tide of improvident pension enactments, though I confess to a full share of responsibility for some of these laws that should not have been passed.

I am far from denying that there are cases of merit which can not be reached except by special enactment, but I do not believe there is a member of either House of Congress who will not admit that this kind of legislation has been carried too far.

I have now before me more than 100 special pension bills, which can hardly be examined within the time allowed for that purpose.

My aim has been at all times, in dealing with bills of this character, to give the applicant for a pension the benefit of any doubt that might arise, and which balanced the propriety of granting a pension if there seemed any just foundation for the application; but when it seemed entirely outside of every rule in its nature or the proof supporting it, I have supposed I only did my duty in interposing an objection.

It seems to me that it would be well if our general pension laws should be revised with a view of meeting every meritorious case that can arise. Our experience and knowledge of any existing deficiencies ought to make the enactment of a complete pension code possible.

In the absence of such a revision, and if pensions are to be granted upon equitable grounds and without regard to general laws, the present methods would be greatly improved by the establishment of some tribunal to examine the facts in every case and determine upon the merits of the application.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8291, entitled "An act granting a pension to Julia Welch."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill served in the Army from December, 1863, to May, 1866.

He never filed an application for pension, and died February 24, 1880, of inflammation of the lungs.

The claim filed by his widow for pension alleged that her husband suffered from chronic diarrhea and disease of the heart and lungs as results of his army service.

The claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that they soldier died from an acute disease which bore no relation to any complaint contracted in the Army.

I think the action of the Bureau was correct.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 5, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7907, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Ann Lang."

The husband of this beneficiary was wounded in the nose on the 1st day of June, 1864, and was mustered out of the service July 8, 1865. He was pensioned on account of this wound and died February 21, 1881. Prior to his death he had executed a declaration claiming pension also for rheumatism, but the application was not filed before he died.

The cause of his death was dropsy. The widow filed her claim for pension in 1884, which was rejected on the ground that the soldier's fatal disease was not the result of his military service.

A physician of good repute, who appears to have attended him more than any other physician for a number of years prior to his death, gives an account of rheumatic ailments and other troubles, and states that about a year and a half before he died he had a liver trouble which resulted in dropsy, which caused his death. He adds that the soldier was a man who drank beer, and at times to excess, and that he drank harder toward the last of his life. He further states that he is unable to connect the liver trouble with his rheumatism, and could not give any other reason for it except his long use of beer and liquor, and if that was not the cause it greatly aggravated it; that he had cautioned him about drinking, and at times he heeded the advice.

An appeal was taken from the action rejecting the claim and the case was submitted to the medical referee of the Pension Bureau, who decided upon all the testimony that the soldier's fatal disease (dropsy) was due to disease of the liver, which was not a sequence of rheumatism and was the result of excessive use of alcoholic stimulants.

It will be observed that no claim is made that death in any way resulted from the wound for which a pension had been allowed, and that even if rheumatism was connected with the death its incurrence in the Army had never been established.

I am satisfied that this case was properly disposed of by the Pension Bureau.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9184, entitled "An act granting a pension to William M. Campbell, jr."

This beneficiary was not enrolled in the service of the United States until August 5, 1862. Previous to that time he had been a member of the same regiment in which he was so enrolled, and was in the service of the State of Kentucky.

He alleges that in the month of February, 1862, he was vaccinated with impure virus and in the same month contracted mumps. He claims that as a result of these troubles he has been afflicted with ulcers and other serious consequences.

It is perfectly clear that at the time these disabilities were incurred, if they were incurred, the claimant was not in the military service of the United States.

The records show that he deserted September 16, 1862, a little more than a month after he was mustered into the United States service; that he was arrested April 25, 1864, one year and seven months after his desertion; that he was restored to duty by general court-martial with loss of pay and allowances during absence (the time lost by desertion to be made good), and that he was mustered out July 16, 1865.

This enactment seems neither to have law nor meritorious equity to support it.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8807, entitled "An act granting a pension to Harriet E. Cooper."

The husband of this beneficiary served as a major in an Illinois regiment from September 3, 1862, to April 1, 1863, when his resignation was accepted, it having been tendered on account of business affairs.

He was pensioned for rheumatism from April, 1863, and died October 3, 1883.

It is admitted on all hands that Major Cooper drank a good deal, but the committee allege that they can not arrive at the conclusion that death was attributable to that cause.

There is some medical testimony tending to show that death was caused from rheumatism, but one physician gives it as his opinion that death resulted from rheumatism and chronic alcoholism.

The physician who last attended the soldier testifies that the cause of death was chronic alcoholism. This should be the most reliable of all the medical testimony, and taken in connection with the conceded intemperate habits of the deceased and the fact, that the brain was involved, it satisfies me that the rejection of the widow's claim by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the cause of death was mainly intemperance was correct.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1888.

To the House of Representatives;

I return without approval House bill No. 6431, entitled "An act for the relief of Van Buren Brown."

The beneficiary named in this bill was discharged from the Army September 11, 1865.

He filed an application for pension in the Pension Bureau May 19, 1883, alleging chronic diarrhea, rheumatism, spinal disease the result of an injury, and deafness.

His claim was very thoroughly examined and reopened and examined again after rejection, and rejected a second time.

The case is full of uncertainty and contradiction. Without discussing these features, I am entirely satisfied that a pension should not be allowed, for the reason, among others, that three careful medical examinations made in 1883, 1884, and 1886 failed to disclose any pensionable disability.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 367, entitled "An act granting a pension to Nathaniel D. Chase."

This beneficiary enlisted September 3, 1863. The records show that he was admitted to a hospital March 3, 1864, with a disease of a discreditable nature and by no means connected with the military service, and that he was discharged from the Army May 20, 1864, upon a certificate of paralysis of left arm, which came on suddenly February 20, 1864, and that the cause was unknown, but believed not to be incident to the service.

He filed an application for a pension in June, 1864, alleging paralysis of the left arm from causes unknown to him.

This claim was not prosecuted at that time, and the claimant reenlisted in January, 1865, and served until September 5, 1865, without any evidence of disability appearing upon the records.

He renewed his claim in 1870, stating that he was first taken with a pain in his left arm about March 1, 1864, and that it became partially paralyzed.

It will be observed that thus far in his application he gives no explanation of the incurrence of his disability which leads to the belief that it was related to his service.

In a letter dated May 31, 1864, his captain states that he can but think that the disability of the claimant was the result of his folly and indiscretion, and that he feels it his duty to decline giving him a certificate.

In 1880 the claimant stated the cause of his disability was an injury to his arm while expelling a soldier from a railroad train at Augusta, Me., he acting as provost guard at the time. Upon this allegation the case was reopened at the Pension Bureau.

In reply to a letter from the Bureau the captain of claimant's company stated that he had no knowledge of such an injury. The same officer, in a letter dated February 25, 1887, expresses the belief that the disability of the applicant, if any existed, was caused by the injudicious use of mercurial medicine self-administered for venereal disease contracted at Augusta, Me., in January, 1864, and that such was the rumor among his comrades when he was sent to the hospital.

I can not believe that an injury was sustained such as was specified by the applicant in 1880 and that nothing was said of it either in the claim made in 1864 or in 1870. In the absence of this or some other definite cause consistent with an honest claim we are left in the face of some contrary evidence to guess that his arm was injured in the service.

The application of this beneficiary is still pending in the Pension Bureau awaiting further information.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 16, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9520, entitled "An act for the relief of Mary Fitzmorris."

It is proposed by this bill to pension the beneficiary named therein, as the widow of Edmund Fitzmorris, under the provisions and limitations of the general pension laws. The name of the beneficiary is already upon the pension roll, and she is now entitled to receive precisely the sum as a pensioner which is allowed her under this bill.

As her application to the Pension Bureau was quite lately favorably acted upon, it is supposed this special bill for her relief was passed by the Congress in ignorance of that fact.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 16, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 121, entitled "An act granting a pension to Tobias Baney."

This soldier was enrolled on the 28th day of February, 1865, and was discharged on the 31st day of January, 1866.

He filed an application for a pension in 1878, which was supplemented by statements from time to time, not always in exact agreement, but alleging uniformly that during his service, fixing the date at one time as in January, 1866, and at another time as in November, 1865, he was attacked in the city of Washington by palpitation of the heart, which increased after his discharge and resulted in disability. After a careful special examination by the Pension Bureau the claim was rejected upon the ground that origin of disability in the service and line of duty had not been shown, nor that the same existed for some time after discharge.

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted shortly before the surrender of the Confederate forces, and it appears did little, if anything, more than garrison duty. He does not seem to have suffered any of the exposures usually incident to a soldier's service, and, as I understand his claim, does not himself give any instance of exposure or exertion from which his difficulty arose.

There is no record of any sickness or disability during the time he was in the Army nor any satisfactory proof that he was suffering with any ailment at the time of his discharge. His own statement, which some of the proof taken tends to show is not entirely reliable, goes no further than to claim that during his term of service his difficulty began.

On appeal from the rejection of the beneficiary's claim the case was thoroughly examined at the Interior Department and the rejection affirmed.

I am entirely satisfied that the case was properly determined.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 16, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 470, entitled "An act granting a pension to Amanda F. Deck."

The husband of this beneficiary was pensioned for a gunshot wound in his right shoulder which he received in 1864 in a battle with Indians.

The report of the committee to which the bill was referred states nothing concerning the death of the soldier and gives no information as to the date or cause of the same, and the recommendation that a pension should be given the widow is based upon the service and injury of the soldier and the circumstances of the beneficiary.

No claim was filed in the Pension Bureau on behalf of the widow. This perhaps is accounted for by the fact that information is lodged in that Bureau to the effect that the deceased soldier died on the 21st day of September, 1883, "from a pistol ball fired by Luther Cultor."

If he was killed in a personal encounter, as the report of his death would seem to indicate, I am unable to see how his death can be in any way attributed to his military service or his widow be justly pensioned therefor.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 17, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1613, entitled "An act granting an increase of pension to John F. Ballier."

This pensioner is now receiving the full amount of pension allowed for total disability to ex-soldiers of his rank.

Inasmuch as the bill herewith returned limits any increase to the rate fixed by law for cases of total disability, it appears to accomplish nothing of benefit to the beneficiary therein named.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 17, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5913, entitled "An act granting a pension to Thomas Shannon."

This beneficiary enlisted on the 31st day of May, 1870, in the Tenth Regiment of United States Infantry.

On the 4th day of July, 1872, he was upon leave at the city of Rio Grande, in the State of Texas. Some of the citizens were celebrating the day, and one of them had a can of powder in his hand which, according to the report of the accident, "was about to explode." The soldier endeavored to knock the can from the hand of the person who held it, when the powder exploded, severely injuring the soldier and necessitating the amputation of his right forearm.

Though this was a most unfortunate accident, it is quite plain that it had no connection with the military service.

To grant a pension in such a case would establish a precedent in the appropriation of money from the public Treasury which I can hardly think we should be justified in following.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 17, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9174, entitled "An act granting a pension to Woodford M. Houchin."

The beneficiary named in this bill was enrolled September 18, 1861 and discharged December 17, 1864.

He filed a claim for pension in the Pension Bureau December 22, 1876, alleging that he had a sore or ulcer on his left leg "which existed in a small way prior to enlistment," but was aggravated and enlarged by the exposures of the service.

This claim was rejected in 1877 on the ground that the disability existed prior to enlistment.

In September, 1879, he filed another application for pension, alleging a disability arising from an affection of his right eye caused by an attack of measles in September, 1861, and also again alleging ulcerated varicose veins of his left leg.

In October, 1886, the rejection of the claim for ulcerated varicose veins was adhered to and the added claim for disease of the eyes was rejected on the ground that it was not incurred in the service and line of duty.

On appeal from the action of the Pension Bureau to the Secretary of the Interior the rejection of the claim was sustained.

The claimant stated in support of his application that about three months before he enlisted a little yellow blister appeared on his left leg, which made a small sore, which existed when he enlisted; that while he was in Central America with General Walker he received a wound in the temple from a musket ball, and that he had also before enlistment been sick with the dropsy.

The case was very thoroughly examined by officers of the Pension Bureau, and a great mass of testimony was taken from numerous witnesses. Three brothers of the claimant testified to the existence of all the disabilities before his enlistment, and two of them stated facts which go far toward accounting for such disabilities in a way very discreditable to the claimant. Many other witnesses, with good opportunities of knowledge on the subject, testified to the same effect.

While testimony of a different character was also given, tending to establish the theory that the disabilities alleged were at least to some extent attributable to military service, the overwhelming weight of proof seems to establish that whatever disabilities exist are the result of disease contracted by vicious habits, and that such disabilities had their origin prior to enlistment.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 17, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8078, entitled "An act granting a pension to Theresa Herbst, widow of John Herbst, late private Company G, One hundred and fortieth Regiment of New York Volunteers."

John Herbst, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted August 26, 1862. He was wounded in the head at the battle of Gettysburg, July 2, 1863. He recovered from this wound, and on the 19th day of August, 1864, was captured by the enemy.

After his capture he joined the Confederate forces, and in 1865 was captured by General Stoneman while in arms against the United States Government. He was imprisoned and voluntarily made known the fact that he formerly belonged to the Union Army. Upon taking the oath of allegiance and explaining that he deserted to the enemy to escape the hardship and starvation of prison life, he was released and mustered out of the service on the 11th day of October, 1865.

He was regularly borne on the Confederate muster rolls for probably nine or ten months. No record is furnished of the number of battles in which he fought against the soldiers of the Union, and we shall never know the death and the wounds which he inflicted upon his former comrades in arms.

He never applied for a pension, though it is claimed now that at the time of his discharge he was suffering from rheumatism and dropsy, and that he died in 1868 of heart disease. If such disabilities were incurred in military service, they were quite likely the result of exposure in the Confederate army; but it is not improbable that this soldier never asked a pension because he considered that the generosity of his Government had been sufficiently taxed when the full forfeit of his desertion was not exacted.

The greatest possible sympathy and consideration are due to those who bravely fought, and being captured as bravely languished in rebel prisons.

But I will take no part in putting a name upon our pension roll which represents a Union soldier found fighting against the cause he swore he would uphold, nor should it be for a moment admitted that such desertion and treachery are excused when it avoids the rigors of honorable capture and confinement.

It would have been a sad condition of affairs if every captured Union soldier had deemed himself justified in fighting against his Government rather than to undergo the privations of capture.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 26, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1447, entitled "An act granting a pension to Bridget Foley."

Joseph F. Foley, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted on the 22d day of August, 1862, and was discharged February 13, 1863, for disability which was certified to arise from chronic rheumatism contracted prior to enlistment.

He appears to have been sick with rheumatism a large part of the time he was in the service, and because of that fact never reached a point nearer the front than the city of Washington.

He died May 13, 1873, of consumption.

His widow filed in 1884 a declaration executed by the deceased shortly before his death, in which he alleged that he was first attacked with rheumatism at Capitol Hill, in the District of Columbia, in October, 1862. The soldier never applied for a pension.

It is strenuously disputed that he had this complaint before enlistment. However this may be, it is certain that he died of consumption, and I can find no proof that this disease was contracted in the service or had any relation thereto.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 26, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2644, entitled "An act granting the right of way to the Fort Smith, Paris and Dardanelle Railway Company to construct and operate a railroad, telegraph, and telephone line from Fort Smith, Ark., through the Indian Territory, to or near Baxter Springs, in the State of Kansas."

This bill grants a right of way 100 feet in width, with the use of adjoining lands for stations and other purposes, through the eastern part of that portion of the Indian Territory occupied by the Cherokee Indians under a treaty with the United States.

By the terms of the treaty concluded between the Government and the Cherokee Nation in 1866 these Indians expressly granted a right of way through their lands "to any company or corporation which shall be duly authorized by Congress to construct a railroad from any point north to any point south, and from any point east to any point west of, and which may pass through, the Cherokee Nation."

There are excellent reasons why this clause in the treaty should be construed as limiting the railroads which should run through these lands, at least without further permission of the Indians, to only one from north to south and one other from east to west.

It is evident, however, that the Congress has either not so interpreted this provision of the treaty or has determined that it should be disregarded, for there have been six or seven railroads constructed or authorized through these lands by the permission of the Government.

It has become very much the custom to grant these rights of way through Indian lands and reservations merely for the asking. They have been duplicated to such an extent that rival roads are found struggling for the advantage of a prior Congressional grant or for the possession of a contested route through these reservations.

I believe these indiscriminate grants to railroads permitting them to cross the lands occupied by the Indians, if not in absolute violation of their treaty rights, are dangerous to the success of our Indian management.

While maintaining their tribal condition they should not be easily subjected to the disturbance and the irritation of such encroachments. When they have advanced sufficiently for the allotment of their lands in severalty, they should be permitted, as a general rule, to enjoy and cultivate all the land set apart to them, and not discouraged by the forced surrender of a part of it for railroad purposes. In the solution of the problem of their civilization by allotments of land they need the land itself, and not compensation for its appropriation by others. They can not be expected to understand this process in any other way than an indication that their tenure is uncertain and the assurance that they shall hold their allotted land for cultivation a delusion.

It is not necessary in the treatment of this subject to insist that in no case should a railroad be permitted to cross Indian reservations. There may be valid public reasons why in some cases this should be allowed. Important lines of through travel should not be always obstructed or defeated by a refusal of such permission. But I think there should be shown in every case a justification in the public interest or in furtherance of general growth and progress, or at least in a plain local necessity or convenience, before such grants are made.

It seems to me also that the consent of the Indians for the passage of railroads through their land should, as a general rule, be required; that the means of determining the compensation to be made for land taken should be just and definite and easy of application; that the route of the proposed road should be as particularly described as is possible; that a reasonable time should be fixed for the construction of the road, and in default of such construction that the grant should be declared null and void without legislation or judicial action, and that in all cases the rights and interests of the Indians should be carefully considered.

The bill under consideration grants to the railroad company therein named the right to construct its road over substantially the same route described in a law already passed permitting the Kansas City, Fort Scott and Gulf Railway Company to build its road through this reservation. No necessity or good reason is apparent why these two roads should be built upon the same line.

The bill makes no provision for gaining the consent of the Indians occupying these lands. The Cherokee Nation of Indians have their local laws and legislation, and are quite competent to pass upon this question. They have heretofore shown their interest in such subjects, I am informed, by protesting against some of the grants which have been made for the construction of railroads through their lands.

The bill provides for the taking of lands held by individual occupants and the manner of fixing the compensation therefor; but it is declared that when any portion of the land taken by the company shall cease to be used for the purposes for which it is taken the same shall revert to the nation or tribe from which the same shall have been taken. There is no provision that in any case land taken from individual occupants shall revert to them.

In the fifth section of the bill it is provided that the railroad company shall pay to the Secretary of the Interior, for the benefit of the particular nation or tribe through whose lands its line may be located, in addition to other compensation, the sum of $50.

It was, of course, intended to declare that this sum should be paid for every mile of road built through Indian lands, but it is not so expressed. I am by no means certain that the context will aid this omission, which is quite palpable, when that part of the bill is compared with others of the same character. In any event, this is a provision which should be free from all doubt.

There is no time limited in the bill within which the proposed road through the reservation shall be completed, and consequently no forfeiture fixed for noncompletion. The nearest approach to it is found in a clause providing that the company shall build at least 50 miles of its road in the Indian Territory within three years from the passage of the act, or the rights granted shall be forfeited as to that portion not built. The length of the proposed route through the Cherokee lands appears to be considerably over 100 miles, and it is plain that there is no sufficient guaranty in the bill that the entire road will be built within any particular time. There is no forfeiture and no limitation for the completion of the road if 50 miles is built within three years, and there may be some doubt how far the forfeiture would extend in case of a failure to finish the 50 miles within the time specified.

I believe these grants to railroads should be sparingly made; that when made they should present better reasons for their necessity and usefulness than are apparent in this case, and that they should be guarded and limited by provisions which are not found in the bill herewith returned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 3, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 3008, entitled "An act for the relief of P.A. Leatherbury."

This bill provides that the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the person above named the sum of $601.27, being the amount paid by him to Lucy Roberts on two pension checks which were afterwards recalled and canceled.

The committee of the House to whom this bill was referred report that--

The Department discovered, after the issuing of the checks, that the claim for pension was fraudulent, but not until after the purchase, in the ordinary course of business, by Mr. Leatherbury paying $601.27 therefor and giving his due bill for the balance, which balance he refused to pay after ascertaining that the check was repudiated by the Government.

Lucy Roberts, a colored woman, filed a claim for pension in 1868, alleging that she was the widow of Nelson Roberts, who died in the military service in 1865.

Her claim was allowed in 1876, and two checks, numbered 6863 and 6864, aggregating $1,301.27, were issued on account of said pension. Before payment of the checks information was received which caused an investigation by the Pension Bureau as to the honesty of the claim for pension. This investigation established its utterly fraudulent character, and thereupon the checks were canceled and the woman's name was dropped from the pension rolls.

Certain important facts are reported to me from the Pension Bureau as having been developed upon the investigation.

It appears that one Thomas had undertaken to act for the claimant in procuring her pension under an agreement that he should have $300 if successful. Mr. Leatherbury was a notary, postmaster, and claim agent, and acted as notary and general assistant to Thomas and the claimant, who was employed at Leatherbury's house. In the month of July, 1876, the same month the claim for pension was allowed, the woman Roberts was indicted for larceny, the complaining witness being Mr. Leatherbury. Shortly after the issue of the checks the woman disappeared, and it is reported that certain indications suggested that both Leatherbury and Thomas were not entirely ignorant of her whereabouts nor completely disconnected with her disappearance. The checks were obtained from Thomas by Leatherbury, he paying, as he alleges, to Thomas the fee of $300 which had been agreed upon. The checks remained in Leatherbury's possession until they were delivered by him to the special agent of the Pension Bureau upon the investigation. He claimed in his deposition that he considered that what money he had let the woman have and the goods she had obtained at his store while she worked for him, and the $300 which he had advanced to Thomas, her agent, justified him in holding her indebted to him in the sum of $600, and that he held the checks as security for the same, admitting that there was still $700 in her favor, written acknowledgment of which he had placed in the hands of his wife. He further stated that rather than gain notoriety in the matter he would return the checks to the special agent, but he trusted that the Government would pay him the $600 which he had sunk in the transaction.

The woman testified that she did take some goods from Leatherbury at his store at his suggestion, after the arrival of the checks and before she left, about August 16, 1876, which purchases amounted to no more than $100, and that he also advanced her $100; that he made no further payment and wrote to her that he had to give up the checks, and that she never indorsed the checks nor authorized anyone to do so.

Both Leatherbury and Thomas disclaimed any knowledge of the fraudulent character of the claim; but the fraudulent claimant lived in the house of one of them and he was assisting in procuring her claim to be allowed, while the other made an unlawful agreement for a liberal compensation for his services if the claim succeeded. The woman was indicted at the instance of Leatherbury at about the time of the issuance of the checks and fled, but if she is to be believed Leatherbury wrote to her during her absence. After her disappearance he ventures to pay to Thomas his illegal fee and takes possession of the checks. He considers that she owes him $600, and the bill under consideration gives him $601.27, the exact amount of the checks less $700.

Someone with more intelligence than this ignorant colored woman concocted the scheme to gain this fraudulent pension; and the circumstances point so suspiciously toward Thomas and Leatherbury, the claim of the latter upon the Government is infected with so much illegality, and the amount of his advances is arrived at so loosely that in my opinion he should not at this late day be relieved.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 7, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1870, entitled "An act granting the use of certain lands in Pierce County, Washington Territory, to the city of Tacoma, for the purpose of a public park."

It is proposed by this bill to permit the appropriation for a public park of a certain military reservation containing 635 acres, which was set apart for military and defensive purposes the 22d day of September, 1866.

The establishment of this reservation was strongly recommended by high military authority, and its preservation and maintenance have since that time been also urged by the same authority.

At this time, when the subject of national defense is much discussed, I can not account for the apparent willingness to grant, or permit to be used for other purposes, Government lands reserved for military uses.

I judge from an expression in the letter of the Chief of Engineers, made a part of the report of the committee of the House to which this bill was referred, that its original purpose was to absolutely transfer this reservation to the city of Tacoma. The Chief of Engineers suggested an amendment to the bill providing that the mere permission to use this land for a park should be granted, "and that this permission be given with the full understanding that the United States intends to occupy the lands or any part of them for military or other purposes whenever its proper officials see fit to order the same, and without any claim for compensation or damage on the part of said city of Tacoma."

Instead of adopting the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers the provision of the bill limiting the extent of the use of this land declares--

That the United States reserves to itself the fee and the right forever to resume possession and occupy any portion of said lands for naval or military purposes whenever in the judgment of the President the exigency arises that should require the use and appropriation of the same for the public defense or for such other disposition as Congress may determine, without any claim for compensation to said city for improvements thereon or damages on account thereof.

The expediency of granting any right to the occupancy of this land is, in my opinion, very doubtful. If it is done, it should be in the form of a mere license, revocable at any time, for the purposes used by the officers to which its use and disposition are now subject.

It seems to me that if any use of this land is given to the city of Tacoma it should be with the proviso suggested by the Chief of Engineers, instead of the indefinite and restricted one incorporated in the bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 9, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8761, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Anna Butterfield."

It is proposed by this bill to pension the beneficiary therein named as the "dependent mother of James A.B. Butterfield, late a sergeant in the Second Illinois Cavalry,"

The records show that the son of this beneficiary enlisted in the regiment mentioned in August, 1861, and was mustered out August 13, 1864. No claim is made in any quarter that he incurred the least disability during this service, and there is no dispute in regard to the date of enlistment or discharge, nor does there seem to be any definite claim that he again entered the military service.

The report of the committee states that his mother is advised that after his discharge her son still remained in the service of the Government and was killed by an explosion on board of the steamer Sultana, in April, 1865.

Her claim for pension is now pending in the Pension Bureau awaiting testimony, which seems to be entirely wanting, to support the allegation that at the time of his death the deceased was in the service of the Government in any capacity.

This evidence ought not to be difficult to obtain. Though the mother seems to have saved something, from which she draws a small income, her advanced age and the honorable service of her son would make the allowance of a pension in her case, upon any fair and plausible justification, very gratifying.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 9, 1888.:

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 2140, entitled "An act granting a pension to Eliza Smith."

The husband of this beneficiary was a second lieutenant in an Indiana regiment, and was discharged from the service in April, 1864. It is proposed in the bill herewith returned to pension the beneficiary as the widow of a first lieutenant.

The deceased was pensioned for a gunshot wound in his left arm under the general law, and his pension was increased by a special act in 1883.

He died away from home at a hotel in Union City, Ind., on the 18th day of December, 1884, and it was determined at the time, and is still claimed, that his death was the result of an overdose of morphine self-administered.

It is represented that at times the wound of the deceased soldier was very painful and that he was in the habit of taking large doses of morphine to alleviate his suffering.

Two days before his death he was at the house of one Moore, in Union City; he complained of pain, and asked for a dose of morphine, but it does not appear that he obtained it.

On the same day he went to a hotel in the same town and remained there until his death. On the second evening after his arrival there he complained of asthma and pain in his arm, and retired about 9 o'clock p.m. In the afternoon of the next day the door of his room was forced open, and he was found prostrate and helpless, though able to talk. Medicine was administered, but he soon died.

His family physician testified that the deceased did not suffer from asthma; that when his wound was suppurating he had difficulty in breathing, and that at such times he was in the habit of taking morphine in large doses, and that at times he was intemperate, especially when suffering from his wound.

It seems to me it would establish a very bad precedent to allow a pension upon the facts developed in this case.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 9, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7510, entitled "An act granting a pension to Stephen A. Seavey."

This beneficiary served in a Maine regiment from November 11, 1861, to August 17, 1862, when he was discharged upon a surgeon's certificate of epilepsia and melancholia. The surgeon further stated in his certificate that the soldier had been unfit for duty for sixty days in consequence of epileptic fits, occurring daily, and requiring the constant attendance of two persons during the past thirty days.

In 1879 he applied for a pension, alleging that he incurred a sunstroke on July 20, 1862. This was within the sixty days during which he was unfit for duty and also within the thirty days during which he required the constant attendance of two persons.

He succeeded in securing a pension, and drew the same until December, 1885, when information was received at the Pension Bureau which caused an examination of the merits of the case.

This examination developed such facts as led the Pension Bureau to the conclusion that the condition of the soldier was then identical with that before enlistment and that his disability existed before he entered the service. His name was accordingly dropped from the rolls.

The object of the bill herewith returned is to restore the pensioner to the rolls.

An examination of the facts satisfies me that the act of the Pension Bureau in dropping this name from the pension rolls was entirely correct and should not be reversed.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 9, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 6307, entitled "An act granting a pension to Sarah A. Corson."

Joshua Corson, the husband of the beneficiary named in this bill, enlisted in August, 1862, for nine months, was wounded by a ball which passed through the lower part of each buttock, and was discharged June 29, 1863. He was pensioned for his wound, and died December 12, 1885.

The cause of death is stated to have been femoral hernia by a physician who attended him shortly before his death. The official record of his death attributes it to a malignant tumor.

The widow filed a claim for pension in 1886, but furnished no evidence showing when or how the hernia originated. No disability of this description is shown by any service record, nor was it ever claimed by the soldier. It is stated in the report of the committee of the House of Representatives to whom this bill was referred that the hernia first made its appearance about four years prior to the soldier's death.

The claim of this beneficiary for pension was rejected by the Pension Bureau upon the ground that there was no possible connection between the soldier's wounds and the hernia from which he died.

I am forced to the conclusion that the case was properly disposed of, and base my disapproval of the bill herewith returned upon the same ground.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 9, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 3521, entitled "An act granting a pension to Manuel Garcia."

From the records it appears that the beneficiary named in this bill enlisted as a substitute August 6, 1864, and was transferred to the Eighth New Jersey Volunteers; that he is reported absent sick, and never joined his regiment, and was discharged from a hospital July 2, 1865.

He filed a claim for pension March 4, 1880, alleging that in October, 1864, at Alexandria, Va., he became lame in both legs, and that subsequently his eyes became inflamed. His hospital record shows that he was treated for pneumonia.

The board of examining surgeons in 1883 found no such evidence of varicose veins, which seems to be the disability claimed, as would justify a rating, and there appears to be no proof of the existence of any disability between the date of discharge and the year 1867.

The application of this beneficiary is still pending in the Pension Bureau awaiting any further proof which may be submitted in its support.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 149, entitled "An act granting a pension to Rachael Barnes."

The husband of this beneficiary served in the Regular Army of the United States from February 24, 1838, to February 24, 1841.

In 1880 he applied for a pension, alleging that he contracted disease of the eyes during the year 1840 while serving in Florida.

Pending the examination of his application, and on the 24th day of March, 1882, he committed suicide by hanging. His widow filed a claim for pension, alleging that he died of insanity, the result of disease of the head and eyes. Her claim was rejected on the ground that his insanity, forty-one years after discharge from the service, had no connection with his military service.

In July, 1886, a special act was passed granting a pension to the widow, which met with Executive disapproval.

At the time the soldier committed suicide he was 68 years old. Upon the facts I hardly think insanity is claimed. At least there does not appear to be the least evidence of it, unless it be the suicide itself. It is claimed, however, and with good reason, that he had become despondent on account of the delay in determining his application for a pension and because he supposed that important evidence to establish his claim which he expected would not be forthcoming. It is very likely that this despondency existed and that it so affected the mind of this old soldier that it led to his suicide. But the fact remains that he took his own life in a deliberate manner, and that the affection of his eyes, which was the disability claimed, was not in a proper sense even the remote cause of his death.

I confess that I have endeavored to relieve myself from again interposing objections to the granting of a pension to this poor and aged widow. But I can not forget that age and poverty do not themselves justify gifts of public money, and it seems to me that the according of pensions is a serious business which ought to be regulated by principle and reason, though these may well be tempered with much liberality.

I can find no principle or plausible pretext in this case which would not lead to granting a pension in any case of alleged disability arising from military service followed by suicide. It would be an unfair discrimination against many who, though in sad plight, have been refused relief in similar circumstances, and would establish an exceedingly troublesome and dangerous precedent.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8574, entitled "An act granting a pension to Sallie T. Ward, widow of the late W.T. Ward."

The husband of this beneficiary served about nine months in the Mexican War. He entered the service as a brigadier-general in 1861, and served through the War of the Rebellion with credit, and was wounded in the left arm on the 15th day of May, 1864.

For this wound he was pensioned according to his rank, and received such pension until his death, at the age of 70 years, which occurred October 12, 1878.

The cause of his death was brain disease, and it seems not to be seriously claimed that it had any relation to his wound.

His widow is now in receipt of the pension provided for those of her class by the Mexican pension law.

If this bill becomes a law, I am unable to see why, in fairness and justice, the widow of any officer of the grade of General Ward should not be allowed $50 a month, the amount proposed by this bill to be paid his widow, regardless of any other consideration except widowhood and the rank of the deceased husband.

The bill herewith returned, while fixing the monthly amount to be absolutely paid to the beneficiary, does not make the granting of the pension nor payment of the money subject to any of the provisions of the pension laws nor make any reference to the Mexican service pension she is now receiving. While it is the rule under general laws that two pensions shall not be paid to the same person, inasmuch as the widow is entitled to the pension she is now receiving upon grounds different from those upon which the special bill was passed, and no intention is apparent in the special bill that the other pension should be superseded, it may result that under the peculiar wording of this bill she would be entitled to both pensions.

The beneficiary filed a claim for pension in the Pension Bureau in 1884, which is still pending, awaiting evidence connecting the death of the soldier with his wound.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 490, entitled "An act granting a pension to George W. Pitner."

It appears from the records that the beneficiary named in this bill entered the military service in June, 1863, and was discharged in March, 1866. He was treated while in the Army in the months of December, 1864, and January, 1865, for conjunctivitis.

He filed a claim for pension in 1886, alleging that he had a sunstroke in 1865, and that while at work in a basement in the year 1881 he fell into a well which was open near him and received serious injuries, resulting in the amputation of his right foot and also disability of his left foot. He attributes his fall to vertigo, consequent upon or related to the sunstroke he suffered in the Army.

The claim was rejected on the ground that the evidence taken failed to connect the disabilities for which a pension was claimed with army service.

Whatever may be said of the incurrence of sunstroke in the Army, though he fixes it as after the date of his only medical treatment during his service, and whatever may be said of the continuance of vertigo consequent upon the sunstroke for sixteen years, I find no proof that at the time he fell he was afflicted with vertigo, unless it be his own statement; and whatever disability naturally arose from sunstroke does not appear by him to have been deemed sufficient to induce him to apply for a pension previous to his fall.

In any event there seems to be no satisfactory evidence that anything which occurred in his army service was the cause of his fall and consequent injury.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9034, entitled "An act granting a pension to Lydia A. Heiny."

The husband of this beneficiary served in an Indiana regiment from August, 1861, to March, 1864, when he reenlisted as a veteran volunteer and served as a private and teamster to July 20, 1865, when he was discharged.

There is no record of any disability, and he never applied for a pension.

On the 12th day of December, 1880, in leaving a barber shop at the place where he resided, he fell downstairs and died the next day from the injuries thus received.

His widow filed an application for a pension in the year 1885, alleging that her husband contracted indigestion, bronchitis, nervous debility, and throat disease in the Army, which were the cause of his death.

The claim was rejected upon the ground that the death of the soldier was not due to an injury connected with his military service.

While there has been considerable evidence presented tending to show that the deceased had a throat difficulty which might have resulted from army exposure, the allegation or the presumption that it caused his fatal fall, it seems to me, is entirely unwarranted.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9344, entitled "An act granting a pension to James C. White."

The records of the War Department show that this beneficiary enlisted in a Kentucky regiment September 29, 1861. On the muster roll of April 30, 1862, he is reported as absent. On the roll of August 31, 1863, he is mentioned as having deserted July 19, 1862. His name is not borne on subsequent muster rolls until it appears upon those of January and February, 1864, with the remark that he returned February, 1864, and that all pay and allowances were to be stopped from July 19, 1862, to February 5, 1864. It appears that he deserted again on the 18th of December, 1864, and that his name was not borne upon any subsequent rolls.

Naturally enough, there does not appear to be any record of this soldier's honorable discharge.

It seems that this man during the time that he professed to be in the service earned two records of desertion, the first extending over a period of nearly a year and a half and the other terminating his military service.

He filed a claim for pension on the 4th day of August, 1883, alleging that he contracted piles in December, 1861, and a hernia in April, 1862.

A medical examination in 1883 revealed the nonexistence of piles and the presence of hernia.

The fact of the incurrence of any disability at all in the service is not satisfactorily established, and the entire case in all its phases appears to be devoid of merit.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9183, entitled "An act granting a pension to William P. Riddle."

The records of the War Department show that the beneficiary named in this bill was enrolled October 4, 1861, in the Fifth Kentucky Regiment of Cavalry, and was mustered into the service on the 31st day of March, 1862.

From that time to April 30, 1862, he is reported absent sick. On the rolls for four months thereafter, ending August 31, 1862, he is reported as absent and deserted. His name is not borne on any subsequent rolls.

He did not file an application for pension until April, 1879, when the act granting arrears was in force. He then claimed that he contracted pneumonia February 15, 1862; that about a month after he was sent home, and was under medical treatment for two years; that he returned about May 1, 1864, and was discharged about May 15, 1864, but that his discharge papers were lost.

Though he has furnished some evidence in support of the claim that he was sick at about the time alleged and that he returned to the Army after an absence of two years, no record proof of any kind is furnished of an honorable discharge at any time.

He has been informed that the record of his desertion in the War Department will be investigated with a view to its correction if he will furnish direct proof that it is erroneous. No such proof has been supplied, and the case has not been finally acted upon in the Pension Bureau.

It does not seem to me that this case in its present condition should receive favorable consideration.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9126, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Caroline G. Seyfforth."

The husband of this beneficiary served as contract surgeon in the United States Army from September 12, 1862, to August 17, 1865, and was stationed at Portsmouth Grove Hospital, in Rhode Island.

He never filed a claim for pension, and died July 21, 1874, of congestion of the liver. His widow filed an application for pension in 1882, alleging that her husband's death was caused by blood poisoning contracted while dressing the wound of a patient in January, 1863. There is proof that he suffered from blood poisoning.

The record of death states its cause as congestion of the liver, but the certificate was not signed. A young doctor named Adams, a friend and pupil of the deceased, seems to have been more than any other the attendant physician, but he appeared to think that one of three other doctors had actual charge of the case. These physicians, named, respectively, Sullivan, Dana, and Sargent, agreed that Adams had charge of the case and that they were consulting surgeons in the last illness.

Dr. Adams testified before a special examiner that from intimate association he knew that the deceased was subject to kidney disease and other symptoms of bad health from discharge to his death; that as he had lost a part of one hand from blood poisoning in the Army, he always supposed his subsequent troubles were referable to that cause; that he believed the cause of death was albuminuria, and that his liver was also affected. He further expresses the opinion that the death was the culmination of the disorders which affected him from the time of his discharge from the service.

Dr. Sullivan deposed that he knew the deceased well from about 1869, and never had any reason to think him the subject of blood poisoning or its results. He further says that he was called in consultation at the last illness of the deceased and diagnosed his trouble as liver disease, due to the patient's habits of intemperance.

Dr. Dana testified that he knew the deceased well from the time of his discharge; that he was called to consult in his case with young Dr. Adams a few days before the death occurred; that he took a general view of the case and considered that the trouble was due to habits of intemperance.

Dr. Sargent deposed that he knew the deceased well and knew that he had lost a part of his hand, as alleged, from septic poisoning in the Army, though he was not aware that the poisoning had left any other effect; that the deceased had several spells of alcoholism after the war; that he had heard him complain of his kidneys, but attributed his troubles to his excesses.

Other evidence suggested the same cause for sickness and death spoken of by these physicians, but there seems to be an almost entire absence of evidence connecting the death with service in the Army.

I am of the opinion that a case is not presented in any of its aspects justifying a pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 6193, entitled "An act for the relief of Edson Saxberry."

The beneficiary named in this bill filed a declaration for a pension in 1879, alleging that in 1863 he bruised his leg, which became very sore, and when it began to heal his eyes became sore.

The evidence taken upon a careful examination of this application seems to establish, by the admission of the applicant and by other evidence, the correctness of the position taken by the Pension Bureau in rejecting the claim, that whatever disability was incurred existed before enlistment and was in no manner attributable to military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 2233, entitled "An act granting a pension to Bernard Carlin."

By this bill it is proposed to pension the beneficiary therein named as of Company A, Fourteenth Regiment of Missouri Volunteer Infantry.

It seems that he served in the company and regiment named, but that he also served in Company A, Sixty-sixth Illinois Regiment, and it is claimed that while in the latter service exclusively he received the injuries for which a pension is claimed.

His application is still pending in the Pension Bureau, and the papers pertaining to the same are now in the hands of an examiner for special examination.

I think this should be completed before a special act is passed, and I understand this to be in accordance with a general rule adopted by Congress and its pension committees. This is certainly the correct course to be pursued in this case, in view of the failure to state in the special bill the regiment and company to which the soldier belonged at the time of the incurrence of disability. This can be corrected by the Pension Bureau if the claim is found meritorious.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 10, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith a joint resolution which originated in the Senate, and is numbered 17, providing for the printing of additional copies of the United States map of the edition of 1886, prepared by the Commissioner of Public Lands.

This resolution directs that 7,500 of these maps shall be printed at a rate not exceeding $1.35 each; that 2,000 of said maps shall be for the use of the Senate, 4,000 for the use of the House of Representatives, 500 for the Commissioner of the Land Office, and that 1,000 be mounted and sold at the price of $1.50 each. The sum of $10,125 is appropriated to pay the expense of the publication of said maps.

The propriety and expediency of this appropriation, to be applied so largely by the two branches of Congress, should be left to legislative discretion.

I believe, however, that through inadvertence the duplication of the edition of these maps issued in 1886 has been directed by this joint resolution instead of the edition of 1887.

The map of 1886 was published at a cost of $1.25 per copy.

The map of 1887 will very soon be issued at a cost of $1 per copy, and the publishers have offered to print an enlarged edition at the rate of 95 cents for each map. This map will be later, more correct, more valuable in every way, and cheaper than that issued the previous year.

Upon these facts I return the joint resolution without approval, in the belief that the Congress will prefer to correct the same by directing the publication of the latest, best, and cheapest map, and reducing the amount appropriated therefor.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 14, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2653, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary Curtin."

The husband of this beneficiary was mustered into the military service October 8, 1862, was wounded in the right arm, and was discharged September 3, 1863.

He was pensioned for his wound to the time of his death, September 17, 1880.

The physician attending him in his last illness testified that the deceased was in the last stages of consumption when pneumonia intervened and caused his death.

I do not understand that this physician gives the least support to the theory that the wound for which this soldier was pensioned was in the slightest degree connected with his death, and there seems to be nothing in the case to justify the conclusion that such was the fact.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 14, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1076, entitled "An act granting a pension to the widow of John Leary, deceased."

This bill does not give the name of the intended beneficiary, but merely directs that the name of the widow of John Leary, late first sergeant in Battery F, Third Artillery, United States Army, be placed upon the pension roll, and that she be paid the sum of $20 per month.

John Leary first enlisted in the Regular Army July 26, 1854, and reenlisted in August, 1859. He was slightly wounded July 1, 1862, and appears to have been discharged March 25, 1863, on account of syphilitic iritis. In April, 1863, he entered the general service and acted as a clerk in the Adjutant-General's Office until April 1, 1864, when he was discharged.

Neither he nor his widow ever filed a claim in the Pension Bureau, but an application on behalf of his minor children was filed in 1882.

The soldier died on the 8th day of December, 1872, of pneumonia, and his widow remarried in 1876.

The application on behalf of the children was denied on the ground that the death of the soldier was not due to any cause arising from his military service. The youngest child will reach the age of 16 in September, 1888.

It is stated in the report of the Senate committee to whom this bill was referred that the second husband, to whom this widow was married in 1876, is now dead, and it is proposed to pension her as the widow of John Leary, her first husband, at the rate of $20 per month.

In the unusual cases when a widow has been pensioned on account of the death of her first husband, notwithstanding her remarriage, which forfeited her claim under the general law, it has been well established that she was again a widow by the death of her second husband, that beyond all controversy the death of the first husband was due to his military service, and such advanced age or disability has been shown on the part of the widow as prevented self-support.

In this case the name of the widow is not in the bill; there is hardly room for the pretense that her first husband's death was due to his military service, her age is given as over 40 years, and $20 a month is allowed her; being considerably more than is generally allowed in cases where a widow's right is clear, with no complications of second marriage, and her necessities great.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 14, 1888.

To the Senate:.

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1762, entitled "An act granting a pension to Benjamin A. Burtram."

The beneficiary named in this bill was mustered into the military service November 26, 1861; he was reported present until February 28, 1862, and was discharged for disability July 26, 1862.

The medical certificate of the disability of this soldier was made by the senior surgeon of a hospital in Louisville, Ky., and stated that the soldier had been disabled for sixty days; that his lungs were affected with tubercular deposits in both, and that there was some irregularity in the action of the heart; that he was of consumptive family, his mother, brother, and two sisters having died of that disease according to his and his father's account.

It is of course supposed that this certificate was based upon an examination of the patient, though both he and his father seem to have supplemented such an examination with statements establishing a condition and history which operated to bring about a discharge.

I do not find, however, either as the result of examinations or statements, any other trouble or disability alleged than those mentioned above.

But in 1879, seventeen years after the soldier's discharge, and during the period when arrearages of pensions were allowed on such applications, he filed a claim for pension, in which he alleged that about December 1, 1861, while unloading gun boxes, he incurred a rupture, and that in January, 1862, he was taken with violent pains in left arm and side, causing permanent disability.

It will be observed that the time of the incurrence of these disabilities is fixed as quite early in the very short military service of this soldier; and it certainly seems that, though short, his term of service was sufficiently long to develop such disabilities as he claims to have incurred to such an extent that they neither would have escaped in the succeeding July the examination of the surgeon nor the mention of the soldier.

A medical examination which followed the application for pension in 1879 disclosed a large scrotal hernia, but no discoverable trouble of left arm and side.

A special examination of the case was made and a large amount of testimony taken. Without giving it in any detail as it is reported to me, I fail to find in it reasonably satisfactory proof that the disabilities upon which he now bases his claim for a pension were incurred in the military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 22, 1888.

To the Senate.

I return without approval Senate bill No. 3038, entitled "An act for the relief of P.E. Parker."

Mr. Parker was a surety with six other persons upon an official bond given by one Franklin Travis, a collector of internal revenue, which bond was dated on the 9th day of May, 1867. A few years after that the collector became a defaulter to the Government for something over $27,000. Suit was commenced against the sureties upon the bond, and the defense was presented in their behalf that by reason of the imposition of new duties and responsibilities upon the collector after the execution of the bond his sureties were released. Judgment, however, passed against them, and the property of the beneficiary named in this bill was sold upon said judgment for the sum of $2,366.95. But only $1,793.16 of such amount was paid into the United States Treasury, the remainder having been applied to the payment of fees and expenses.

After the application of this sum to the payment of the judgment a bill was passed by the Congress relieving all these sureties from liability upon the bond. It appears that the amount above stated was all the money collected thereupon. The grant of the relief of these sureties by the Congress apparently was the same interposed by them to the suit in which the judgment was recovered.

The present bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the surety Parker the sum of $2,336.95, the entire amount for which his property was sold, though the Senate committee to which the bill was referred reported in favor of reducing this sum to $1,793.16, the amount actually received by the United States upon its indebtedness.

It seems to me that the action of Congress in relieving these sureties was generous in the extreme, and if money was to be refunded which was apparently legally recovered and collected it should not exceed the amount the Government actually received. The Government is in no default and should be put to no expense in refunding the small sum recovered on account of the defalcation of its officer whose good conduct this beneficiary guaranteed. I think it would better subserve public interests if no further relief should be granted than that already afforded.

There is another fact reported to me which deprives this surety of any equitable claim for further relief. It appears from an examination of this matter that the man who is now attempting to be reimbursed this money from the Government Treasury commenced a suit against his cosureties for this identical money on the ground of their liability with him, and that he actually collected from two of them in such suit the sum of $1,747.16.

If this is true, it is speaking mildly of the claim he now makes against the Government to say that it should not have been presented.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 22, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2616, entitled "An act granting a pension to James E. Kabler."

This beneficiary enlisted August 10, 1862. He is reported as absent sick for November and December, 1862; present for January and February, 1863; on the rolls for March and April he is reported as deserted, and for May and June as under arrest. On the 17th of September, 1863, after having been in the service a little over a year, he was mustered out with his company with the remark "absent without leave and returned to duty with loss of fifty-two days' pay by order of General Boyle." The charge of desertion does not appear to have been removed.

He filed a claim for pension in 1870 on account of quinsy alleged to have been contracted about December 7, 1862, with some evidence to support the claim. Three medical examinations fail to establish the existence of this disease in a pensionable degree, and it is reported to me from the Pension Bureau that in March, 1882, the family physician of the beneficiary stated that though he had practiced in his family for eight or nine years he had no recollection of treating him for quinsy or any other disease.

It seems to me that neither the service nor the alleged disability of this beneficiary are of a meritorious character.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 22, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2370, entitled "An act granting a pension to Sarah C. Anderson and children under 16 years of age."

William H. Anderson, the husband and the father of the beneficiaries named in this bill, enlisted on the 27th day of August, 1862, and is reported as sick or absent a large part of his short term of service. He was discharged April 23, 1863, to date November 5, 1862, on a surgeon's certificate of disability for "tertiary syphilis, with ulcerated throat and extensive nodes on the tibia of both legs."

He never filed an application for pension. He was admitted to an insane asylum in September, 1883, suffering with epilepsy, chronic diarrhea, and dementia, and died of pneumonia on the 26th day of February, 1884.

His symptoms and troubles after his discharge, so far as they are stated, are entirely consistent with the surgeon's certificate of disability given at the time of his discharge, and there seems to be an entire lack of testimony connecting in any reasonable way his death with any incident of his military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 22, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2206, entitled "An act granting a pension to David H. Lutman."

The beneficiary named in this bill was pensioned in 1885 on account of spinal irritation, the result of measles.

In 1886 he filed a claim for increase of pension, alleging rheumatism, and the board of examining surgeons at Cumberland, Md., upon an examination, found no evidence of spinal irritation or rheumatism, and he was dropped from the pension rolls on the ground that the disability for which he was pensioned had ceased to exist.

He afterwards filed medical and lay testimony tending to show that he suffered from disease of the back, legs, and arms, and he was thereupon, and on the 8th day of October, 1886, again examined by the board of examining surgeons at Hagerstown, Md., who reported as follows:

We have stripped him, and find a splendid specimen, square built from the ground up, muscles well developed, his appearance indicative of perfect health. No curvature of spine, disease or irritation of spinal cord; no atrophy of any muscles or evidence of weakness. No impairment of motion anywhere.

If there is any value to be placed upon the reports of these examining boards, the refusal of the Pension Bureau to restore this beneficiary to the rolls was fully justified; and this is not a proper case, in my opinion, for interference with that determination.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 22, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 645, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Margaret B. Todd."

This bill does not describe the beneficiary as related to any soldier of the war, but from other data it is found that she is the widow of Frank G. Todd, who served as a private in the One hundred and eighteenth Volunteer Infantry from July, 1863, to May, 1864, when he was transferred to the Navy. It appears that he served in the Navy from May 13, 1864, until April 10, 1866. He died in January, 1878, from exhaustion, as stated by the physicians who attended him.

There is scarcely a particle of satisfactory evidence showing his condition from the time of his discharge to 1871, and there is almost an entire lack of proof showing a connection between his death and any incident of his service. The widow in her application to the Pension Bureau for a pension states that she has children who were born in 1870, 1871, and 1878.

There seems to be no record of any disability during the husband's service in the Army, and the only mention of disability while in the Navy is an entry on the 30th day of May, 1864, showing that he was admitted to treatment for "syphilis secondary."

The widow's claim is still pending in the Pension Bureau.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 22, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 1542, entitled "An act granting a pension to John W. Reynolds."

The bill describes this beneficiary as being "late of the One hundred and fifty-seventh Ohio Volunteer Infantry."

He filed a claim in 1872 that he was a deputy United States provost-marshal for the Twelfth Ohio district from October, 1864, to March, 1865, and that in December, 1864, while ascending a stairway to arrest two deserters who had been drafted, a barrel of cider was rolled down upon him, by which he was severely injured.

The claim having been rejected on the ground that the claimant was not entitled to a pension as a civil employee of the Government, he afterwards, and in January, 1888, informed the Bureau that he was drafted in November, 1864, while serving as assistant deputy provost-marshal, and was sworn in and reserved for home duty, and was discharged from the One hundred and fifty-first Ohio Volunteers. The records of the War Department show that John W. Reynolds served in the One hundred and fifty-first Ohio Regiment from May 2, 1864, to August 27, 1864.

It is perfectly apparent that this beneficiary was injured while acting as a deputy assistant provost-marshal, arresting deserters for the pay and rewards allowed him, and that his injuries were not at all connected with actual military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 22, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 2088, entitled "An act for the relief of W.S. Carpenter."

This bill appropriates the sum of $126.26 to be paid to the beneficiary named therein for his salary as an employee in the Railway Mail Service from the 3d day of October until the 20th day of November, 1882.

Mr. Carpenter was employed as a railway postal clerk at a salary of $800 per annum. He abandoned his route about the 2d day of October, 1882, without any leave of absence or explanation at the time, leaving his work in charge of one Jones, another railway postal clerk. He appears to have been paid for all the work he did, unless it be for two or three days in October, for which he apparently makes no claim.

There is nothing in the Post-Office Department showing that the absence of Carpenter was claimed to be on account of sickness, though there are a number of communications relating to the case.

The regulations of the Department permit the performance of the duties of a postal clerk by an associate in case of sickness, but never without the written permission of the division superintendent after an arrangement between the parties in writing, signed by them and filed with the superintendent.

Among a number of communications from Railway Mail Service officials relating to the conduct of Carpenter, all tending in the same direction, there is a letter from the chief clerk of the Railway Mail Service at Peoria, Ill., under whose immediate supervision Mr. Carpenter performed service, written to the superintendent of the sixth division of said service at Chicago, and dated November 16, 1882, containing the following statement:

I desire to call your attention to the case of W.S. Carpenter, Gilman and Springfield R.P.O., as follows: October 10 he was requested to appear at the post-office at Springfield, Ill., for examination on Illinois scheme. I went to Springfield for the purpose of examining him, but he failed to put in an appearance. Upon my return home I found a letter from him stating that he did not expect to remain in the service, hence his failure to report for examination; and, furthermore, that he would send in his resignation to your office by the first of the following week. This he had not done the 12th instant. He has not been on duty but two days since October 1. He left the run in charge of Mr. Jones, of the same line, telling him he did not know when he would return, and for Jones to keep up the run. He has no leave of absence, either verbally or otherwise. What his motives are for conducting himself in this manner I can not imagine. I have written him on the subject, but can not hear from him. When in Springfield the 3d instant, I requested the postmaster there to not pay Carpenter for October until he received notice to do so. I then notified you of the facts in the matter. I would respectfully recommend that Carpenter be relieved from further duty and a successor be appointed. He is of no account at the best; he has no interest in the work, and should be removed. I would also recommend that he be paid for but the two days' run in the month of October.

Four days after the date of this letter Mr. Carpenter was notified that an order had been issued discontinuing his pay and services.

These facts stated present the case of an employee of the Government abandoning his duties without leave or notice, in direct violation of rules, and claiming compensation for work done in his absence by another employee whose entire services were due the Government.

To allow a claim so lacking in merit would endanger discipline and invite irregularity and loose methods in a very important branch of the public service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 27, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 2524, entitled "An act for the relief of Clement A. Lounsberry."

This bill appropriates the sum of $1,214.51 to reimburse him for clerk hire and fuel and lights in excess of allowances made to him by the Post-Office Department while he was postmaster at Bismarck, in the Territory of Dakota.

Seven hundred and fifty dollars of this sum is appropriated on account of clerk hire paid out from April 1, 1881, to June 30, 1882, and $464.51 for lights and fuel from July 1, 1883, to September 30, 1885.

As a general rule the allowances made by the Post-Office Department in these cases ought not to be interfered with. But sometimes a sudden rush of settlement in a locality, or some other cause, will so increase unexpectedly the need of clerks to distribute and handle the mails that the employment of more than have been provided for is absolutely necessary.

I am inclined to think the item for clerk hire in this bill should be so regarded. This was the only appropriation included in the bill presented in the Forty-eighth Congress in behalf of this postmaster upon which a favorable committee report was made and which was not unfavorably spoken of by the Department.

But it does not follow that the other item for fuel and lights should be allowed. I think it should not, on the grounds that the amount was fixed by the Department upon full examination, that there is no special reason shown why the postmaster should have exceeded the expenditures allowed, and that to give the least encouragement to postmasters that these allowances would be upon their application revised and increased by Congress would lead to demoralization in the service.

It appears that the allowance made to this officer for fuel and lights was increased October 1, 1883, and although the claim now made on this account embraces the period from July 1, 1883, to September, 1885, nothing was asked for fuel or lights in the bill presented to Congress for this beneficiary's relief in 1884.

It should not have been tacked upon the bill now presented.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 27, 1888.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 288, entitled "An act for the erection of a public building at Sioux City, Iowa."

On the 19th day of June, 1886, I was constrained to disapprove a bill embracing the same subject covered by the bill herewith returned. Further investigation on the second presentation of the matter fails to convince me that $150,000 should be expended at present for the erection of a public building at Sioux City.

From all the representations that are made in an effort to show the necessity for this building I gather that the only two purposes for which the Government should furnish quarters at this place are a term of the United States court not specially crowded with business and the post-office, which, though perhaps crowded, I am sure can get on very well for a time without a larger public building.

As far as the court is concerned, it was agreed when a term was located there in 1882 that it might be held in the county building, which from the description furnished me seems to be entirely adequate for the purpose and very well arranged. The term held in October, 1887, was in session for nine days.

I am decidedly of the opinion that if a public building is to be located at Sioux City it had better be delayed until a better judgment can be formed of its future necessity and proper size.

I see some of the parties interested have such confidence in the growth and coming needs of the place that in their opinion the work ought not to be entered upon with a less appropriation than $500,000.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 1, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9363, entitled "An act granting a pension to Edwin J. Godfrey."

The beneficiary named in this bill enlisted on the 27th day of May, 1861, in a New Hampshire regiment, and less than three months thereafter was discharged on a surgeon's certificate of his disability occasioned by "disease of heart existing prior to enlistment."

In 1881, twenty years after discharge, the beneficiary applied to the Pension Bureau for a pension, and alleged that his disease of the heart was the result of fatigue and overheating at Bull Run, Virginia, July 21, 1861.

If the heart disease of which the discharged soldier complained in 1861, and which the claimant of a pension in 1881 alleged still continued, could have been caused by fatigue and overheating in the only battle of his brief service, it seems to me that its manifestations and symptoms a month afterwards could not have been mistaken for such as belonged to a much longer continuance of the disease.

I am fully satisfied that the surgeon was not mistaken who made the certificate upon which the beneficiary was discharged, and that his military service is not properly chargeable with any disability he may have incurred.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 1, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5155, entitled "An act granting a pension to John S. Bryant."

The man for whom this pension is proposed never, so far as I can learn, did a single day's actual military service at the front, nor ever left in such service the State in which he was enlisted.

He enlisted December 7, 1863, in a Maine regiment; on the 16th day of the same month he is marked as a deserter, having failed to report after leave of absence; December 31, 1863, he is reported sick in hospital at Augusta, Me.; January 26, 1864, he is marked as having deserted from Camp Keyes, at Augusta, Me.

He was discharged January 14, 1865, for disability occasioned, as the surgeon's certificate declares, "by a fall from a wagon while at home on a furlough, December 22, 1863." The certificate continues as follows:

Never has done a day's duty. Is utterly worthless and unfit for the Veteran Reserve Corps.

After his discharge the second charge of desertion was removed, and the first charge does not seem to be serious. But he was injured while home on a furlough, his regiment still being in camp within the State of his residence; and although there are cases in which it seems not improper that pensions should be granted for injuries sustained during furlough and before actual return to duty, this does not appear to me to be one of them.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 6, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 2507, entitled "An act granting a pension to Russel L. Doane, of Peck, Sanilac County, Mich."

It is proposed by this bill to pension the beneficiary therein named as the dependent father of the late Demster Doane, late Company D, Thirty-fifth New York Volunteers.

The only information I have concerning this case is furnished by the report of the committee of the House to whom the bill was referred. There is nothing alleged in the report except that Demster Doane, who was a second lieutenant in the company and regiment named, died at Peck, Mich., on the 22d day of September, 1881, and that the deceased up to the time of his death supported his father, the claimant, who is now over 81 years of age, incapable of manual labor, and destitute of the means of support.

There is no intimation that the death of the son sixteen years after the close of the war was caused or in any way related to his military service. I do not understand that it has ever been claimed that a parent should be pensioned for the death of a son who had been in the Army unless his death could be traced in some way to his army service.

While this case is probably one where the exercise of generosity would be pleasant and most timely to the recipient, I can not think that such a precedent should be established.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9372, entitled "An act granting a pension to John Dean."

The beneficiary named in this bill was mustered into the service of the United States February 25, 1863. He never went to the front, but while in camp at Staten Island, on the 21st day of April, 1863, was granted a pass for forty-eight hours, and on account of sickness did not again rejoin his company or regiment. The charge of desertion made against him has been removed. The Surgeon-General's report shows that he was treated at quarters on Staten Island in April, 1863, for syphilis, rheumatism, and debility.

He was admitted to Charity Hospital, Blackwells Island, New York Harbor, August 5, 1863, and discharged November 18, 1863. He was admitted to the Ladies' General Hospital in New York December 1, 1863, and was discharged from the service for disability April 7, 1864.

The discharge was granted, as stated by the surgeon of volunteers in charge of the hospital, "because of sloughing of both corneas from inflammation contracted while absent without leave, having received a forty-eight-hour pass from his regiment April 15, 1863, then stationed on Staten Island. He lost his sight in August, 1863, while absent without leave. Unfit for Invalid Corps. Admitted to this hospital December 1, 1863. Not a case for pension."

A claim for pension was filed by the beneficiary at the Pension Bureau in March, 1877, alleging that on or about April 1, 1863, he suffered from chronic rheumatism and sore eyes, occasioned by exposure and illness contracted in camp.

It will be observed that no affection of the eyes is mentioned in the record of his treatment in quarters.

The claimant was examined by the New York City board of surgeons in June, 1878, and no rheumatism was found to exist. He is now blind, and while his case is certainly a pitiable one I am forced to the belief that the conclusions reached in 1879 upon his application, that his disease was contracted while absent without leave and that his disability was due to syphilis, were correct.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 217, entitled "An act granting a pension to C.T. Maphet."

This beneficiary enlisted August 1, 1863, and was discharged January 27, 1865, for disability.

The commander of the post certifies:

This soldier says that he was first affected with the present disease, conjunctivitis, in the spring of 1862, since which time his eyes have never been well, and for a great portion of the time since enlistment he has been unfit for duty.

The certificate of the surgeon is as follows:

Incapacitated by reason of long-standing conjunctivitis of both eyes, attended with partial opacity of the cornea. Disability existed prior to enlistment, consequently soldier is ineligible to the Veteran Reserve Corps.

The beneficiary filed no application for pension until April, 1883.

Notwithstanding some evidence of soundness prior to enlistment, it seems to be quite well established that the trouble with his eyes was not the result of his military service, but existed before enlistment.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5503, entitled "An act granting a pension to Charles Walster."

This case has been very exhaustively examined by the Pension Bureau upon the application for a pension filed there by the beneficiary named in this bill. Upon a review of the evidence taken it appears to be well established that any disability of the beneficiary heretofore existing was no attributable to his military service.

In addition to this a board of pension surgeons, as late as July, 1886, determined, after a thorough medical investigation, that no pensionable disability existed.

It thus appears that even if this bill were approved there could be no rating, and the legislation would be of no advantage to the beneficiary named.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 333, entitled "An act granting a pension to Catharine Bussey."

It does not appear that the husband of this beneficiary ever applied for a pension. He was discharged from the Volunteer Army on the 9th day of December, 1864, after a service of more than three years.

He was found dead on a railroad track on the 11th day of June, 1870, apparently having been struck by a passing train.

It is claimed that the deceased suffered a sunstroke while in the Army, which so affected his mind that he wandered upon the railroad track and was killed in a fit of temporary insanity.

Though it would be gratifying to aid his widow, I do not think these facts are proven or can be assumed.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5525, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Jane Potts."

The husband of this beneficiary enlisted in 1861 and was mustered out of the service in April, 1865.

He was taken prisoner by the enemy and endured for a long time the hardship of prison life.

He never applied for a pension, though undoubtedly his health suffered to some extent as the result of his imprisonment.

The beneficiary married the soldier in 1871.

He conducted his business affairs, managed his farm, and accumulated property up to the year 1880, when by a decree of court he was adjudged insane, caused by sickness as far as was known, and that his disease was hereditary.

It also appears that his mother and sister had periods of insanity.

He committed suicide in 1882 by drowning.

The beneficiary, his widow, filed a claim for pension in 1885, claiming that the insanity which caused him to commit suicide resulted from the hardships of prison life.

Upon this application the facts of the case have been thoroughly examined. Two witnesses indicate that domestic trouble was the cause of the soldier's suicide. Another says that his wife (the beneficiary) was a pretty rough woman--a hard talker--and that the soldier often consulted him about the matter, and said it was hard to live with her. This witness adds that he does not believe that the soldier would have committed suicide if she had not abused him till he could not longer endure it.

The special examiner, in summing up the proof, says in his report:

The general opinion in the community is to the effect that his wife drove him to commit suicide rather than to live with or to obtain a divorce from her. Her reputation is that of a virago.

This kind of evidence, while not perhaps determining the case, reconciles me to the conclusion, which seems inevitable from other facts developed, that the military service and prison experience of the deceased were in no manner connected with his death.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7717, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Catharine Reed."

The husband of this beneficiary served in the Army from July 25, 1862, to October 16, 1862, when he was discharged for disease of the lungs. He was pensioned for hernia and disease of the lungs.

On the 23d day of November, 1880, while working in a sawmill, a piece of board was thrown from a buzz saw and struck him in the groin, causing a wound from which he died two days afterwards.

It is impossible to connect this injury and the resulting death with the disability for which he was pensioned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 7, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4855, entitled "An act granting a pension to Jacob Newhard."

The records show that this beneficiary was mustered into the service August 20, 1862, as a lieutenant; that on the return for November, 1862, he is reported as "absent without leave--left hospital at Louisville." He was treated for hemorrhoids in the hospital at Nashville from December 12 to December 23, 1862, when, having served a few days more than four months, he tendered his resignation upon the ground of disability and procured the following surgeon's certificate, upon which his resignation was based:

Lieutenant Jacob Newhard having applied for a certificate upon which to ground a resignation, I do hereby certify that I have carefully examined this officer and find him suffering from hemorrhoids, * * * and in consequence thereof is, in my opinion, unfit for duty. I further declare my belief that he will not be fit for the duties of a soldier in any future time, having already been afflicted twelve years, as he asserts.

On the 14th day of February, 1880, nearly eighteen years after his resignation, the beneficiary filed his claim for pension based upon hemorrhoids, the result of diarrhea and fever.

He denied upon this application that he was unsound prior to enlistment, and filed evidence to support his denial. One of the witnesses, a surgeon, who testified to incurrence of disability in the service, on a special examination stated that he so testified, having satisfied himself of the fact by personal interviews with the beneficiary.

I do not think in the circumstances surrounding this case that the beneficiary should at this late day be permitted to impeach and set aside the medical certificate procured by himself and containing his own statements, upon which he secured exemption from further military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 13, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 6371, entitled "An act granting a pension to Jesse M. Stilwell."

On the 6th day of May, 1885, twenty years after this beneficiary was discharged from the Army, he filed an application in the Pension Bureau for a pension, alleging that in December, 1863, one year and eight months before his discharge, a comrade assaulted him with a stick while he was sitting in front of his tent preparing for bed and injured his back. He alleged that the assault was unprovoked and unexpected.

The claim was rejected upon the facts stated, upon the ground that any injury incurred was not the result of military duty.

Unless the Government is to be held as an insurer against injuries suffered by anyone in the military service, no matter how incurred, and also as guarantor of the good and peaceable behavior toward each other of the soldiers at all times and under all circumstances, this is not a proper case for the allowance of a pension.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 24, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8310, entitled "An act provide for the disposal of the Fort Wallace Military Reservation, in Kansas."

This bill provides that a portion of this reservation, which is situated in the State of Kansas, shall be set apart for town-site purposes, and may be entered by the corporate authorities of the adjoining city of Wallace.

The second section of the bill permits the Union Pacific Railroad Company to purchase within a limited time a certain part of the military reservation, which is particularly described, at the rate of $30 per acre.

I am informed that this privilege might, by reason of a faulty description of the lands, enable the railroad company to purchase at the price named property in which private parties have interests acquired under our laws.

It is evident that the description of the land which the railroad company is allowed the option of purchasing should be exact and certain for the interest of all concerned.