EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, August 17, 1886_.
Hon. Thos. F. Bayard,
_Secretary of State_.
DEAR SIR: The President directs me to transmit to you the accompanying
bills and joint resolutions, which failed to become laws at the close of
the late session of Congress, being unsigned and not having been
presented to him ten days prior to adjournment.
I may add that the printed copy of memorandum (without signature) is by
the President, and is attached to each bill and resolution by his
direction.
Very respectfully,
O.L. PRUDEN,
_Assistant Secretary_.
["An act for the relief of Francis W. Haldeman."--Received July 28,
1886.]
This bill appropriates $200 to the party named therein "as compensation
for services performed and money expended for the benefit of the United
States Army." It appears from a report of the House Committee on War
Claims that in the fall of 1863 Haldeman, a lad 12 years of age,
purchased a uniform and armed himself and attached himself to various
Ohio regiments, and, as is said, performed various duties connected with
the army service until the end of the year 1864, and for this it is
proposed to give him $200.
Of course he never enlisted and never was regularly attached to any
regiment. What kind of arms this boy 12 years of age armed himself with
is not stated, and it is quite evident that his military service could
not have amounted to much more than the indulgence of a boyish freak and
his being made a pet of the soldiers with whom he was associated. There
is a pleasant sentiment connected with this display of patriotism and
childish military ardor, and it is not a matter of surprise that he
should, as stated by the committee, have "received honorable mention by
name in the history of his regiment;" but when it is proposed twenty-two
years after his one year's experience with troops to pay him a sum
nearly if not quite equal to the pay of a soldier who fought and
suffered all the dangers and privations of a soldier's life, I am
constrained to dissent.
["An act for the relief of R.D. Beckley and Leon Howard."--Received July
28, 1886.]
These two men were employed by the Doorkeeper of the Forty-eighth
Congress as laborers at the rate of $720 per annum.
They claim that in both sessions of that Congress they not only
performed the duties appertaining to their positions as laborers, but
also performed the full duties of messengers. Having received their pay
as laborers, this bill proposes to appropriate for them the difference
between their compensation as laborers and $1,200, the pay allowed
messengers.
Congress, in appropriation bills covering the period in which these men
claim to have performed these dual duties, provided for a certain
specified number of messengers and a fixed number of laborers. They both
accepted the latter position. If they actually performed the duties of
both places, their ability to do so is evidence that the labor of either
place was very light. In any case they owed their time and services to
the Government, and while they were performing the duties of messengers
they were not engaged in the harder tasks which might have been required
of them as laborers. They ought not to complain if they have received
the amount for which they agreed to work, and which was allowed for as
the wages of a place which they were glad enough to secure. If they
really did the work of both places, I don't see why they should not be
paid both compensations. This proposition of course would not be
entertained for a moment.
I am of the opinion that claims for extra compensation such as these
should be firmly discountenanced, and I am sure no injustice will be
done by my declining to approve this bill.
["An act for the relief of Thomas P. Morgan, jr."--Received July 31,
1886.--Memorandum.]
Thomas P. Morgan, jr., in the year 1881 entered into a contract with the
Government to do certain excavating in the harbor of Norfolk.
He performed considerable of the work, but though the time limited by
the contract for the completion was extended by the Government, he
failed to complete the work, which necessitated other arrangements, to
the damage of the Government in quite a large sum. His contract was
forfeited by the Government because the progress he made was so slow and
unsatisfactory. It seems that a certain percentage of the money earned
by him in the progress of the work was, under the terms of the contract,
retained by the Government to insure its completion, and when work was
terminated the sum thus retained amounted to $4,898.04, which sum was
justly forfeited to the Government.
The object of this bill is to waive this forfeiture and pay this sum to
the derelict contractor.
Inasmuch as I am unable to see any equities in this case that should
overcome the fact that the amount of loss to the Government through the
contract is greater than the sum thus sought to be released to him, I am
not willing to agree to his release from the consequence of his failure
to perform his contract.
["An act for the relief of Charles F. Bowers."--Received August 2,
1886.]
It appears that Charles P. Bowers, while acting as regimental
quartermaster in 1862, received of John Weeks, assistant quartermaster
of volunteers, the sum of $230, for which he gave a receipt. On the
settlement of his accounts he was unable to account for said sum, for
the reason, as he alleges, that certain of his papers were lost and
destroyed. Thus in the statement of his account he is represented as a
debtor of the Government in that amount.
This bill directs that a credit be allowed to him of the said sum of
$230. But since his account was adjusted as above stated, showing him in
debt to the Government in the amount last stated, he has paid the sum of
$75 and been allowed a credit of $125 for the value of a horse; so that
whatever may be said of the merits of his claim that he should not be
charged with the sum of $230, if he should now be credited with that sum
the Government would owe him upon its books the sum of $30.
The bill is therefore not approved.
["An act to provide for the erection of a public building in the city of
Annapolis, Md."--Received August 3, 1886.--Memorandum.]
The post-office at Annapolis is now accommodated in quarters for which
the Government pays rent at the rate of $500 per annum, and the office
occupied by the collector of customs is rented for $75 per annum.
The Government has no other use for a public building at Annapolis than
is above indicated, and the chief argument urged why a building should
be constructed there is based upon the fact that this city is the
capital of the State of Maryland and should have a Government building
because most if not all the other capitals of the States have such
edifices.
There seems to be so little necessity for the building proposed for the
transaction of Government business, and if there is anything in the
argument last referred to it seems so well answered by the maintenance
of the Naval Academy at Annapolis, this bill is allowed to remain
inoperative.
["An act for the relief of J.A. Henry and others."--Received August 3,
1886.--Memorandum.]
This bill appropriates various sums to the parties named therein, being
claims of rent of quarters occupied during the war by the
Quartermaster's Department of the Army.
Among the appropriations there proposed to be made is one of the sum of
$51 to L.F. Green. This account has been once paid, a special act
directing such payment having been approved February 12, 1885. The fact
of this payment and important information bearing upon the validity of
some of the other claims mentioned in the bill could have been easily
obtained by application to the Third Auditor.
["An act for the relief of William H. Wheeler."--Received August 3,
1886.]
This bill directs the payment of the sum of $633.50 to William H.
Wheeler for quartermaster's stores furnished the Army in the year 1862.
From the data furnished me by the Quartermaster-General I am quite
certain that this claim has been once paid. The circumstances presented
to prove this are so strong that they should be explained before the
relief provided by this bill is afforded the claimant.
["An act granting a pension to Margaret D. Marchand."--Received August
5, 1886.--Memorandum.]
A bill presented to me for approval, granting a pension of $50 per month
to the beneficiary named, was disapproved upon the ground that the death
of her husband did not appear to be in any way related to any incident
of his military service.
This bill differs from the prior one simply in granting a pension
subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws instead of
fixing the rate of pension at a specified sum. I am still unable to see
how the objection to the first bill has been obviated.
["Joint resolution providing for the distribution of the Official
Register of the United States."--Received August 5, 1886.--Memorandum.]
This resolution reached me five minutes after the adjournment of the two
Houses of Congress, and is the only enactment of the session which came
to me too late for official action.
I do not understand this resolution nor the purposes sought to be
accomplished by its passage, and while in that frame of mind should have
been constrained to withhold my approval from the same even if it had
reached me in time for consideration.
["Joint resolution directing payment of the surplus in the Treasury on
the public debt."--Received August 5, 1886.--Memorandum.]
This resolution involves so much and is of such serious import that I do
not deem it best to discuss it at this time. It is not approved because
I believe it to be unnecessary and because I am by no means convinced
that its mere passage and approval at this time may not endanger and
embarrass the successful and useful operations of the Treasury
Department and impair the confidence which the people should have in the
management of the finances of the Government.