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.