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.