EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 17, 1896_.
_To the Congress_:
I desire to invite attention to the necessity for prompt legislation
in order to remove the limitation of the time within which suits may be
brought by the Government to annul unlawful or unauthorized grants of
public lands.
By the act of March 3, 1887 (24 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 556), the
Secretary of the Interior is directed to adjust each of the railroad
land grants which may be unadjusted, and it is provided, if it shall
appear upon the completion of such adjustment or sooner that the lands
have been from any cause erroneously certified or patented by the United
States to or for the use of a company claiming under any of said grants,
it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to demand a
reconveyance of the title to all lands so erroneously certified or
patented, and on failure of the company to make such reconveyance within
ninety days the Attorney-General is required to institute and prosecute
in the proper courts necessary proceedings to restore title to said
lands to the United States. The demands made under this act have been
numerous, and in some cases have resulted in the reinvestment of title
to the lands in the United States upon demand, but in most cases the
demand has been refused and suits have been necessary.
The work of adjustment has been unavoidably slow. The said act makes
provision for the reinstatement of entries erroneously canceled on
account of railroad withdrawals, and, upon certain conditions, provides
for the confirmation of titles derived by purchase from the companies
of lands shown to be excepted from the grants. It contemplates a
disposition of every tract, described by the granting act, situated
within the primary or granted limits; an inspection of each tract
certified or patented to the company within such limit, to determine
whether such certification or patenting was proper; the listing of those
tracts shown to be erroneously certified, and the determination for what
tracts lost to the grant indemnity is to be allowed.
It is necessary in making such an adjustment that all questions of
conflicting claims, either between settlers and the road or between two
roads the grants for which conflict or overlap, be finally disposed of,
so that a proper disposition of the land can be shown in the adjustment.
While adjustments have proceeded with the utmost rapidity consistent
with a due regard for the rights of the settlers, of the United States,
and the railroad companies, and while to this end the force of adjusters
has been largely augmented in the General Land Office, many of the
grants yet remain unadjusted.
In some of the grants, notably the corporation grants, the lack of
surveys up to the present time made the completion of the work
impossible.
Decisions rendered by the Interior Department in numerous conflicts
have been carried into the courts. The construction of the Interior
Department has generally been sustained when final determination has
been reached, but many of the cases are still pending in the courts,
not yet having been decided. Some of these cases, while involving
immediately the title to only one particular tract, will when decided
furnish a rule of construction to control the disposition of the title
to thousands of acres of other lands in the same situation. Until the
courts pass upon these questions final adjustments can not be made.
By section 8 of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 U.S. Statutes at Large, p.
1099), it is expressly enacted that suits by the United States to vacate
and annul any patent theretofore issued "shall only be brought within
five years from the passage of this act." This period of five years will
expire on the 3d of March, 1896. Of course no suit by the United States
to secure the cancellation of a patent in this class of cases after
that date would be effective. Indeed, it is now too late to initiate
proceedings looking to any such suit, inasmuch as demand has to be first
made on the company, and thereafter ninety days must be allowed for
compliance or refusal, in accordance with the provisions of the act of
March 3, 1887. Before the expiration of this period the statute would
bar the right of recovery by the Government, and the benefits of
anticipated favorable decisions of the courts would be lost so far as
they might determine the character and disposition of grants similar
to those directly involved in pending cases.
It will be readily seen that if this act of limitations is to remain on
the statute books the portion of the adjustment act referred to would be
rendered nugatory. Indeed, there would be but little use in continuing
the adjustment of many of the land grants, inasmuch as ascertained
rights of the United States or of settlers could not be enforced by law.
Legislation establishing limitations against the right of the Government
to sue is an innovation not entirely consistent with the general history
of the rights of the Government, for it has uniformly been held that
time did not bar the sovereign power from the assertion of a right.
The early adjudications of the Land Department construed the grants with
a degree of liberality toward the grantees which later decisions of the
courts and of the Department have not sustained. It seems clear that the
further progress of adjustments will develop facts and transactions in
connection with these land grants which ought to be the subjects of
legal examination and scrutiny before they are allowed to become final
and conclusive. The Government should not be prevented from going into
the courts to right wrongs perpetrated by its agents or any other
parties, and by which much of the public domain may be diverted from the
people at large to corporate uses.
In these circumstances it seems to me that the act of 1891 should be
so amended as not to apply to suits brought to recover title to lands
certified or patented on account of railroad or other grants; and
I respectfully urge upon Congress speedy action to the end suggested,
so that the adjustment of these grants may proceed without the
interposition of a bar, through lapse of time, against the right of
recovery by the Government in proper cases.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, January 20, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
In response to the resolution of the House of Representatives of
December 28, 1895, I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of
State and accompanying papers, relating to certain speeches made by
Thomas F. Bayard, ambassador of the United States to Great Britain.
In response to that part of said resolution which requests information
as to the action taken by the President concerning the speeches therein
referred to, I reply that no action has been taken thereon by the
President except such as is indicated in the report and correspondence
herewith submitted.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, January 22, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, in compliance with the resolution of the House of
Representatives of December 28, 1895, a report from the Secretary of
State, with copies of all the correspondence of record in the Department
of State in relation to the schooner _Henry Crosby_, fired upon
while at anchor at Azua, Santo Domingo, December 10, 1893.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 22, 1896_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
In response to the resolution adopted by the Senate on December 16,
1895, respecting what action had been taken in regard to the payment of
the appropriation for the bounty on sugar contained in the sundry civil
bill approved March 2, 1895, I herewith transmit a communication
received from the Secretary of the Treasury, which contains all the
information I have upon the subject.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, January 23, 1896_.
_To the Senate_:
I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, in answer to a
resolution of the Senate of the 16th instant, requesting information in
regard to the treatment of naturalized citizens of the United States of
Armenian origin, and their families, by the Turkish Government.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, January 27, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, with copies of
all correspondence of record relating to the failure of the scheme for
the colonization of negroes in Mexico, necessitating their return to
their home in Alabama.
I referred to this matter in my message to Congress at the beginning of
the present session, and for the reasons then given[29] I again urge the
propriety of making an appropriation to cover the cost of transportation
furnished by the railroad companies.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
[Footnote 29: See p. 634.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, January 30, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of State,
accompanying the reports of the consuls of the United States on trade
and commerce. In view of the evident value of this compilation to our
business interests, I indorse the recommendation of the Secretary that
Congress authorize the printing of a special edition of 10,000 copies
of the General Summary of the Commerce of the World for distribution
by the Department of State, and of 2,500 copies of Commercial Relations
(including this summary) to enable the Department to meet the increasing
demand for commercial information.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, February 3, 1896_.
_To the Congress_:
In my last annual message allusion was made to the lawless killing of
certain Italian laborers in the State of Colorado,[30] and it was added
that "the dependent families of some of the unfortunate victims invite
by their deplorable condition gracious provision for their needs."
It now appears that in addition to three of these laborers who were
riotously killed two others, who escaped death by flight, incurred
pitiable disabilities through exposure and privation.
Without discussing the question of the liability of the United States
for these results, either by reason of treaty obligations or under the
general rules of international law, I venture to urge upon the Congress
the propriety of making from the public Treasury prompt and reasonable
pecuniary provision for those injured and for the families of those who
were killed.
To aid in the consideration of the subject I append hereto a report of
the Secretary of State, accompanied by certain correspondence which
quite fully presents all the features of the several cases.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
[Footnote 30: See p. 633.]
_To the House of Representatives_:
Pursuant to the request made in a House resolution passed on the 30th
day of January, 1896, I herewith transmit the report, with accompanying
maps and exhibits, of the board of engineers under the provisions of
chapter 189 of laws of 1895, for the purpose of ascertaining the
feasibility, permanence, and cost of the construction and completion of
the Nicaragua Canal by the route contemplated and provided for by the
act which passed the Senate January 28, 1895, entitled "An act to amend
an act entitled 'An act to incorporate the Maritime Canal Company of
Nicaragua,' approved February 20, 1889."
GROVER CLEVELAND.
FEBRUARY 7, 1896.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, February 10, 1896_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I transmit herewith, in answer to the resolution of the Senate of
December 18, 1895, a report by the Secretary of State, accompanied by
copies of correspondence touching the establishment or attempted
establishment of post routes by Great Britain or the Dominion of Canada
over or upon United States territory in Alaska; also as to the
occupation or attempted occupation by any means of any portion of that
territory by the military or civil authorities of Great Britain or of
Canada.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, February 10, 1896_.
_To the Senate_:
I transmit herewith, for the consideration of the Senate with a view
to its ratification, a convention signed at Washington the 8th instant
between the Governments of the United States of America and of Her
Britannic Majesty, providing for the settlement of the claims presented
by Great Britain against the United States in virtue of the convention
of February 29, 1892, and of the findings of the Paris Tribunal of
Arbitration pursuant to article 8 of said convention, as well as of
the additional claims specified in paragraph 5 of the preamble of the
present convention.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, February 11, 1896_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I transmit herewith, in answer to the resolution of the Senate of
December 9, 1895, a report from the Secretary of State, accompanied by
copies of correspondence and other papers in regard to the case of John
L. Waller, a citizen of the United States, at present in the custody of
the French Government.
It will be seen upon examination, as would of course be expected, that
there is a slight conflict of evidence upon some of the features of Mr.
Waller's case. Nevertheless, upon a fair and just consideration of all
the facts and circumstances as presented, and especially in view of Mr.
Waller's own letters, the conclusions set forth in the report of the
Secretary of State do not appear to admit of any reasonable doubt nor to
leave open to the Executive any other course of action than that adopted
and acted upon as therein stated.
It is expected that Mr. Waller's release from imprisonment will be
immediately forthcoming.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
[A similar message was sent to the House of Representatives in answer to
a resolution of that body of December 28, 1895.]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, February 11, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
In response to the resolution of the House of Representatives of
December 28 last, as follows--
_Resolved_, That the Secretary of State be directed to communicate
to the House of Representatives, if not inconsistent with the public
interests, copies of all correspondence relating to affairs in Cuba
since February last--
I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of State and such
portions of the correspondence requested as I deem it not inconsistent
with the public interests to communicate.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, February 14, 1896_.
_To the Senate_:
In response to the resolution of the Senate of January 7, 1896,
I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, with an
accompanying report of the special agent of the United States sent
to the Fiji Islands to investigate the claims of B.H. Henry and other
American citizens for compensation for certain lands alleged to have
been owned by them and claimed to have been appropriated by the British
Government.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, February 14, 1896_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I transmit, with the accompanying papers, a report from the Secretary
of State, answering the resolution of the Senate of January 16, 1896,
addressed to him, calling for information concerning the claims against
Peru of Thomas W. Sparrow, N.B. Noland, and others, members of the
commission known as the Hydrographic Commission of the Amazon, employed
by the Government of Peru, for compensation for their services on said
commission.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, February 14, 1896_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, for the information of Congress, a communication
from the Secretary of State, covering the report of the Director of the
Bureau of the American Republics for the year 1895.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, February 14, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, in compliance with the resolution of the House of
Representatives of February 1, 1896, a report from the Secretary of
State, with copies of the correspondence of record in the Department of
State in relation to the exclusion of life-insurance companies of the
United States from transacting business in Germany.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 18, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives, the
Senate concurring, I return herewith Senate bill 879, entitled "An act
to amend an act entitled 'An act to grant to the Gainesville, McAlester
and St. Louis Railroad Company a right of way through the Indian
Territory.'"
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, February 28, 1896_.
_To the Senate:_
I transmit herewith, in response to the resolutions of the Senate of the
18th and 19th instant, a report of the Secretary of State, in regard to
the claim of A.H. Lazare against the Government of Hayti.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, March 9, 1896_.
_To the Senate_:
I transmit herewith, in answer to the resolution of the Senate of the
24th ultimo, a report from the Secretary of State, in relation to the
claim of the legal representatives of Lieutenant George C. Foulke
against the Government of the United States.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _March 9, 1896_.
_To the Senate_:
I transmit herewith, in response to the Senate's resolution of February
6, 1896, addressed to the Secretary of State, copies, in translation, of
the decrees or orders of the Governments of Germany, France, Belgium,
and Denmark placing restrictions upon the importation of certain
American products.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, March 13, 1896_.
_To the Senate_:
I transmit herewith, in response to a resolution of the Senate of
March 2, a report from the Secretary of State, accompanied by copies of
correspondence touching the arrest in Havana of Marcus E. Rodriguez,
Luis Someillau y Azpeitia, and Luis Someillau y Vidal, citizens of the
United States.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, March 13, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
In response to the resolution of the House of Representatives of
February 13, 1896, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and
accompanying papers, relating to the claim of Bernard Campbell against
the Government of Hayti.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 14, 1896_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
In compliance with a resolution of the Senate, the House of
Representatives concurring, I return herewith the enrolled joint
resolution (S.R. 116) authorizing the Public Printer to print the Annual
Report of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey in quarto form and
to bind it in one volume.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, April 15, 1896_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
In response to the resolution of March 24, 1896, requesting that the
Senate be furnished with the correspondence of the Department of State
between November 5, 1875, and the date of the pacification of Cuba in
1878 relating to the subject of mediation or intervention by the United
States in the affairs of that island, I transmit a report from the
Secretary of State, forwarding such papers as seem to be called for by
the resolution in question.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, April 30, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I transmit herewith, in response to the resolution of the House of
Representatives of the 9th instant, addressed to the Secretary of State,
a report of that officer, accompanied by copies of the correspondence in
regard to the imprisonment of Mrs. Florence E. Maybrick.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, May 16, 1896_.
_To the Senate_:
I transmit herewith, in response to the resolution of the Senate dated
the 9th instant and addressed to the Secretary of State, a report of
that officer, accompanied by copies of printed documents containing the
information desired respecting the historical archives deposited in the
Department of State.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, May 23, 1896_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I transmit herewith, in response to a resolution of the Senate of the
16th instant, a report of the Secretary of State, to which are attached
copies in English and Spanish of the original text of a protocol
executed January 12, 1877, between the minister plenipotentiary of the
United States of America to the Court of Spain and the minister of state
of His Majesty the King of Spain.
It being, in my judgment, incompatible with the public service, I am
constrained to refrain from communicating to the Senate at this time
copies of the correspondence described in the third paragraph of said
resolution.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 28, 1896_.
_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 the bill (H.R.
5731) entitled "An act to regulate the practice of medicine and surgery,
to license physicians and surgeons, and to punish persons violating the
provisions thereof in the District of Columbia."
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 3, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the
2d instant, the Senate concurring, I return herewith the bill (H.R.
3279) entitled "An act to authorize the reassessment of water-main taxes
or assessments in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes."
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 8, 1896_.
_To the Senate_:
I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, in answer to the
resolution of the Senate of May 9, 1896, directing that "the Secretary
of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, the
Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Postmaster-General, and the Attorney-General cause a
careful and thorough inquiry to be made regarding the number of aliens
employed in their respective Departments, and to communicate the result
of said inquiry to the Senate at the earliest practicable day."
GROVER CLEVELAND.
VETO MESSAGES.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 28, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I herewith return without my approval House bill No. 2769, entitled
"An act to authorize the leasing of lands for educational purposes
in Arizona."
This bill provides for the leasing of all the public lands reserved to
the Territory of Arizona for the benefit of its universities and
schools, "under such laws and regulations as may be hereafter prescribed
by the legislature of said Territory."
If the proposed legislation granted no further authority than this,
it would, in terms at least, recognize the safety and propriety of
leaving the desirability of leasing these lands and the limitations
and safeguards regulating such leasing to be determined by the local
legislature chosen by the people to make their laws and protect their
interests.
Instead of stopping here, however, the bill further provides that until
such legislative action the governor, the secretary of the Territory,
and the superintendent of public instruction shall constitute a board
for the leasing of said lands under the rules and regulations heretofore
prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. It is specifically declared
that it shall not be necessary to submit said leases to the Secretary of
the Interior for approval, and that no leases shall be made for a longer
term than five years nor for a term extending beyond the date of the
admission of the Territory to statehood.
Under these provisions the lands reserved for university and school
purposes, whose value largely depends upon their standing timber, and in
which every citizen of the Territory has a deep interest, may be leased
and denuded of their timber by officers none of whom have been chosen by
the people, and without the sanction of any law or regulation made by
their representatives in the local legislature. Even the measure of
protection which would be afforded the citizens of the Territory by a
submission to the Secretary of the Interior of the leases proposed, and
thus giving him an opportunity to ascertain whether or not they comply
with his regulations, is especially withheld.
It was hardly necessary to provide in this bill that these lands
might be leased "under such laws and regulations as may be hereafter
prescribed by the legislature of said Territory" if the action of the
legislature was to be forestalled and rendered nugatory by the immediate
and unrestrained action of the officers constituted "a board for the
leasing of said lands" pending such legislative consideration. These
are inconsistencies which are not satisfactorily accounted for by the
suggestion that the time that would elapse before the legislature could
consider the subject would be important.
The protests I have received from numerous and influential citizens of
the Territory indicate considerable opposition to this bill among those
interested in the preservation and proper management of these school
lands.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 21, 1896_.
_To the Senate_:
I herewith return without my approval Senate bill No. 894, entitled
"An act granting a pension to Nancy G. Allabach."
This bill provides for the payment of a pension of $30 a month to the
beneficiary named as the widow of Peter H. Allabach.
This soldier served for nine months in the Army during the War of the
Rebellion, having also served in the war with Mexico.
He was mustered out of his last service on the 23d day of May, 1863,
and died on the 11th of February, 1892.
During his life he made no application for pension on account of
disabilities. It is not now claimed that he was in the least disabled as
an incident of his military service, nor is it alleged that his death,
which occurred nearly twenty-nine years after his discharge from the
Army, was in any degree related to such service.
His widow was pensioned after his death under the statute allowing
pensions to widows of soldiers of the Mexican War without reference to
the cause of the death of their husbands. Her case is also, indirectly,
one of those provided for by the general act passed in 1890, commonly
called the dependent-pension law.
It is proposed, however, by the special act under consideration to give
this widow a pension of $30 a month without the least suggestion of the
death or disability of her husband having been caused by his military
service, and solely, as far as is discoverable, upon the ground that she
is poor and needs the money.
This condition is precisely covered by existing general laws; and if a
precedent is to be established by the special legislation proposed, I do
not see how the same relief as is contained in this bill can be denied
to the many thousand widows who in a similar situation are now on the
pension rolls under general laws.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 21, 1896_.
_To the Senate_:
I return herewith without my approval Senate bill No. 249, entitled
"An act granting a pension to Charles E. Jones."
The beneficiary named in this bill was a photographer who accompanied
one of the regiments of the Union Army in the War of the Rebellion. He
was injured, apparently not very seriously, while taking photographs and
when no battle was in actual progress. He was not enlisted, and was in
no manner in the military service of the United States.
Aside from the question as to whether his present sad condition is
attributable to the injury mentioned, it seems to me the extension of
pension relief to such cases would open the door to legislation hard to
justify and impossible to restrain from abuse.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 25, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I herewith return without my approval House bill No. 1094, entitled
"An act granting a pension to Francis E. Hoover."
It is proposed by this bill to grant a pension of $50 a month to the
beneficiary named, who served as a private for about one year and nine
months in the Union Army during the War of the Rebellion.
I do not understand it is claimed in any quarter that the present
helpless condition of this soldier is at all attributable to his army
service.
He himself never applied for a pension until after the passage of the
law of 1890, providing for a pension for those who had served in the
Army and are unable to maintain themselves by manual labor on account of
disability not chargeable to army service. The committee of the House of
Representatives in reporting this bill declare: "The testimony does not
show the disease of the soldier to be of service origin."
The beneficiary is now receiving the largest pension permitted under the
law of 1890.
His condition may well excite our sympathy, but to grant him a pension
of $50 a month without the least suggestion that his pitiable disability
is related to his army service, and in view of the fact that he is now
receiving the highest pension allowed by a general law enacted to
expressly meet such cases, it seems to me would result in an unfair
discrimination as against many thousand worthy soldiers similarly
situated, and would invite applications which, while difficult to refuse
in the face of such a precedent, must certainly lead to the breaking
down of all the limitations and restrictions provided by our laws
regulating pensions.
The value of pension legislation depends as much upon fairness and
justice in its administration as it does upon its liberality and
generosity.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 19, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 1139, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Caroline D. Mowatt."
The beneficiary mentioned in this bill was married in 1858 to Alfred B.
Soule, who served as major of a Maine regiment of volunteers in the War
of the Rebellion from September 10, 1862, to July 15, 1863, when he was
mustered out of the service. He died in February, 1864, and in 1866 a
pension was granted to the beneficiary as his widow at the rate of $25 a
month, dating from the time of her husband's death, two years before.
The widow continued to receive the pension allowed her until June 17,
1869, when She was married to Henry T. Mowatt, which under the law
terminated her pensionable right. It appears, however, that a small
pension was allowed two minor children of the soldier at the time of
their mother's remarriage, which continued until 1876, more than seven
years after such remarriage, when the youngest of said children became
16 years of age.
In 1878, nine years after he became the second husband of the
beneficiary, Henry T. Mowatt died.
Though twenty-seven years have passed since the beneficiary ceased to
be the widow of the deceased soldier, and though she has been the widow
of Henry T. Mowatt for eighteen years, it is proposed by the bill under
consideration to again place her name upon the pension roll "as widow
of Alfred B. Soule, late major of the Twenty-third Regiment Maine
Volunteers."
Of course the propriety of the law which terminates the pension of a
soldier's widow upon her remarriage will not be questioned. I suppose no
one would suggest the renewal of such pension during the lifetime of her
second husband. Her pensionable relation to the Government as the widow
of her deceased soldier husband, under any reasonable pension theory,
absolutely terminated with her remarriage.
If she is to be again pensioned because her second husband does not
survive her, the transaction has more the complexion of an adjustment
of a governmental insurance on the life of the second husband than the
allowance of a pension on just and reasonable grounds.
Legislation of this description is sure to establish a precedent which
it will be difficult to disclaim, and which if followed can not fail to
lead to abuse.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 20, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 577, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Lydia A. Taft."
In 1858 the beneficiary named in this bill became the wife of Lowell
Taft, who afterwards enlisted in the Union Army as a private in a
Connecticut regiment and served from August, 1862, until June, 1865.
The records of the War Department show that he was captured by the
enemy June 15, 1863, and paroled July 14, 1863.
No application for a pension was ever made by him, though he lived until
1891, when he died at a soldiers' home in Connecticut.
No suggestion is made that he incurred any disability in the service or
that his death was in any manner related to such service.
In 1882, nearly twenty-four years after her marriage to the soldier
and seventeen years after his discharge from the Army, the beneficiary
obtained a divorce from him upon the grounds of habitual drunkenness
and failure to afford her a support.
It is now proposed, five years after the soldier's death, to pension as
his widow the wife who was divorced from him at her own instance
fourteen years ago.
A government's generous care for widows deprived of a husband's support
and companionship by the casualties or disabilities of war rests upon
grounds which all must cheerfully approve; but it is difficult to place
upon these grounds the case of this proposed beneficiary, who has
renounced a wife's relation, with all its duties and all its rights, and
who by her own act placed herself beyond the possibility of becoming the
widow of her soldier husband.
If, as stated in the report of the House committee on this bill, the
beneficiary for some reason contributed something toward the soldier's
support after her divorce and paid the expense of his burial, the fact
still remains that this soldier died in a soldiers' home wifeless and
leaving no one surviving who, claiming to be his widow, should be
allowed to profit by his death.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 21, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 1185, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Rachel Patton."
John H. Patton, the husband of the beneficiary, was a captain in an
Illinois regiment, and was killed in action June 25, 1863.
In December, 1863, the beneficiary was pensioned as his widow at the
rate of $20 a month.
She received this pension for thirteen years and until 1876, when she
married one William G. Culbertson. Thereupon, because of such marriage,
her name was dropped from the pension rolls, pursuant to law.
In 1889, thirteen years after her remarriage and the termination of her
pension, she procured a decree of divorce against her second husband on
the ground of desertion.
She has a small income, but it does not appear that alimony was allowed
her in the divorce proceedings.
It is proposed by this bill to pension her at the same rate which was
allowed her while she remained the widow of the deceased soldier.
It can not be denied that the remarriage of this beneficiary terminated
her pensionable relation to the Government as completely as if it never
existed. The statute which so provides simply declares what is approved
by a fair and sensible consideration of pension principles. As a legal
proposition, the pensionable status of a soldier's widow, lost by her
remarriage, can not be recovered by the dissolution of the second
marriage. Waiving, however, the application of strictly legal principles
to the subject, there does not appear to be any sentiment which should
restore to the pension rolls as the widow of a deceased soldier a
divorced wife who has relinquished the title of soldier's widow to again
become a wife, and who to secure the expected advantages and comforts of
a second marriage has been quite willing to forego the provision which
was made for her by the Government solely on the grounds of her soldier
widowhood.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 23, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 4804, entitled "An act
to amend subdivision 10 of section 2238 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States."
The subdivision of the section of the law proposed to be amended by
this bill has reference to the fees allowed receivers and registers at
public-land offices. This subdivision now reads as follows:
Tenth. Registers and receivers are allowed jointly at the rate of 15
cents per hundred words for testimony reduced by them to writing for
claimants in establishing preemption and homestead rights.
The bill under consideration so amends this subdivision that in the
first clause a compensation of 10 cents per hundred words is allowed
to the registers and receivers for reducing to writing the testimony
of claimants "in all cases," instead of 15 cents per hundred words for
reducing to writing testimony "in establishing preemption and homestead
rights," as provided in the old law.
Whether this reduction of fees preserves an adequate and just
compensation to the officers affected I suppose has been duly considered
by the Congress.
The bill, however, after providing for this change in compensation,
contains the following words:
And in all cases where they [the registers and receivers] can secure a
competent person to reduce the testimony to writing for a sum less per
folio than the sum herein prescribed it shall be their duty to do so.
By the addition of these words the bill seems to give certain fees by
way of official compensation to the officers named for certain services
to be performed by them and at the same time to provide that if they can
secure other persons willing to perform these services for a less sum
than the amount allowed to them they shall forego their fees in favor of
such persons.
It is very important that the fees and perquisites of public officers
should be definitely and clearly fixed, so that the official may know
precisely the items of his lawful compensation and the people be
protected from extortion and imposition.
A public officer ought not to be expected to search very industriously
for a person to underbid him for official work, and if such a person
appeared the temptation to combination and conspiracy would in many
cases lead to abuse.
It will be observed that the officers are not given by this amendment
the option to do this work themselves at 10 cents per folio or secure a
competent person to do it at a less rate, nor, if they desire, are they
allowed to compete with those willing to accept a less compensation.
They may charge a fixed rate for the service if performed by them, but
in any event if they can procure another party to perform the services
for a less sum they must do so.
I am convinced that this bill in its present form, perhaps through
unfortunate phraseology, if it became a law would lead to confusion and
uncertainty and would invite practices against which the public service
ought to be carefully guarded.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 26, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 7161, entitled "An act
for the relief of Benjamin F. Jones."
This bill directs the payment to the beneficiary, late postmaster
at Beauregard, Miss., or to his order, of the sum of $50, in full
compensation for services and expenses in carrying and distributing
the mails between Wesson and Beauregard, in the State of Mississippi,
in 1883.
It appears from the report of the House committee recommending the
passage of this bill that on April 22, 1883, while Mr. Jones was
postmaster at Beauregard, a cyclone destroyed every building in the
place, including that in which the post-office was kept; that in
consequence of this disaster the mails for Beauregard were for a period
of thirty-five days, and until May 27, 1883, deposited at Wesson, 1 mile
distant; that during that time it became necessary to transport such
mails from Wesson to Beauregard, and that the postmaster caused this to
be done, at an expense of $97.
A report from the Postmaster-General discloses the fact that this claim
was presented to the Department in 1884 and was rejected on the ground
that if the service was performed as alleged it was not authorized or
directed by the Department.
In 1885 a suit was instituted against this postmaster and his sureties
for a balance due the Government from him on his official accounts for
the quarter ending June 30, 1883.
It will be observed that this quarter covered the period within which
the alleged services were performed.
In the suit referred to a judgment was recovered by the Government
against the postmaster for $190.45, being the balance found due from
him. This judgment still remains unpaid.
In this condition of affairs it is quite plain that in fairness and
justice no appropriation should be made in favor of the claimant.
It is the opinion of the Auditor of the Post-Office Department that even
if this bill becomes a law payment of the money appropriated should be
withheld under a section of the Revised Statutes which provides:
No money shall be paid to any person for his compensation who is in
arrears to the United States until he has accounted for and paid into
the Treasury all sums for which he may be liable.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 29, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I return herewith without approval House bill No. 7977, entitled "An act
making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of
certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes."
There are 417 items of appropriation contained in this bill, and every
part of the country is represented in the distribution of its favors.
It directly appropriates or provides for the immediate expenditure of
nearly $14,000,000 for river and harbor work. This sum is in addition to
appropriations contained in another bill for similar purposes amounting
to a little more than $3,000,000, which have already been favorably
considered at the present session of Congress.
The result is that the contemplated immediate expenditures for the
objects mentioned amount to about $17,000,000.
A more startling feature of this bill is its authorization of contracts
for river and harbor work amounting to more than $62,000,000. Though the
payments on these contracts are in most cases so distributed that they
are to be met by future appropriations, more than $3,000,000 on their
account are included in the direct appropriations above mentioned. Of
the remainder, nearly $20,000,000 will fall due during the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1898, and amounts somewhat less in the years immediately
succeeding. A few contracts of a like character authorized under
previous statutes are still outstanding, and to meet payments on these
more than $4,000,000 must be appropriated in the immediate future.
If, therefore, this bill becomes a law, the obligations which will be
imposed on the Government, together with the appropriations made for
immediate expenditure on account of rivers and harbors, will amount to
about $80,000,000. Nor is this all. The bill directs numerous surveys
and examinations which contemplate new work and further contracts and
which portend largely increased expenditures and obligations.
There is no ground to hope that in the face of persistent and growing
demands the aggregate of appropriations for the smaller schemes, not
covered by contracts, will be reduced or even remain stationary. For the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1898, such appropriations, together with the
installments on contracts which will fall due in that year, can hardly
be less than $30,000,000; and it may reasonably be apprehended that the
prevalent tendency toward increased expenditures of this sort and the
concealment which postponed payments afford for extravagance will
increase the burdens chargeable to this account in succeeding years.
In view of the obligation imposed upon me by the Constitution, it
seems to me quite clear that I only discharge a duty to our people when
I interpose my disapproval of the legislation proposed.
Many of the objects for which it appropriates public money are not
related to the public welfare, and many of them are palpably for the
benefit of limited localities or in aid of individual interests.
On the face of the bill it appears that not a few of these alleged
improvements have been so improvidently planned and prosecuted that
after an unwise expenditure of millions of dollars new experiments for
their accomplishment have been entered upon.
While those intrusted with the management of public funds in the
interest of all the people can hardly justify questionable expenditures
for public work by pleading the opinions of engineers or others as to
the practicability of such work, it appears that some of the projects
for which appropriations are proposed in this bill have been entered
upon without the approval or against the objections of the examining
engineers.
I learn from official sources that there are appropriations contained in
the bill to pay for work which private parties have actually agreed with
the Government to do in consideration of their occupancy of public
property.
Whatever items of doubtful propriety may have escaped observation or may
have been tolerated in previous Executive approvals of similar bills,
I am convinced that the bill now under consideration opens the way to
insidious and increasing abuses and is in itself so extravagant as to be
especially unsuited to these times of depressed business and resulting
disappointment in Government revenue. This consideration is emphasized
by the prospect that the public Treasury will be confronted with other
appropriations made at the present session of Congress amounting to more
than $500,000,000.
Individual economy and careful expenditure are sterling virtues
which lead to thrift and comfort. Economy and the exaction of clear
justification for the appropriation of public moneys by the servants
of the people are not only virtues, but solemn obligations.
To the extent that the appropriations contained in this bill are
instigated by private interests and promote local or individual projects
their allowance can not fail to stimulate a vicious paternalism and
encourage a sentiment among our people, already too prevalent, that
their attachment to our Government may properly rest upon the hope and
expectation of direct and especial favors and that the extent to which
they are realized may furnish an estimate of the value of governmental
care.
I believe no greater danger confronts us as a nation than the unhappy
decadence among our people of genuine and trustworthy love and affection
for our Government as the embodiment of the highest and best aspirations
of humanity, and not as the giver of gifts, and because its mission is
the enforcement of exact justice and equality, and not the allowance of
unfair favoritism.
I hope I may be permitted to suggest, at a time when the issue of
Government bonds to maintain the credit and financial standing of the
country is a subject of criticism, that the contracts provided for in
this bill would create obligations of the United States amounting to
$62,000,000 no less binding than its bonds for that sum.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 29, 1896_.
_To the Senate_:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 147, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Elvira Bachelder."
This bill provides for a pension to the beneficiary as dependent mother
of "J.K.P. Bachelder, late a private in Company D, Seventh New Hampshire
Volunteer Infantry."
On the merits of the case I am satisfied this mother deserves a pension.
I withhold my approval of the bill intended to grant her this relief
solely because I am advised that the law would be inoperative for the
reason that the deceased soldier never served in the Seventh New
Hampshire Infantry, and should have been described in the bill as a
member of Company D, First New Hampshire Heavy Artillery.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 29, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 900, entitled "An act
to provide for the payment of the claim of William H. Mahoney."
This bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to receive and pay to
W.H. Mahoney, without the indorsement of N.A. Rogers, a certain bond
issued by the United States in 1861 for the sum of $500, such payment to
be made upon the giving by said Mahoney of a bond to hold harmless the
United States against repayment of said bond.
The bond mentioned is one of a large issue which was authorized under an
act passed March 2, 1861, and known as Oregon war-debt bonds. They were
made payable in 1881.
In 1864 an act was passed directing the Secretary of the Treasury to
issue or cause to be issued to E.F. and Samuel A. Ward duplicates of
nineteen of these bonds, particularly described by their numbers and
otherwise. Among others are mentioned "Nos. 1352 to 1359, inclusive."
This of course includes the bond numbered 1358, which is directed to be
paid in the bill under consideration. Nothing can now be discovered to
indicate the occasion for the issuance of these duplicates, but from the
fact that a bond of indemnity was required it is inferred that they were
issued because of the loss or destruction of the original bonds.
Pursuant to this act a duplicate of the bond in question, among others,
was issued and made payable to the order of Thomas Pritchard, attorney,
who was the payee in the original bond.
In 1881 this duplicate was paid by the Treasury Department and is now in
possession of the Government. The indorsement of the payee, "Thomas
Pritchard, attorney," appears thereon and all other proper indorsements
to show title in the party to whom the payment was made.
The Government has therefore once paid the amount of this bond to the
party apparently entitled to it. If the beneficiary named in this bill
has a better right to the money, the Government, not being in default,
should be protected against double payment. I suppose to sustain a
claim upon the indemnity bond given when the duplicate was issued in
1864 we should be prepared to show that the second payment on the
original bond was made upon such a state of facts as compelled or at
least justified it. The passage of an act simply directing such payment
would alone not be sufficient. The bond directed to be given by this
bill would afford the Government no protection, since it only provides
against repayment of the bond in the future, whereas the payment we
should suffer from has already been made.
I suggest that an act be passed directing the Secretary of the Treasury
to investigate the entire subject with a view of determining to whom
this money should be paid, in a manner to bind, if possible, by the
results of the examination the party to whom it has already been paid,
and who should refund if another has a better right.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 30, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I return without approval House bill No. 6037, entitled "An act granting
a pension to Mrs. Amanda Woodcock."
The bill provides for the granting of a pension to the beneficiary
therein named, describing her as the "widow of Robert Woodcock,
deceased, late a private in the Fourth United States Volunteer Infantry
in the Mexican War."
My action in this case is based upon the following statement concerning
the bill from the Pension Bureau:
The bill, if approved, would be inoperative, inasmuch as there was
no such organization in the Mexican War as named in the bill (Fourth
United States Volunteer Infantry), and the service alleged by the
soldier having been in the Fourth Kentucky Volunteer Infantry.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 30, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I herewith return without approval House bill No. 4526, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Jonathan Scott."
This bill directs that the Secretary of the Interior place upon the
pension roll, at the rate of $72 per month, subject to the provisions
and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Jonathan Scott, late
of Company M, Sixth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry.
The beneficiary was dropped from the pension roll in October, 1895,
after a very thorough examination, for fraud, it appearing to the
satisfaction of the Pension Bureau that the disability for which he was
pensioned was not due to his army service. There certainly ought to be
a strong presumption that the case was fairly and justly determined by
the Bureau, and the evidence strongly tends to support the conclusion
reached. If restored to the rolls, such restoration would still be
"subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws," and he
would not be exempt from further investigation if circumstances or newly
developed facts justified such a course.
Whatever may be the merits of the case, however, I am advised by the
Pension Bureau that the bill, if it becomes a law in its present form,
would be inoperative for the reason that the beneficiary is therein
described as having been a member of the Sixth Regiment of Iowa
Volunteer Cavalry, whereas he actually served in the Fifth Regiment of
the Volunteer Cavalry of that State.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 1, 1896_.
_To the Senate_:
I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 149, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Helen M. Jacob."
The purpose of this bill is to grant a pension of $12 per month to
"Helen M. Jacob, of Rochester, Ind., widow of Benjamin Oden West."
It appears from the records of the War Department that Benjamin O. West
served in the Mexican War from January to November in the year 1847. The
beneficiary named in this bill was married to him in 1850, and he died
in 1856. She was pensioned as his widow, and received such pension from
the date of her husband's death until April 17, 1861. On that date she
was married to William W. Jacob, whereupon her pension ceased, but two
minor children were awarded pensions and continued in receipt of the
same until January, 1873, when the youngest child became 16 years of
age.
The entire absence of any fixed or reasonable principle or rule
regulating private pension legislation at this time suggests the danger
of its near approach in many cases to caprice and favoritism.
Though I have in a number of instances deferred to the judgment of
Congress and refrained from interposing objections to bills of this
character which seemed to me to be of doubtful merit, I am unwilling to
follow such a wide departure from a palpably just pension theory and
assent to the establishment of such an unfortunate precedent as this
bill involves.
There is no duty or obligation due from the Government to a soldier's
widow except it be worked out through the deceased soldier. She is
pensioned only because he served his country and because through his
death she as his wife has lost his support. In other words, she becomes
a beneficiary of the Government because she is a soldier's widow. When
she marries again, and thus displaces the memory of her soldier husband
and surrenders all that belongs to soldier widowhood, she certainly
ought not on the death of her second husband to be allowed to claim that
she is again the soldier's widow.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 6, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I hereby return without my approval House bill No. 8293, entitled "An
act making appropriations to supply deficiencies in the appropriations
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1896, and for prior years, and for
other purposes."
To the extent that the Constitution has devolved upon the President a
participation in legislation I suppose his action on bills presented to
him for approval involves a duty to be performed, like others pertaining
to his office, with care and circumspection and in full view of his
responsibility to the people and his obligation to subserve the public
welfare. It is difficult to understand why under the Constitution it
should be necessary to submit proposed legislation to Executive scrutiny
and approval except to invoke the exercise of Executive judgment and
invite independent Executive action.
The unpleasant incidents which accompany the use of the veto power would
tempt its avoidance if such a course did not involve an abandonment of
constitutional duty and an assent to legislation for which the Executive
is not willing to share the responsibility.
I regret that I am constrained to disapprove an important appropriation
bill so near the close of the present session of Congress. I have,
however, by immediate action after the receipt of the bill, endeavored
to delay as little as possible a reconsideration of this proposed
legislation, though I am thus obliged to content myself with a less
complete explanation of my objections than would otherwise be submitted.
This bill is in many of its features far removed from a legitimate
deficiency bill, and it contains a number of appropriations which seem
to me to be exceedingly questionable. Without noticing in detail many of
these items, I shall refer to two of them which, in my judgment, justify
my action in the premises.
The bill appropriates $1,027,314.09 for a partial payment upon claims
which originated in depredations upon our commerce by French cruisers
and vessels during the closing years of the last century. They have
become quite familiar to those having Congressional experience, as they
have been pressed for recognition and payment, with occasional intervals
of repose, for nearly one hundred years.
These claims are based upon the allegations that France, being at war
with England, seized and condemned many American vessels and cargoes in
violation of the rules of international law and treaty provisions and
contrary to the duty she owed to our country as a neutral power and to
our citizens; that by reason of these acts claims arose in favor of such
of our citizens as were demnified against the French nation, which
claims our Government attempted to enforce, and that in concluding a
treaty with France in the year 1800 these claims were abandoned or
relinquished in consideration of the relinquishment of certain claims
which France charged against us.
Upon these statements it is insisted by those interested that we as a
nation having reaped a benefit in our escape from these French demands
against us through the abandonment of the claims of our citizens against
France, the Government became equitably bound as between itself and its
citizens to pay the claims thus relinquished.
I do not understand it to be asserted that there exists any legal
liability against the Government on account of its relation to these
claims. At the term of the Supreme Court just finished the Chief
Justice, in an opinion concerning them and the action of Congress in
appropriating for their payment, said:
We think that payments thus prescribed to be made were purposely
brought within the category of payments by way of gratuity--payments
of grace and not of right.
From the time the plan was conceived to charge the Government with
the payment of these claims they have abided in the atmosphere of
controversy. Every proposition presented in their support has been
stoutly disputed and every inference suggested in their favor has
been promptly challenged.
Thus, inasmuch as it must, I think, be conceded that if a state of war
existed between our country and France at the time these depredations
were committed our Government was not justified in claiming indemnity
for our citizens, it is asserted that we were at the time actually
engaged in war with the French nation. This position seems to be
sustained by an opinion of the Attorney-General of the United States
written in 1798 and by a number of decisions of the Supreme Court
delivered soon after that time.
We had certainly abrogated treaties with France, and our cruisers and
armed ships were roaming the seas capturing her vessels and property.
So, also, when it is asserted that the validity of these claims was
acknowledged in the treaty negotiations by the representatives of
France, their declarations to a contrary purport are exhibited.
And when it is alleged that the abandonment of these claims against
France was in consideration of great benefits to the Government, it is
as confidently alleged that they were in point of fact abandoned because
their enforcement was hopeless and that even if any benefit really
accrued to us by insistence upon their settlement in the course of
diplomatic negotiation such result gave no pretext for taxing the
Government with liability to the claimants.
Without noticing other considerations and contentions arising from the
alleged origin of these claims, a brief reference to their treatment in
the past and the development of their presentation may be useful and
pertinent.
It is, I believe, somewhat the fashion in interested quarters to speak
of the failure by the Government to pay these claims as such neglect
as amounts to repudiation and a denial of justice to citizens who have
suffered. Of course the original claimants have for years been beyond
the reach of relief; but as their descendants in each generation become
more numerous the volume of advocacy, importunity, and accusation
correspondingly increases. If injustice has been done in the refusal of
these claims, it began early in the present century and may be charged
against men then in public life more conversant than we can be with the
facts involved and whose honesty and sense of right ought to be secure
from suspicion.
As early as 1802 a committee of the House of Representatives reported
the facts connected with these claims, but apparently without
recommendation. No action was taken on the report. In 1803 a resolution
declaring that indemnity ought to be paid was negatived by a vote of the
same body. A favorable committee report was made in 1807, but it seems
that no legislative action resulted. In 1818 an adverse report was made
to the Senate, followed by the passage of a resolution declaring "that
the relief asked by the memorialists and petitioners ought not to be
granted." In 1822 and again in 1824 adverse committee reports on the
subject were made to the House, concluding with similar resolutions.
The presumption against these claims arising from such unfavorable
reports and resolutions and from the failure of Congress to provide for
their payment at a time so near the events upon which they are based can
not be destroyed by the interested cry of injustice and neglect of the
rights of our citizens.
Until 1846 these claims were from time to time pressed upon the
attention of Congress with varying fortunes, but never with favorable
legislative action. In that year, however, a bill was passed for their
ascertainment and satisfaction, and $5,000,000 were appropriated for
their payment. This bill was vetoed by President Polk,[31] who declared
that he could "perceive no legal or equitable ground upon which this
large appropriation can rest." This veto was sustained by the House of
Representatives.
Nine years afterwards, and in 1855, another bill was passed similar to
the one last mentioned, and appropriating for the settlement of these
claims a like sum of money. This bill was also vetoed,[32] President
Pierce concluding a thorough discussion of its demerits with these
words:
In view of what has been said there would seem to be no ground on which
to raise a liability of the United States, unless it be the assumption
that the United States are to be considered the insurer and the
guarantor of all claims, of whatever nature, which any individual
citizen may have against a foreign nation.
This veto was also sustained by the House of Representatives.
I think it will be found that in all bills proposed in former times for
the payment of these claims the sum to be appropriated for that purpose
did not exceed $5,000,000. It is now estimated that those already passed
upon, with those still pending for examination in the Court of Claims,
may amount to $25,000,000. This indicates either that the actual
sufferers or those nearer to them in time and blood than the present
claimants underestimated their losses or that there has been a great
development in the manner of their presentation.
Notwithstanding persistent efforts to secure payment from the
Government and the importunity of those interested, no appropriation has
ever been made for that purpose except a little more than $1,300,000,
which was placed in the general deficiency bill in the very last hours
of the session of Congress on March 3, 1891.
In the long list of beneficiaries who are provided for in the bill now
before me on account of these claims 152 represent the owners of ships
and their cargoes and 186 those who lost as insurers of such vessels or
cargoes.
These insurers by the terms of their policies undertook and agreed
"to bear and take upon themselves all risks and perils of the sea,
men-of-war, fire, enemies, rovers, thieves, jettison, letters of mart
and counter mart, surprisals, takings at sea, arrests, restraints, and
detainments of all kings, princes, or people of what nation, condition,
or quality whatsoever."
The premiums received on these policies were large, and the losses
were precisely those within the contemplation of the insurers. It is
well known that the business of insurance is entered upon with the
expectation that the premiums received will pay all losses and yield a
profit to the insurance in addition; and yet, without any showing that
the business did not result in a profit to these insurance claimants,
it is proposed that the Government shall indemnify them against the
precise risks they undertook, notwithstanding the fact that the money
appropriated is not to be paid except "by way of gratuity--payments
as of grace and not of right."
The appropriations to indemnify against insurance losses rest upon
weaker grounds, it seems to me, than those of owners; but in the light
of all the facts and circumstances surrounding these spoliation claims,
as they are called, none of them, in my opinion, should be paid by the
Government.
Another item in this bill which seems to me especially objectionable is
an appropriation in favor of Charles P. Chouteau, survivor, etc., of
$174,445.75, in full satisfaction of all claims arising out of the
construction of the ironclad steam battery _Etlah_.
The contract for the construction of this battery was made by the
Government with Charles W. McCord during the war, and he was to be paid
therefor the sum of $386,000. He was paid this sum and $210,991 for
extras, and in May, 1866, gave his receipt in full. The assignee of
McCord in bankruptcy assigned to Chouteau and his associates in 1868
all claims of McCord against the United States for the precise extras
for which he had receipted in full two years before. Chouteau brought
suit in the Court of Claims for such extras and was defeated. I can not
gather from the facts I have been able to collect concerning this
appropriation that it is justified on any ground.
In 1890 my immediate predecessor vetoed a bill allowing the matter to be
examined again by the Court of Claims.[33]
If the additional payment proposed in this bill was made, the cost of
the battery in question would be almost double that of the contract
price.
I have determined to submit this incomplete presentation of my
objections to this bill at once in order that the Congress may act
thereon without embarrassment or the interruption of plans for an early
adjournment.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
[Footnote 31: See Vol. IV, pp. 466-469.]
[Footnote 32: See Vol. V, pp. 307-322.]
[Footnote 33: See p. 93]
EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 10, 1896_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I herewith return without my approval House bill No. 225, entitled "An
act to provide for the lease of Fort Omaha Military Reservation to the
State of Nebraska."
This bill authorizes and directs the Secretary of War, when Fort Crook,
near the city of Omaha, is ready for occupancy, to lease for a nominal
rent to the State of Nebraska the possession of Fort Omaha Military
Reservation, containing about 80 acres, with all the buildings,
appurtenances, and improvements thereof. It is declared that the lease
shall be conditional upon the use of said reservation by the State of
Nebraska as a place of rendezvous and school of instruction for the
National Guard of said State; that the State of Nebraska shall while it
is in possession of said reservation keep the buildings and improvements
thereon in as good condition and repair as at the date it shall enter
into possession thereof, and that at any time when, in the judgment of
the Secretary of War, the interests of the United States shall require
such action he shall take possession of said military reservation for
the use of the Government, together with all the buildings,
appurtenances, and improvements thereon.
On the 23d day of July, 1888, an act was passed authorizing the
Secretary of War to purchase suitable grounds, of not less than 640
acres in extent, to be situate within 10 miles of the city of Omaha, and
to construct the necessary buildings thereon for a ten-company military
post, to be known as Fort Omaha, and a necessary sum, not exceeding
$200,000, was appropriated to enable the Secretary of War to carry out
the provisions of said act.
The said act also authorized the Secretary of War, when the purchase of
the new site should be effected, to sell the military reservation known
as Fort Omaha and such of the buildings and improvements thereon as
could not be economically removed to the new site, and to cause the said
reservation, for the purposes of said sale, to be platted in blocks,
streets, and alleys, if in his judgment it would inure to the benefit of
the Government in making a sale of such site.
The new site provided for by this act has been purchased, a large sum of
money has been spent by the Government in preparing it for use, and I
understand it will soon be ready for occupancy. The authority to sell
the old site has not been exercised. This may be accounted for by the
fact that the Government has not thus far been able to dispense with its
use or because the depression in land values at Omaha has rendered it
unadvisable.
The authority to sell and to remove any of the buildings from the old
reservation to the new site still remains, however, unimpaired. In this
condition of affairs it is now proposed to lease this land and these
buildings to the State of Nebraska at a nominal rent, allowing the
Government to repossess it only "when the interests of the United States
shall require such action."
Of course it would be claimed that this language, in view of the
statute of 1888, should not be construed as permitting the Government to
retake the property for the purpose of selling it, because that is not
stipulated in the bill. For that reason it would be plausibly urged that
the lease was paramount to the power of sale contained in the law of
1888 and that the omission of any provision that possession might be
resumed for the purpose of sale plainly indicated that "the interests of
the United States" which allow such resumption contemplate some other
and different emergency.
As a practical question, we all know that transactions of this character
relating to Government property amount to a permanent alienation, or
certainly pave the way for an absolute grant.
I do not think there should be anything done with this valuable property
which will in the least embarrass the Government in its sale, and to
that extent reimbursing itself for the cost of the new military post,
which was plainly contemplated in the law of 1888.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
PROCLAMATIONS.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas the Congress of the United States passed an act, which was
approved on the 16th day of July, 1894, entitled "An act to enable the
people of Utah to form a constitution and State government and to be
admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States,"
which act provided for the election of delegates to a constitutional
convention to meet at the seat of government of the Territory of Utah
on the first Monday in March, 1895, for the purpose of declaring the
adoption of the Constitution of the United States by the people of the
proposed State and forming a constitution and State government for such
State; and
Whereas delegates were accordingly elected, who met, organized, and
declared on behalf of the people of said proposed State their adoption
of the Constitution of the United States, all as provided in said act;
and
Whereas said convention, so organized, did, by ordinance irrevocable
without the consent of the United States and the people of said State,
as required by said act, provide that perfect toleration of religious
sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said State shall
ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of
religious worship, but that polygamous or plural marriages are forever
prohibited, and did also by said ordinance make the other various
stipulations recited in section 3 of said act; and
Whereas said convention thereupon formed a constitution and State
government for said proposed State, which constitution, including said
ordinance, was duly submitted to the people thereof at an election held
on the Tuesday next after the first Monday of November, 1895, as
directed by said act; and
Whereas the return of said election has been made and canvassed and the
result thereof certified to me, together with a statement of the votes
cast and a copy of said constitution and ordinance, all as provided in
said act, showing that a majority of the votes lawfully cast at such
election was for the ratification and adoption of said constitution and
ordinance; and
Whereas the constitution and government of said proposed State are
republican in form, said constitution is not repugnant to the
Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence,
and all the provisions of said act have been complied with in the
formation of said constitution and government:
Now, therefore, I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States
of America, in accordance with the act of Congress aforesaid and by
authority thereof, announce the result of said election to be as so
certified and do hereby declare and proclaim that the terms and
conditions prescribed by the Congress of the United States to entitle
the State of Utah to admission into the Union have been duly complied
with and that the creation of said State and its admission into the
Union on an equal footing with the original States is now accomplished.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.
[SEAL.]
Done at the city of Washington, this 4th day of January, A.D. 1896, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and
twentieth.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
By the President:
RICHARD OLNEY,
_Secretary of State_.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas it is provided by section 13 of the act of Congress of March 3,
1891, entitled "An act to amend Title LX, chapter 3, of the Revised
Statutes of the United States, relating to copyrights," that said act
"shall only apply to a citizen or subject of a foreign state or nation
when such foreign state or nation permits to citizens of the United
States of America the benefit of copyright on substantially the same
basis as its own citizens, or when such foreign state or nation is a
party to an international agreement which provides for reciprocity in
the granting of copyright, by the terms of which agreement the United
States of America may at its pleasure become a party to such agreement;"
and
Whereas it is also provided by said section that "the existence of
either of the conditions aforesaid shall be determined by the President
of the United States by proclamation made from time to time as the
purposes of this act may require;" and
Whereas satisfactory official assurances have been given that in the
United States of Mexico the law permits to citizens of the United States
of America the benefit of copyright on substantially the same basis as
to the citizens of that Republic:
Now, therefore, I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States of
America, do declare and proclaim that the first of the conditions
specified in section 13 of the act of March 3, 1891, now exists and is
fulfilled in respect to the citizens of the United States of Mexico.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.
[SEAL.]
Done at the city of Washington, this 27th day of February, 1896, and of
the Independence of the United States the one hundred and twentieth.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
By the President:
RICHARD OLNEY,
_Secretary of State_.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas in a suit between the United States and the State of Texas
involving the title to and jurisdiction over all that territory lying
between the North and South forks of the Red River and the one hundredth
degree of longitude, known and styled as "Greer County, Tex.," the
Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the title to and
jurisdiction over said territory is vested in the United States; and
Whereas the Choctaw Nation claims that the title to these lands passed
to said nation by virtue of treaties with the United States and that the
title of said nation to said lands has not been extinguished, but that
said Choctaw Nation has a right and interest therein; and
Whereas it is claimed that divers persons settled upon said lands prior
to the 30th day of December, 1887, acting in good faith upon the belief
that the same belonged to and were subject to the jurisdiction of the
State of Texas and that Congress will be asked to extend to all such
settlers suitable relief:
Now, therefore, I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States,
by virtue of the authority in me vested, not admitting in any wise the
validity of such claim on behalf of the Choctaw Nation, but for the
purpose of preserving the status of said lands intact until such time
as said claim of the Choctaw Nation thereto may be duly determined, and
that the settlers herein before referred to shall not be disturbed until
Congress shall have fully considered their claims for relief, do hereby
withdraw said lands from disposition under the public-land laws of the
United States and declare the same to be in a state of reservation until
such time as this order of withdrawal may be revoked; and I do further
warn and admonish all persons against entering upon said lands with a
view to occupying the same or settling thereon under the public-land
laws during the existence of this order.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.
[SEAL.]
Done at the city of Washington, this 16th day of March, A.D. 1896, and
of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and twentieth.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
By the President:
RICHARD OLNEY,
_Secretary of State_.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.
The following provisions of the laws of the United States are published
hereby for the information of all concerned:
Section 1956, Revised Statutes, chapter 3, Title XXIII, enacts that--
No person shall kill any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur seal, or
other fur-bearing animal within the limits of Alaska Territory or in
the waters thereof; and every person guilty thereof shall for each
offense be fined not less than $200 nor more than $1,000, or imprisoned
not more than six months, or both; and all vessels, their tackle,
apparel, furniture, and cargo, found engaged in violation of this
section shall be forfeited; but the Secretary of the Treasury shall
have power to authorize the killing of any such mink, marten, sable, or
other fur-bearing animal, except fur seals, under such regulations as
he may prescribe; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary to prevent
the killing of any fur seal and to provide for the execution of the
provisions of this section until it is otherwise provided by law, nor
shall he grant any special privileges under this section.