The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-12-11
GRANT MAY BE RETIRED.
A Question to Whether Arthur Win Veto
Such a Course for Consistency.

A Question as to Whether Arthur Win Veto
Such Course for Consistency.
WASHINGTON D. c., Dec. l0-The letter from
General Grant to Chairman Mitchell, of the Sen
ate committee on pensions, in which he refused
to accept pension, even if the bill was passed
by both houses of Congress and signed by the
President, occasioned buzz Of surprise among
senators and spectators when Senator Mitchell
read it from his seat to-day. 1t was the prevail
ing opinion that the recommendation of Presi-
dent Arthur that General Grant be pensoned
was made only. after advising with Grants
immediate friends Senator Mitchell introduced
the bill promptly at the request of many friends
Of Grant assuming that he reflected the desire
of the General himself
1t is now alleged that President Arthur made
the suggestion on his own responsibility. for the
reason that he could not consistently sign the
bill retiring General Grant, account OF his at
titude toward the Fitz John Porter and Averill
bills. The bill retiring General Averill was
killed by pocket veto In his message vetoing
the Porter BILL President Arthur used the fol
lowing language:
ut will create a new Office upon condition that
the particular person designated shall be chosen
to fill it. Such ar act, it seems to me, is either
unnecessary or ineffective. as it involves an en-
croachment by the legislative branch of the gov
ernment on the authority OF the executive, as
the Congress has no power under the Constitu-
ton to nominate or appoint any officer and can
not lawfully impose on the President the duty
OF nominating or appointing to office any indi-
vidual of its own selection. The bill can be
fairly construed as requiring the President to
make this nomination, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate and the appointment
which 1t authorizes is in manifest violation of
the Constitution. If such he not its Just inter
probation, it must be regarded as mere act of
advice and counsel, which lacks in the very ma
ture of things the force of positive law, and can
serve no useful purpose on the statute books"
AS the Porter and Averill bills contained
proposition precisely similar to that of the
Grant bill of retiracy 1T is assumed that the
President believed that his former negatives
must compel him to veto the Grant bill if passed.
The Senate bill, entitled AN act to place Ulys-
S. Grant, late general of the armies of the
United States upon the retired list of the army"
passed the Senate without dissent on May H.
1884. 1t authorizes the President to appoint
Grant a general on the retired list of the army,
army. This Senate bill is now in the House
and. in company with n House bill of similar
character has not been acted upon.
While it is probable that the pension bill
would have passed. the refusal of General Grant
to accept it caused feeling of relief aud men
congratulated each other and the country that
the world would not be forced to look upon the
spectacle of an eXPresident and a great general
drawing pension of $4,000 year. A Repub-
lican Senator who is intimate with General
Grant, says that his refusal of a pension is a
matter of principle with him, and that the ques-
ton of his pecuniary condition necessities did
not enter into it at all.
General Grant," said this senator lis entirely
opposed to the reckless manner in which the pub
lie money has been shoveled out to pensioners of
all classes. He has repeatedly expressed his
opinion on this subject to me- and well remem-
uer his words once. when he said he looked upon
it as being 'unsoldierly and unpatriotic for any
man not actually disabled by army service to ae-
cept pension
1t is the opinion this evening that the Senate
bill retiring General Grant will now pass the