The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1896-06-10
ANOTHER VETO MESSAGE.
The President Tells Congress Why he
Refuses to Sanction the General Def
cheney Appropriation Bill.

ANU TEN NClO MIOOTNONa
The President Tells Congress Why lie
Refuses to sanction the General Def
cheney Appropriation Bill.
WASHINGTON, June S.-.The president
sent veto message to the house of
representatives on the general defci-
ency bill Saturday afternoon. He re-
plies briefly to the criticisms OF his ex-
ercise of the veto power and says he
hurried the preparation Of the message
in order that congress might take
notion in the matter without delay.
The ground for the veto is the pro-
vision relating to the payment of the
French spoliation claims. In his mes
sage the president says;
1t is dificult to understand why, under the
constitution, IL should be necessary to submit
proposed legislation to executive scrutiny ana
approval except to invoke the exercise OF ex-
ecutive judgment and invite independent ex-
ecutive action The unpleasant incidents which
accompany the use of the veto power would
tempt its avoidance II such course did not
involve abandonment of constitutional duty
and an assent TO legislation for which the ex-
ecutiye is not willing to share the RESPONSE
bility.
regret that am constrained to disapprove
an important appropriation Dill so near the
close OF the present session OF congress- have,
however. by immediate action after the receipt
of the bill endeavored TO delay as little as pos
sible reconsideration OF this proposed legisla-
tion, though am thus obliged to content my
self with less complete explanation Of my OBJ
iections than would otherwise be submitted
This bill is in many of its features far re-
moved from legitimate deficiency bill and 1t
contains u number of appropriations which
seem to me to be exceedingly questionable.
The bill appropriates SlOH,Sl4O9 for par
tial 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 ia
miliar to those having congressional expert
ence, as they have been pressed for recognition
and payment with occasional intervals OF re-
pose, for nearly 100 years.
The claims are based upon the allegations
that France being at war with England, seized
and condemned many American vessels and
cargocS in violation of the rules of international
law and treaty provisions, and contrary to the
duty she owed to our country as neutral pow
er and to our citizens; that by reason Of these
acts claims arose in favor Of such of our citi-
zens as were injured against the French natior
which claims our government attempted Il
enforce, and that in concluding treaty will
France in the year 1900 these claims wert
abandoned in consideration Of the relinquish'
ment OF certain claims which France charged
against us.
Upon these statements 1t is insisted by thost
interested that we, as nation, having reapet
benefit in our escape from these French de-
ha hnf Il n
the claims Of our citizens against France, thu
government became equitably bound to pay
the claims thus relinquished
do not understand 1t to be asserted tina
there exists any legal liability against the gov
| ernment on account OF It's relations to theS,
| claims. At the term OF the supreme court jus
| finished the chief justice, In an opinion con
| cerning them and the action Of congress in ap
proprlating for their payment, said: "W
| think that payments thus prescribed to b,
made were purposely brought within the cate
CORY OF payments by way of gratuity-payment
Of grace and not Of right"
The president says these claims have been II
an atmosphere of controversy ever since the
| were conceived and that when it is alleged tina
| the abandonment Of these claims agains
France was in consideration Of great benefit
to the government, 1t is as confidently allege
that they were in point of fact abandoned be
cause their enforcement was hopeless and tina
even If any benefit really accrued to us by In
sstence upon their settlement In the course @
diplomatic negotiations, such result gave n
pretext for taxing the government with liz
bility to the claimants.
Until 1916 these claims were from time t
time pressed upon the attention OF congress
but never met favorable legislative actieA i
that year, however. a bill was passed for thei
aScertainment and satisfaction and $1,000 0(
were appropriated for their payment. This bi
was vetoed by President Polk, who declare
that he,cOuld perceive no legal or equitabl
ground upon which this appropriation ca
rest" This veto was sustained by the hous
of representatives. Nine years afterwards al
other bill was passed similar to the one las
mentioned, apprOpriating for the settlement {
these claims, like sum Of money. This bi
was vetoed by President Pierce. This vet
was also sustained by the house OF represents
tives.
TIE list of benehciaries provided for in ii
bill on account OF these claims includes l5S WI
represent the owners of ships and their ca
goes and 1856 who lost as insurers Of such Ve
sells and cargOes. The president thinks IL
appropriations TO indemnify agains: insurant
losses rest upon even weaker grounds Una
the other claims. and concludes: In the ligl
of all the facts and circumstances surroundir
these spoliation claims, MS they are elaine
none Of them. IN my opinion should be paid
the government.
Another item in this bill which seems to n
specially Objectionable is an appropriation
favor OF Charles =, ChOuteau, survivor, etc.,
Sl744 AS in full satisfaction Of all claims arisil
out of the construction Of the ironclad stea
battery Elijah. The contract for the constru
tion OF this battery was made by the govern
ment with Charles W. McCord during the vi
and he was to be paid therefor 1885, ,00O He W
paid this sum and S2l090l for extras. and
May, 1866, gave his receipt in full. The a
. Signee of McCord, in bankruptcy, assigned
Chouteau and his associates in 1868 all clail
+ of McCord against the United States for I
, precise extras for which he had receipts in fl
two years before. Chouteau brought suit
the court Of claims for such extras and was d
feated. l cannot gather from the facts l ha
been able to gather concerning this approprl
| tion that it is justified on any ground.
, In 1891 my predecessor vetoed bill allowi
, i, the matter to be examined again by the col
i OF claims. If the additional payment propos
: in this bill was made the cost Of the battery
q