The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1896-06-08
NAY, NAY, SAID GROVER.
Couldn't approve Of General De-
g fieHcy BILL.
MEASURE GOES BACK TO HOUSE
WITH HIS VETO.

French spoiiation Claims the Special OBJ
Observation-Disclosures Claim Also Source
Of Trouble-Somewhat Extended Mes.
sage to the House.
Washington, June 6-The President
today sent the following veto to the
House Of Representatives:
70 the House of Representatives:
hereby return withoub my approval
House bill numbered 1928, entitled IAN
Act Making Appropriations to Supply
Deficiencies in the Appropriations for the
Fiscal Year ending June 80. 1896, and for
Prior Years and for Other Purposes.
To the extent that the constitution
has devolyed upon the President par
tioipation in legislation, I suppose his ae-
tim on bills presented to him for APPROX
al involves a duty to be performed like
others pertaining to his Office, with care
and circumspsction, and in full view OF
his responsibility to the people and his
obligation to subserve the public welfare.
1t 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 accom-
pany the power would tempt its avoid
ance. if such o course did not involve an
abandonment of constitutional duty and
assent to legislation for which the execu-
tive is not willing to share the RESPONSE
bility.
regret that I am constrained to disap.
prove an important appropriation bill SC
near the close of the present session of
Congress. l have, however, by immediate
notion after the receipt of the BILL Ell.
deavored to delay as little as possible, a
reconsideration of this proposed legisla-
tion, though I am thus obliged tocontent
myself with a less complete expla nation
of my objections than would otherwise be
submitted.
This bill is in many of its features far
removed from a legitimate deficiency bill,
and 1t contains number of appropria-
tions which seem to me to be exceeding
ly questionable. Without noticing in de-
tail many of these items, shall refer to
two of them which, in my judgment, I
justify my action in the premises.
The bill appropriaties Sl,o27, 814O9 for
aapartial payment upon claims which
originated in depredations upon our COM
merce by French cruisers and vessels
during the closing years of the last con-
tury. 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 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 pro-
visions. and contrary to the duty she
Cwod to our country as neutral Power
and to our citizens; that by reason OF
these acts claims arose in favor of such OF
our citizens as were damnifsd against
the French nation, which claims ou1
government attempted to enforce, and
that in concluding treaty with France
in the year 1900 these claims were aban-
doned or relinquished in consideration OF
the REIMBURSEMENT of certain claim s
which France charged against US.
H. rs Set 4ol Nv
those interested that we, as 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 gov
ernment became equitably bound as be-
tween itself and its citizens to pay the
claims thus relinguished.
I do not understand it to be asserted
that there exists any legal liability
against the government on account of itf
relations 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 appropri
ating for their payment said: "We
think that payments thus prescribed tic
be made were purposely brought within
the category of payments by way of gra'
tuity payments of grace and not OF
eight.
From the time the plan was conceived
to charge the government with the pay
ment Of these claims they have abided in
tho atmosphere of controversy. Every
proposition presented in their support
has been stoutly disputed, and every in,
ference suggested in their favor has been
promptly challenged.
Thus, inasmuch as it must, think, be
concsded that if stats of war existed
between our country and France at the
time these depfedations were committed
our government was not justified i'll
claiming inae mnity for our citizens; II
Is asserted that we were at the time act
uaily engaged in war with the FreLch
nation. This position seems to be sus-
taiD90 nv an nninior Of ttorpav