The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1896-06-08
President Cleveland's Reasons for
Not Approving the General
Deficiency Bill.
Would Have Been a More Elab-
crate Document If He Had
Had More Time.
Payment OF SpOilatior Claims the
Most Objectionable Feature.
Veto Sustained.

" "ASlilNtlON, JUNE OF OllOWlIR -
the presidents message transmitting
congress his veto Of the general def.
cheney bill
To the House of Representatives.
return herewith without my approval,
house bill No. S293 entitled AN act max
ing appropriations to supply deficiencies
in the appropriations for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1896. for prior years. and
for other purposes.
To the extent that the Constitution has
devolved upon the president participa-
tion in legislation, I suppose his action on
bills presented to him for approval, in.
wolves duty to be performed like Others
pertaining to his office, with care and cir
cumpection, and in full view of his respon.
sibility to the people and his obligation to
subserve the public welfare. 1t is difficult
to understand why, under the Constitu.
ton, IL should be necsseary to submit pro.
posed legislation to executive scrutiny and
approval, except to invoke the exercise Of
executive Judgment. and invite independ.
ent executive action.
Not An Agreeable Duty.
The unpleasant incidents which accom-
pany the power would tempt its avoid
nnce. If such 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.
l regret that am constrained to disap-
prove 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. en-
deavored to delay as little as possible,
reconsideration of this proposed legisla-
ton, though am thus obliged to content
myself with less complete explanation
Of my objections than would otherwise be
submitted. This hill is-in many OF It's
features far removed from legitimate
deficiency bill. and IL contains number
of appropriations which seem to me to be
exceedingly questionable Without no.
ticing in detail many of these items l shall
refer to two of them, in which in my judg-
ment, justify action In the premises.
What the spoIiation Claims Are.
The bill appropriates 81 ,027, ,3l4.O9 for n
partial payment upon upon claims which
originated in depredations upon our com
merce by French cruisers and vessels dur
ing 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 pay
ment, with occasional intervals of repose,
for nearly 100 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 inter
national law and treaty provisions, and
contrary to the duty she owed to our
country as neutral power, and to our
citizens that by reason OF these acts claims
arose against the French nation in favor
of such of our citizens as were damni-
fed, which claims our government at
tempted to enforce, and that in conclud-
ing a treaty with France in the year OF
1900 these claims were abandoned or relin.
auished in consideration of the relin.
auishment of certain claims which France
charged against us.
From these statements, 1t Is insisted
that we, as a nation, having reaped ben
eft in our escape from these French de
mands against u.s. through the abandon
ment of the claims of our citizens against
France, the government became equitably
bound as between itself and it's citizens, tC
pay the claims thus relinquished.
do not understand 1t to be- asserted
that there exists any legal liability agains,
the government on account of it's relation
to these claims At the term of the su
preme court just finished, the chief justice
in an opinion concerning them, and tn,
action Of congress in appropriating fol
their payment, said:
1--WE think that payments thus pre-
scribed to be made were purposely brough
within the category Of payments by wa!
of gratuity Payments of grace and no
of right"
From the time the plan was conceive,
to charge the government with the pay
ment of these claims, they have abided II
the atmosphere of controversy. Ever
proposition presented in their support ha
been stoutly disputed and every inferenc
suggested in their favor has promptly bee
challenged
state Of War at the Time.
This. inasmuch as 1t must, I think, b
conceded that If a state of war existed be
tween our country and France at the tim
these depredations were committed, on
government was not justified in claimin
Indemnity for our citizens, it is asserte
that we were AZ the time actually engage
in war with the French nation. Thi
position seems to be sustained by an opiI
ion of the attorney general OF the Unite
States, written In 1898, and by n number {
decisions of supreme court delivered 500
after that time. We had certainly abrC
gated treaties with France. and our crui
ers and armed ships were roaming tn
seas capturing her vessels and property
So Also when IL is asserted that the v,
lidity of these claims was acknowledge
In the treaty negotiations by the repr
sentatives of France their declarations
q contrary purport are exhibited an
when II Is alleged that the abandonmel
Of these claims against France was in col
sideration Of great benefits 70 the Soverl