The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-06-11
DEFICIENCY Bill VETOED.
THE PRESIDENT SENDS A VETO
MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
THE FRENCH ,SPOL|AIIOH CLA|hS.
The Appropriation Therefor Is the Prn-
cipal Cause of the NetO-ChOtcau
Claim Also Specifically Marked
Out-An Able Document.

Washington, June G.-Prcsidcnt Ccvc-
land today sent message to the house
of representatives vctoing the general
deficiency bill. Following is the text Of
the message:
To the House Of Representatives.
hereby return without approval house
bill No. 1893. entitled IAN act making
appropriations to supply deficiency 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
deyolved upon the president n participa-
ton in legislation, ! suppose his action
on bills presented to him for approval
involves duty to be performed, like
others pertaining to his office. with care
and circumspcctOn, and in full view OF
his responsibility and of his obligation
TO subservc the public welfare.
1t is difficult to understand why, under
the constitution, il should he necessary
TO submit proposed legislation to eXecu-
tive scrutiny and approval, except to in
woke the exercise of executive judgment
and invite Independent executive action.
The unpleasant incidents which ac-
company the power would tempt its
avoidance if such course did not in
volve an abandonment of constitutional
duty and assent to legislation for which
the executive is not willing to share the
responsibility.
regret that | am constrained to dis
approve an improvement appropriation
bill so near the close of the present SEES
sion of congress. | have, however, by
immediate action after the receipt Of
the bill, cndcavorcd to delay as little as
possible n reconsideration of this pro-
posed legislation, though | am thus
obliged TO content myself with a less
complete explanation Of my objections
than otherwise would be submitted.
This bill is, in many of its features, far
removed from legitimate deficiency bill
and it contains number of appropria-
tons which seem to me to be exceed
ingly questionable. Without noticing in
detail many of these items, / shall refer
to two of them, which, in my Judgment,
justify my action in the premises.
The bill appropriatcs S1O27, 314.O9 for
a partial payment upon claims which
originated in dcpredations upon our com
merce by French cruisers and vessels
during the closing years of the late cen
fury. They have become quite familiar
10 those having congressional experience,
as they have been pressed Tor recoGnl-
ton and payment, with occasional in
tervals of rcpose for nearly 100 years.
These claims are based upon the allega-
tons that the French, being ut war with
England, seized and condemned many
American vessels and cargOcS in viola
ton of the rules of international law
and treaty provisions, and contrary to the
duty she owed to our country as II neu-
trail power and to our citizens.
That by reason of these acts
claims arose in favor of such OF
our citizens MS were indcmnihcd against
our citizens ms were Undermined against
the French nation, which claims our gov
ernmcnt attempted to enforce ana that
in concluding Il treaty with France III
the year 1890 these claims were abnn-
doncd or rclinquishcd in consideration
of the REIMBURSEMENT of certain claims
which France charged against us.
IJpon these statements, it is insisted by
those interested that we, rs nation,
have rcapcd Il 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 cquitably bound as ne
tween itself and its citizens to pay the
claims thus relinquishcd. ,
| do not understand it to be asserted
that there exists any legal llabllity
against the government ON account OF ITS
relation to these claims. AT the term OF
the supreme court just finished, the cmel
Justice, in an opinion concerning them
and the action of congress in approprlat-
ing for their payment, said: I'VE think
that payments thus prescribed TO ne
made were purposcly brought within the
category of payments by way OF grntuty
payments of grace and not of right.
From the time the plan was conceived
TO charge the government with the pay
ment of these claims they have abided in
the atmosphere of controversy. Every
decision presented in their report has
been stoutly disputed and every infer
cnce suggested in their favor has prompt
" been challenged. Thus, inasmuch as
it must. think, be conceded that II Il
state of war existed between our coun-
try and France ut the time these depre-
dations were committed, our government
would not be justified in claiming in
demnity for our citizens. it is asserted
that they were mt the time actually en-
gagged 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 lbs, aud 10y
n 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
the claims was acknowledged in the
treaty negotiations by the representa-
tives of France, their declarations to. n
contrary purport are exhibited; and when
il is alleged that the abandonment OF
these claims against France was in con-
sideration of great benefits to the gov.
eminent, it is as confidently alleged that
they were, in point of fact, abandoned
because force was hopeless and that
even if any benefit really accrued to Ills
by insistence upon their settlement in
the course of diplomatic negotiation
such result gave no preteXt Cor taxing
the government with liability to the
claimants.
Without noticing the other considera-
tons and contentious arising from the
alleged origin of these claims. a brief
reference to their treatment in the past
and the development of their presenta'
ton may be usual and pertinent. 1t is
| believe somewhat the fashion in inter
ested quarters. to speak of the failur,
by the government to pay these claims
as such neglect as amounts To repudia
t;on ond a daniol of iusticp 10 ritiZpns