The Coconino weekly sun., 1896-06-11
ANOTHER VETO.
The Pre~Ident Disapproves the Generai Dc
 iciency s.iIl-Hiatory of an Old Claim.

ANOTHER VETO.
 Tn. prexldent Disc ppro oves the tsensral Dc
 aciency BiIl-riatory of an old Claim.
 WASHINGTON, June a-The general deficiency appropriation bill reached the president Sat "rday morning ana soon after noon he sent to the house or representatives the following message, accompanying veto of the bill:
 TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: I hereby return without my approval house biil No 8,203, entitled An act making appropria- tions to supply deficiencies in the appropria- tions for the fiscal year ending June 3), lsSo' and for prior years and for other purposes.
 Iregret that am constrained to disnpprove an important appropriation bill so near the close Of the session of congress- have, how ever. by immediate action after the receipt or the bill, endeavored to delay as little as possl- ble reconstruction of this proposed legisla- tion. though am thus obliged to content my self with q less complete explanation or my objections than would otherwise be submit ted
 This bill is in many Of it's features far re- moved from q legitimate deficiency bill and 1t contains number of appropriations which seem to be exceedingly questionable With out noticing in detail many of these items shall refer to the two of them which. in my | luuRmeHU, luStlly ny uCtiOH III tuC PiSAh'oS''
 The bill approprates $I ,027 ,3i LOO for partial payment upon claims which originated in the depredations upon our commerce by French cruisers and vessels during the closing years of the last century. They have been quite familiar to those hav- ing congressional experience, as they have been pressed for recognition and payment with occasional intervals of repose for nearly 100 years. Those claims are based pvN ha alleuations that Franca. heinz at war with England seized and condemned many American vessels and cargoes in viola tions of the rules of international law and treaty provisions and contrary to the duty she owed to our country as a neutral power and to our citizens By reason Of these acts claims arise in favor of our citizens as were damnitied against the French nation. which claims our government attempted to enforce but. when concluding treaty with France in the year l87b these claims were abandoned or relinquished in consideration of certain claims which France charged against US.
 do not understand 1t to be as set tied that there exists any legal liability against the gov- ernment on account of its relation to these claims. At the term of the supreme court just finished the chief justice Tn an opinion concern ing them and the action of congress in appro- prating for their payment. said: We think that the payments thus pre- scribed to be made were purposely brought within the category of payments by way of gratuity payment of grace and not of right From the time the plan was conceived to charge the government with the payment of these claims they have abided in the atmos- pherc Of controversy every proposition pre-. sented in their support has been stoutly dis puted and every inference suggested in their favor has promptly been challenged Inasmuch as 1t must be conceded if state of war existed between our country and France at the time these depredations were committed. that 1t was justified in claiming indemnity for our citizens. 1t is asserted that we were at the time engaged in war with the French nation. This proposition seems to be sustained by the attorney general Of the United states written in i'9s and by number of decisions of the su- preme court delivered at that time We have certainly abrogated treaties with France and our cruisers and armed ships were roam- ing the seas capturing her vessels and property. So, also, when it is asserted that the validity of these claims was acknowledged by treaty negotiations by the representatives Of France their decla- rations to the contrary purrort are exhibited, and when 1t is alleged that the abandonment of these claims against France was in consid- eration Of great benefits to the government. con6dentially alleged that they were, in point of facr. abandoned because tho conference was hopeless, and even if any benefit really &C., Crueu tO tHls government Dy lNslStcnce upon their settlement in the course ot diplomatic negotiations, such result gave no pretext for taxing the government with liability to the claimants"
 Without noticing the other considerations and contentious arising from the alleged origin of these claims Q brief reference to the past and development Of their present action may be useful and pertinent It is, I believe some- what the fashion in interested quarters to speak nft ha flliu nft ba fn claims as such neglect as amounts to repudia- tion and q denial of justice 10 citizens who have suffered Of course the original claimants have for years been beyond the reach o; re- lief: but us their descendants in each gencr. ation become more numerous. the volume of advocacy, importantly and accusation corre- spondingly increases, find justice has been done in these claims It began early in the present century and may be charged against men then in public life, more con- versant than it can be with the facts involved and whose honesty and sense of righteousness to be secure from suspicion As early as 1902 a committee of the house of rep resentatives reported the facts in these claims, but apparently without recommendation. No action was taken on the report. In 1903 reso- lution declaring that indemnity ought to be paid was negGtived by vote in the same body. A favorable committee report was made in l507 but 1t seems that no legislative ac- tion resulted. In 1918 an adverse report vas made to the senate. followed by the pas- sage of a resolution declaring that the relief asked by the moralists and petitionists ought to be granted In 1922 and again in 1894, ad- verse committee reports on the subject were made to the house. concluding with similar resolutions. Until lSl6 these claims were from time to time pressed upon the attention of congress with varying fortunes. but never with favor- able action. In that year. however, a bill was passed for their ascertainment and satisfaction and s',0o0,oOO were appropriated for their pay- ment. This bill was vetoed by President Polk, who declared that he could perceive no legal or equitable ground upon which this appro- pristion can rest" This veto was sustained by the house of representatives. Nine years afterwards. in 1855. cnother bill was passed similar to the one last mentioned, and appro- priating for the settlement of these claims. This was alss vetoed by President Pierce. This veto was sustained by the house of repre- sentatives.
 The president then concludes:
 In the light of all the facts and circum- stances surrounding these spoliation claims, as they are claimed, none Of them in my opinion, should be paid by the government
 The president then states his objec- tion to the appropriation in favor of Charles r. Chouteau. survivor. etc