A few days after the copy of said resolution was received by me, and on the 1st day of October, 1888, I sent a communication to the Congress,[25] accompanying my approval of a bill prohibiting the return of Chinese laborers to the United States, in which I supposed all the information sought under the terms of the Senate resolution above recited was fully supplied.

I beg to refer in this connection to Senate Executive Document No. 273, first session of the Fiftieth Congress, and especially to page 3 thereof.

Believing the information contained in said document answered the purposes of said Senate resolution, no separate and explicit answer was made thereto.

But in my message of October 1, 1888, the tenor and purport of a cipher dispatch from our minister in China to the Secretary of State, dated September 21, 1888, was given instead of attempting to transmit a copy of the same.

For greater precision, however, and with the object of answering in more exact terms the resolution of the Senate, I transmit with this, in paraphrase of the cipher, a copy of the said dispatch. I also transmit copies of two notes which accompanied my message of October 1, 1888, one from Mr. Shu Cheon Pon, charge d'affaires of the Chinese legation in this city, dated September 25, 1888, to the Secretary of State, and the other being the reply thereto by the Secretary of State, dated September 26, 1888, both of which will be found in Senate Executive Document No. 273.

The dispatch and notes above referred to comprise, in the language of the Senate resolution, "all communications and correspondence" the transmission of which is therein requested.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[Footnote 24: See p. 610.]

[Footnote 25: See pp. 630-635.]



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 3, 1889.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith for the consideration of the Congress a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers, recommending an appropriation for the relief of Japanese subjects injured and of the families of Japanese subjects killed on the island of Ikisima in consequence of target practice directed against the shore by the United States man-of-war Omaha in March, 1887.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 3, 1889.

To the Senate:

I desire to supplement the message yesterday sent to your honorable body in response to a Senate executive resolution dated September 25, 1888, asking the transmission of certain communications and correspondence on the subject of the recent proposed convention with China and the reported failure of the Government of China to finally agree to the same, by adding to said response two telegrams I omitted therefrom, which were sent in cipher by the Secretary of State to our minister at Peking, and which may be considered by the Senate relevant to the subject of its inquiry.

One of said dispatches is as follows:

WASHINGTON, September 4, 1888.

DENBY, Minister, Peking:

Rejection of treaty is reported here. What information have you?

BAYARD.

Two replies to this dispatch were made by our minister to China, dated, respectively, September 5 and September 6, 1888. They were heretofore, and on September 7, 1888,[26] sent to the Senate, and are printed in Senate Executive Document No. 271.

The other of said dispatches is as follows:

WASHINGTON, September 18, 1888.

DENBY, Minister, Peking:

The bill has passed both Houses of Congress for total exclusion of Chinese and awaits President's approval. Public feeling on the Pacific Coast excited in favor of it, and situation is critical. Impress upon Government of China necessity for instant decision in the interest of treaty relations and amity.

BAYARD.

The answer of our minister at Peking to this dispatch, dated September 21, 1888, was yesterday sent to the Senate with the message to which this is a supplement.

The matters herein contained are now transmitted, to the end that they may, if deemed pertinent, be added to the response already made to the Senate resolution of inquiry, and with the intent that in any view of the subject the answer to said resolution may be full and complete.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[Footnote 26: See p. 627.]



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, January 7, 1889.

To the Senate:

I transmit, with a view to its ratification, an agreement signed by the plenipotentiaries of the United States and Denmark on the 6th ultimo, submitting to arbitration the claim of Carlos Butterfield & Co. against the Government of Denmark for indemnity for the seizure and detention of the steamer Ben Franklin and the bark Catherine Augusta by the authorities of the island of St. Thomas, of the Danish West India Islands, in the years 1854 and 1855; for the refusal of the ordinary right to land cargo for the purpose of making repairs; for the injuries resulting from a shot fired into one of the vessels, and for other wrongs. I also transmit a report from the Secretary of State inclosing the recent correspondence between the two Governments in regard to the claim.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 14, 1889.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

Whereas, by virtue of the provisions of the act of Congress approved June 22, 1860 (12 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 73), entitled "An act to carry into effect provisions of the treaties between the United States, China, Japan, Siam, Persia, and other countries giving certain judicial powers to ministers and consuls or other functionaries of the United States in those countries, and for other purposes," Charles Denby, minister of the United States at Peking, has formally promulgated, under date of August 18, 1888, additional regulations governing the rendition of judgments by confession in the consular courts of the United States in China, the same having been previously assented to by all the consular officers of this Government in that Empire:

Now, therefore, in accordance with section 4119 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, being the sixth section of the act above mentioned, and which directs that all such regulations shall be transmitted to the Secretary of State, "to be laid before Congress for revision," I do herewith transmit to Congress a copy of Mr. Denby's dispatch No. 754, of November 5, 1888, containing the regulations so decreed.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 14, 1889.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress and such legislation in respect of the matters therein presented as may seem necessary and proper, a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying explanatory correspondence, in reference to the international questions arising from the imposition of differential rates of tonnage dues upon vessels entering ports of the United States from foreign countries under the provisions of the fourteenth Section of the act of June 26, 1884, and the later amendatory provisions of the act of June 19, 1886, as set forth in said report.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 15, 1889.

To the Congress:

On the 2d day of April, 1888, I transmitted to the House of Representatives, in response to a resolution passed by that body, a report from the Secretary of State, relating to the condition of affairs in the Samoan Islands, together with numerous letters, dispatches, and documents connected with the subject, which gave a history of all disorders in that locality up to that date.[27]

On the 21st day of December, 1888, this information was supplemented by the transmission to the Congress of such further correspondence and documents as extended this history to that time.[28]

I now submit a report from the Secretary of State, with later correspondence and dispatches, exhibiting the progress of the disturbances in Samoa up to the present date.

The information thus laid before the Congress is of much importance, since it has relation to the preservation of American interests and the protection of American citizens and their property in a distant locality and under an unstable and unsatisfactory government.

In the midst of the disturbances which have arisen at Samoa such powers have been exercised as seemed to be within Executive control under our Constitution and laws, and which appear to accord with our national policy and traditions, to restore tranquillity and secure the safety of our citizens.

Through negotiation and agreement with Great Britain and Germany, which, with our own Government, constitute the treaty powers interested in Samoan peace and quiet, the attempt has been made to define more clearly the part which these powers should assume in the Government of that country, while at the same time its autonomy has been insisted upon.

These negotiations were at one time interrupted by such action on the part of the German Government as appeared to be inconsistent with their further continuance.

Germany, however, still asserts, as from the first she has done, that she has no desire or intention to overturn the native Samoan Government or to ignore our treaty rights, and she still invites our Government to join her in restoring peace and quiet. But thus far her propositions on this subject seem to lead to such a preponderance of German power in Samoa as was never contemplated by us and is inconsistent with every prior agreement or understanding, while her recent conduct as between native warring factions gives rise to the suspicion that she is not content with a neutral position.

Acting within the restraints which our Constitution and laws have placed upon Executive power, I have insisted that the autonomy and independence of Samoa should be scrupulously preserved according to the treaties made with Samoa by the powers named and their agreements and understanding with each other. I have protested against every act apparently tending in an opposite direction, and during the existence of internal disturbance one or more vessels of war have been kept in Samoan waters to protect American citizens and property.

These things will abundantly appear from the correspondence and papers which have been submitted to the Congress.

A recent collision between the forces from a German man-of-war stationed in Samoan waters and a body of natives rendered the situation so delicate and critical that the war ship Trenton, under the immediate command of Admiral Kimberly, was ordered to join the Nipsic, already at Samoa, for the better protection of the persons and property of our citizens and in furtherance of efforts to restore order and safety.

The attention of the Congress is especially called to the instructions given to Admiral Kimberly dated on the 11th instant and the letter of the Secretary of State to the German minister dated the 12th instant, which will be found among the papers herewith submitted.

By means of the papers and documents heretofore submitted and those which accompany this communication the precise situation of affairs in Samoa is laid before the Congress, and such Executive action as has been taken is fully exhibited.

The views of the Executive in respect of the just policy to be pursued with regard to this group of islands, which lie in the direct highway of a growing and important commerce between Australia and the United States, have found expression in the correspondence and documents which have thus been fully communicated to the Congress, and the subject in its present stage is submitted to the wider discretion conferred by the Constitution upon the legislative branch of the Government.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[Footnote 27: See p. 612.]

[Footnote 28: See p. 800.]



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 15, 1889.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith, in response to the resolution of the Senate of the 4th instant, a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying copies of correspondence, touching recent occurrences in the island of Hayti, both as relates to the state of the Government there and to the seizure and delivery up of the American vessel Haytien Republic.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 16, 1889.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I have the honor to lay before you a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying correspondence, in relation to the possible disturbances on the Isthmus of Panama in the event of the stoppage of work on the proposed interoceanic canal.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 21, 1889.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith, in response to a resolution of the Senate of the 5th instant, a report of the Secretary of State, touching correspondence with Venezuela in regard to the exchange of ratifications of the claims convention of December 5, 1885, between the United States and Venezuela and to the suspension by Venezuela of the monthly quotas of indebtedness under the convention between the two countries of April 25, 1866, together with copies of sundry correspondence between the Department of State and owners of Venezuelan certificates of award or their attorneys on the same subject, as requested in said resolution.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 30, 1889.

To the Senate and the House of Representatives:

For the information of Congress I herewith transmit a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying correspondence, relating to the execution of an agreement made between the representatives of certain foreign powers and the Korean Government in 1884 in respect to a foreign settlement at Chemulpo.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 30, 1880.

To the Congress:

I had the honor on the 15th instant to communicate to your honorable body certain correspondence and documents in relation to affairs in the Samoan Islands[29]; and having since that date received further dispatches from the vice-consul at Apia and the commander of the United States naval vessel Nipsic in those waters, I lose no time in laying them before you.

I also transmit herewith the full text of an instruction from Prince von Bismarck to the German minister at this capital, which was communicated to the Secretary of State on the afternoon of the 28th instant.

This appears to be an amplification of a prior telegraphic instruction on the same subject communicated through the same channel, and, being set forth in the note of the Secretary of State to Count von Arco-Valley, the German minister, of the 12th instant, was duly laid before Congress with my last message in relation to Samoan affairs.

It is also proper to inform you that on Monday, the 28th instant, the occasion of the communication of the note of the Prince Chancellor, the Secretary of State was given to understand by the German minister that a proposition from his Government to that of the United States for a conference on the Samoan subject was on its way by mail, having left Berlin on the 20th instant, so that its arrival here in due course of mail could be looked for in a very short time.

In reply to an inquiry from the Secretary of State whether the proposition referred to was for a renewal of the joint conference between the United States, Germany, and Great Britain which was suspended in July, 1887, or for a consideration of Samoan affairs ab novo, the German minister stated his inability to answer until the proposition which left Berlin on the 20th instant should have been received.

I shall hereafter communicate to the Congress all information received by me in relation to the Samoan status.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[Footnote 29: See pp. 804-805.]



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 1, 1889.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

As supplementary to my previous messages on the subject, I have now the honor to transmit a report from the Secretary of State relating to affairs in Samoa.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 5, 1889.

To the Congress:

I transmit herewith, for approval and ratification, a provisional agreement lately entered into between the Government of the United States and the Creek Nation of Indians, through their duly authorized representatives, and which has been approved by the National Council of said nation, by which agreement the title and interest of the said Creek Nation of Indians in and to all lands in the Indian Territory or elsewhere, except such as are held and occupied as the homes of said nation, are ceded to the United States.

The eighth section of the Indian appropriation bill approved March 3, 1885, authorized the President "to open negotiations with the Creeks, Seminoles, and Cherokees for the purpose of opening to settlement under the homestead laws the unassigned lands in the Indian Territory ceded by them respectively to the United States by the several treaties of August 11, 1866, March 21, 1866, and July 19, 1866." This section also contains an appropriation in furtherance of its purpose, and requires that the action of the President thereunder should be reported to Congress.

The "unassigned" lands thus referred to should be construed to be those which have not been transferred by the United States in pursuance of the treaties mentioned in the section quoted.

The treaty with the Creeks is dated June 14, 1866. It was confirmed by a Senate resolution passed July 19, 1866, and was proclaimed August 11, 1866 (14 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 785).

The third article of the treaty makes a cession of lands in the following words:

In compliance with the desire of the United States to locate other Indians and freedmen thereon, the Creeks hereby cede and convey to the United States, to be sold to and used as homes for such other civilized Indians as the United States may choose to settle thereon, the west half of their entire domain, to be divided by a line running north and south; the eastern half of said Creek lands, being retained by them, shall, except as herein otherwise stipulated, be forever set apart as a home for said Creek Nation; and in consideration of said cession of the west half of their lands, estimated to contain 3,250,560 acres, the United States agree to pay the sum of 30 cents per acre, amounting to $975,168.

The provision that the lands conveyed were "to be sold to and used as homes for such other civilized Indians," etc., has been steadily regarded as a limitation upon the grant made to the United States. Such a construction is admitted to be the true one in many ways, especially by the continual reservation of the ceded lands from settlement by the whites, by the sale of a portion of the same to Indians, by the use of other portions as the home of Indians, and also by various provisions in proposed legislation in Congress. Thus the bill now pending for the organization of Oklahoma provides for the payment to the Creeks and Seminoles of the ordinary Government price of $1.25 per acre, less the amount heretofore paid.

The section of the law of 1885 first above quoted appears also to have been passed in contemplation not only of the existence of a claim on the part of the Creeks, but of the substantial foundation of that claim in equity, if not in law, and in acknowledgment of the duty of the Government to satisfactorily discharge the claim of the Indian people before putting the land to the free uses of settlement and territorial occupation by whites.

But it seems to have been considered that so far as the lands had been assigned they may fairly be taken to be such as under the treaty were "to be sold." As to these, they having been assigned or "sold" in accordance with said treaty, the claim of the Creeks thereto has been entirely discharged, and the title from the United States passed unburdened with any condition or limitation to the grantees. This seems to be an entirely clear proposition.

The unassigned lands must be those which are unsold, because not only is that the fair significance of the term, as used technically in conveyancing, but because the limiting condition in the Creek treaty was that the lands should be sold to, as well as used as homes for, other Indians.

The total quantity of lands in the western half of the Acres. Creek Nation, and which were ceded in 1866, is 3,402,428.88

The assigned lands as above defined are in three bodies: Acres.

1. The Seminole country, by the treaty of 1866 200,000.00

2. The Sac and Fox Reservation, sold and conveyed by article 6 of the treaty of February 18, 1867 (15 U.S. Statutes at large, p. 495), amounting to 479,668.05

3. The Pawnee Reservation, granted by section 4 of the act of Congress of April 10, 1876 (19 U.S. Statutes at large, p. 29), for which the Government received the price allowed the Creeks, 30 cents per acre 53,005.94

Making a total of assigned or sold lands of 732,673.99

And leaving as the total unassigned lands 2,669,754.89

Of this total quantity of unassigned land which is subject to the negotiations provided for under the law of 1885 there should be a further division made in considering the sum which ought fairly to be paid in discharge of the Creek claim thereto.

I. In that part of these lands called the Oklahoma country no Indians have been allowed to reside by any action of the Government, nor has any execution been attempted of the limiting condition of the cession of 1866.

The quantity of these lands carefully computed from the surveys is 1,392,704.70 acres.

II. The remainder of these unassigned lands has been appropriated in some degree to Indian uses, although still within the control of the Government.

Thus by three Executive orders the following Indian reservations have been created:

Acres. 1. By President Grant, August 10, 1869, the reservation of the Cheyennes and Arapahoes, which embraces of this land 619,450.59 2. By President Arthur, August 15, 1883, the reservation for the Iowas, containing 228,417.67 3. By President Arthur, August 15, 1883, the Kickapoo Reservation, embracing. 206,465.61 4. A tract set apart for the Pottawatomies by the treaty of February 27, 1867 (15 U.S. Statutes at large, p. 531), followed by the act of May 23, 1872 (17 U.S. Statutes at large, p. 159), by which individual allotments were authorized upon the tract, though but very few Indians have selected and paid for such allotments according to the provisions of that law. The entire quantity of the Pottawatomie Reservation is 222,716.32

This shows the quantity of lands unassigned, but to some extent appropriated to Indian uses by the Government, amounting to 1,277,050.19

For the lands which are not only unassigned, but are unoccupied, and which have been in no way appropriated, it appears clearly just and right that a price of at least $1.25 should be allowed to the Creeks. They held more than the ordinary Indian title, for they had a patent in fee from the Government. The Osages of Kansas were allowed $1.25 per acre upon giving up their reservation, and this land of the Creeks is reported by those familiar with it to be equal to any land in the country. Without regard to the present enhanced value of this land, and if reference be only had to the conditions when the cession was made, no less price ought to be paid for it than the ordinary Government price. Therefore in this, provisional agreement which has been made with the Creeks the price of $1.25 has been settled upon for such land, with the deduction of the 30 cents per acre which has already been paid by the Government therefor.

As to the remainder of the unassigned lands, in view of the fact that some use has been made of them of the general character indicated by the treaty of 1866, and because some portion of them should be allotted to Indians under the general allotment act, and to cover the expenses of surveys and adjustments, a diminishment of 20 cents per acre has been acceded to. There is no difference in the character of the lands.

Thus, computing the unassigned and entirely unappropriated land, being the Oklahoma country, containing 1,392,704.70 acres, at 95 cents per acre, and the remainder which has been appropriated to the extent above stated, being 1,277,050.19 acres, at 75 cents per acre, the total price stipulated in the agreement has been reached—$2,280,857.10.

But as it was desirable that the Indian title should be beyond all question extinguished to all parts of the land ceded by the Creeks in 1866, with their full consent and understanding, the agreement of cession has been made to embrace a complete surrender of all claim to the western half of their domain, including the assigned as well as the unassigned lands, for the price named. So the agreement takes the form in the first article of such a cession, and in the second article is stipulated the price in gross of all the lands and interests ceded, with no detailed reference to the manner of its ascertainment.

The overtures which led to this agreement were made by representatives of the Creek Nation, who came here for that purpose. They were intelligent and evidently loyal to the interests of their people. The terms of the agreement were fully discussed and concessions were made by both parties. It was promptly confirmed by the National Council of the Creek Indians, and its complete consummation only waits the approval of the Congress of the United States.

I am convinced that such ratification will be of decided benefit to the Government, and that the agreement is entirely free from any suspicion of unfairness or injustice toward the Indians.

I desire to call especial attention to the fact that to become effective the agreement must be ratified by the Congress prior to the its day of July, 1889.

The draft of an act of ratification is herewith submitted.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 8, 1889.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a further report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying correspondence, relating to Samoa, and the joint protocols of the conferences held in this city in the summer of 1887, to the publication of which the Governments of Germany and Great Britain have consented.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 8, 1889.

To the Senate:

In response to the resolution of the Senate of the 23d ultimo, directing the Secretary of State to transmit to that body copies of all correspondence on the files of his Department relative to the case of the ship Bridgewater, I transmit herewith, being of the opinion that it is not incompatible with the public interest to do so, a report from the Secretary of State, accompanying which is the correspondence referred to.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 12, 1889.

To the Congress:

I herewith transmit, in reply to the resolution of the Senate of the 2d ultimo, a report from the Secretary of State, with the accompanying documents, in relation to the seal fisheries in Bering Sea.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 19, 1889.

To the Congress:

I herewith submit, for your consideration, a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a proposition made on behalf of the Seminole Nation of Indians for the relinquishment to the Government of the United States of their right to certain lands in the Indian Territory.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 19, 1889.

To the Senate of the United States:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 18th instant, I return herewith the bill (S. 3640) entitled "An act to amend the laws relating to the selection and service of jurors in the supreme court of the District of Columbia."

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 20, 1889.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State of this day's date, with accompanying correspondence, touching the case of Lord Sackville.[30]

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[Footnote 30: The British minister at Washington, who was given his passports for writing an indiscreet letter on American politics.]



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 22, 1889.

To the Senate:

I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, a convention signed on the 2d day of June, 1887, between the United States and the Netherlands, for the extradition of criminals; also a report from the Secretary of State, and accompanying papers, relating to the said convention.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 27, 1889.

To the Senate:

I herewith transmit, for the consideration of the Senate with a view to its ratification, a convention signed at Washington the 18th instant, between the United States and Mexico, to revive the provisions of the convention of July 29, 1882, to survey and relocate the existing boundary line between the two countries west of the Rio Grande, and to extend the time fixed in Article VIII of the said convention for the completion of the work in question.

Although the present convention fully explains the reasons for its negotiation, it may not be improper here to add that Article VII of the convention of July 29, 1882, stipulated that the said convention should continue in force until the completion of the work, "provided that such time does not exceed four years and four months from the date of the exchange of ratifications hereof."

The exchange of ratifications took place March 3, 1883, and the period within which the convention was in force ended July 3, 1887.

In order, therefore, to continue the provisions of the said convention of July 29, 1882, an additional article concluded at Washington December 5, 1885, further extended the time for the completion of the work for "eighteen months from the expiration of the term fixed in Article VIII of the said treaty of July 29, 1882," or until January 3, 1889.

As there was no further provision extending the said treaty of July 29, 1882, beyond that date, it expired by limitation. Hence the necessity for the convention of the 18th instant in its present form.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 27, 1889.

To the Senate:

I transmit herewith, in confidence, for the information of the Senate, a report from the Secretary of State, showing the progress of the correspondence in relation to the conference to be held at Berlin between the Governments of the United States, Germany, and Great Britain to settle the affairs of the Samoan Islands.

The nature of this information and the stage of the negotiations thus agreed upon and about to commence at Berlin make it proper that such report should be communicated to the Senate in the confidence of executive session.

As the conference has been proposed and accepted and the definitive bases of its proceedings agreed upon by all three Governments and on the lines with which the Senate has heretofore been made fully acquainted, nothing remains to be done but to select and appoint the commissioners to represent the United States, and the performance of this duty, in view of the few days that now remain of my term of office, can be most properly left to my successor.

In response to the inquiry of the German minister at this capital whether the names of the proposed representatives of the United States at the conference in Berlin could at once be given to him, he has been informed that the appointments in question would be made by my successor and not by me, and that in coming to this decision the expedition desired by Germany in the work of the conference would in my judgment be promoted.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 27, 1889.

To the Senate:

I transmit, with a view to its ratification, a convention for the extradition of criminals, signed by the plenipotentiaries of the United States and Russia on the 28th day of March, 1887; also a report from the Secretary of State and accompanying papers relating to the negotiations which terminated in the conclusion of the treaty in question.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 27, 1889.

To the Senate:

I herewith transmit a report of the Secretary of State and accompanying documents, relative to a naturalization treaty between the United States and Turkey signed the 11th day of August, 1874, as to the proclamation of which the advice of the Senate is desired. The advice and consent of the Senate were given to the ratification of the convention on the 22d of January, 1875, but with certain amendments which were not fully accepted by the Ottoman Porte. Because of such nonacceptance the treaty has never been proclaimed. Finally the Turkish Government, after the passage of fourteen years, has accepted the amendments as tendered. But in view of the long period that has elapsed since the Senate formerly considered the treaty I have deemed it wiser that before proclaiming it the Senate should have an opportunity to act upon the matter again, my own views being wholly favorable to the proclamation.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 27, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith, in response to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st of December last, a report of the Secretary of State and accompanying documents, touching affairs in Madagascar.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 28, 1889.

To the Senate of the United States:

I have the honor to transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, concerning the expenses of the representation of the United States at the Brussels Exhibition of 1888.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[The same message was sent to the House of Representatives.]



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 28, 1889.

To the Senate of the United States:

I have the honor to transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, respecting the representation of the United States at the Barcelona Exposition of 1888.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[The same message was sent to the House of Representatives.]



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 2, 1889.

To the Congress:

I herewith transmit the fifth report of the Civil Service Commission, covering the year which ended June 30, 1888.

The cause of civil-service reform, which in a great degree is intrusted to the Commission, I regard as so firmly established and its value so fully demonstrated that I should deem it more gratifying than useful if at this late day in the session of Congress I was permitted to enlarge upon its importance and present condition.

A perusal of the report herewith submitted will furnish information of the progress which has been made during the year to which it relates in the extension of the operations of this reform and in the improvement of its methods and rules.

It is cause for congratulation that watchfulness and care and fidelity to its purposes are all that are necessary to insure to the Government and our people all the benefits which its inauguration promised.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, March 2, 1889.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith, for the consideration of the Senate with a view of giving its advice and consent to the ratification thereof, a convention signed in Washington on March 1, 1889, by duly authorized representatives of the United States and Mexico, providing for the institution of an international commission to determine questions between the United States and Mexico arising under the convention of November 12, 1884, by reason of changes in the river bed of the Rio Grande and the Colorado River when forming the boundary between the two countries.

A report of the Secretary of State, with the accompanying correspondence therein described, is also communicated for the information of the Senate.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 2, 1889.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I herewith transmit a report of the Secretary of State and accompanying documents, relative to the undetermined boundary line between Alaska and British Columbia.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 2, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of State, in further response to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 22d [21st] of December last, touching affairs in Madagascar.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 2, 1889.

To the Senate:

I herewith transmit, for the information of Congress, a report from the Secretary of State, with its accompanying correspondence, in regard to the construction of certain dams or wing facings in the Rio Grande at Paso del Norte (Ciudad Juarez), opposite the city of El Paso, Tex.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 2, 1889.

To the Senate of the United States:

I have the honor to transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of State, covering the report of the commissioner of the United States to the Brussels Exhibition of 1888.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



VETO MESSAGES.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 19, 1888.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5080, entitled "An act for the relief of C.B. Wilson."

This bill directs the Postmaster-General to credit to the beneficiary therein named, who is the postmaster at Buena Vista, in the State of Colorado, the sum of $225, being post-office funds forwarded by him to the deposit office at Denver, but which were lost in transmission.

A general law was passed on the 9th day of May, 1888, authorizing the Postmaster-General to make allowances and credits to postmasters in precisely such cases.

On the 8th day of September, 1888, under the sanction of that law, the credit directed by this bill was made.

It is plain, therefore, that the bill herewith returned ought not to become a law unless it is proposed to duplicate the credit therein mentioned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 16, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 8469, entitled "An act for the relief of Michael Pigott."

This bill appropriates the sum of $48 to the beneficiary therein named, formerly the postmaster at Quincy, Ill., which was paid by him for the use of a telephone for the year ending June 30, 1873.

There is evidently a mistake made in the statement of the period covered by the use of this telephone, for the official term of the beneficiary extended from May 16, 1881, to June 18, 1885.

Assuming, however, that it was intended to describe the period ending June 30, 1883, it appears that the use of a telephone during that time was wholly unauthorized by the Post Office Department, and that the only authority given for any expenditure for that purpose covered the period of one year from the 1st day of January, 1884.

The following letter, dated July 16, 1884, was sent to the beneficiary from the salary and allowance division of the Post Office Department:

In reply to your letter relative to amounts disallowed for use of telephone for your office, you are informed that the said expenditures were made without the authority of this office, and it is therefore deemed advisable not to approve the same.

Your authority for a telephone was for one year beginning January 1, 1884. At the expiration of the time named, if you desire to continue the telephone service, you should make application to the First Assistant Postmaster-General for a renewal of the same.

The multitude of claims of the same kind which the legislation proposed would breed and encourage, and the absolute necessity, in the interest of good administration, of limiting all public officers to authorized expenditures, constrain me to withhold my approval from this bill.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 16, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7, entitled "An act granting a pension to Thomas B. Walsh."

This beneficiary enlisted January 1, 1864, and was discharged August 1, 1865.

He is reported absent without leave in April, 1864, and further recorded as having deserted November 24, 1864. He was restored to duty in May, 1865, by the President's proclamation.

He filed an application for pension in December, 1881, alleging that he contracted rheumatism in May, 1865.

This statement of the claimant and nearly, if not all, the evidence in the case which tends to show the incurrence of the disability complained of appear to fix its appearance at a date very near the return of the beneficiary after his desertion.

In these circumstances the proof of disability, such as it is, is as consistent with its incurrence during desertion as it is with the theory that the beneficiary suffered therefrom as the result of honorable military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 16, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 2236, entitled "An act granting a pension to Eli. J. Yamgheim."

The beneficiary named in this bill filed an application for pension in the Pension Bureau April 15, 1875, basing his claim upon an alleged wound of his left leg from a spent ball about October 15, 1861.

There is no record of his incurring any wound or injury during his service, and it does not appear that the company to which he belonged was in action nearer to the date he specifies than September 17, 1861, and his captain testifies that the beneficiary was not injured in the engagement of that day, which lasted only about fifteen minutes.

The proof taken in the case establishes that before enlistment the beneficiary had a sore on his leg which was quite troublesome, which suppurated, and after healing would break out again.

In the medical examinations made during the pendency of the claim the diseased leg was always found, but no mention is made of any other injury and no other injury seems to have been discoverable.

I can not avoid the conviction upon the facts presented that whatever disability has existed since the discharge of the beneficiary arose from causes which were present before enlistment, and that the same is not chargeable to his military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 16, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 4887, entitled "An act granting a pension to Charles E. Scott."

This beneficiary entered the volunteer service, nearly at the close of the War of the Rebellion and served from the 8th day of March, 1865, to July 24, in the same year, a period of four months and sixteen days.

He filed a claim for pension in 1884, alleging that he incurred camp itch in July, 1865, which resulted in partial blindness.

Upon the proof presented, and after examination, the claim was rejected upon the ground that it did not appear that the impairment of his vision was the result of any incident of his army service.

I am entirely satisfied that this was a correct disposition of the case, and that upon the same ground the bill herewith returned should not be approved.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 17, 1889.

To The Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 3646, entitled "An act for the relief of William R. Wheaton and Charles H. Chamberlain, of California."

These parties were, respectively, for a number of years prior to 1879, the register and receiver of the land office at San Francisco, in the State of California.

Prior to July, 1877, they had collected and retained, apparently without question, certain fees allowed by law for reducing to writing the testimony heard by them in establishing the rights of claimants to public lands.

On the 9th day of July, 1877, these officials were notified by the Acting Commissioner of the General Land Office that monthly thereafter, and dating from July 1, 1877, such fees should be reported with other fees to the General Land Office.

This notification furnished clear information that, whatever may have been the justification for their retention of these fees in the past, the parties notified must thereafter account to the Government for the same.

On the 8th day of February, 1879, the beneficiaries were peremptorily required by the Commissioner of the General Land Office to deposit in the Treasury of the United States the sums which they had received for the services mentioned since July 1, 1877, and which, though reported, had not been paid over. Soon thereafter, and pursuant to this demand, the sum of $5,330.76, being the aggregate of such fees for the nineteen months between July 1, 1877, and February 1, 1879, was paid over to the Government.

On the 19th day of February, 1879, these officers were authorized to employ two clerks, each upon a salary of $100 per month.

The purpose of the bill now under consideration is to restore to the beneficiaries from the money paid over to the Government, as above stated, the sum of $3,800. This is proposed upon the theory that clerks were employed by the register and receiver to do the work for which the fees were received, and that these officials having paid them for their services they should be reimbursed from the fund.

It will be observed that whatever services were performed by clerks in the way of writing down testimony, and paid for by the beneficiaries, were performed and paid for after July, 1877, and after they had in effect received notice that such employment and payment would not be approved by the Government.

Upon this statement the claim covered by the Dill can hardly be urged on legal grounds, whatever the Government may have allowed prior to such notice.

I am decidedly of the opinion that the relations, the duties, and the obligations of subordinates in public employment should be clearly defined and strictly limited. They should not be permitted to judge of the propriety or necessity of incurring expenses on behalf of the Government without authority, much less in disregard of orders. And yet there are cases when in an emergency money is paid for the benefit of the public service by an official which, though not strictly authorized, ought in equity to be reimbursed.

If there is any equity existing in favor of the beneficiaries named in the bill herewith returned, it is found in the fact that during the nineteen months from the 1st day of July, 1877, to the 1st day of February, 1879, they paid out certain moneys for which the Government, in the receipt of the fees which they paid over, received the benefit. Manifestly such equity in this case, if it can be claimed at all in view of the facts recited, is measured by the sum actually paid by these officials to the persons, if such there were, who did the work from which the fees arose which were paid over to the Government.

In other words, if certain clerks were paid by the beneficiaries from their private funds for doing this work, there should be a distinct statement of the sum so paid, and their claim should rest upon indemnity and reimbursement alone. But no such statement appears, so far as I can see from an examination of papers presented to me by the Interior Department and from the report of the Senate committee who reported this bill, except as it may be gathered from the rather indirect allegations contained in a paper prepared by counsel.

No vouchers have ever been received at the General Land Office for money paid for clerical services rendered during the period for which reimbursement is sought. The verified statement of the claimants annexed to the committee's report contains only the allegation that they paid for the necessary clerical services, and the affidavits of the clerks themselves furnish no clew to the amount they received. Such an omission, in my opinion, discredits the claim made, and the allowance of the sum of $100 per month for two clerks during the period of nineteen months covered by this claim, because that was the sum authorized to be paid thereafter for clerks' services, is, it seems to me, adopting a standard entirely inapplicable to the subject.

In any event these beneficiaries should be required to establish the sum necessary for such indemnification, and the amount appropriated for their relief should be limited to that sum.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 18, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9173, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary J. Drake."

It is proposed by this bill to pension the beneficiary therein named as the widow of Newton E. Drake, who served as a soldier from August 1, 1863, to January 18, 1865.

The records do not show that he suffered from any disability during his term of service.

He filed an application for pension September 23, 1879, claiming that he contracted rheumatism about October, 1864.

He died June 7, 1881, and there does not appear to have been any evidence produced as to the cause of his death or establishing, except by the allegations of his own application, that he contracted any disease or disability in the service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 18, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9791, entitled "An act for the relief of Charles W. Geddes."

This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to include the name of the beneficiary mentioned, late assistant engineer in the United States Navy, among those who served in the Mexican War, and issue to him a land warrant for his services as assistant engineer on the United States steamer General Taylor during said war.

On an application made by this beneficiary for bounty land under general laws the Secretary of the Navy reported that the vessel to which he was attached was not considered as having been engaged in the war with Mexico, and thereupon his application was rejected. Upon appeal to the Secretary of the Interior he states the settled doctrine of such cases to be that "service must have been in, not simply during, a war to give title to bounty land."

The only claim made by the beneficiary is that the vessel upon which he was employed was engaged for a time in transporting seamen from New Orleans, where they were enlisted, to Pensacola, and that he was informed and believed that they were enlisted to serve on board vessels composing the Gulf Squadron, then cooperating with the land forces in the Mexican War.

It seems to me that it is establishing a bad precedent, tending to the breaking down of all distinctions between civil and military employment and service, to hold that a man engaged on a vessel transporting recruits to a rendezvous from which they may be sent to the scene of hostilities should be allowed the same advantages which are bestowed upon those actually engaged in or more directly related to the dangers and chances of military operations.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 18, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9252, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Catherine Barberick, of Watertown."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the mother of William Barberick, who enlisted February 19, 1862, and died of smallpox August 2, 1864, at his home while on veteran furlough.

It is not claimed that the soldier contracted the fatal disease while in the Army. On the contrary, the testimony taken upon his mother's application for pension to the Pension Bureau shows that he was taken sick after his arrival at his home on furlough, and that several of his family had died of the contagious disease to which he fell a victim before he was taken sick with it.

In these circumstances, unless there is to be a complete departure from the principle that pensions are to be granted for death or disability in some way related to the military service, this bill should not become a law.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 18, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 7877, entitled "An act to place Mary Karstetter on the pension roll."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of Jacob Karstetter, who enlisted in June, 1864, and was discharged in June, 1865, on account of a wound in his left hand received in action. He died in August, 1874, of gastritis, or inflammation of the stomach, and congestion of the liver. He was granted a pension for his gunshot wound and was in receipt of such pension at the time of his death.

I was constrained to return without approval a bill identical with the one herewith returned, and which was passed by the last Congress, and stated my objections to the same in a communication addressed to the House of Representatives, dated July 6, 1886.[31]

It seemed to me at that time that the soldier's death could not be held to be the result of his wound or any other cause chargeable to his military service.

Upon reexamination I am still of the same opinion, which leads me to again return the bill under consideration without approval.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[Footnote 31: See pp. 469-470.]



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 18, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9296, entitled "An act granting a pension to Bridget Carroll."

This bill proposes to pension the beneficiary therein named as the dependent mother of Patrick Carroll, who was enrolled as a sergeant in the Regular Army in 1881, this being, as it is stated, his second term of enlistment.

In September, 1886, being absent from his command at Fort Warren, Mass., he was drowned while sailing in a small boat with two companions.

The beneficiary is aged and in need of assistance, but there is no pretense that the soldier's death was in the least degree related to his military service.

I am sure no one could fail to be gratified by an opportunity to join in according aid to this dependent old mother of a faithful soldier, but I can not believe that such a departure as is proposed should be made from the just principles upon which pension legislation ought to be predicated.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 18, 1899.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9175, entitled "An act granting a pension to George Wallen."

The beneficiary named in this bill filed an application for pension in June, 1873, alleging as his disability a fracture of his right arm.

In a subsequent affidavit filed in 1883 he alleged deafness, which appears to be the disability upon which the special act proposed for his relief is based.

The records establish that he enlisted July 27, 1861, that he deserted April 25, 1862, and returned February 20, 1863, after an absence of about ten months, and that he deserted again April 30, 1864, and returned prior to August 31, 1864. I am informed that his record shows two enlistments and desertion during each. He was discharged December 31, 1864.

An application to remove the charge of desertion against him was denied.

Without especially discussing the question of disability chargeable to military service, it seems to me that a soldier with such a record should not be pensioned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 31, 1889.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 3264, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Ellen Hand."

The husband of the beneficiary named in this bill enlisted August 22, 1862, and was mustered out with his company July 10, 1865.

He filed a claim for pension in 1881, sixteen years after his discharge, alleging that he contracted rheumatism about December, 1862.

He died in February, 1883, the cause of death being, as then certified, typhoid fever.

His claim for pension on account of rheumatism seems to have been favorably determined after his death, for it was made payable to his widow and was allowed from the time of filing his petition to February 25, 1883, the day of his death.

The facts of the case as now presented appear to me to lead in the most satisfactory manner to the conclusion that the soldier's death was in no way related to any incident of his military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 12, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 9163, entitled "An act granting a pension to Eli Garrett."

This beneficiary enlisted in the Confederate Army December 1, 1862. He was captured by the United States forces on the 26th of November, 1863, and enlisted in the Union Navy January 22, 1864.

He was discharged from the Navy for disability September 8, 1864, upon the certificate of a naval surgeon, which states that he had valvular cardiac disease (disease of the heart), and that there was no evidence that it originated in the line of duty.

His claim for pension was rejected in 1882 upon the ground that the act which permits pensions to Confederate soldiers who joined the Union Army did not extend to such soldiers who enlisted in the Navy.

I can see no reason why such a distinction should exist, and the recommendation of the Commissioner of Pensions, made in 1887, that this discrimination be removed should be adopted by the enactment of a law for that purpose.

In this case, however, I am unable to discover any evidence that the trouble with which this beneficiary appears to be afflicted is related to his naval service which should overcome the plain statement of the surgeon upon whose certificate he was discharged to the effect that there was no evidence that his disability originated in the line of naval duty.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 12, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 11052, entitled "An act granting a pension to Clara M. Owen."

The husband of this beneficiary was pensioned for a gunshot wound in the left chest and lung, received in action on the 30th day of September, 1864.

He was drowned August 31, 1884.

It appears that he was found in a stream where he frequently bathed, in a depth of water variously given from 5 to 8 feet. He had undressed and apparently gone into the water as usual.

Medical opinions are produced tending to show that drowning was not the cause of death.

No post mortem examination was had, and it seems to me it must be conceded that a conclusion that death was in any degree the result of wounds received in military service rests upon the most unsatisfactory conjecture.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 12, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5752, entitled "An act for the relief of Julia Triggs."

This beneficiary filed an application for pension in 1882, claiming that her son, William Triggs, died in 1875 from the effects of poison taken during his military service in water which had been poisoned by the rebels and in food eaten in rebel houses, which had also been poisoned.

He was discharged from the Army with his company July 24, 1865, after a service of more than four years.

The cause of his death is reported to have been an abscess of the lung.

The case was specially examined, and the evidence elicited to support the claim of poisoning appears to have been anything but satisfactory.

The mother herself testified that her son was absent from Chicago, where she lived, and in the South from 1868 to 1869, and that he was in Indiana from 1869 to 1874.

The claim was rejected on the 12th day of February, 1887, on the ground that evidence could not be obtained upon special examination showing that the soldier's death was due to any disability contracted in the military service.

While I am unable to see how any other conclusion could have been reached upon the facts in this case, there is reason to believe that a favorable determination upon its merits would be of no avail, since, on the 17th day of April, 1888, a letter was filed in the Pension Office from a citizen of Chicago in which it is stated that the beneficiary named in this bill died on the 27th day of February, 1888, and an application is therein made on behalf of her daughter for reimbursement of money expended for her mother in her last illness and for her burial.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 13, 1889.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2514, entitled "An act granting a pension to Michael Shong."

It appears that the beneficiary named in this bill, under the name of John M. Johns, enlisted in Company I, Fourteenth New York Volunteers, on the 17th day of May, 1861, and was discharged May 24, 1863.

In November, 1876, more than thirteen years after his discharge, under the same name of John M. Johns, he filed an application for pension, alleging a fever sore on his right leg contracted July 1, 1862, which resulted in the loss of the leg.

His claim was rejected in November, 1882, after a thorough special examination, on the ground that the disease of the leg resulting in amputation was contracted after the soldier's discharge from the service.

The leg was amputated in February, 1865.

While there is some evidence tending to show lameness in the service and following discharge, and while one witness swears to lameness and fever sores in the service, evidence was also produced showing that the soldier returned home from the Army in good physical condition and that the disease of his leg first manifested itself in the latter part of 1864.

It will be observed that he served in the Army nearly a year after it is alleged he contracted his disability, and that though his leg was amputated in February, 1865, he did not apply for a pension until 1876.

Moreover, the surgeon who amputated his leg testified that the soldier and his parents stated that he came out of the Army without a scratch; that on New Year's night in 1865 he became very warm at a dance; that he went outdoors and was taken with a chill and pain in his side, which subsequently settled in the leg and caused a gangrenous condition, and that upon amputating the leg the artery below the knee was found plugged by a blood clot, which caused the diseased condition of the leg and foot.

This testimony and the other facts established and the presumptions arising therefrom clearly indicate, in my opinion, that the claim made for a pension by this beneficiary is without merit.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 13, 1889.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 3451, entitled "An act granting a pension to Frank D. Worcester."

The beneficiary named in this bill served in the Volunteer Army from February 4, 1863, to January 27, 1864, a period of less than one year, when he was discharged upon the certificate of a surgeon, alleging as his disability "manifest mental imbecility and incontinence of urine. Disease originated previous to enlistment."

In 1880, sixteen years after his discharge, a claim for pension was filed in his behalf by his father as his guardian, in which it was alleged that his mind, naturally not strong, became diseased in the Army by reason of excitement and exposure.

He was adjudged insane in 1872 and sent to an insane hospital, where he remained about six years, when he was discharged as a harmless incurable. His mental condition has remained about the same since that time.

Upon the declared inability to furnish testimony to rebut the record of mental disease prior to enlistment, the claim for pension was rejected in 1883.

In 1887 the case was reopened and a thorough examination was made as to soundness prior to enlistment and the origin and continuance of mental unsoundness.

Upon this examination evidence was taken showing that he was deficient intellectually when he joined the Army; that he was stationed where he was not much exposed, and that his duties were comparatively light; that he never was considered a boy of solid intelligence, and that he had epileptiform seizures prior to enlistment.

On the other hand, no disinterested and unbiased evidence was secured tending to rebut these conditions.

The claim was thereupon again rejected. This was a proper disposition of the case unless the Government is held liable for every disability which may afflict those who served in the Union Army.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 14, 1889.

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 2665, entitled "An act granting a pension to Charles J. Esty."

A bill in precisely the same words as the bill herewith returned was approved on the 8th day of July, 1886, and under its provisions the beneficiary is now upon the pension rolls.

It is supposed that the bill now under consideration was passed by the Congress in ignorance of the previous statute. A duplication of the act would manifestly be entirely useless.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 21, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 1368, entitled "An act to quiet title of settlers on the Des Moines River lands, in the State of Iowa, and for other purposes."

This bill is to all intents and purposes identical with Senate bill No. 150, passed in the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress, which failed to receive Executive approval. My objections to that bill are set forth in a message transmitted to the Senate on the 11th day of March, 1886.[32] They are all applicable to the bill herewith returned, and a careful reexamination of the matters embraced in this proposed legislation has further satisfied me of their validity and strength.

The trouble proposed to be cured by this bill grew out of the indefiniteness and consequent contradictory construction by the officers of the Government of a grant of land made in 1846 by Congress to the State of Iowa (then a Territory) for the purpose of aiding in the improvement of the Des Moines River. This grant was accepted on the 9th day of January, 1847, by the State of Iowa, as required by the act of Congress, and soon thereafter the question arose whether the lands granted were limited to those which adjoined the river in its course northwesterly from the southerly line of the State to a point called the Raccoon Fork, or whether such grant covered lands so adjoining the river through its entire course through the Territory, and both below and above the Raccoon Fork.

The Acting Commissioner of the General Land Office, on the 17th day of October, 1846, instructed the officers of the land office in Iowa that the grant extended only to the Raccoon Fork.

On the 23d day of February, 1848, the Commissioner of the General Land Office held that the grant extended along the entire course of the river.

Notwithstanding this opinion, the President, in June, 1848, proclaimed the lands upon the river above the Raccoon Fork to be open for sale and settlement under the land laws, and about 25,000 acres were sold to and preempted by settlers under said proclamation.

In 1849, and before the organization of the Department of the Interior, the Secretary of the Treasury decided, upon a protest against opening said lands for sale and settlement, that the grant extended along the entire course of the river.

Pursuant to this decision, and on the 1st day of June, 1849, the Commissioner of the General Land Office directed the reservation or the withholding from sale of all lands on the odd-numbered sections along the Des Moines River above the Raccoon Fork.

This reservation from entry and sale under the general land laws seems to have continued until a deed of the lands so reserved was made by the State of Iowa and until the said deed was supplemented and confirmed by the action of the Congress in 1861 and 1862.

In April, 1850, the Secretary of the Interior, that Department having then been created, determined that the grant extended no farther than the Raccoon Fork; but in view of the fact that Congress was in session and might take steps in the matter, the Commissioner of the General Land Office expressly continued the reservation.

In October, 1851, another Secretary of the Interior, while expressing the opinion that the grant only extended to the Raccoon Fork, declared that he would approve the selections made by the State of Iowa of lands above that point, "leaving the question as to the construction of the statute entirely open to the action of the judiciary."

In this condition of affairs selections were made by Iowa of a large quantity of land lying above the Raccoon Fork, which selections were approved and the land certified to the State. In the meantime the State had entered upon the improvement of the river and it appears had disposed of some of the land in furtherance of said improvement. But in 1854 the State of Iowa made a contract with the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company for the continuance of said work at a cost of $1,300,000, the State agreeing in payment thereof to convey to the company all the land which had been or should thereafter be certified to the State of Iowa under the grant of 1846.

In November, 1856, further certification of lands above the Raccoon Fork under the grant to the State of Iowa was refused by the Interior Department. This led to a dispute and settlement between the State of Iowa and the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company, by which the State conveyed by deed to said company—

All lands granted by an act of Congress approved August 8, 1846, to the then Territory of Iowa to aid in the improvement of the Des Moines River which have been approved and certified to the State of Iowa by the General Government, saving and excepting all lands sold and conveyed, or agreed to be sold and conveyed, by the State, by its officers and agents, prior to the 23d day of December, 1853, under said grant.

This exception was declared in the deed to cover the lands above the Raccoon Fork disposed of to settlers by the Government in 1848 under the proclamation of the President opening said lands to sale and settlement, which has been referred to; and it is conceded that neither these lands nor the rights of any settlers thereto are affected by the terms of the bill now under consideration.

The amount of land embraced in this deed located above the Raccoon Fork appears to be more than 271,000 acres.

It is alleged that the company in winding up its affairs distributed this land among the parties interested, and that said land, or a large part of it, has been sold to numerous parties now claiming the same under titles derived from said company.

In December, 1859, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the grant to the Territory of Iowa under the law of 1846 conveyed no land above the Raccoon Fork, and that all selections and certifications of lands above that point were unauthorized and void, and passed no title or interest in said lands to the State of Iowa. In other words, it was determined that these lands were, in the language of the bill under consideration, "improperly certified to Iowa by the Department of the Interior under the act of August 8, 1846."

This adjudication would seem to conclusively determine that the title to these lands was, as the law then stood, and notwithstanding all that had taken place, still in the United States. And for the purpose of granting all claim or right of the Government to said lands for the benefit of the grantees of the State of Iowa, Congress, on the 2d day of March, 1861, passed a joint resolution providing that all the title still retained by the United States in the lands above the Raccoon Fork, in the State of Iowa, "which have been certified to said State improperly by the Department of the Interior as part of the grant by act of Congress approved August 8, 1846, and which is now held by bona fide purchasers under the State of Iowa, be, and the same is hereby, relinquished to the State of Iowa."

Afterwards, and on the 12th day of July, 1862, an act of Congress was passed extending the grant of 1846 so as to include lands lying above the Raccoon Fork.

The joint resolution and act of Congress here mentioned have been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court of the United States to supply a title to the lands mentioned in the deed from the State of Iowa to the Navigation and Railroad Company, which inured to the benefit of said company or its grantees.

No less than ten cases have been decided in that court more or less directly establishing this proposition, as well as the further proposition that no title to these lands could prior to said Congressional action be gained by settlers, for the reason that it had been withdrawn and reserved from entry and sale under the general land laws. It seems to be perfectly well settled also, if an adjudication was necessary upon that question, that all interest of the United States in these lands was entirely and completely granted by the resolution of 1861 and the act of 1862.

The act of 1862 provides for the setting apart of other lands in lieu of such as were covered by the act, but had been before its passage sold and disposed of by the United States, excepting such as had been released to the State of Iowa under the joint resolution of 1861.

It is claimed, I believe, that in a settlement of land grants thereafter had between the United States and the State of Iowa lands were allowed to the State in lieu or indemnity for some of the lands which it had conveyed to the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company. But if the title of the company is valid to lands along the river and above the Raccoon Fork, under the deed from Iowa and the joint resolution and act of Congress, it can not be in the least affected by the fact that the State afterwards, justly or unjustly, received other lands as indemnity.

The bill under consideration provides that all the lands "improperly certified to Iowa" under the grant of 1846, as referred to in the joint resolution of 1861, and for which indemnity lands were selected and received by the State, as provided in the act of 1862, "are, and are hereby, declared to be public lands of the United States."

The claims of persons and their heirs who, with intent in good faith to obtain title under the preemption and homestead laws of the United States, have entered and remained upon any tract of said land prior to 1880 are confirmed and made valid to them and their heirs, not exceeding 160 acres; and upon due proof and payment of the usual price or fees it is directed that such claims shall be carried to patent.

It is further provided that the claims of settlers and claimants which do not come in conflict with the claims of the parties above mentioned are confirmed and made valid. By the second section of the bill it is made the duty of the Attorney-General, as soon as practicable, and within three years after the passage of the act, to institute legal proceedings to assert and protect the title of the United States to said lands and to remove all clouds from its title thereto.

One result of this legislation, if consummated and if effectual, would be to restore to the United States, as a part of the public domain, lands which more than twenty-five years ago the Government expressly granted and surrendered, and which repeated decisions of the Supreme Court have adjudged to belong by virtue of this action of the Government to other parties.

Another result would be not only to validate claims to this land which our highest judicial tribunal have solemnly declared to be invalid, but to actually direct the issue of patents in confirmation of said claims.

Still another result would be to oblige the Government of the United States to enter the courts ostensibly to assert and protect its title to said land, while in point of fact it would be used to enforce private claims to the same and unsettle private ownership.

It is by no means certain that this proposed legislation, relating to a subject peculiarly within the judicial function, and which attempts to disturb rights and interests thoroughly intrenched in the solemn adjudications of our courts, would be upheld. In any event, it seems to me that it is an improper exercise of legislative power, an interference with the determinations of a coordinate branch of the Government, an arbitrary annulment of a public grant made more than twenty-five years ago, an attempted destruction of vested rights, and a threatened impairment of lawful contracts.

The advocates of this measure insist that a point in favor of the settlers upon these lands and important in the consideration of this bill is found in the following language of the constitution of the State of Iowa, which was adopted in 1857:

The general assembly shall not locate any of the public lands which have been or may be granted by Congress to this State, and the location of which may be given to the general assembly, upon lands actually settled, without the consent of the occupant.

The State under its constitution was perfectly competent to take the grants of 1861 and 1862. The clause of the constitution above quoted deals expressly with "lands which have been or may be granted by Congress to the State," and thus of necessity recognizes its right to take such grants. This competency in the State as a grantee was all that was needed to create, under the joint resolution of 1861 and the act of 1862, a complete divestiture of the interests of the United States in these lands. It must be borne in mind, too, that prior to this time these lands had been conveyed by the State of Iowa in furtherance of the purposes of the original Congressional grants, and that the joint resolution of 1861 and the act of 1862 were really made for the benefit of those who held under grants from the State. After these grants by the Government it had no concern with these lands. If in any stage of the proceedings the general assembly of Iowa was guilty of any neglect of duty or failed to act in accordance with the constitution of the State of Iowa, the remedy should be found in the courts of that State; and it is difficult to see how the situation in this aspect can be changed or improved by the bill under consideration.

I am not unmindful of the fact that there may be persons who have suffered or who are threatened with loss through a reliance upon the erroneous decisions of Government officials as to the extent of the original grant from the United States to the Territory of Iowa. I believe cases of this kind should be treated in accordance with the broadest sentiments of equity, and that where loss is apparent arising from a real or fairly supposed invitation of the Government to settle upon the lands mentioned in the bill under consideration such loss should be made good. But I do not believe that the condition of these settlers will be aided by encouraging them in such further litigation as the terms of this bill invite, nor do I believe that in attempting to right the wrongs of which they complain legislation should be sanctioned mischievous in principle, and in its practical operation doing injustice to others as innocent as they and as much entitled to consideration.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[Footnote 32: See pp. 411-413.]



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 23, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 220, entitled "An act granting a pension to John J. Lockrey."

It is stated that this beneficiary enlisted April 11, 1865, but it appears from the muster roll of his company for May and June, 1865, that he was a recruit assigned, but who had not joined. There is nothing appearing on the record which positively shows that he ever reached his regiment.

It is conceded that his real and nominal connection with the Army extended only from April 11, 1865, when he was mustered in, until August, 1865, when he was discharged for disability, consisting of a disease of the eye, called in the surgeon's certificate "iritis with conjunctivitis."

It seems that this claimant enlisted just at the close of the war, and was connected in a manner with the Army for four months. It is not probable that he ever saw any actual service, for none is stated in the papers before me; and it does appear that he spent a large part of his short term of enlistment in hospitals and under treatment for a trouble with his eye. As early as May 23, 1865, he was admitted to hospital with gonorrheal ophthalmia. His claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that this was the cause of his disability, and the inferences from the proof presented make this extremely probable.

One of the witnesses who testified that the beneficiary caught cold in his eye in April, 1865, on the Mississippi River is shown to have been at that time with his regiment and company at Danville, Va.

The circumstances surrounding this case and the facts proved satisfy me that the determination of the Pension Bureau was correct, and there is certainly no sentiment in favor of the claimant which justifies the indulgence of violent presumptions for the purpose of overriding such determination.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 23, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 5807, entitled "An act granting a pension to John McCool."

This beneficiary served in an Iowa regiment of volunteers from May 27, 1861, to July 12, 1865.

He filed a petition for pension, alleging an accidental wound in the right thumb while extracting a cartridge from a pistol in August, 1861. There is no record of any such disability, though it appears that he was on a furlough about the date of his alleged injury. It appears that he served nearly four years after the time he fixed as the date of his injury.

No evidence was filed in support of the claim he filed, and he refused to appear for examination, though twice notified to do so.

His claim was rejected in May, 1888, no suggestion having been made of any other disability than the wound in the thumb, upon which his claim before the Bureau was based.

The report of the committee in the House of Representatives recommending the passage of this bill contains no intimation that there exists any disability contracted in the military service, but distinctly declares the pension recommended a service pension, and states that the beneficiary is blind.

As long as the policy of granting pensions for disability traceable to the incidents of army service is adhered to, the allowance of pensions by special acts based upon service only gives rise to unjust and unfair discriminations among those equally entitled, and makes precedents which will eventually result in an entire departure from the principle upon which pensions are now awarded.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 23, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 11803, entitled "An act granting a pension to Henry V. Bass."

This beneficiary enlisted September 9, 1862, and was mustered out August 15, 1865. The records show no disability during his service.

It is now alleged that the soldier was sitting on the ground near his tent while two comrades were wrestling near him, and that in the course of the scuffle one of the parties engaged in it was thrown or fell upon the beneficiary, injuring his right knee and ankle.

Upon these facts the claim was rejected by the Pension Bureau on the ground that the injury was not received in the line of duty.

I do not think that the Government should be held as an insurer against injuries of this kind, which are in no manner related to the performance of military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 23, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 11999, entitled "An act granting a pension to William Barnes."

The beneficiary named in this bill served in a Kentucky regiment from August 9, 1861, to December 6, 1864.

He made claim for pension in the Pension Bureau in September, 1882, alleging that in October, 1862, he was accidentally injured by a pistol shot in the thigh while in the line of duty.

It is conceded that he was wounded by the discharge of a pistol which he was carrying while he was absent from his command with permission on a visit to his home, and that the discharge of the pistol was accidental.

The circumstances of the injury are neither given in the report of the committee to whom the claim was referred by the House of Representatives nor in the report of the case furnished to me from the Pension Bureau, but on the conceded facts the granting of a pension in this case can be predicated upon no other theory except the liability of the Government for any injury by accident to a person in the military service, whether in the line of duty or not.

I think the adoption of the principle that the Government is an insurer against accidents under any circumstances befalling those enlisted in its military service when visiting at home is an unwarrantable stretch of pension legislation.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 25, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 10448, entitled "An act granting a pension to Squire Walter."

The son of the beneficiary named in this bill enlisted in a West Virginia regiment on the 28th day of June, 1861.

On the 15th day of September, 1862, while bathing in the Potomac River near the Chain Bridge, with the knowledge and consent of his commanding officer, he was drowned.

It is perfectly clear that he lost his life while in the enjoyment of a privilege and when at his request military discipline was relaxed and its restraints removed for his comfort and pleasure. His death resulted from his voluntary and perfectly proper personal indulgence, and can not be in the least attributed to military service.

The father does not appear to be so needy and dependent as is often exhibited in cases of this class.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 25, 1889.

To the Senate:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 3561, entitled "An act granting a pension to Edwin W. Warner."

A claim for pension on behalf of the beneficiary named in this bill was filed in the Pension Bureau May 6, 1867. It has been examined and reexamined and always rejected, until, on the 29th day of December, 1888, as the result of a personal and thorough investigation by the Commissioner, a pension was allowed and a certificate issued under which the claimant will be paid $18 a month hereafter and arrearages amounting to something near $2,000.

As the special act for the benefit of this claimant was passed by the Congress upon the supposition that nothing had been done for the beneficiary therein named, I deem it best, in his interest, and probably consistent with the intent of the Congress, that the bill herewith returned should not become a law.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 26, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 12047, entitled "An act granting an increase of pension to George Colwell."

The record shows that this beneficiary was enrolled in the military service August 10, 1862, and was mustered out June 1, 1865.

There is no record of any disability during his service.

He was pensioned at the rate of $2 a month for a dog bite just above the ankle.

In September, 1865, three months after his discharge, he strained the knee of the leg which had been bitten.

In 1887 he applied for an increase of pension, alleging increased disability. This increased disability appears plainly to be the result of the strain or injury to the knee, and in no way connected with the bite for which he was pensioned.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 26, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 10791, entitled "An act granting a pension to Marinda Wakefield Reed."

This beneficiary filed an application for pension in November, 1876, alleging that her husband, William A. Reed, died in September of that year of consumption contracted in the line of military duty.

The records show that the soldier was in hospital in the year 1864 for chronic diarrhea and intermittent fever.

On the 5th day of November, 1864, he was injured in a railroad accident while on his way home to vote at the Presidential election of that year.

The beneficiary claimed in August, 1885, in support of her application for pension that those injuries resulted in consumption, from which the soldier died, and the favorable report of the House committee to which the bill herewith returned was referred seems to proceed upon the same theory.

Nothing appears which satisfactorily connects this injury, which was received in November, 1864, with death from consumption in 1876.

Another difficulty in the case is found in the fact that when the soldier was injured he was clearly not engaged in any military duty nor was his injury in any degree attributable to military service.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 26, 1889.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill 11466, entitled "An act granting a pension to Mary A. Selbach."

This bill does not give the name of any soldier to whom the beneficiary was related or in what capacity the pension provided for is to be paid to her, but it appears from the report of the committee accompanying the bill that she is the widow of Gustavus Selbach, a volunteer in the Ninth Regiment of Ohio Volunteers.

This soldier drew a pension from January, 1882, to January 16, 1886, when he died. He claimed disability for disease of the ears and a resulting deafness of his left ear. There appears to be no evidence in his record of any disability or medical treatment while in the service, and the medical examination upon his application for pension shows no rating for any disability other than that alleged by him and for which he was pensioned—disease of the ears and resulting deafness.

It is conceded that the soldier died January 16, 1886, of pneumonia.

The widow filed a claim for pension in May, 1887.

The testimony of physicians upon her claim covered seven years prior to his death, thus dating back to the year 1879, and they speak of the disease of the ear and of the kidneys, which, in their opinion, undermined his health, so that "he succumbed to an attack of pneumonia, which to a person of ordinary good health would not have been considered serious."

It can hardly be supposed that the trouble with his ears caused the soldier to fall a victim to pneumonia; and so far as the kidney disease tended in that direction, it is to be observed that it apparently did not make its appearance until fourteen years after the soldier's discharge.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 26, 1880.

To the House of Representatives:

I return without approval House bill No. 11586, entitled "An act for the relief of Stephen Williams."

It appears from the records that the beneficiary for whom a pension is provided in this bill served as a volunteer in an Illinois regiment from October, 1862, to October; 1864, at which date he is reported as a deserter.

He filed a claim for pension in 1881, in which he alleged that he was struck with a gunstock upon his head and injured in October, 1864.

The evidence shows that a drunken comrade struck the claimant with the stock of his gun because he would not buy whisky for him.

This, upon all the facts, does not appear to be a proper case for allowing a pension for an injury suffered in the line of military duty.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 2, 1889.

To the Senate:

I herewith return without approval Senate bill No. 139, entitled "An act to credit and pay to the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia all moneys collected under the direct tax levied by the act of Congress approved August 5, 1861."

The object of this bill is quite clearly indicated in its title. Its provisions have been much discussed in both branches of Congress and have received emphatic legislative sanction. I fully appreciate the interest which it has excited and have by no means failed to recognize the persuasive presentation made in its favor. I know, too, that the interposition of Executive disapproval in this case is likely to arouse irritation and cause complaint and earnest criticism. Since, however, my judgment will not permit me to assent to the legislation proposed, I can find no way of turning aside from what appears to be the plain course of official duty.

On the 5th day of August, 1861, a Federal statute was passed entitled "An act to provide increased revenue from imports, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes."

This law was passed at a time when immense sums of money were needed by the Government for the prosecution of a war for the Union, and the purpose of the law was to increase in almost every possible way the Federal revenues. The first seven sections of the statute were devoted to advancing very largely the rates of duties on imports, and to supplement this the eighth section provided that a direct tax of $20,000,000 should be annually laid and that certain amounts therein specified should be apportioned to the respective States. The remainder of the law, consisting of fifty sections, contained the most particular and detailed provisions for the collection of the tax through Federal machinery.

It was declared, among other things, that the tax should be assessed and laid on all lands and lots of ground, with their improvements and dwelling houses; that the annual amount of said taxes should be a lien upon all lands and real estate of the individuals assessed for the same, and that in default of payment the said taxes might be collected by distraint and sale of the goods, chattels, and effects of the delinquent persons.