The Department of Agriculture was created for the purpose of acquiring and diffusing among the people useful information respecting the subjects it has in charge, and aiding in the cause of intelligent and progressive farming, by the collection of statistics, by testing the value and usefulness of new seeds and plants, and distributing such as are found desirable among agriculturists. This and other powers and duties with which this Department is invested are of the utmost importance, and if wisely exercised must be of great benefit to the country. The aim of our beneficent Government is the improvement of the people in every station and the amelioration of their condition. Surely our agriculturists should not be neglected. The instrumentality established in aid of the farmers of the land should not only be well equipped for the accomplishment of its purpose, but those for whose benefit it has been adopted should be encouraged to avail themselves fully of its advantages.

The prohibition of the importation into several countries of certain of our animals and their products, based upon the suspicion that health is endangered in their use and consumption, suggests the importance of such precautions for the protection of our stock of all kinds against disease as will disarm suspicion of danger and cause the removal of such an injurious prohibition.

If the laws now in operation are insufficient to accomplish this protection, I recommend their amendment to meet the necessities of the situation; and I commend to the consideration of Congress the suggestions contained in the report of the Commissioner of Agriculture calculated to increase the value and efficiency of this Department.

The report of the Civil Service Commission, which will be submitted, contains an account of the manner in which the civil-service law has been executed during the last year and much valuable information on this important subject.

I am inclined to think that there is no sentiment more general in the minds of the people of our country than a conviction of the correctness of the principle upon which the law enforcing civil-service reform is based. In its present condition the law regulates only a part of the subordinate public positions throughout the country. It applies the test of fitness to applicants for these places by means of a competitive examination, and gives large discretion to the Commissioners as to the character of the examination and many other matters connected with its execution. Thus the rules and regulations adopted by the Commission have much to do with the practical usefulness of the statute and with the results of its application.

The people may well trust the Commission to execute the law with perfect fairness and with as little irritation as is possible. But of course no relaxation of the principle which underlies it and no weakening of the safeguards which surround it can be expected. Experience in its administration will probably suggest amendment of the methods of its execution, but I venture to hope that we shall never again be remitted to the system which distributes public positions purely as rewards for partisan service. Doubts may well be entertained whether our Government could survive the strain of a continuance of this system, which upon every change of Administration inspires an immense army of claimants for office to lay siege to the patronage of Government, engrossing the time of public officers with their importunities, spreading abroad the contagion of their disappointment, and filling the air with the tumult of their discontent.

The allurements of an immense number of offices and places exhibited to the voters of the land, and the promise of their bestowal in recognition of partisan activity, debauch the suffrage and rob political action of its thoughtful and deliberative character. The evil would increase with the multiplication of offices consequent upon our extension, and the mania for office holding, growing from its indulgence, would pervade our population so generally that patriotic purpose, the support of principle, the desire for the public good, and solicitude for the nation's welfare would be nearly banished from the activity of our party contests and cause them to degenerate into ignoble, selfish, and disgraceful struggles for the possession of office and public place.

Civil-service reform enforced by law came none too soon to check the progress of demoralization.

One of its effects, not enough regarded, is the freedom it brings to the political action of those conservative and sober men who, in fear of the confusion and risk attending an arbitrary and sudden change in all the public offices with a change of party rule, cast their ballots against such a chance.

Parties seem to be necessary, and will long continue to exist; nor can it be now denied that there are legitimate advantages, not disconnected with office holding, which follow party supremacy. While partisanship continues bitter and pronounced and supplies so much of motive to sentiment and action, it is not fair to hold public officials in charge of important trusts responsible for the best results in the performance of their duties, and yet insist that they shall rely in confidential and important places upon the work of those not only opposed to them in political affiliation, but so steeped in partisan prejudice and rancor that they have no loyalty to their chiefs and no desire for their success. Civil-service reform does not exact this, nor does it require that those in subordinate positions who fail in yielding their best service or who are incompetent should be retained simply because they are in place. The whining of a clerk discharged for indolence or incompetency, who, though he gained his place by the worst possible operation of the spoils system, suddenly discovers that he is entitled to protection under the sanction of civil-service reform, represents an idea no less absurd than the clamor of the applicant who claims the vacant position as his compensation for the most questionable party work.

The civil-service law does not prevent the discharge of the indolent or incompetent clerk, but it does prevent supplying his place with the unfit party worker. Thus in both these phases is seen benefit to the public service. And the people who desire good government, having secured this statute, will not relinquish its benefits without protest. Nor are they unmindful of the fact that its full advantages can only be gained through the complete good faith of those having its execution in charge. And this they will insist upon.

I recommend that the salaries of the Civil Service Commissioners be increased to a sum more nearly commensurate to their important duties.

It is a source of considerable and not unnatural discontent that no adequate provision has yet been made for accommodating the principal library of the Government. Of the vast collection of books and pamphlets gathered at the Capitol, numbering some 700,000, exclusive of manuscripts, maps, and the products of the graphic arts, also of great volume and value, only about 300,000 volumes, or less than half the collection, are provided with shelf room. The others, which are increasing at the rate of from twenty-five to thirty thousand volumes a year, are not only inaccessible to the public, but are subject to serious damage and deterioration from other causes in their present situation.

A consideration of the facts that the library of the Capitol has twice been destroyed or damaged by fire, its daily increasing value, and its importance as a place of deposit of books under the law relating to copyright makes manifest the necessity of prompt action to insure its proper accommodation and protection.

My attention has been called to a controversy which has arisen from the condition of the law relating to railroad facilities in the city of Washington, which has involved the Commissioners of the District in much annoyance and trouble. I hope this difficulty will be promptly settled by appropriate legislation.

The Commissioners represent that enough of the revenues of the District are now on deposit in the Treasury of the United States to repay the sum advanced by the Government for sewer improvements under the act of June 30, 1884. They desire now an advance of the share which ultimately should be borne by the District of the cost of extensive improvements to the streets of the city. The total expense of these contemplated improvements is estimated at $1,000,000, and they are of the opinion that a considerable sum could be saved if they had all the money in hand, so that contracts for the whole work could be made at the same time. They express confidence that if the advance asked for should be made the Government would be reimbursed the same within a reasonable time. I have no doubt that these improvements could be made much cheaper if undertaken together and prosecuted according to a general plan.

The license law now in force within the District is deficient and uncertain in some of its provisions and ought to be amended. The Commissioners urge, with good reason, the necessity of providing a building for the use of the District government which shall better secure the safety and preservation of its valuable books and records.

The present condition of the law relating to the succession to the Presidency in the event of the death, disability, or removal of both the President and Vice-President is such as to require immediate amendment. This subject has repeatedly been considered by Congress, but no result has been reached. The recent lamentable death of the Vice-President, and vacancies at the same time in all other offices the incumbents of which might immediately exercise the functions of the Presidential office, has caused public anxiety and a just demand that a recurrence of such a condition of affairs should not be permitted.

In conclusion I commend to the wise care and thoughtful attention of Congress the needs, the welfare, and the aspirations of an intelligent and generous nation. To subordinate these to the narrow advantages of partisanship or the accomplishment of selfish aims is to violate the people's trust and betray the people's interests; but an individual sense of responsibility on the part of each of us and a stern determination to perform our duty well must give us place among those who have added in their day and generation to the glory and prosperity of our beloved land.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

[Footnote 2: See pp. 303-304.]

[Footnote 3: See pp. 224-225.]

[Footnote 4: See pp. 305-307.]



SPECIAL MESSAGES.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, December 14, 1885.

To the Senate of the United States:

In response to the resolution of the Senate of the 9th instant, calling for the correspondence on file in relation to the appointment of Mr. A.M. Keiley as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, first to the Government of Italy and then to that of Austria-Hungary, I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 14, 1885.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of 10th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, inclosing a report from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs upon the subject of the condition of the Northern Cheyenne Indians upon the Rosebud and Tongue rivers, in Montana, the inadequacy of the appropriation made for their support during the current fiscal year, and requesting legislative authority for the use of certain funds indicated for their relief.

The proposed legislation does not involve any additional appropriation, and the necessity for the authority requested is urgent. I therefore recommend the matter to the early and favorable consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, December 14, 1885.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to ratification, a convention between the United States and Venezuela for the reopening of the claims of citizens of the United States against that Government under the treaty of April 25, 1866, signed on the 5th instant.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, December 14, 1885.

To the Senate:

I transmit, for the consideration of the Senate with a view to ratification, an additional article, signed the 5th instant, extending for a period of eighteen months from the date of the exchange of ratifications of the same the provisions of Article VIII of the convention of July 29, 1882, between the United States and Mexico, in regard to the resurvey of the boundary line, a copy of which convention is herewith inclosed.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, December 21, 1885.

To the Senate of the United States:

I nominate James P. Kimball, of Pennsylvania, to be Director of the Mint, in place of Horatio C. Burchard, removed; and the reasons for such removal are herewith communicated to the Senate, pursuant to the statute in such case made and provided.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 21, 1885.

To the Senate of the United States:

In the matter of the removal of Horatio C. } Burchard as Director of the Mint. }

In conformity to section 343 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, the following is respectfully communicated to the Senate as reasons of the removal above referred to:

The Director of the Mint is the head of one of the most important of the bureaus of the Treasury Department, to which are attached duties of a highly technical and varied nature.

By the express terms of the law creating the office the incumbent is "under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury."

This last-named officer, under whose direction Mr. Burchard was thus placed, reported to me that his mode of conducting the business of the office was unsatisfactory and inefficient and that the public interest required a change.

And therefore I removed Mr. Burchard and appointed Mr. Kimball in his place, believing him to possess especial qualifications for the proper administration of the important duties involved.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 21, 1885.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 17th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill granting a right of way to the Jamestown and Northern Railroad Company through the Devils Lake Indian Reservation, in the Territory of Dakota.

The matter is presented for the consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 21, 1885.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 15th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers upon the subject, a draft of a bill to amend section 2148 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to trespasses upon Indian lands.

The subject is one of great importance, and is commended to the early and favorable action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 21, 1885.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report, together with accompanying documents, made to me by the board of management of the World's Industrial and Cotton Centennial Exposition, held at New Orleans from December 16, 1884, to May 31, 1885.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 21, 1885.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 17th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill to accept and ratify an agreement made by the Pi-Ute Indians, and granting a right of way to the Carson and Colorado Railroad Company through the Walker River Reservation, in Nevada.

The matter is presented for the consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 21, 1885.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 17th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs concerning the failure of the Utah and Northern Railroad Company to compensate the Indians upon the Fort Hall Reservation, in Idaho, for lands taken and used in construction of their line of road crossing the reservation from north to south.

The subject is recommended to the early attention and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 21, 1885.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 15th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers upon the subject, a draft of a bill "to provide for the settlement of the estates of deceased Kickapoo Indians in the State of Kansas, and for other purposes."

The matter is presented for the favorable consideration of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 21, 1885.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 15th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers upon the subject, a draft of a bill for the relief of the Mission Indians in California.

The subject is presented for the action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 21, 1885.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 17th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill to accept and ratify an agreement made by the Sisseton and Wahpeton Indians, and to grant a right of way for the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway through the Lake Traverse Reservation, in Dakota. The subject is presented for the consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 21, 1885.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 15th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers on the subject, a draft of a bill to amend section 5388 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to timber depredations upon lands reserved or purchased for military, Indian, or other purposes, etc.

This is an important subject, and is commended to the early attention of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 21, 1885.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 15th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill to accept and ratify an agreement made with the confederated tribes and bands of Indians occupying the Yakima Reservation, in Washington Territory, for the right of way of the Northern Pacific Railroad across said reservation, etc.

The matter is presented for the consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 5, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 19th ultimo from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers in relation thereto, a draft of a bill "to provide for allotments of lands in severalty to the Indians residing upon the Round Valley Reservation, in the State of California, and granting patents therefor, and for other purposes."

The matter is presented for the early consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 7, 1886.

To the Senate:

I transmit herewith, in response to a resolution of the Senate of the 9th ultimo, a report of the Secretary of State, in answer to the request for any documents or information received from our consul-general at Paris or from the special agent sent to the financial centers of Europe in respect to the establishment of an international ratio of gold and silver coinage as would procure the free coinage of both metals at the mints of those countries and our own.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 12, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

In continuation of the message of my predecessor of the 13th of February last, I now transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State, which is accompanied by the final report of the commissioners appointed under the act of July 7, 1884, to visit the States of Central and South America.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 12, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 2d instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill to amend section 9 of the act of March 3, 1885, relating to the trial and punishment of Indians committing certain specified crimes.

The subject is presented for the consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 12, 1886.

To the Senate:

I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, in response to a resolution of the Senate of the 14th ultimo, requesting a copy of "any report of an actual instrumental survey of a line for a ship railroad across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and any map of the same that has been made to or placed on file in any of the Executive Departments, and of any canal or canals designed to connect such ship railway with the Gulf of Mexico or the Pacific Ocean."

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 12, 1886.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of State, accompanied by a report of Hon. James O. Broadhead and Somerville P. Tuck, appointed to carry out certain of the provisions of section 5 of an act entitled "An act to provide for the ascertainment of claims of American citizens for spoliations committed by the French prior to the 31st day of July, 1801," approved January 20, 1885.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 12, 1886.

To the Senate:

I transmit herewith, in response to a resolution of the Senate of the 5th instant, a report of the Secretary of State, containing all the correspondence and information in the custody of his Department relative to the extension of certain fishing rights and privileges under the treaty of Washington from July 1, 1885, to January 1, 1886.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 25, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State, which is accompanied by the report of the United States Electrical Commission of the proceedings of the National Conference of Electricians held at the city of Philadelphia in the month of September, 1884.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 25, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 16th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of proposed legislation providing for negotiations with the various tribes and bands of Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota, with a view to the improvement of their present condition.

It is requested that the matter may have early attention, consideration, and action by Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 28, 1886.

To the Senate:

In continuing accord with the Senate resolution of December 9, 1885, I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State, accompanied by information received from the United States minister to Belgium in relation to the action of the Belgian Government in concluding its adhesion to the monetary convention of the States comprising the "Latin Union."

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 28, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of 25th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, the draft of a proposed amendment to the first section of the act ratifying an agreement with the Crow Indians in Montana, approved April 11, 1882, requested by said Indians, for the purpose of increasing the amount of the annual payments under said agreement and reducing the number thereof, in order that sufficient means may be provided for establishing them on their individual allotments.

The matter is presented for the consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 4, 1886.

To the Senate:

By its resolution in executive session of March 18, 1885, the Senate advised and consented to the ratification of the convention concluded November 12, 1884, between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico, touching the boundary line between the two countries where it follows the bed of the Rio Grande and the Rio Gila.

The ratifications could not, however, be exchanged between the two contracting parties and the convention proclaimed until after it had received the constitutional sanction of the Government of Mexico, whose Congress but recently convened.

In a note to the Secretary of State of December 26, 1885, Mr. Matias Romero, the minister of Mexico here, advises him of a decree issued by the Mexican Senate in its session of December 11 last, approving, with certain modifications, the convention in question:

"The modifications made in the said treaty by the Mexican Senate are not essential," says Mr. Romero, "since they consist mainly in the rectification of the mistake made when the Gila River was mentioned as a part of the boundary line, the Colorado River being omitted, and in the correction of an error in the Spanish translation."

That the Senate may have the matter fully before it, I herewith transmit a copy of Mr. Romero's note of December 26, 1885, with its inclosure, and return the convention in the original for such further consideration and direction as the Senate in its constitutional prerogative may deem necessary and proper.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1886.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE PRO TEMPORE.

SIR: In response to the Senate resolution dated January 5, 1886—

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and hereby is, directed to communicate to the Senate a copy of each report made by the Government directors of the Union Pacific Railroad Company from date of first appointment of such directors to the present time—

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, dated the 2d instant, with the copies required.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1886.

THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SIR: In response to House resolution of January 27, 1886—

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and is hereby, requested to furnish this House with copies of any and all contracts or leases which are to be found on file in said Department between the Southern Pacific Company and any and every railroad or railroads to which land grants were made, or which received any subsidies from the United States; also a copy of the charter of incorporation of the Southern Pacific Company; also all and every contract or contracts on file between the Pacific Steamship Company and any and every land grant or subsidized railroad company or companies—

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, dated the 2d instant, inclosing the copies required.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 4, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of 3d instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill authorizing the use of certain funds belonging to the Miami Indians in Indian Territory, proceeds of sales of their lands, for the purpose of relieving their present pressing necessities.

The matter is presented for the consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 8, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, dated 5th instant, inclosing the recommendation of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the insertion in the act making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian Department for the year ending June 30, 1887, of an item providing for an agent for the Winnebago Indians in Wisconsin, at a salary of $1,500 per annum.

The matter is respectfully submitted for the consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 8, 1886.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE PRO TEMPORE.

SIR: In response to Senate resolution of January 7, 1886—

That the Secretary of the Interior be, and hereby is, directed to communicate to the Senate whether any surveys of the public lands have been made within the last two years in the State of Nebraska; whether there are any unsurveyed public lands within said State; also what recommendations have been made within the last three years by the surveyors-general of said district as to the discontinuance of said office, and whether it is advisable that the office of surveyor-general of said district should cease and be discontinued under the provisions of section 2218 of the Revised Statutes of the United States—

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, dated the 3d instant, inclosing the information desired.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 15, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, a communication, under date of the 9th instant, from the Secretary of the Interior, and the accompanying last annual report of the Government directors of the Union Pacific Railway Company.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 15, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 12th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, the draft of a bill prepared by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to amend the third section of the act of March 3, 1885, "to provide for the sale of the Sac and Fox and Iowa Indian reservations in the States of Nebraska and Kansas, and for other purposes."

The matter is presented for the consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 16, 1886.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith, in response to a resolution of the Senate of the 9th instant, a statement showing the payments of awards of the commissioners appointed under the conventions between the United States and France concluded April 30, 1803, and July 4, 1831, and between the United States and Spain concluded February 22, 1819, prepared from the books in the Department of the Treasury, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, at the request of the Secretary of State.

Also, for the further information of the Senate, a report prepared by direction of the Secretary of State, from the original records in his custody, of the awards made by the said commissioners in claims allowed by them.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, D.C., March 1, 1886.

To the Senate of the United States:

Ever since the beginning of the present session of the Senate the different heads of the Departments attached to the executive branch of the Government have been plied with various requests and demands from committees of the Senate, from members of such committees, and at last from the Senate itself, requiring the transmission of reasons for the suspension of certain officials during the recess of that body, or for the papers touching the conduct of such officials, or for all papers and documents relating to such suspensions, or for all documents and papers filed in such Departments in relation to the management and conduct of the offices held by such suspended officials.

The different terms from time to time adopted in making these requests and demands, the order in which they succeeded each other, and the fact that when made by the Senate the resolution for that purpose was passed in executive session have led to the presumption, the correctness of which will, I suppose, be candidly admitted, that from first to last the information thus sought and the papers thus demanded were desired for use by the Senate and its committees in considering the propriety of the suspensions referred to.

Though these suspensions are my executive acts, based upon considerations addressed to me alone and for which I am wholly responsible, I have had no invitation from the Senate to state the position which I have felt constrained to assume in relation to the same or to interpret for myself my acts and motives in the premises.

In this condition of affairs I have forborne addressing the Senate upon the subject, lest I might be accused of thrusting myself unbidden upon the attention of that body.

But the report of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate lately presented and published, which censures the Attorney-General of the United States for his refusal to transmit certain papers relating to a suspension from office, and which also, if I correctly interpret it, evinces a misapprehension of the position of the Executive upon the question of such suspensions, will, I hope, justify this communication.

This report is predicated upon a resolution of the Senate directed to the Attorney-General and his reply to the same. This resolution was adopted in executive session devoted entirely to business connected with the consideration of nominations for office. It required the Attorney-General "to transmit to the Senate copies of all documents and papers that have been filed in the Department of Justice since the 1st day of January, 1885, in relation to the management and conduct of the office of district attorney of the United States for the southern district of Alabama."

The incumbent of this office on the 1st day of January, 1885, and until the 17th day of July ensuing, was George M. Duskin, who on the day last mentioned was suspended by an Executive order, and John D. Burnett designated to perform the duties of said office. At the time of the passage of the resolution above referred to the nomination of Burnett for said office was pending before the Senate, and all the papers relating to said nomination were before that body for its inspection and information.

In reply to this resolution the Attorney-General, after referring to the fact that the papers relating to the nomination of Burnett had already been sent to the Senate, stated that he was directed by the President to say that—

The papers and documents which are mentioned in said resolution and still remaining in the custody of this Department, having exclusive reference to the suspension by the President of George M. Duskin, the late incumbent of the office of district attorney for the southern district of Alabama, it is not considered that the public interests will be promoted by a compliance with said resolution and the transmission of the papers and documents therein mentioned to the Senate in executive session.

Upon this resolution and the answer thereto the issue is thus stated by the Committee on the Judiciary at the outset of the report:

The important question, then, is whether it is within the constitutional competence of either House of Congress to have access to the official papers and documents in the various public offices of the United States created by laws enacted by themselves.

I do not suppose that "the public offices of the United States" are regulated or controlled in their relations to either House of Congress by the fact that they were "created by laws enacted by themselves." It must be that these instrumentalities were created for the benefit of the people and to answer the general purposes of government under the Constitution and the laws, and that they are unencumbered by any lien in favor of either branch of Congress growing out of their construction, and unembarrassed by any obligation to the Senate as the price of their creation.

The complaint of the committee that access to official papers in the public offices is denied the Senate is met by the statement that at no time has it been the disposition or the intention of the President or any Department of the executive branch of the Government to withhold from the Senate official documents or papers filed in any of the public offices. While it is by no means conceded that the Senate has the right in any case to review the act of the Executive in removing or suspending a public officer, upon official documents or otherwise, it is considered that documents and papers of that nature should, because they are official, be freely transmitted to the Senate upon its demand, trusting the use of the same for proper and legitimate purposes to the good faith of that body; and though no such paper or document has been specifically demanded in any of the numerous requests and demands made upon the Departments, yet as often as they were found in the public offices they have been furnished in answer to such applications.

The letter of the Attorney-General in response to the resolution of the Senate in the particular case mentioned in the committee's report was written at my suggestion and by my direction. There had been no official papers or documents filed in his Department relating to the case within the period specified in the resolution. The letter was intended, by its description of the papers and documents remaining in the custody of the Department, to convey the idea that they were not official; and it was assumed that the resolution called for information, papers, and documents of the same character as were required by the requests and demands which preceded it.

Everything that had been written or done on behalf of the Senate from the beginning pointed to all letters and papers of a private and unofficial nature as the objects of search, if they were to be found in the Departments, and provided they had been presented to the Executive with a view to their consideration upon the question of suspension from office.

Against the transmission of such papers and documents I have interposed my advice and direction. This has not been done, as is suggested in the committee's report, upon the assumption on my part that the Attorney-General or any other head of a Department "is the servant of the President, and is to give or withhold copies of documents in his office according to the will of the Executive and not otherwise," but because I regard the papers and documents withheld and addressed to me or intended for my use and action purely unofficial and private, not infrequently confidential, and having reference to the performance of a duty exclusively mine. I consider them in no proper sense as upon the files of the Department, but as deposited there for my convenience, remaining still completely under my control. I suppose if I desired to take them into my custody I might do so with entire propriety, and if I saw fit to destroy them no one could complain.

Even the committee in its report appears to concede that there may be with the President or in the Departments papers and documents which, on account of their unofficial character, are not subject to the inspection of the Congress. A reference in the report to instances where the House of Representatives ought not to succeed in a call for the production of papers is immediately followed by this statement:

The committee feels authorized to state, after a somewhat careful research, that within the foregoing limits there is scarcely in the history of this Government, until now, any instance of a refusal by a head of a Department, or even of the President himself, to communicate official facts and information, as distinguished from private and unofficial papers, motions, views, reasons, and opinions, to either House of Congress when unconditionally demanded.

To which of the classes thus recognized do the papers and documents belong that are now the objects of the Senate's quest?

They consist of letters and representations addressed to the Executive or intended for his inspection; they are voluntarily written and presented by private citizens who are not in the least instigated thereto by any official invitation or at all subject to official control. While some of them are entitled to Executive consideration, many of them are so irrelevant, or in the light of other facts so worthless, that they have not been given the least weight in determining the question to which they are supposed to relate.

Are all these, simply because they are preserved, to be considered official documents and subject to the inspection of the Senate? If not, who is to determine which belong to this class? Are the motives and purposes of the Senate, as they are day by day developed, such as would be satisfied with my selection? Am I to submit to theirs at the risk of being charged with making a suspension from office upon evidence which was not even considered?

Are these papers to be regarded official because they have not only been presented but preserved in the public offices?

Their nature and character remain the same whether they are kept in the Executive Mansion or deposited in the Departments. There is no mysterious power of transmutation in departmental custody, nor is there magic in the undefined and sacred solemnity of Department files. If the presence of these papers in the public offices is a stumbling block in the way of the performance of Senatorial duty, it can be easily removed.

The papers and documents which have been described derive no official character from any constitutional, statutory, or other requirement making them necessary to the performance of the official duty of the Executive.

It will not be denied, I suppose, that the President may suspend a public officer in the entire absence of any papers or documents to aid his official judgment and discretion; and I am quite prepared to avow that the cases are not few in which suspensions from office have depended more upon oral representations made to me by citizens of known good repute and by members of the House of Representatives and Senators of the United States than upon any letters and documents presented for my examination. I have not felt justified in suspecting the veracity, integrity, and patriotism of Senators, or ignoring their representations, because they were not in party affiliation with the majority of their associates; and I recall a few suspensions which bear the approval of individual members identified politically with the majority in the Senate.

While, therefore, I am constrained to deny the right of the Senate to the papers and documents described, so far as the right to the same is based upon the claim that they are in any view of the subject official, I am also led unequivocally to dispute the right of the Senate by the aid of any documents whatever, or in any way save through the judicial process of trial on impeachment, to review or reverse the acts of the Executive in the suspension, during the recess of the Senate, of Federal officials.

I believe the power to remove or suspend such officials is vested in the President alone by the Constitution, which in express terms provides that "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," and that "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

The Senate belongs to the legislative branch of the Government. When the Constitution by express provision superadded to its legislative duties the right to advise and consent to appointments to office and to sit as a court of impeachment, it conferred upon that body all the control and regulation of Executive action supposed to be necessary for the safety of the people; and this express and special grant of such extraordinary powers, not in any way related to or growing out of general Senatorial duty, and in itself a departure from the general plan of our Government, should be held, under a familiar maxim of construction, to exclude every other right of interference with Executive functions.

In the first Congress which assembled after the adoption of the Constitution, comprising many who aided in its preparation, a legislative construction was given to that instrument in which the independence of the Executive in the matter of removals from office was fully sustained.

I think it will be found that in the subsequent discussions of this question there was generally, if not at all times, a proposition pending to in some way curtail this power of the President by legislation, which furnishes evidence that to limit such power it was supposed to be necessary to supplement the Constitution by such legislation.

The first enactment of this description was passed under a stress of partisanship and political bitterness which culminated in the President's impeachment.

This law provided that the Federal officers to which it applied could only be suspended during the recess of the Senate when shown by evidence satisfactory to the President to be guilty of misconduct in office, or crime, or when incapable or disqualified to perform their duties, and that within twenty days after the next meeting of the Senate it should be the duty of the President "to report to the Senate such suspension, with the evidence and reasons for his action in the case."

This statute, passed in 1867, when Congress was overwhelmingly and bitterly opposed politically to the President, may be regarded as an indication that even then it was thought necessary by a Congress determined upon the subjugation of the Executive to legislative will to furnish itself a law for that purpose, instead of attempting to reach the object intended by an invocation of any pretended constitutional right.

The law which thus found its way to our statute book was plain in its terms, and its intent needed no avowal. If valid and now in operation, it would justify the present course of the Senate and command the obedience of the Executive to its demands. It may, however, be remarked in passing that under this law the President had the privilege of presenting to the body which assumed to review his executive acts his reasons therefor, instead of being excluded from explanation or judged by papers found in the Departments.

Two years after the law of 1867 was passed, and within less than five weeks after the inauguration of a President in political accord with both branches of Congress, the sections of the act regulating suspensions from office during the recess of the Senate were entirely repealed, and in their place were substituted provisions which, instead of limiting the causes of suspension to misconduct, crime, disability, or disqualification, expressly permitted such suspension by the President "in his discretion," and completely abandoned the requirement obliging him to report to the Senate "the evidence and reasons" for his action.

With these modifications and with all branches of the Government in political harmony, and in the absence of partisan incentive to captious obstruction, the law as it was left by the amendment of 1869 was much less destructive of Executive discretion. And yet the great general and patriotic citizen who on the 4th day of March, 1869, assumed the duties of Chief Executive, and for whose freer administration of his high office the most hateful restraints of the law of 1867 were, on the 5th day of April, 1869, removed, mindful of his obligation to defend and protect every prerogative of his great trust, and apprehensive of the injury threatened the public service in the continued operation of these statutes even in their modified form, in his first message to Congress advised their repeal and set forth their unconstitutional character and hurtful tendency in the following language:

It may be well to mention here the embarrassment possible to arise from leaving on the statute books the so-called "tenure-of-office acts," and to earnestly recommend their total repeal. It could not have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution, when providing that appointments made by the President should receive the consent of the Senate, that the latter should have the power to retain in office persons placed there by Federal appointment against the will of the President. The law is inconsistent with a faithful and efficient administration of the Government. What faith can an Executive put in officials forced upon him, and those, too, whom he has suspended for reason? How will such officials be likely to serve an Administration which they know does not trust them?

I am unable to state whether or not this recommendation for a repeal of these laws has been since repeated. If it has not, the reason can probably be found in the experience which demonstrated the fact that the necessities of the political situation but rarely developed their vicious character.

And so it happens that after an existence of nearly twenty years of almost innocuous desuetude these laws are brought forth—apparently the repealed as well as the unrepealed—and put in the way of an Executive who is willing, if permitted, to attempt an improvement in the methods of administration.

The constitutionality of these laws is by no means admitted. But why should the provisions of the repealed law, which required specific cause for suspension and a report to the Senate of "evidence and reasons," be now in effect applied to the present Executive, instead of the law, afterwards passed and unrepealed, which distinctly permits suspensions by the President "in his discretion" and carefully omits the requirement that "evidence and reasons for his action in the case" shall be reported to the Senate.

The requests and demands which by the score have for nearly three months been presented to the different Departments of the Government, whatever may be their form, have but one complexion. They assume the right of the Senate to sit in judgment upon the exercise of my exclusive discretion and Executive function, for which I am solely responsible to the people, from whom I have so lately received the sacred trust of office. My oath to support and defend the Constitution, my duty to the people who have chosen me to execute the powers of their great office and not to relinquish them, and my duty to the Chief Magistracy, which I must preserve unimpaired in all its dignity and vigor, compel me to refuse compliance with these demands.

To the end that the service may be improved, the Senate is invited to the fullest scrutiny of the persons submitted to them for public office, in recognition of the constitutional power of that body to advise and consent to their appointment. I shall continue, as I have thus far done, to furnish, at the request of the confirming body, all the information I possess touching the fitness of the nominees placed before them for their action, both when they are proposed to fill vacancies and to take the place of suspended officials. Upon a refusal to confirm I shall not assume the right to ask the reasons for the action of the Senate nor question its determination. I can not think that anything more is required to secure worthy incumbents in public office than a careful and independent discharge of our respective duties within their well-defined limits.

Though the propriety of suspensions might be better assured if the action of the President was subject to review by the Senate, yet if the Constitution and the laws have placed this responsibility upon the executive branch of the Government it should not be divided nor the discretion which it involves relinquished.

It has been claimed that the present Executive having pledged himself not to remove officials except for cause, the fact of their suspension implies such misconduct on the part of a suspended official as injures his character and reputation, and therefore the Senate should review the case for his vindication.

I have said that certain officials should not, in my opinion, be removed during the continuance of the term for which they were appointed solely for the purpose of putting in their place those in political affiliation with the appointing power, and this declaration was immediately followed by a description of official partisanship which ought not to entitle those in whom it was exhibited to consideration. It is not apparent how an adherence to the course thus announced carries with it the consequences described. If in any degree the suggestion is worthy of consideration, it is to be hoped that there may be a defense against unjust suspension in the justice of the Executive.

Every pledge which I have made by which I have placed a limitation upon my exercise of executive power has been faithfully redeemed. Of course the pretense is not put forth that no mistakes have been committed; but not a suspension has been made except it appeared to my satisfaction that the public welfare would be improved thereby. Many applications for suspension have been denied, and the adherence to the rule laid down to govern my action as to such suspensions has caused much irritation and impatience on the part of those who have insisted upon more changes in the offices.

The pledges I have made were made to the people, and to them I am responsible for the manner in which they have been redeemed. I am not responsible to the Senate, and I am unwilling to submit my actions and official conduct to them for judgment.

There are no grounds for an allegation that the fear of being found false to my professions influences me in declining to submit to the demands of the Senate. I have not constantly refused to suspend officials, and thus incurred the displeasure of political friends, and yet willfully broken faith with the people for the sake of being false to them.

Neither the discontent of party friends, nor the allurements constantly offered of confirmations of appointees conditioned upon the avowal that suspensions have been made on party grounds alone, nor the threat proposed in the resolutions now before the Senate that no confirmations will be made unless the demands of that body be complied with, are sufficient to discourage or deter me from following in the way which I am convinced leads to better government for the people.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 1, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

It is made the constitutional duty of the President to recommend to the consideration of Congress from time to time such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. In no matters can the necessity of this be more evident than when the good faith of the United States under the solemn obligation of treaties with foreign powers is concerned.

The question of the treatment of the subjects of China sojourning within the jurisdiction of the United States presents such a matter for the urgent and earnest consideration of the Executive and the Congress.

In my first annual message, upon the assembling of the present Congress, I adverted to this question in the following words:

The harmony of our relations with China is fully sustained.

In the application of the acts lately passed to execute the treaty of 1880, restrictive of the immigration of Chinese laborers into the United States, individual cases of hardship have occurred beyond the power of the Executive to remedy, and calling for judicial determination.

The condition of the Chinese question in the Western States and Territories is, despite this restrictive legislation, far from being satisfactory. The recent outbreak in Wyoming Territory, where numbers of unoffending Chinamen, indisputably within the protection of the treaties and the law, were murdered by a mob, and the still more recent threatened outbreak of the same character in Washington Territory, are fresh in the minds of all, and there is apprehension lest the bitterness of feeling against the Mongolian race on the Pacific Slope may find vent in similar lawless demonstrations. All the power of this Government should be exerted to maintain the amplest good faith toward China in the treatment of these men, and the inflexible sternness of the law in bringing the wrongdoers to justice should be insisted upon.

Every effort has been made by this Government to prevent these violent outbreaks and to aid the representatives of China in their investigation of these outrages; and it is but just to say that they are traceable to the lawlessness of men not citizens of the United States engaged in competition with Chinese laborers.

Race prejudice is the chief factor in originating these disturbances, and it exists in a large part of our domain, jeopardizing our domestic peace and the good relationship we strive to maintain with China.

The admitted right of a government to prevent the influx of elements hostile to its internal peace and security may not be questioned, even where there is no treaty stipulation on the subject. That the exclusion of Chinese labor is demanded in other countries where like conditions prevail is strongly evidenced in the Dominion of Canada, where Chinese immigration is now regulated by laws more exclusive than our own. If existing laws are inadequate to compass the end in view, I shall be prepared to give earnest consideration to any further remedial measures, within the treaty limits, which the wisdom of Congress may devise.

At the time I wrote this the shocking occurrences at Rock Springs, in Wyoming Territory, were fresh in the minds of all, and had been recently presented anew to the attention of this Government by the Chinese minister in a note which, while not unnaturally exhibiting some misconception of our Federal system of administration in the Territories while they as yet are not in the exercise of the full measure of that sovereign self-government pertaining to the States of the Union, presents in truthful terms the main features of the cruel outrage there perpetrated upon inoffensive subjects of China. In the investigation of the Rock Springs outbreak and the ascertainment of the facts on which the Chinese minister's statements rest the Chinese representatives were aided by the agents of the United States, and the reports submitted, having been thus framed and recounting the facts within the knowledge of witnesses on both sides, possess an impartial truthfulness which could not fail to give them great impressiveness.

The facts, which so far are not controverted or affected by any exculpatory or mitigating testimony, show the murder of a number of Chinese subjects in September last at Rock Springs, the wounding of many others, and the spoliation of the property of all when the unhappy survivors had been driven from their habitations. There is no allegation that the victims by any lawless or disorderly act on their part contributed to bring about a collision; on the contrary, it appears that the law-abiding disposition of these people, who were sojourners in our midst under the sanction of hospitality and express treaty obligations, was made the pretext for an attack upon them. This outrage upon law and treaty engagements was committed by a lawless mob. None of the aggressors—happily for the national good fame—appear by the reports to have been citizens of the United States. They were aliens engaged in that remote district as mining laborers, who became excited against the Chinese laborers, as it would seem, because of their refusal to join them in a strike to secure higher wages. The oppression of Chinese subjects by their rivals in the competition for labor does not differ in violence and illegality from that applied to other classes of native or alien labor. All are equally under the protection of law and equally entitled to enjoy the benefits of assured public order.

Were there no treaty in existence referring to the rights of Chinese subjects; did they come hither as all other strangers who voluntarily resort to this land of freedom, of self-government, and of laws, here peaceably to win their bread and to live their lives, there can be no question that they would be entitled still to the same measure of protection from violence and the same free forum for the redress of their grievances as any other aliens.

So far as the treaties between the United States and China stipulate for the treatment of the Chinese subjects actually in the United States as the citizens or subjects of "the most favored nation" are treated, they create no new status for them; they simply recognize and confirm a general and existing rule, applicable to all aliens alike, for none are favored above others by domestic law, and none by foreign treaties unless it be the Chinese themselves in some respects. For by the third article of the treaty of November 17, 1880, between the United States and China it is provided that—

ART. III. If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, now either permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, the Government of the United States will exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty.

This article may be held to constitute a special privilege for Chinese subjects in the United States, as compared with other aliens; not that it creates any peculiar rights which others do not share, but because, in case, of ill treatment of the Chinese in the United States, this Government is bound to "exert all its power to devise measures for their protection," by securing to them the rights to which equally with any and all other foreigners they are entitled.

Whether it is now incumbent upon the United States to amend their general laws or devise new measures in this regard I do not consider in the present communication, but confine myself to the particular point raised by the outrage and massacre at Rock Springs.

The note of the Chinese minister and the documents which accompany it give, as I believe, an unexaggerated statement of the lamentable incident, and present impressively the regrettable circumstance that the proceedings, in the name of justice, for the ascertainment of the crime and fixing the responsibility therefor were a ghastly mockery of justice. So long as the Chinese minister, under his instructions, makes this the basis of an appeal to the principles and convictions of mankind, no exception can be taken; but when he goes further, and, taking as his precedent the action of the Chinese Government in past instances where the lives of American citizens and their property in China have been endangered, argues a reciprocal obligation on the part of the United States to indemnify the Chinese subjects who suffered at Rock Springs, it became necessary to meet his argument and to deny most emphatically the conclusions he seeks to draw as to the existence of such a liability and the right of the Chinese Government to insist upon it.

I draw the attention of the Congress to the latter part of the note of the Secretary of State of February 18, 1886, in reply to the Chinese minister's representations, and invite especial consideration of the cogent reasons by which he reaches the conclusion that whilst the United States Government is under no obligation, whether by the express terms of its treaties with China or the principles of international law, to indemnify these Chinese subjects for losses caused by such means and under the admitted circumstances, yet that in view of the palpable and discreditable failure of the authorities of Wyoming Territory to bring to justice the guilty parties or to assure to the sufferers an impartial forum in which to seek and obtain compensation for the losses which those subjects have incurred by lack of police protection, and considering further the entire absence of provocation or contribution on the part of the victims, the Executive may be induced to bring the matter to the benevolent consideration of the Congress, in order that that body, in its high discretion, may direct the bounty of the Government in aid of innocent and peaceful strangers whose maltreatment has brought discredit upon the country, with the distinct understanding that such action is in no wise to be held as a precedent, is wholly gratuitous, and is resorted to in a spirit of pure generosity toward those who are otherwise helpless.

The correspondence exchanged is herewith submitted for the information of the Congress, and accompanies a like message to the House of Representatives.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 2, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 27th ultimo from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill, prepared in the Office of Indian Affairs, for the purpose of securing to the Cherokees and others, citizens of the Cherokee Nation by adoption and incorporation, a sum equal to their proportion of the $300,000, proceeds of lands west of 96 deg. in the Indian Territory, appropriated by the act of March 3, 1883.

The matter is presented for the consideration of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 2, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of 25th ultimo from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill recommended by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, for the payment of money claimed under alleged existing treaty stipulations and laws by such Eastern Cherokee Indians as have removed or shall hereafter remove themselves to the Indian Territory.

The matter is presented for the consideration of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 2, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of 26th ultimo from the Secretary of the Interior, with inclosures, requesting legislation to provide for the reappraisement and sale of a small tract of land in the State of Nebraska belonging to the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation.

The matter is presented for the action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 3, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith, for the information of Congress, the seventeenth annual report of the Board of Indian Commissioners, for the year 1885, submitted to the Secretary of the Interior in pursuance of the act of May 17, 1882.

The report accompanies the message to the House of Representatives.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 10, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 5th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill, prepared in the Office of Indian Affairs, "for the relief of the Omaha tribe of Indians in the State of Nebraska."

The matter is presented for the consideration of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 10, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress, the report of the National Board of Health for the year 1885.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 17, 1886.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of State, being a revised list of papers on file in the Department of State touching the unpaid claims of citizens of the United States against France for spoliation prior to July 31, 1801.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 17, 1886.

To the Senate of the United States:

In response to the resolution of the Senate of the 17th of February, requesting to be furnished with a copy of the report made by the consul-general of the United States at Berlin upon the shipping interest of Germany, I transmit a report of the Secretary of State upon the subject.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, March 17, 1886.

To the Senate of the United States:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate in executive session of the 27th of January, I transmit herewith the report of the Secretary of State and the papers accompanying it, relating to the emigration of Chinese to the United States.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 18, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of 16th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill, prepared by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, providing for the use of certain funds, proceeds of Indian reservations, covered into the Treasury under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1883, for the benefit of the Indians on whose account the same is covered in.

The subject is recommended to the favorable consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 18, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a communication of the 16th instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting, with accompanying papers, a draft of a bill, prepared by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, "to authorize the purchase of a tract of land near Salem, Oreg., for the use of the Indian training school."

The subject is presented for the consideration and action of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 18, 1886.

To the Senate:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of February 9, 1886, I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with its accompanying documents, relative to the commerce between the United States and certain foreign countries in cereals, and the cotton product during the years 1884 and 1885.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 22, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 15th of February last, calling upon the Secretary of State for copies of all the correspondence relating to the claims of certain governments to be accorded the reductions and exemptions of tonnage dues accorded to vessels entering ports of the United States from certain ports named in the shipping act of June 26, 1884, I transmit the report of that officer, together with the correspondence.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 25, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith the report of the Civil Service Commission for the year ended on the 16th day of January last.

The exhibit thus made of the operations of the Commission and the account thus presented of the results following the execution of the civil-service law can not fail to demonstrate its usefulness and strengthen the conviction that this scheme for a reform in the methods of administering the Government is no longer an experiment.

Wherever this reform has gained a foothold it has steadily advanced in the esteem of those charged with public administrative duties, while the people who desire good government have constantly been confirmed in their high estimate of its value and efficiency.

With the benefits it has already secured to the public service plainly apparent, and with its promise of increased usefulness easily appreciated, this cause is commended to the liberal care and jealous protection of the Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 30, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

In further answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 15th of February last, calling upon the Secretary of State for copies of all correspondence relating to the claims of governments to be accorded the reductions and exemptions of tonnage dues accorded to vessels entering the ports of the United States from certain ports named in the shipping act of June 26, 1884, I transmit herewith a copy of the reply of the Attorney-General to the letter of the Secretary of State of December 15, 1885, as found on pages 35 and 36 of Executive Document No. 132, House of Representatives, Forty-ninth Congress, first session, communicated on the 22d instant.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 1, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

In response to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 24th of March, relative to the employment of substitutes in the Department of State, I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State on the subject.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 1, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of the Interior and the accompanying report, submitted by the governor of Alaska in compliance with section 5 of the act of May 17, 1884, entitled "An act providing a civil government for Alaska."

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 1, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, in relation to the claim of the representatives of the late Hon. James Crooks, a British subject, against this Government for the seizure of the schooner Lord Nelson in 1812.

The matter is commended to the favorable consideration of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 6, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:

I transmit herewith, for the consideration of Congress with a view to appropriate legislation in the premises, a report of the Secretary of State, with certain correspondence touching the treaty right of Chinese subjects other than laborers "to go and come of their own free will and accord,"

In my annual message of the 8th of December last I said:

In the application of the acts lately passed to execute the treaty of 1880, restrictive of the immigration of Chinese laborers into the United States, individual cases of hardship have occurred beyond the power of the Executive to remedy, and calling for judicial determination.

These cases of individual hardship are due to the ambiguous and defective provisions of the acts of Congress approved respectively on the 6th May, 1882, and 5th July, 1884. The hardship has in some cases been remedied by the action of the courts. In other cases, however, where the phraseology of the statutes has appeared to be conclusive against any discretion on the part of the officers charged with the execution of the law, Chinese persons expressly entitled to free admission under the treaty have been refused a landing and sent back to the country whence they came without being afforded any opportunity to show in the courts or otherwise their right to the privilege of free ingress and egress which it was the purpose of the treaty to secure.

In the language of one of the judicial determinations of the Supreme Court of the United States to which I have referred—

The supposition should not be indulged that Congress, while professing to faithfully execute the treaty stipulations and recognizing the fact that they secure to a certain class the right to go from and come to the United States, intended to make its protection depend upon the performance of conditions which it was physically impossible to perform. (112 U.S. Reports, p. 554, Chew Heong vs. United States.)

The act of July 5, 1884, imposes such an impossible condition in not providing for the admission, under proper certificate, of Chinese travelers of the exempted classes in the cases most likely to arise in ordinary commercial intercourse.

The treaty provisions governing the case are as follows:

ART. I. * * * The limitation or suspension shall be reasonable, and shall apply only to Chinese who may go to the United States as laborers, other classes not being included in the limitations. * * *

ART. II. Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as teachers, students, merchants, or from curiosity, together with their body and household servants, * * * shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation.

Section 6 of the amended Chinese immigration act of 1884 purports to secure this treaty right to the exempted classes named by means of prescribed certificates of their status, which certificates shall be the prima facie and the sole permissible evidence to establish a right of entry into the United States. But it provides in terms for the issuance of certificates in two cases only:

(a) Chinese subjects departing from a port of China; and

(b) Chinese persons (i.e., of the Chinese race) who may at the time be subjects of some foreign government other than China, and who may depart for the United States from the ports of such other foreign government.

A statute is certainly most unusual which, purporting to execute the provisions of a treaty with China in respect of Chinese subjects, enacts strict formalities as regards the subjects of other governments than that of China.

It is sufficient that I should call the earnest attention of Congress to the circumstance that the statute makes no provision whatever for the somewhat numerous class of Chinese persons who, retaining their Chinese subjection in some countries other than China, desire to come from such countries to the United States.

Chinese merchants have trading operations of magnitude throughout the world. They do not become citizens or subjects of the country where they may temporarily reside and trade; they continue to be subjects of China, and to them the explicit exemption of the treaty applies. Yet if such a Chinese subject, the head of a mercantile house at Hongkong or Yokohama or Honolulu or Havana or Colon, desires to come from any of these places to the United States, he is met with the requirement that he must produce a certificate, in prescribed form and in the English tongue, issued by the Chinese Government. If there be at the foreign place of his residence no representative of the Chinese Government competent to issue a certificate in the prescribed form, he can obtain none, and is under the provisions of the present law unjustly debarred from entry into the United States. His usual Chinese passport will not suffice, for it is not in the form which the act prescribes shall be the sole permissible evidence of his right to land. And he can obtain no such certificate from the Government of his place of residence, because he is not a subject or citizen thereof "at the time," or at any time.

There being, therefore, no statutory provision prescribing the terms upon which Chinese persons resident in foreign countries but not subjects or citizens of such countries may prove their status and rights as members of the exempted classes in the absence of a Chinese representative in such country, the Secretary of the Treasury, in whom the execution of the act of July 5, 1884, was vested, undertook to remedy the omission by directing the revenue officers to recognize as lawful certificates those issued in favor of Chinese subjects by the Chinese consular and diplomatic officers at the foreign port of departure, when viseed by the United States representative thereat. This appears to be a just application of the spirit of the law, although enlarging its letter, and in adopting this rule he was controlled by the authority of high judicial decision as to what evidence is necessary to establish the fact that an individual Chinaman belongs to the exempted class.

He, however, went beyond the spirit of the act and the judicial decisions, by providing, in a circular dated January 14, 1885, for the original issuance of such a certificate by the United States consular officer at the port of departure, in the absence of a Chinese diplomatic or consular representative thereat; for it is clear that the act of Congress contemplated the intervention of the United States consul only in a supervisory capacity, his function being to check the proceeding and see that no abuse of the privilege followed. The power or duty of original certification is wholly distinct from that supervisory function. It either dispenses with the foreign certificate altogether, leaving the consular vise to stand alone and sufficient, or else it combines in one official act the distinct functions of certification and verification of the fact certified.

The official character attaching to the consular certification contemplated by the unamended circular of January 14, 1885, is to be borne in mind. It is not merely prima facie evidence of the status of the bearer, such as the courts may admit in their discretion; it was prescribed as an official attestation, on the strength of which the customs officers at the port of entry were to admit the bearer without further adjudication of his status unless question should arise as to the truth of the certificate itself.

It became, therefore, necessary to amend the circular of January 14, 1885, and this was done on the 13th of June following, by striking out the clause prescribing original certification of status by the United States consuls. The effect of this amendment is to deprive any certificate the United States consuls may issue of the value it purported to possess as sole permissible evidence under the statute when its issuance was prescribed by Treasury regulations. There is, however, nothing to prevent consuls giving certificates of facts within their knowledge to be received as evidence in the absence of statutory authentication.

The complaint of the Chinese minister in his note of March 24, 1886, is that the Chinese merchant Lay Sang, of the house of King Lee & Co., of San Francisco, having arrived at San Francisco from Hongkong and exhibited a certificate of the United States consul at Hongkong as to his status as a merchant, and consequently exempt under the treaty, was refused permission to land and was sent back to Hongkong by the steamer which brought him. While the certificate he bore was doubtless insufficient under the present law, it is to be remembered that there is at Hongkong no representative of the Government of China competent or authorized to issue the certificate required by the statute. The intent of Congress to legislate in execution of the treaty is thus defeated by a prohibition directly contrary to the treaty, and conditions are exacted which, in the words of the Supreme Court hereinbefore quoted, "it was physically impossible to perform."

This anomalous feature of the act should be reformed as speedily as possible, in order that the occurrence of such cases may be avoided and the imputation removed which would otherwise rest upon the good faith of the United States in the execution of their solemn treaty engagements.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 9, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, in relation to the mercantile marines of France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 14, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

In response to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 17th ultimo, requesting the Secretary of State "to communicate to the House of Representatives, if not incompatible with the public interest, copies of the recent correspondence and dispatches between the Secretary of State and the minister of the United States at The Hague touching the subject of taxation of petroleum in Holland and in the Dutch colonies, and that of the export therefrom of leaf tobacco to the United States," I transmit herewith the report of the Secretary of State on the subject.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 14, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

In response to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 6th instant, requesting the Secretary of State "to transmit, if not incompatible with the public interest, copies of all correspondence between his Department and the representatives of France, Germany, Austria, and any other European country which has partially or entirely restricted the importation of American pork," I transmit herewith the report of the Secretary of State on the subject.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 20, 1886.

To the House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State on the manufacture of milk sugar in Switzerland.

GROVER CLEVELAND.



EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 22, 1886.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

The Constitution imposes upon the President the duty of recommending to the consideration of Congress from time to time such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

I am so deeply impressed with the importance of immediately and thoughtfully meeting the problem which recent events and a present condition have thrust upon us, involving the settlement of disputes arising between our laboring men and their employers, that I am constrained to recommend to Congress legislation upon this serious and pressing subject.

Under our form of government the value of labor as an element of national prosperity should be distinctly recognized, and the welfare of the laboring man should be regarded as especially entitled to legislative care. In a country which offers to all its citizens the highest attainment of social and political distinction its workingmen can not justly or safely be considered as irrevocably consigned to the limits of a class and entitled to no attention and allowed no protest against neglect.

The laboring man, bearing in his hand an indispensable contribution to our growth and progress, may well insist, with manly courage and as a right, upon the same recognition from those who make our laws as is accorded to any other citizen having a valuable interest in charge; and his reasonable demands should be met in such a spirit of appreciation and fairness as to induce a contented and patriotic cooperation in the achievement of a grand national destiny.

While the real interests of labor are not promoted by a resort to threats and violent manifestations, and while those who, under the pretext of an advocacy of the claims of labor, wantonly attack the rights of capital and for selfish purposes or the love of disorder sow seeds of violence and discontent should neither be encouraged nor conciliated, all legislation on the subject should be calmly and deliberately undertaken, with no purpose of satisfying unreasonable demands or gaining partisan advantage.

The present condition of the relations between labor and capital is far from satisfactory. The discontent of the employed is due in a large degree to the grasping and heedless exactions of employers and the alleged discrimination in favor of capital as an object of governmental attention. It must also be conceded that the laboring men are not always careful to avoid causeless and unjustifiable disturbance.

Though the importance of a better accord between these interests is apparent, it must be borne in mind that any effort in that direction by the Federal Government must be greatly limited by constitutional restrictions. There are many grievances which legislation by Congress can not redress, and many conditions which can not by such means be reformed.

I am satisfied, however, that something may be done under Federal authority to prevent the disturbances which so often arise from disputes between employers and the employed, and which at times seriously threaten the business interests of the country; and, in my opinion, the proper theory upon which to proceed is that of voluntary arbitration as the means of settling these difficulties.

But I suggest that instead of arbitrators chosen in the heat of conflicting claims, and after each dispute shall arise, for the purpose of determining the same, there be created a commission of labor, consisting of three members, who shall be regular officers of the Government, charged among other duties with the consideration and settlement, when possible, of all controversies between labor and capital.

A commission thus organized would have the advantage of being a stable body, and its members, as they gained experience, would constantly improve in their ability to deal intelligently and usefully with the questions which might be submitted to them. If arbitrators are chosen for temporary service as each case of dispute arises, experience and familiarity with much that is involved in the question will be lacking, extreme partisanship and bias will be the qualifications sought on either side, and frequent complaints of unfairness and partiality will be inevitable. The imposition upon a Federal court of a duty so foreign to the judicial function as the selection of an arbitrator in such cases is at least of doubtful propriety.

The establishment by Federal authority of such a bureau would be a just and sensible recognition of the value of labor and of its right to be represented in the departments of the Government. So far as its conciliatory offices shall have relation to disturbances which interfere with transit and commerce between the States, its existence would be justified under the provision of the Constitution which gives to Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States;" and in the frequent disputes between the laboring men and their employers, of less extent, and the consequences of which are confined within State limits and threaten domestic violence, the interposition of such a commission might be tendered, upon the application of the legislature or executive of a State, under the constitutional provision which requires the General Government to "protect" each of the States "against domestic violence."