Show CLEVELAND ON THE VETO I Why He Disapproved of the General Deficiency Bill Lately Passed IT WAS NOT LEGITIMATE Unpleasant Incidents Accompany the Veto Power Cleveland However Does Not Propose Pro-pose to Be Swerved From the Path of Duty as He Sees Itlie Goes Into History to Prove That I His Action Is Wholly Justifiable and That Sonic Claims at Least Were Wrong WASHINGTON June 6In his message I mes-sage accompanying the veto of the general deficiency bill President Cleveland said in defending the exercise exer-cise of the veto power The unpleasant incidents which accompany ac-company the power would tempt its avoidance if such a course did not in 3voidance volve an abandonment of constitutional constitution-al duty and assent to legislation for which the executive is not willing to share the responsibility He continues This bill is in many of its features far removed from a legitimate deficiency bill and it contains con-tains a number of appropriations which seem to be exceedingly questionable question-able Without noticing in detail many of these items I shall refer to two of them which in my judgment justify jus-tify my action in the premises ONE OF THEM The bill appropriates Sl02731409 for a partial payment upon claims which originated in the depredations French cruisers upon our commerce by ers and vessels during the closing years of the last century They have been quite familiar to those having ben congressional experience as they have been pressed for recognition and payment pay-ment with occasional intervals of repose I i re-pose for nearly one hundred years Those claims are based upon the allegations I alle-gations that France being at war mth England seized and condemned many American vessels and cargoes in violation 1 vio-lation of the rules of international law and treaty provisions and contrary con-trary to the duty she owed to our country coun-try as a neutral power and to our citi zens that by reason of these acts i claims arose for such of our citizens II I as were indemnified AGAINST THE FRENCH NATION which claims our government attempted attempt-ed to enforce and that in concluding a treaty with France in the year 1800 trety these claims were abandoned or relinquished relin-quished in consideration of the relinquishment relin-quishment of certain claims which France charged against us Upon these statements it is insisted by those interested that we as a nation have reaped a benefit in our escape from these French demands against us through the abatement of claims of our citizens against France the government gov-ernment being equally bound between the to itself and its citizens pay claims thus relinquished I do not understand it to be asserted assert-ed that there exists any legal liability against the government on account of its relation to these claims At the term of the supreme court just finished fin-ished the chief justice in an opinion concerning them and the action of congress in appropriating for their payment said We think that the payments pay-ments thus prescribed to be made brought within the were purposely category of payments by way of grat uity payment of grace and not of I right right president enters into the history of the efforts to secure payment ot the calms tracing it from 1802 when the first bill was introduced He says S Until 1846 these claims were from Unt time pressed upon the attention I atten-tion of congress with varying fortune I but NEVER WITH FAVORABLE ACTION AC-TION In that year however a bill was passed for their ascertainment and satisfaction and 55000000 were appropriated ap-propriated for their payment This bill was vetoed by President Polk who declared that he could perceive no legal or equitable ground upon which this appropriation can rest This vote was sustained by the house of representatives I I repre-sentatives I Many years afterwards In 1855 a bill was passed similar to the one last mentioned and appropriating for thee claims a like sum of money This bill I I I was also vetoed President Pierce concluding con-cluding after thorough discussion of I its demerits with these words In view of what has been said there would seem o be no ground on which to base sem a liability of the United States unless it be the assumption that the United State are to be considered securer and the guaranteer of American claims elf whatever nature its individual citizens may haVe against a foreign nation II This veto was also sustained in the house of representatives I think i will be found that in all bills proposed I for the payment of these claims the I sum to be appropriated for that purpose pose did not I EXCEED FIVE MILLION DOLLARS It is now estimated that those already I al-ready passed upon with those still pending for examination in the court of claims may amount to 25000000 This indicates either that the actual sufferers or those nearer to them in I time and blood than the present claimants claim-ants underestimated their losses or that there has been a great development develop-ment in the manner of their presentation presenta-tion tionIn In the long lists of beneficiaries who were provided for in the bill now before be-fore me on account of these claims 152 represent the owners of the ships and their cargoes 186 are those who lost as insurers of such vessels or cargoes Premiums secured on these policies were large and the losses were precisely those within the contemplation of the insurers Appropriations to indemnify against insurance losses rest upon weaker grounds it seems to me than those owners But in the light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding surround-ing t s claims in my opinion shouJd none of them In my opinion should I be paid by the government Another item in this bill which seems to be ESPECIALLY OBJECTIONABLE is an appropriation in favor of Charles P Chooiteau survivor etc of 174 44575 in full satisfaction of the claims arising out of the construction of the ironclad steam battery Etlah The contract for the construction of this battery was made by the government govern-ment with Charles W McCord during the war and he was to be paid there for the sum of 386000 He was paid this sum and 210991 for extras and in May 1866 gave his receipt in full The assignee of McCord in bankruptcy assigned as-signed to Chouteau and his associates in 1868 all claims of McCord against the United States for the precise extras ex-tras for whicb he had receipted in full two years before Chouteau brought suit in the court of claims for his extras ex-tras and was defeated I cannot gather from the facts I have been able to collect concerning this appropriation that i is justified on any ground In 1891 my immediate predecessor vetoed a bill allowing the matter to be examined exam-ined again by the court of claims I the additional payment proposed in this bill was made the cost of the battery in question would be almost double that of the contract price |