Show again brought into play replies briefly to recent criticisms the item in the measure which he objects to is the appropriation of for the payment of the french spoliation claims pis objections briefly and clearly given washington june 6 the president sent a veto to the ahouee of representatives presenta tives on the general deficiency appropriation bill this afternoon he replies briefly to the criticisms of his exercise of the veto power and bays he has hurried the preparation of the message in ayder that congress may take action in the matter without delay the ground for the veto is the provision relating to the payment of the french spoliation claim in his message the president says it is difficult to understand why under the constitution it should be necessary to submit proposed legislation to executive scrutiny and approval except to invoke the exercise of executive judgment and invite independent executive action the unpleasant incidents which accompany the use of the veto power would tempt its avoidance it such a course did not involve an abandonment of constitutional duty and an assent to legislation for which the executive is not willing to share the responsibility lity 1 I regret that I 1 am constrainer const rainel to disapprove an important appropriation bill so near the celoso of the present session of congress I 1 have however by immediate action after the receipt of the bill endeavored to delay as little as possible a reconsideration efthia proposed I 1 am thus obliged to content myself with a leas complete explanation of my objections than would otherwise be submitted this bill is in many of its features far removed from a legitimate deficiency bill and it contains a number of appropriations which beem to me to be exceedingly without noticing in detail mandof these items I 1 shall refer to two of them which in my judgment justifies my action in the premises the bill appropriates for a partial payment upon claims which originated in depredations upon our commerce by french cruisers and vessels during the closing years of the last century they have become quite familiar to abow having congressional experience as they have been pressed for recognition and payment with occasional intervals of repose for nearly one hundred years these claims are based upon the allegations that france being at war wah england seized and condemned many american vessels and cargoes in violation of the rules of international law and treaty provisions and contrary to the duty shown to our country ai a neutral power and to our citizens that by reason of these acts claims chose in favor of such of our citizens as were against the french nation which claims our government attempted to enforce and that in concluding a treaty with france in the year 1800 these claims were aban boned or relinquished in consideration of the relinquishment 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 abandonment of the claims of our citizens against france the became equally bound itself and its citizens to pay the claims thus relinquished I 1 do not understand it to be asserted that there exists any legal liability against the government on account of its relations to these claims at alie term of the supreme court just finished the chief justice in an opinion concern ing them and the action of congress in appropriating for their payment eaid we think that payments thus prescribed to be made were purposely brought within the category of payments by way of gratuity payments of grace and not of right the president these claims have been in an atmosphere of controversy ever since they were conceived and that when it is alleged that the abandonment of the claims against france baj in consideration of great benefits to the government it is as confidently alleged that they were in point c fact abandond i because enforcement es hopeless and that even if any benefit really accrued to ns by insistence upon settlement in the course of diplomatic relations such result gave no pretext for taxing tha government with the liability to the claimants it is I 1 believe somewhat the fashion in interested quarters to speak of tho failure by the government to pay these claims as such neglect as amounts to repudiation by the government and a denial of justice to citizens who have suffered of course the original ori cinal claimants have for years been beyond the reach of relief out as their descendants in each generation become more numerous the volume of advocacy importunity and accusation correspondingly increases it injustice has been done in the refusal of these began early in the present century and may be charged against men then in public life more conversant than we can be with the facts involved and whose honesty and sense of right ought to be secure from suspicion I 1 have determined to this incomplete presentation of my objection to this bill at once in order that congress may act thereon without embarrassment ras or the interruption of plans for an early adjournment |