Chapter VI: Section 6: of the amended Chinese immigration act of 1884 purports to (1)

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 viséed 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 visé 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."

If such a commission were fairly organized, the risk of a loss of popular support and sympathy resulting from a refusal to submit to so peaceful an instrumentality would constrain both parties to such disputes to invoke its interference and abide by its decisions. There would also be good reason to hope that the very existence of such an agency would invite application to it for advice and counsel, frequently resulting in the avoidance of contention and misunderstanding.

If the usefulness of such a commission is doubted because it might lack power to enforce its decisions, much encouragement is derived from the conceded good that has been accomplished by the railroad commissions which have been organized in many of the States, which, having little more than advisory power, have exerted a most salutary influence in the settlement of disputes between conflicting interests.

In July, 1884, by a law of Congress, a Bureau of Labor was established and placed in charge of a Commissioner of Labor, who is required to "collect information upon the subject of labor, its relations to capital, the hours of labor and the earnings of laboring men and women, and the means of promoting their material, social, intellectual, and moral prosperity."

The commission which I suggest could easily be ingrafted upon the bureau thus already organized by the addition of two more commissioners and by supplementing the duties now imposed upon it by such other powers and functions as would permit the commissioners to act as arbitrators when necessary between labor and capital, under such limitations and upon such occasions as should be deemed proper and useful.

Power should also be distinctly conferred upon this bureau to investigate the causes of all disputes as they occur, whether submitted for arbitration or not, so that information may always be at hand to aid legislation on the subject when necessary and desirable.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 26, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of State, accompanied by a report of Mr. Somerville P. Tuck, appointed to carry out certain 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.

[The same message was sent to the Senate.]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 5, 1886_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication of 1st instant from the Secretary of the Interior, submitting a draft of a bill recommended by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, providing for the payment of improvements made by settlers on the lands of the Mescalero Indian Reservation in the Territory of New Mexico.

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

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 11, 1886_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of State, dated the 6th instant, touching the claims of Benjamin Weil and La Abra Silver Mining Company against the Government of Mexico.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 11, 1886_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

By a joint resolution of Congress approved March 3, 1877, the President was authorized and directed to accept the colossal statue of "Liberty Enlightening the World" when presented by the citizens of the French Republic, and to designate and set apart for the erection thereof a suitable site upon either Governors or Bedloes Island, in the harbor of New York, and upon the completion thereof to cause the statue "to be inaugurated with such ceremonies as will serve to testify the gratitude of our people for this expressive and felicitous memorial of the sympathy of the citizens of our sister Republic."

The President was further thereby "authorized to cause suitable regulations to be made for its future maintenance as a beacon and for the permanent care and preservation thereof as a monument of art and the continued good will of the great nation which aided us in our struggle for freedom."

Under the authority of this resolution, on the 4th day of July, 1884, the minister of the United States to the French Republic, by direction of the President of the United States, accepted the statue and received a deed of presentation from the Franco-American Union, which is now preserved in the archives of the Department of State.

I now transmit to Congress a letter to the Secretary of State from Joseph W. Drexel, esq., chairman of the executive committee of "the American committee on the pedestal of the great statue of 'Liberty Enlightening the World,'" dated the 27th of April, 1886, suggesting the propriety of the further execution by the President of the joint resolution referred to by prescribing the ceremonies of inauguration to be observed upon the complete erection of the statue upon its site on Bedloes Island, in the harbor of New York.

Thursday, the 3d of September, being the anniversary of the signing of the treaty of peace at Paris by which the independence of these United States was recognized and secured, has been suggested by this committee under whose auspices and agency the pedestal for the statue has been constructed as an appropriate day for the ceremonies of inauguration.

The international character which has been imprinted upon this work by the joint resolution of 1877 makes it incumbent upon Congress to provide means to carry their resolution into effect.

Therefore I recommend the appropriation of such sum of money as in the judgment of Congress shall be deemed adequate and proper to defray the cost of the inauguration of this statue.

I have been informed by the committee that certain expenses have been incurred in the care and custody of the statue since it was deposited on Bedloes Island, and the phraseology of the joint resolution providing for "the permanent care and preservation thereof as a monument of art" would seem to include the payment by the United States of the expense so incurred since the reception of the statue in this country.

The action of the French Government and people in relation to the presentation of this statue to the United States will, I hope, meet with hearty and responsive action upon the part of Congress, in which the Executive will be most happy to cooperate.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 11, 1886_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

The last general appropriation bill passed by the legislature of Utah was vetoed by the then governor of that Territory. It made an appropriation of money for the support of the district courts of the Territory, including the pay of reporters, jurors, and witnesses, and for the completion and maintenance of the Deseret University and the education of the deaf mutes therein. It also appropriated for the support of the Territorial insane asylum, as well as the salaries of Territorial officers, including that of the superintendent of the district schools, the auditor, the librarian, and the treasurer of the Territory. It also provided for internal improvements, such as roads and bridges.

The appropriation for the district courts, for the payment of witnesses and jurors in criminal cases, was $40,000; that for the Deseret University and the deaf mutes was $66,000, and for the insane asylum $25,000.

The board of regents of the Deseret University have borrowed money for the completion of the university buildings which were authorized by legislative action, and which is now due and no provision made for the payment. The act appropriating for the benefit of the Territorial insane asylum passed by the legislature was also vetoed. This included the sum of $13,000, which had been borrowed by the board of directors of the asylum for its completion and furnishing, and which now remains due and unpaid. It also included the sum of $3,548.85 for the care and maintenance of the indigent insane.

The legislature of the Territory, under existing law, will not again convene for nearly two years, there being no authority for a special session. In the meantime, under present conditions, the good order of society will be jeopardized, educational and charitable institutions will be paralyzed, and internal improvements stopped until the legislature meets and makes provision for their support.

A determination on the part of the General Government to suppress certain unlawful practices in this Territory demands neither the refusal of the means to support the local government nor the sacrifice of the interests of the community.

I therefore recommend the immediate enactment of such legislation as will authorize the assembling of the legislature of that Territory in special session at an early day, so that provision can be made to meet the difficulties herein suggested.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, May 17, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to ratification, a supplementary article, signed the 14th instant by the Secretary of State and the minister of Mexico here, extending until May 20, 1887, the time specified in Article VIII of the commercial reciprocity treaty of January 20, 1883, between the United States and Mexico, for the approval of the laws necessary to carry the said treaty into effect.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, May 17, 1886_

_To the Senate_:

In response to a resolution of the Senate of the 5th instant, inquiring as to the necessity for the continuance of the present charge for passports for American citizens desiring to visit foreign countries, I transmit herewith the report of the Secretary of State on the subject.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, May 17, 1886_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

With reference to the paragraph in my annual message to Congress in which I called attention to the uncertainty that exists as to the location of the frontier line between Alaska and British Columbia as defined by the treaty of cession with Russia of March 30, 1867, I now transmit herewith, for the information and consideration of Congress, a report of the Secretary of State upon the subject, with accompanying papers.

In view of the importance of the subject, I recommend that provision be made by law for a preliminary survey of the boundary line in question by officers of the United States, in order that the information necessary for the basis of a treaty between this country and Great Britain for the establishment of a definite boundary line may be obtained; and I also recommend that the sum of $100,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, be appropriated for the expenses of making such survey.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, May 21, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, for your consideration with a view to their ratification, the "convention concerning the international exchanges for official documents and literary publications" and the "convention for assuring the immediate exchange of the official journal as well as of the parliamentary annals and documents."

The first was signed at Brussels on the 15th of March, 1886, by the plenipotentiaries of the United States, Belgium, Brazil, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Servia, and Switzerland.

The second was signed at the same place and on the same date by the plenipotentiaries of the above-named powers, with the exception of Switzerland.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 21, 1886_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of State, dated the 19th instant, touching the necessity of legislation to carry into effect the provisions of Article II of the treaty between the United States and China of November 17, 1880, for the repression of the opium traffic, and recommend that appropriate legislation to fulfill that treaty promise of this Government be provided without further delay.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _May 28, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, accompanying the report of consuls of the United States on the trade and commerce of foreign countries.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 1, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In response to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 17th of March last, requesting the Secretary of State "to communicate to the House of Representatives, if not incompatible with the public interest, copies of recent correspondence and dispatches between the Secretary of State and the minister of the United States at The Hague touching the subject of taxation on petroleum in Holland and in the Dutch colonies, and that of the export therefrom of leaf tobacco to the United States," with reference to my message to the House of Representatives of the 14th ultimo [April], I now transmit a further report of the Secretary of State on the subject.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 2, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the request of the House of Representatives of this date, I return herewith House bill No. 6391, entitled "An act to authorize the Kansas City, Fort Scott and Gulf Railway Company to construct and operate a railway through the Indian Territory, and for other purposes."

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 9, 1886_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I herewith transmit a letter from the Secretary of State, with an accompanying paper, in relation to the distribution of the fund appropriated by the act of April 20, 1882, for the relief of the captain, owners, officers, and crew of the brig _General Armstrong_.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, June 9, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, for your consideration with a view to its ratification, a convention for the extradition of criminals, signed at Tokyo on the 29th day of April, 1886, by the plenipotentiaries of the United States and the Empire of Japan.

The negotiation which led to the conclusion of this convention was caused immediately by the case of a forger in San Francisco, who, having fled to Japan, was delivered up to the authorities of the State of California. It was not possible for this Government to ask his surrender, but the Japanese Government of its own motion caused his delivery as a friendly act. It then suggested the conclusion of an extradition convention between the two countries. The suggestion was favorably entertained by this Government, not only on account of the importance of such a treaty to the execution of the criminal laws of the United States, but also because of the support which its conclusion would give to Japan in her efforts toward judicial autonomy and complete sovereignty.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 15, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, concerning the claim of Benjamin Weil and La Abra Mining Company, of Mexico, agreeably to the resolution of the House of Representatives dated May 13, 1886.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 19, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

Upon an examination of a bill originating in the House of Representatives, No. 4838, entitled "An act to abolish certain fees for official services to American vessels, and to amend the laws relating to shipping commissioners, seamen, and owners of vessels, and for other purposes," I find that there is such a failure to adjust existing laws to the new departure proposed by the bill as to greatly endanger the public service if this bill should not be amended or at once supplemented by additional legislation.

The fees which are at present collected from vessels for services performed by the Bureau of Inspection, and which made up the fund from which certain expenses appurtenant to that Bureau were paid, are by the proposed bill abolished, but no provision has been substituted directing that such expenses shall be paid from the public Treasury or any other source.

The objects of the bill are in the main so useful and important that I have concluded to approve the same upon the assurance of those actively promoting its passage that another bill shall at once be introduced to cover the defect above referred to.

The necessity of such supplemental legislation is so obvious that I hope it will receive the immediate action of the Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 28, 1886_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I herewith inclose a report from the Secretary of State, with its accompanying copies of papers, relative to the case of the American schooner _Ounalaska_, which was duly condemned by the Government of Salvador for having been employed in aid of an insurrection against that Republic, and was subsequently presented to the United States. It seems that an act of Congress accepting the gift on the part of this Government is necessary to complete the transfer, and I recommend that legislation in this sense be adopted. It further appears that one Isidore Gutte, of San Francisco, has sought to obtain possession of the condemned vessel, and I therefore suggest that a second provision to the law accepting her be made giving authority to the Court of Claims to hear and determine the question of title.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 28, 1886_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication, with an accompanying paper, from the Secretary of State, in relation to the distribution of the award of the late Mexican Claims Commission in the case of S.A. Belden & Co. against the Republic of Mexico.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _June 30, 1886_.

_To the Senate_:

In response to the resolution of the Senate of the 28th of April last, I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State in relation to the affairs of the independent State of the Kongo.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 6, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with a concurrent resolution of this date, I return herewith House bill No. 3501, entitled "An act granting a pension to Daniel J. Bingham."

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _Washington, July 8, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, for your consideration with a view to its ratification, a convention signed at London June 25, 1886, between the United States of America and Great Britain, concerning the extradition of persons charged with crime.

I also inclose a report from the Secretary of State and a copy of a dispatch from the United States minister at London dated June 26, 1886, in reference thereto.

The question of extradition has been discussed between the two countries by Secretaries Fish, Evarts, and Frelinghuysen, as well as by the present Secretary of State, and the method adopted by the inclosed convention, namely, that of amending and extending the provisions of the tenth article of the treaty of 1842, has seemed the most convenient and expeditious.

In view of the continued pendency of the question and its great importance owing to the contiguity of Her Majesty's territories with those of the United States, I respectfully urge the consideration of the convention by the Senate during the present session.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 9, 1886_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith, for your information, a report from the Secretary of State, inclosing the correspondence which has been exchanged between the Department of State and the Governments of Switzerland and Italy on the subject of international copyright.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 12, 1886_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a communication of 3d instant, with inclosures, from the Secretary of the Interior, recommending legislative authority for the use of funds from appropriation, Sioux, etc., 1887, for the subsistence of certain Northern Cheyenne Indians who have gone or who may go from the Sioux Reservation in Dakota to the Tongue River Indian Agency or vicinity, in Montana.

The matter is presented for the favorable consideration of Congress.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 24, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In response to the resolutions of the Senate dated respectively May 10 and July 10, 1886, touching alleged seizures and detentions of vessels of the United States in British North American waters, I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 27, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith, in response to the House resolution of the 10th instant, a report from the Secretary of State, and accompanying papers, relating to the imprisonment in Ecuador and subsequent release of Julio R. Santos.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 29, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, in reply to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 27th of May last, in relation to trust funds.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 29, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith reports from the heads of the several Executive Departments of the Government, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of June 18, 1886, which requested certain information regarding appointments in such Departments, and having relation to the civil-service law.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 30, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In further response to the Senate resolutions of the 10th of May and 10th of July, 1886, touching the seizure and detention of American vessels in Canadian waters, I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State dated the 29th instant, accompanied by a report from the consul-general at Halifax relative to the subject.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _July 31, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I have approved House bill No. 4335, entitled "An act making an appropriation to continue the construction of a public building at Clarksburg, W. Va., and changing the limit of cost thereof."

A law passed by the last Congress authorized the construction of this building and appropriated $50,000 for that purpose, which was declared to be the limit of its cost. A site has been purchased for said building, and, as is too often the case, it is now discovered that the sum appropriated is insufficient to meet the expense of such a building as is really needed.

The object of the bill which I have approved is to extend the limit of the cost to $80,000 and to make the additional appropriation to reach that sum. The first section fixes the limit above mentioned, but the second section appropriates $35,000, and thus, with the appropriation of $50,000 heretofore made, the aggregate appropriations exceed the sum to which the cost of the building is limited by $5,000.

Inasmuch as this latter sum can not properly be applied to the construction of the building, attention is called to the existence of this excess of appropriation and the suggestion made that it be returned to the Treasury.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 2, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In response to the resolution of your honorable body of the 26th ultimo, I transmit a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers, communicating the information possessed by the Department of State "concerning the alleged illegal detention of A.K. Cutting, an American citizen, by the Mexican authorities at El Paso del Norte;" and as to the further inquiry contained in said resolution, "whether any additional United States troops have been recently ordered to Fort Bliss," I answer in the negative.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 2, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In performance of the duty imposed upon me by the Constitution, I herewith transmit for your information (the same having heretofore been communicated to the Senate in response to a resolution of inquiry adopted by that body July 26, 1886) certain correspondence and accompanying documents in relation to the arrest and imprisonment at Paso del Norte by Mexican authority of A.K. Cutting, a citizen of the United States.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 2, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I have this day approved a bill originating in the House of Representatives entitled "An act defining butter, also imposing a tax upon and regulating the manufacture, sale, importation, and exportation of oleomargarine."

This legislation has awakened much interest among the people of the country, and earnest argument has been addressed to the Executive for the purpose of influencing his action thereupon. Many in opposition have urged its dangerous character as tending to break down the boundaries between the proper exercise of legislative power by Federal and State authority; many in favor of the enactment have represented that it promised great advantages to a large portion of our population who sadly need relief; and those on both sides of the question whose advocacy or opposition is based upon no broader foundation than local or personal interest have outnumbered all the others.

This upon its face and in its main features is a revenue bill, and was first introduced in the House of Representatives, wherein the Constitution declares that all bills for raising revenue shall originate.

The Constitution has invested Congress with a very wide legislative discretion both as to the necessity of taxation and the selection of the objects of its burdens; and though if the question was presented to me as an original proposition I might doubt the present need of increased taxation, I deem it my duty in this instance to defer to the judgment of the legislative branch of the Government, which has been so emphatically announced in both Houses of Congress upon the passage of this bill.

Moreover, those who desire to see removed the weight of taxation now pressing upon the people from other directions may well be justified in the hope and expectation that the selection of an additional subject of internal taxation so well able to bear it will in consistency be followed by legislation relieving our citizens from other revenue burdens, rendered by the passage of this bill even more than heretofore unnecessary and needlessly oppressive.

It has been urged as an objection to this measure that while purporting to be legislation for revenue its real purpose is to destroy, by the use of the taxing power, one industry of our people for the protection and benefit of another.

If entitled to indulge in such a suspicion as a basis of official action in this case, and if entirely satisfied that the consequences indicated would ensue, I should doubtless feel constrained to interpose Executive dissent.

But I do not feel called upon to interpret the motives of Congress otherwise than by the apparent character of the bill which has been presented to me, and I am convinced that the taxes which it creates can not possibly destroy the open and legitimate manufacture and sale of the thing upon which it is levied. If this article has the merit which its friends claim for it, and if the people of the land, with full knowledge of its real character, desire to purchase and use it, the taxes exacted by this bill will permit a fair profit to both manufacturer and dealer. If the existence of the commodity taxed and the profits of its manufacture and sale depend upon disposing of it to the people for something else which it deceitfully imitates, the entire enterprise is a fraud and not an industry; and if it can not endure the exhibition of its real character which will be effected by the inspection, supervision, and stamping which this bill directs, the sooner it is destroyed the better in the interest of fair dealing.

Such a result would not furnish the first instance in the history of legislation in which a revenue bill produced a benefit which was merely incidental to its main purpose.

There is certainly no industry better entitled to the incidental advantages which may follow this legislation than our farming and dairy interests, and to none of our people should they be less begrudged than our farmers and dairymen. The present depression of their occupations, the hard, steady, and often unremunerative toil which such occupations exact, and the burdens of taxation which our agriculturists necessarily bear entitle them to every legitimate consideration.

Nor should there be opposition to the incidental effect of this legislation on the part of those who profess to be engaged honestly and fairly in the manufacture and sale of a wholesome and valuable article of food which by its provisions may be subject to taxation. As long as their business is carried on under cover and by false pretenses such men have bad companions in those whose manufactures, however vile and harmful, take their place without challenge with the better sort in a common crusade of deceit against the public. But if this occupation and its methods are forced into the light and all these manufactures must thus either stand upon their merits or fall, the good and bad must soon part company and the fittest only will survive.

Not the least important incident related to this legislation is the defense afforded to the consumer against the fraudulent substitution and sale of an imitation for a genuine article of food of very general household use. Notwithstanding the immense quantity of the article described in this bill which is sold to the people for their consumption as food, and notwithstanding the claim made that its manufacture supplies a cheap substitute for butter, I venture to say that hardly a pound ever entered a poor man's house under its real name and in its true character.

While in its relation to an article of this description there should be no governmental regulation of what the citizen shall eat, it is certainly not a cause of regret if by legislation of this character he is afforded a means by which he may better protect himself against imposition in meeting the needs and wants of his daily life.

Having entered upon this legislation, it is manifestly a duty to render it as effective as possible in the accomplishment of all the good which should legitimately follow in its train.

This leads to the suggestion that the article proposed to be taxed and the circumstances which subject it thereto should be clearly and with great distinctness defined in the statute. It seems to me that this object has not been completely attained in the phraseology of the second section of the bill, and that question may well arise as to the precise condition the article to be taxed must assume in order to be regarded as "made in imitation or semblance of butter, or, when so made, calculated or intended to be sold as butter or for butter."

The fourteenth and fifteenth sections of the bill, in my opinion, are in danger of being construed as an interference with the police powers of the States. Not being entirely satisfied of the unconstitutionality of these provisions, and regarding them as not being so connected and interwoven with the other sections as, if found invalid, to vitiate the entire measure, I have determined to commend them to the attention of the House with a view to an immediate amendment of the bill if it should be deemed necessary and if it is practicable at this late day in the session of Congress.

The fact, too, that the bill does not take effect by its terms until ninety days have elapsed after its approval, thus leaving it but one month in operation before the next session of Congress, when, if time does not now permit, the safety and efficiency of the measure may be abundantly protected by remedial legislative action, and the desire to see realized the beneficial results which it is expected will immediately follow the inauguration of this legislation, have had their influence in determining my official action.

The considerations which have been referred to will, I hope, justify this communication and the suggestions which it contains.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _August 4, 1886_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 3d instant (the Senate concurring), I return herewith Senate bill No. 2056, entitled "An act to amend the pension laws by increasing the pensions of soldiers and sailors who have lost an arm or leg in the service."

GROVER CLEVELAND.

VETO MESSAGES.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _March 10, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I have carefully considered Senate bill No. 193, entitled "An act for the relief of John Hollins McBlair," and hereby return the same without approval to the Senate, where it originated, with my objections to the same.

The object of this bill is to suspend the provisions of law regulating appointments in the Army by promotion so far as they affect John Hollins McBlair, and to authorize the President to nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint said McBlair a first lieutenant in the Army and to place him upon the retired list as of the date of April 8, 1864, with the pay of his rank from April 30, 1884.

The beneficiary named in this bill was appointed a first lieutenant in the Army, from civil life, in June, 1861, with rank from May 14, 1861.

It appears from his own testimony, afterwards taken before a retiring board, that at the time he was commissioned he was but 17 years of age.

In October, 1861, he was in the field for five days with his regiment, within which time he participated in no battle, skirmish, or engagement of any kind.

After five days spent in marching and camping he was taken sick, and after remaining in camp six or seven weeks, his illness still continuing, he was granted sick leave and came to Washington.

In June, 1862, he was put on duty in the Commissary Department at Washington and remained there until August, 1863, when he was summoned before a retiring board convened for the purpose of retiring disabled officers.

From testimony before this board it appears that the illness which caused him to leave his regiment was one not uncommon in the Army, and yielded to treatment, so that in April or May, 1862, he was completely cured.

About this time, however, he was attacked with convulsions, which were pronounced by the physicians examined before the board to be a form of epilepsy, and for this cause he was found to be incapacitated for active service.

The medical testimony, while it suggested various causes for this epileptic condition, negatives entirely any claim that these attacks were at all related to the illness which obliged this officer to abandon service with his regiment. He testified himself that he had been told he had one or two convulsions in childhood, but there is no direct testimony that he was subject to epileptic attacks before he entered the Army.

The retiring board determined upon the proof that this incapacity did not result from any incident of military service, and therefore Lieutenant McBlair was in October, 1863, retired wholly from the service with one year's pay and allowances, which is the usual action in such cases, and which was approved by the President.

But in April, 1864, the President, in a review of the case, made an order that instead of this officer being wholly retired he should be placed upon the retired list as of the date when the action of the retiring board was originally approved.

For about twenty years, and up to April 30, 1884, he remained upon the retired list and received the pay to which this position entitled him.

Quite recently, in consequence of a claim of additional pay which he made upon the Government, his status was examined by the Court of Claims, which decided that the action of the President in April, 1864, by which he sought to change the original disposition of the case upon the findings of the retiring board, was nugatory, and that ever since October, 1863, this officer had not been connected with the Army and had been receiving from the Government money to which he was not entitled.

If the bill herewith returned becomes a law, it makes valid all payments made, and if its purpose is carried out causes such payments to be resumed.

The finding of the retiring board seems so satisfactory and the merits of this case so slight in the light of the large sum already paid to the applicant, while the claims of thousands of wounded and disabled soldiers wait for justice at the hands of the Government, that I am constrained to interpose an objection to a measure which proposes to suspend general and wholesome laws for the purpose of granting what appears to me to be an undeserved gratuity.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _March 11, 1886_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I return herewith without approval, and with a statement of my objections thereto, Senate bill No. 150, entitled "An act to quiet title of settlers on the Des Moines River lands in the State of Iowa, and for other purposes."

This proposed legislation grows out of a grant of land made to the Territory of Iowa in the year 1846 to aid in the improvement of the navigation of the Des Moines River.

The language of this grant was such that it gave rise to conflicting decisions on the part of the Government Departments as to its extent, and it was not until 1860 that this question was authoritatively and finally settled by the Supreme Court of the United States. Its decision diminished the extent of the grant to a quantity much less than had been insisted on by certain interested parties and rendered invalid the titles of parties who held, under the Territory or State of Iowa, lands beyond the limit of the grant fixed by the decision of the court.

For the purpose of validating such titles and to settle all disputes so far as the General Government was concerned, the Congress, in the year 1861, by a joint resolution, transferred to the State of Iowa all the title then retained by the United States to the lands within the larger limits which had been claimed, and then held by _bona fide_ purchasers from the State; and in 1862 an act of Congress was passed for the same general purpose.

Without detailing the exact language of this resolution and statute, it certainly seems to be such a transfer and relinquishment of all interests in the land mentioned on the part of the United States as to relieve the Government from any further concern therein.

The questions unfortunately growing out of this grant and the legislation relating thereto have been passed upon by the United States Supreme Court in numerous cases, and as late as 1883 that court, referring to its many previous decisions, adjudged that "the act of 1862 (12 U.S. Statutes at Large, ch. 161, p. 543) transferred the title from the United States and vested it in the State of Iowa for the use of its grantees under the river grant."

Bills similar to this have been before Congress for a number of years and have failed of passage; and at least on one occasion the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate reported adversely upon a measure covering the same ground.

I have carefully examined the legislation upon the subject of this grant, and studied the decisions of the court upon the numerous and complicated questions which have arisen from such legislation, and the positions of the parties claiming an interest in the land covered by said grant, and I can not but think that every possible question that can be raised, or at least that ought to be raised, in any suit relating to these lands has been determined by the highest judicial authority in the land; and if any substantial point remains yet unsettled, I believe there is no difficulty in presenting it to the proper tribunal.

This bill declares that certain lands which nearly twenty-four years ago the United States entirely relinquished are still public lands, and directs the Attorney-General to begin suits to assert and protect the title of the United States in such lands.

If it be true that these are public lands, the declaration that they are so by enactment is entirely unnecessary; and if they are wrongfully withheld from the Government, the duty and authority of the Attorney-General are not aided by the proposed legislation. If they are not public lands because the United States have conveyed them to others, the bill is subject to grave objections as an attempt to destroy vested rights and disturb interests which have long since become fixed.