I HAVE WITHHELD my approval of H.R. 3300, 'To authorize the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, under the direction of the Secretary of the Army, to help control the lake level of Lake Michigan by diverting water from…

I HAVE WITHHELD my approval of S. 906, 'To establish the finality of contracts between the Government and common carriers of passengers and freight subject to the Interstate Commerce Act'.

In the light of this history of repeated judicial review, I cannot agree that Carl Piowaty and W. J. Piowaty should be given the special consideration and relief which the bill would provide.

I see no reason why the Government should not be subject to the same limitations on retroactive review of its freight charges as the commercial shipper.

The Government would then be on exactly the same basis under that section as all other shippers, and existing inequities in the present rate-making relationships between the Government and the common carriers would be removed.

Since the proposed legislation would be discriminatory and would single out a particular taxpayer for relief from the statute of limitations without adequate reason therefor, and since it would preclude the Court of Claims from determining…

It seemed to me irrelevant and unwise to accept as justification for that bill the fact that the ineligible beneficiary could at the time of the message qualify as a beneficiary under existing law which was not made retroactive.

These uncertainties compel me to withhold my approval from this bill.

My view has not changed and applies with equal force to the present case.

Its only requirement is that suit be filed within two years from the date of enactment of the bill.

To say this is not to say that compliance with the statute must be insisted upon in cases where its waiver would avoid a clear inequity.

I believe that only by such means can the rather obscure elements of this case be considered and resolved in a manner fair to both the Government and the beneficiary.

From the foregoing, it seems to me, that the record in this case is inconclusive both with respect to the merits of the beneficiary's claim and as to the damages which he may have sustained.

The bill does not identify the persons to whom it would open the doors of the district court.

I am withholding my approval of S. 45, a bill 'For the relief of Mrs. Merle Cappeller Weyel.'

Approval of H.R. 6529 would not be in keeping with these principles.

Approval of the bill would thus be an open invitation to anyone who believes that he has, at any time over the last 42 years, been injured in his property by the construction of this dam to bring the United States into court, no matter how…

I believe that any equities which might have existed in favor of the beneficiary were more than satisfied when the Veterans' Administration waived recovery of the insurance payments erroneously made to her.