I return without approval House bill No. 9183, entitled 'An act granting a pension to William P. Riddle.'

I return without approval House bill No. 2233, entitled 'An act granting a pension to Bernard Carlin.'

While it is the rule under general laws that two pensions shall not be paid to the same person, ... it may result that under the peculiar wording of this bill she would be entitled to both pensions.

I am of the opinion that a case is not presented in any of its aspects justifying a pension.

It seems to me it would establish a very bad precedent to allow a pension upon the facts developed in this case.

The checks remain in Leatherbury's possession until they were delivered by him to the special agent of the Pension Bureau upon the investigation.

No substitute shall hereafter be employed in any Department.

I call attention to the report of the Secretary of State and accompanying papers, relating to the convention in question.

I think the action of the Bureau was correct.

I can not spell out any principle upon which the bounty of the Government is bestowed through the instrumentality of the flood of private pension bills that reach me.

I am satisfied that this case was properly disposed of by the Pension Bureau.

I discover no reason of any substance why this pension should be increased.

I am unable to discover why a pension should be granted in this case, unless the Government is to be held as an insurer of the safety of every person in the military service in all circumstances and at all times and places.

I return without approval House bill No. 5522, entitled 'An act for the relief of Elijah Martin.'

I transmit herewith, in response to a resolution of the Senate of the 11th instant, a report of the Secretary of State.

The Government is obliged in the transaction of its business to make numerous contracts with private parties, and if these contracts are to be of any use or protection they should not be lightly set aside on behalf of citizens who are disappointed as to their profitable nature or their ability to perform them.

If, however, strict rights are to be relinquished and the liberality of the Government invoked, it should not be taxed beyond the limit of sharing the loss with the delinquent.

I can see no reason why additional ground should not be purchased for 'the proper accommodation and safety' of a large proportion of the public buildings completed and in process of erection.