When the salary of the President of the United States, pursuant to the Constitution, was fixed at $25,000 per annum, we were a nation of but 3,000,000 people, poor from a long and exhaustive war, without commerce or manufactures, with but few wants and those cheaply supplied.  The salary must then have been deemed small for the responsibilities and dignity of the position, but justifiably so from the impoverished condition of the Treasury and the simplicity it was desired to cultivate in the Republic.

The salary of Congressmen under the Constitution was first fixed at $6 per day for the time actually in session—­an average of about one hundred and twenty days to each session—­or $720 per year, or less than one-thirtieth of the salary of the President.

Congress have legislated upon their own salaries from time to time since, until finally it reached $5,000 per annum, or one-fifth that of the President, before the salary of the latter was increased.

No one having a knowledge of the cost of living at the national capital will contend that the present salary of Congressmen is too high, unless it is the intention to make the office one entirely of honor, when the salary should be abolished—­a proposition repugnant to our republican ideas and institutions.

I do not believe the citizens of this Republic desire their public servants to serve them without a fair compensation for their services.  Twenty-five thousand dollars does not defray the expenses of the Executive for one year, or has not in my experience.  It is not now one-fifth in value of what it was at the time of the adoption of the Constitution in supplying demands and wants.

Having no personal interest in this matter, I have felt myself free to return this bill to the House in which it originated with my objections, believing that in doing so I meet the wishes and judgment of the great majority of those who indirectly pay all the salaries and other expenses of Government.

U.S.  GRANT.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 26, 1876.

To the House of Representatives: 

I return herewith without my approval House bill No. 1922, entitled “An act providing for the recording of deeds, mortgages, and other conveyances affecting real estate in the District of Columbia.”

The objection to affixing my signature to this bill may be found in the communication addressed to me by the Attorney-General, and which accompanies this message.

U.S.  GRANT.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, May 23, 1876.

The PRESIDENT.

SIR:  In reply to your note of the 19th instant, in which you request me to report whether there are objections to your approval of “An act providing for the recording of deeds, mortgages, and other conveyances affecting real estate in the District of Columbia,” being House bill No. 1922, I have the honor to state that the bill seems to me objectionable because of indefiniteness and uncertainty as to the time which it purports to fix when deeds of trust, mortgages, etc., shall take effect and be valid as to creditors and subsequent purchasers for valuable consideration without notice.  Although there is no constitutional objection to the act, yet for the reason above stated I hesitate to advise its approval.