I regret that I am constrained to disapprove an important appropriation bill so near the close of the present session of Congress.  I have, however, by immediate action after the receipt of the bill, endeavored to delay as little as possible a reconsideration of this proposed legislation, though I am thus obliged to content myself with a less 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 seem to me to be exceedingly questionable.  Without noticing in detail many of these items, I shall refer to two of them which, in my judgment, justify my action in the premises.

The bill appropriates $1,027,314.09 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 those 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 with 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 she owed to our country as a neutral power and to our citizens; that by reason of these acts claims arose in favor of such of our citizens as were demnified 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 abandoned 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 having reaped a benefit in our escape from these French demands against us through the abandonment of the claims of our citizens against France, the Government became equitably bound as between itself and its citizens to pay the claims thus relinquished.

I do not understand it to be asserted that there exists any legal liability against the Government on account of its relation to these claims.  At the term of the Supreme Court just finished the Chief Justice, in an opinion concerning them and the action of Congress in appropriating for their payment, said: 

  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.

From the time the plan was conceived to charge the Government with the payment of these claims they have abided in the atmosphere of controversy.  Every proposition presented in their support has been stoutly disputed and every inference suggested in their favor has been promptly challenged.