Of course he never enlisted and never was regularly attached to any regiment.  What kind of arms this boy 12 years of age armed himself with is not stated, and it is quite evident that his military service could not have amounted to much more than the indulgence of a boyish freak and his being made a pet of the soldiers with whom he was associated.  There is a pleasant sentiment connected with this display of patriotism and childish military ardor, and it is not a matter of surprise that he should, as stated by the committee, have “received honorable mention by name in the history of his regiment;” but when it is proposed twenty-two years after his one year’s experience with troops to pay him a sum nearly if not quite equal to the pay of a soldier who fought and suffered all the dangers and privations of a soldier’s life, I am constrained to dissent.

["An act for the relief of R.D.  Beckley and Leon Howard.”—­Received July 28, 1886.]

These two men were employed by the Doorkeeper of the Forty-eighth Congress as laborers at the rate of $720 per annum.

They claim that in both sessions of that Congress they not only performed the duties appertaining to their positions as laborers, but also performed the full duties of messengers.  Having received their pay as laborers, this bill proposes to appropriate for them the difference between their compensation as laborers and $1,200, the pay allowed messengers.

Congress, in appropriation bills covering the period in which these men claim to have performed these dual duties, provided for a certain specified number of messengers and a fixed number of laborers.  They both accepted the latter position.  If they actually performed the duties of both places, their ability to do so is evidence that the labor of either place was very light.  In any case they owed their time and services to the Government, and while they were performing the duties of messengers they were not engaged in the harder tasks which might have been required of them as laborers.  They ought not to complain if they have received the amount for which they agreed to work, and which was allowed for as the wages of a place which they were glad enough to secure.  If they really did the work of both places, I don’t see why they should not be paid both compensations.  This proposition of course would not be entertained for a moment.

I am of the opinion that claims for extra compensation such as these should be firmly discountenanced, and I am sure no injustice will be done by my declining to approve this bill.

["An act for the relief of Thomas P. Morgan, jr.”—­Received July 31, 1886.—­Memorandum.]

Thomas P. Morgan, jr., in the year 1881 entered into a contract with the Government to do certain excavating in the harbor of Norfolk.