It was considered best by the officers of the Government to accept the proposition of the administrator, which was done in June, 1880.  The sum of $5,099.06, the amount of one of said judgments, with interest and costs, was paid into the United States Treasury, and the estate of Tinder was in consideration thereof released and discharged from all liability upon both of said judgments.

Thus was the transaction closed, in exact accordance with the wishes and the prayer of the representative of this estate and by the favor and indulgence of the Government upon his application.  There was, so far as I can learn, no condition attached, and no understanding or agreement that any future occurrence would affect the finality of the compromise by which the Government had accepted one-half of its claim in full settlement.

It appears that in 1881 the party indicted was arrested and brought to trial, which resulted in his conviction; and apparently for this reason alone it is proposed by the bill under consideration to open the settlement made at the request of the administrator and refund to him the sum which he paid on such settlement pursuant to his own offer.

I can see no fairness or justice to the Government in such a proposition.  I do not find any statement that the administrator delivered the prisoner to the United States authorities for trial.  On the contrary, it appears from an examination made in the First Comptroller’s Office that he was arrested by the marshal on the 25th day of May, 1881, who charged and was paid his fees therefor.  And if the administrator had surrendered the prisoner to justice it would not entitle him to the repayment of the money he has paid to compromise the two judgments against him.

The temptation to relieve from contracts with the Government upon plausible application is, in my opinion, not sufficiently resisted; but to refund money paid into the public Treasury upon such a liberal compromise as is exhibited in this case seems like a departure from all business principles and an unsafe concession that the interests of the Government are to be easily surrendered.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 3, 1888.

To the House of Representatives: 

I return without approval House bill No. 4534, entitled “An act for the relief of Emily G. Mills.”

The object of this bill is to provide a pension for the beneficiary named therein as the widow of Oscar B. Mills, late a second assistant engineer, retired, in the United States Navy.  The deceased was appointed an acting third assistant engineer in October, 1862, and in 1864 he was promoted to the place of second assistant engineer.

It is supposed that while in active service he did his full duty, though I am not informed of any distinguished acts of bravery or heroism.  In February, 1871, he was before a naval retiring board, which found that he was incapacitated for active service on account of malarious fever, contracted in 1868, and recommended that he be allowed six months’ leave of absence to recover his health.