148 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



the Legislature thereof may direct, a number 

 of electors equal to the whole number of 

 Senators and Representatives to which the 

 State may be entitled in Congress," etc. The 

 number of presidential electors under the 

 above-mentioned apportionment of Represent- 

 atives is as follows : 



Alabama, 10 ; Arkansas, 7 ; California, 8 ; Colo- 

 rado, 3 ; Connecticut, 6 ; Delaware, 3 ; Florida, 4 ; 

 Georgia, 12 ; Illinois, 22 ; Indiana, 15 ; Iowa, 13 ; 

 Kansas, 9 ; Kentucky, 13 ; Louisiana, 8 ; Maine, 6 ; 

 Maryland, 8; Massachusetts, 14; Michigan, 13; 

 Minnesota, 7 ; Mississippi, 9 ; Missouri, 16 ; Ne- 

 braska, 5 ; Nevada, 3 ; New Hampshire, 4 ; New 

 Jersey, 9 ; New York, 36 ; North Carolina, 11 ; Ohio, 



regon, , , , 



South Carolina, 9 ; Tennessee, 12 ; Texas, 13 ; Ver- 

 mont, 4; Virginia, 12; West Virginia, 6 ; Wisconsin, 

 11. Total, 401. 



RIVER AND HARBOR BILL. In the House, 

 the bill making appropriations for the con- 

 struction, repair, and preservation of certain 

 works on rivers and harbors, and for other 

 purposes, was passed on July 26th, by the 

 adoption of the final report of the committee 

 of conference with the Senate committee. 



On August 1st, President Arthur returned 

 it to the House, with the following objections : 

 To the House of Representatives : 



Having watched with much interest the progress 

 of House bill No. 6,242, entitled " An act making ap- 

 propriations for the construction, repair, and preser- 

 vation of certain works on rivers and harbors, and for 

 other purposes," and having since it was received 

 carefully examined it, after mature consideration I 

 am constrained to return it herewith to the House of 

 Representatives in which it originated, without my 

 signature and with my objections to its passage. 



Many of the appropriations in the bill are clearly 

 for the general welfare and most beneficent in their 

 character. Two of the_ objects for which provision is 

 made were by me considered so important that I felt 

 it my duty to direct to them the attention of Congress. 

 In my annual message in December last, I urged the 

 vital importance of legislation for the reclamation of 

 the marshes and for the establishment of the harbor 

 lines along the Potomac front. In April last by spe- 

 cial message I recommended an appropriation for the 

 improvement of the Mississippi River. It is not nec- 



the bill appropriating for these and other valuable 

 national objects a law, it is with great reluctance and 

 only under a sense of duty that I withhold it. 



My principal objection to the bill is that it contains 

 appropriations for purposes not for the common de- 

 fense or general welfare, and which do not promote 

 commerce among the States. These provisions, on 

 the contrary, are entirely for the benefit of the par- 

 ticular localities in which it is proposed to make the 

 improvements. I regard such appropriation of the 

 public money as beyond the powers given by the 

 Coastitution to Congress and the President. 



I feel the more bound to withhold my signature 

 from the bill because of the peculiar evils which 

 manifestly result from this infraction of the Consti- 

 tution. Appropriations of this nature, to be devoted 

 purely to local objects, tend to an increase in number 

 and in amount. As the citizens of one State find that 

 money, to raise which thfy in common with the 

 whole country are taxed, is to be expended for local 

 improvements in another State, they demand similar 

 benefits for themselves, and it is not unnatural that 

 they should seek to indemnify themselves for such 

 use of the public funds by securing appropriations 

 for similar improvements in their own neighborhood. 

 Thus as the bill becomes more objectionable it se- 



cures more support. This result is invariable, and 

 necessarily follows a neglect to observe the consti- 

 tutional limitations imposed upon the law-making 

 power. 



The appropriations for river and harbor improve- 

 ments have, under the influences to which I have 

 alluded, increased year by year out of proportion to 

 the progress of the country, great as that nas been. 

 In 1870 the aggregate appropriation was $3,975,900 ; 

 in 1875, $6,648,517.50 5 in 1880, $8,976,500; and 

 in 1881, $11,451,000, while by the present act there is 

 appropriated $18,743,875. 



While feeling every disposition to leave to the* 

 Legislature the responsibility of determining what 

 amount should be appropriated for the purposes of 

 the bill, so long as the appropriations are confined to 

 objects indicated by the grant of power, I can not es- 

 cape the conclusion that, as a part of the law-making 

 power of the Government, the duty devolves upon 

 me to withhold my sigjnature from a bill containing 

 appropriations which in my opinion greatly exceed 

 in amount the needs of the country for the present 

 fiscal year. It being the usage to provide money for 

 these purposes by annual appropriation bills, the 

 President is in effect directed to expend BO large an 

 amount of money within so brief a period that the 

 expenditure can not be made economically and advan- 

 tageously. 



The extravagant expenditure of public money is an 

 evil not to be measured by the value of that money to 

 the people who are taxed for it. They sustain a 

 greater injury in the demoralizing effect produced 

 upon those who are intrusted with official duty 

 through all the ramifications of Government. 



These objections could be removed and every con- 

 stitutional purpose readily attained should Congress 

 enact that one half only of the aggregate amount pro- 

 vided for in the bill be appropriated for expenditure 

 during the fiscal year, and that the sum so appropri- 

 ated be expended only for such objects named in the 

 bill as the Secretary of War, under the direction of 

 the President, shall determine ; provided that in no 

 case shall the expenditure for any one purpose ex- 

 ceed the sum now designated by the bill for that pur- 

 pose. 



I feel authorized to make this suggestion because 

 of the duty imposed upon the President by the Con- 

 stitution *' to recommend to the consideration of 

 Congress such measures as he shall judge necessary 

 and expedient " ; and because it is my earnest desire 

 that the public works which are in progress shall 

 suffer no injury. Congress will also convene again 

 in four months, when this whole subject will be 

 open for their consideration. 



CHESTER A. ARTHUR. 



EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 1, 1882. 



In the House, on August 2d, Mr. Page, of 

 California, from the Committee on Commerce, 

 moved to take up the bill with the President's 

 veto message. This was taken up, and on the 

 question of its passage the vote was as fol- 

 lows: 



YEAS Atkins, Barbour, Bayne, Bingham, Black- 

 burn, Blanchard, Bliss, Bowman, Brewer, Buck, 

 Buckner, Julius C. Burrows, Butterworth. Cabell, 

 Calkins, Candler, Cannon, Carpenter, Chapman, 

 Clements, Crapo, Cravens, Culberson, Cullen, George 

 R. Davis, Dawes, De Mottc, Deuster, Dibrell, Dunn, 

 Dunnell, Ellis, Errett, Evins ; Sewell S. Farwell, 

 Ford, Forney, Fulkerson, Garrison, George, Gibson, 

 Guenther, Gunter, John Hammond, Harmer, Benja- 

 min W. Harris, Henry S. Harris, Haseltine, Hatch, 

 Hazelton, Henderson, Hepburn, Herndon, Hoblitzell, 

 Hoge, Horr, House, Hub bell, George W. Jones, 

 James K. Jones, Kenna, King, Latham, Lewis, Lord, 

 Lynch, Mackey, Manning, McClure, McCoid, 

 McLane, McMillm, Mills, Oates, O'Neill, Page, Par- 

 ker, Payson, Pierce, Phelps, Pound, Reagan, John 



