CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. (PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE,) 



161 



revised as to equalize the public burden among all 

 classes and occupations and bring it into closer har- 

 mony with the present needs of industry. 



Without entering into minute detail, which under 

 present circumstances is quite unnecessary, I recom- 

 mend an enlargement of the free list so as to include 

 within it the numerous articles which yield inconsid- 

 erable revenue, a simplification of the complex and 

 inconsistent schedule of duties upon certain manufac- 

 tures, practically those of cotton, iron, and steel, and 

 a substantial reduction of the duties upon those arti- 

 cles, and upon sugar, molasses, silk, wool, and woolen 

 goods. 



If a general revision of the tariif shall be found to 

 be impracticable at this session, I express the hope 

 that at least some of the more conspicuous inequalities 

 of the present law may be corrected before your final 

 adjournment. One of them is specially referred to 

 by the Secretary. In view of a recent decision of the 

 Supreme Court, the necessity of amending the law 

 by which the Dutch standard of color is adopted as 

 the test of the saccharine strength of sugars is too 

 obvious to require comment. 



From the report of the Secretary of War it appears 

 that the only outbreaks of Indians during the past 

 year occurred in Arizona and in the southwestern 

 part of New Mexico. They were promptly quelled, and 

 the quiet which has prevailed in all other parts of the 

 country has permitted such an addition to be made to 

 the military force in the region endangered by the 

 Apaches that there is little reason to apprehend trouble 

 in the future. 



Those part? of the Secretary's reports which relate 

 to our sea-coast defenses and their armament suggest 

 the gravest reflections. Our existing fortifications are 

 notoriously inadequate to the defense of the great 

 harbors and cities for whose protection they were 

 built. 



The question of providing an armament suited to 

 our present necessities has been the subject of consid- 

 eration by a board, whose report was transmitted to 

 Congress at the last session. Pending the considera- 

 tion of that report, the War Department has taken no 

 steps for the manufacture or conversion of any heavy 

 cannon, but the Secretary expresses the hope that 

 authority and means to begin that important work 

 will be soon provided. I invite the attention of Con- 

 gress to the propriety of making more adequate pro- 

 vision for arming and equipping the militia than is 

 afforded by the act of 1808, which is still upon the 

 statute-book. The matter has already been the sub- 

 ject of discussion in the Senate, and a bill which seeks 

 to supply the deficiencies of existing laws is now upon 

 its calendar. 



The Secretary of War calls attention to an embar- 

 rassment growing out of the recent act of Congress 

 making the retirement of officers of the army compul- 

 sory at the age of sixty-four. The act of 1878 is still 

 in force, which limits to four hundred the number of 

 those who can be retired for disability or upon their 

 own application. The two acts, when construed to- 

 gether, seem to forbid the relieving, even for absolute 

 incapacity, of officers who do not fall within the pur- 

 view of the latter statute, save at such times as there 

 chance to be less than four hundred names on the re- 

 tired list. There are now four hundred and twenty. 

 It is not likely that Congress intended this result, 

 and I concur with the Secretary that the law ought to 

 be amended. 



The grounds that impelled me to withhold my sig- 

 nature from the bill entitled " An act making appro- 

 priations for the construction, repair, and preservation 

 of certain works on rivers and harbors," which became 

 a law near the close of your last session, prompt me 

 to express the hope that no similar measure will be 

 deemed necessary during the present session of Con- 

 gress. Indeed, such a measure would now be open 

 to a serious objection in addition to that which was 

 lately urged upon your attention. I am informed by 

 the Secretary of War that the greater portion of the 



VOL. XXIII. 11 A 



sum appropriated for the various items specified in 

 that act remains unexpended. 



Of the new works which it authorized, expenses 

 have been incurred upon two only, for which the total 

 appropriation was $210.000. The present available 

 balance is disclosed by the following table : 

 Amount of appropriation by act of Aug. 2, 1882 . . $18,738,875 

 Amount of appropriation by act of June 19, 1882 . 10,000 



Amount of appropriation for payments to J. B. 



Eads 304,000 



Unexpended balance of former appropriations. . . 4,738,268 



Total $23,791,188 



Less amount drawn from Treasury between July 

 1, 1882, and Nov. 30, 1882 6,056,194 



Total $17,734,944 



It is apparent by this exhibit that so far as concerns 

 most of the items to which the act of Aug. 2, 1882, 

 relates there can be no need of further appropriations 

 until after the close of the present session. If, how- 

 ever, any action should seem to be necessary in re- 

 spect to particular obiects, it will be entirely feasible 

 to provide for those objects by appropriate legislation. 

 It is possible, for example, that a delay until the as- 

 sembling of the next Congress to make additional 

 provision for the Mississippi river improvements 

 might be attended with serious consequences. If 

 such appear to be the case, a just bill relating to that 

 subject would command my approval. 



This leads me to offer a suggestion which I trust 

 will commend itself to the wisdom of Congress. Is 

 it not advisable that grants of considerable sums of 

 money for diverse ana independent schemes ot in- 

 ternal improvement should be made the subjects of 

 separate and distinct legislative enactments I It will 

 scarcely be gainsaid, even by those who favor the 

 most liberal expenditures for such purposes as are 

 sought to be accomplished by what is commonly 

 called the river and harbor bill, that the practice of 

 grouping in such a bill appropriations for a great di- 

 versity of objects, widely separated, either in their 

 nature or in the locality with which they are con- 

 cerned, or in both, is one which is much to be depre- 

 cated unless it is irremediable. It inevitably tends 

 to secure the success _of the bill as a whole, though 

 many of the items if separately considered could 

 scarcely fail of rejection. By the adoption of the 

 course I have recommended, every member of Con- 

 gress, whenever opportunity should arise for giving 

 his influence and vote for meritorious appropriations, 

 would be enabled so to do without being called upon 

 to sanction others undeserving his approval. So also 

 would the Executive be afforded thereby full oppor- 

 tunity to exercise his constitutional prerogative of op- 

 posing whatever appropriations seemed to him objec- 

 tionable, without imperiling the success of others 

 which commended themselves to his judgment. 



It may be urged in opposition to these suggestions 

 that the number of works of internal improvement 

 which are justly entitled to governmental aid is so 

 great as to render impracticable separate appropriation 

 bills therefor, or even for such comparatively limited 

 number as make disposition of large sums of money. 

 This objection may be well founded, and whether it 

 be or not, the advantages which would be likely to 

 ensue from the adoption of the course I have recom- 

 mended may perhaps be more effectually attained by 

 another, which I respectfully submit to Congress as 

 an alternative proposition. 



It is provided by the constitutions of fourteen of 

 pur States that the Executive may disapprove any 

 item or items of a bill appropriating money ; where- 

 upon the part of the bill approved shall be law, and 

 the part disapproved shall fail to become law, unless 

 repassed according to the provisions prescribed for 

 the passage of bills over the veto of the Executive. 

 The States wherein some such provision as the fore- 

 going is a part of the fundamental law are Alabama, 

 California, Colorado. Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, 

 Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New 



