standing.
It will thus be perceived that the object of the bill is to remove from the pathway of the claimants two legal bars to the prosecution of their claim in the courts—one, the bar of the statute of limitations, which requires all claimants against the Government to present their claims and bring actions thereon within six years from the time the cause of action accrues; and the other, that bar of estoppel which arises by reason of a former adverse judgment, rendered in a court of competent jurisdiction. This is not a general modification of the law in these respects, but a special application of it to these particular claimants.
If the principle on which the statute of limitations is founded is wise and beneficent, then the effect of it ought not to be impaired by special legislative exemptions in favor of particular persons or cases except upon very clear and just grounds, where no lack of diligence in the prosecution of the claim is apparent. I cannot find in the papers submitted to me any sufficient grounds to justify a special exception from the ordinary rule in favor of these claimants. As to the claim for $140,000, no reason is stated why it was not included in the original suit nor why action upon it was not brought against the Government within the six years allowed by the statute for that purpose. To permit such an action to be brought now is simply, without any reason of a special nature, to grant a privilege to these claimants which is denied to all other citizens of the United States, in accordance with the provisions of the general statute of limitations. The principle underlying statutes of limitations and the reasons for the maintenance of such a rule of litigation are much more cogent when applied to claims against the Government than when applied to claims against individuals.
These claims do not differ in their character from ordinary business transactions such as transpire every day between private persons or business corporations. The Government can only defend itself against claims of this nature through its public officers and with the use of such public records as the Departments may furnish. Great difficulties are experienced by it in contesting fraudulent and unjust claims, and it is only fair in the interest of the public that a rigorous adherence to some rule of limitation should be maintained.
The provision of the bill which practically directs a new trial of the claim for $25,000, decided adversely to the claimants more than twenty years ago, is still more objectionable. These parties had their day in court. They produced their witnesses and were heard both originally and upon appeal, and upon the case they were then able to make the court decided they had no claim against the Government. It is now suggested that other witnesses have been discovered who can supply the lack of proof which was produced on the former trial. Such a ground for a new trial would never be considered in any court of law in the land in a case between private parties where such a length of time had intervened since the former trial. No explanation of a satisfactory nature is furnished for the failure of the claimants to produce these witnesses upon the original trial.
The bill further provides that upon a retrial of the original claim, or upon the trial of the new claim, the claimants shall be at liberty to offer in evidence the depositions of witnesses now on the files of any of the committees of Congress in relation to the aforesaid matters, which may be introduced as evidence in case of the death or disability of the deponents.
This provision will enable the claimants to present ex-parte affidavits, prepared by the claimants or their attorneys, without opportunity being afforded to the Government to cross-examine, provided the claimants can show that the deposing witnesses are either dead or under disability, by which, no doubt, is intended any such disability by reason of absence, illness, and the like, as may render them legally incapable of being produced in person to testify upon the retrial. Such a provision as this is most dangerous to the interests of the Government.
I fail to see any reason in the facts connected with these claims for granting to these parties relief of this extraordinary nature.
The Treasury of the United States ought to be very carefully guarded against attacks of those who come forward with stale claims, and especially from the attacks of those who have already been fully heard according to the methods prescribed by the statutes.
To approve this bill would be to furnish a very dangerous precedent which would open the door to demands upon Congress in other cases which have been fully heard and determined.
For these reasons I am constrained to withhold my approval from this bill.
WILLIAM McKINLEY.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, June 14, 1898.
To the Congress of the United States:
I transmit herewith (having reference to Senate Document No. 4, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session) a report made by Thomas W. Cridler, Third Assistant Secretary of State, who, upon the death of Maj. Moses P. Handy, I designated to continue the work as special commissioner, under the act of Congress approved July 19, 1897, in relation to the acceptance by the Government of the United States of the invitation of France to participate in the International Exposition to be held at Paris from April 15 to November 5, 1900.
I cordially renew my recommendation that a liberal appropriation be immediately granted.
WILLIAM McKINLEY.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 23, 1898.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of the Interior relative to Senate resolution of June 10, 1898, requesting the President "to make such arrangements as may be necessary to secure at the Trans-Mississippi and International Exposition to be held in the city of Omaha, Neb., the attendance of representatives of the Iroquois tribes and Delawares of Canada and of the Abenakis of St. Francis and Becaucourt, and such other Indian nations as have emigrated from the territory now of the United States to Canada."
To carry out this resolution, if it shall be found agreeable to the Government of Canada, it will be necessary for this Government to send an agent to visit the tribes and secure their assent, organize the representative delegations, escort them to the exposition, take charge of and care for them while there and until they are returned to their respective tribes.
The resolution seems to presuppose that there are funds which may be lawfully used to defray the expenses which must necessarily be incurred in the premises. By reference to the Secretary's report, it will be seen that there are no moneys lawfully available for that purpose.
It is not to be presumed that the Senate, under such circumstances, would desire the Executive to take the action indicated in the resolution, and I am therefore constrained to await the requisite appropriation by Congress for the payment of the expenses that must be necessarily incurred in the accomplishment of the proposed objects.
WILLIAM McKINLEY.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 6, 1898.
To the Congress of the United States:
I transmit herewith, for the information of the Congress, the report of the Hawaiian Commission appointed in pursuance of the "Joint resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States," approved July 7, 1898, together with a copy of the civil and penal laws of Hawaii.
WILLIAM McKINLEY.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 5, 1899.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of Agriculture on the work and expenditures of the
