thereafter opportunity was offered them to make further
claim of as broad a nature as they could desire, they failed to do so,
and one of them disclaimed any right to recover on account of one of the
vessels, though all are now included in the present bill. In 1867 the
claims were fully examined under a law of Congress and rejected, and the
Supreme Court in an exactly similar case finds neither law nor equity
supporting them.

If it be claimed that no compensation has been yet allowed solely for
the increase in the price of labor and material caused by delay in
construction, it is no hardship to say that as the contractors made
provision for change of plans and delay they must be held to have taken
the risk of such rise in price and be satisfied with the provision they
have made against it. Besides, much of the increase in the price of
labor and material is included in the extra cost which has already been
reimbursed to them.

But the bill does not provide that these contractors shall be limited in
the Court of Claims to a recovery solely for loss occasioned by increase
of the cost of labor and material during the delay caused by the
Government. By the terms of the proposed act the court is directed to
ascertain the additional cost necessarily incurred in building the
vessels by reason of any changes or alterations in the plans and
specifications and delays in the prosecution of the work. This, it seems
to me, would enable these contractors to open the whole question of
compensation for extra work.

It hardly seems fair to the Government to permit these claims to be
presented after a lapse of twenty-three years since a settlement in full
was made and receipts given, after the opportunity which has been
offered for establishing further claims if they existed, and when, as a
consequence of the contractor's neglect, the Government would labor
under great disadvantages in its defense.

I am of the opinion, in view of the history of these claims and the
suspicion naturally excited as to their merit, that no injustice will be
done if they are laid at rest instead of being given new life and vigor
in the Court of Claims.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _April 16, 1888_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 445, entitled "An act
granting a pension to Laura A. Wright."

The beneficiary named in this bill is the widow of Charles H. Wright,
who was pensioned