rs 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.

In December, 1871, he was again examined for retirement, and the board
found that he was not in any way incapacitated from performing the
duties of his office. The next year, in 1872, another retiring board,
upon an examination of his