th whom I have conferred, takes the same view
of the law. Indeed, the decision of the Supreme Court to which I have
referred is so exactly in point that there can be no doubt as to the law
of the case. It is undoubtedly competent for Congress by act or joint
resolution to authorize the President, by and with the advice of the
Senate, to appoint Captain Stivers to be a captain in the Army of the
United States and to place him upon the retired list. It is also
perfectly competent by suitable legislation for Congress to give to this
officer the pay of his grade during the interval of time when he was
improperly carried upon the army lists. But the joint resolution which
I herewith return does not attempt to deal with the case in that way.
It undertakes to declare that the retirement of Captain Stivers was
legal and valid and that he always has been and is entitled to his pay
as such officer. I do not think this is a competent method of giving the
relief intended. The retirement under the law as it then existed was not
legal and valid, as the highest judicial tribunal under the Constitution
has declared, for the reason that Captain Stivers was not then an
officer on the active list. That being so, it follows, of course, that
he was not entitled to draw the pay of an office he did not hold.

The relief should have taken the form usual in such cases, which is to
authorize the appointment of the officer to a place made for him on the
retired list.

BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _October 1, 1890_.

_To the Senate_:

I return to the Senate without my approval the bill (S. 473) "for the
relief of the Portland Company, of Portland, Me."

This bill confers upon the Court of Claims jurisdiction to inquire into
and determine how much certain steam machinery built for the United
States under contract, and to be used in the vessels _Agawam_ and
_Pontoosuc_, cost the contractors over and above the contract price and
any allowances for extra work which have been made, and requires the
court to enter judgment in favor of the claimant for the excess of cost
above such contract price and allowances.

The bill differs from others which have been presented to me, and one of
which I have approved, in that it does not make the further allowance to
the contractors contingent upon the fact that the additional expense was
the result of the acts of the Government through its officers' causing
delays and increased cost in the const