entitled "An act making appropriations for the construction, repair,
and preservation of certain works on rivers and harbors, and for other
purposes," and having since it was received carefully examined it, after
mature consideration I am constrained to return it herewith to the House
of Representatives, in which it originated, without my signature and
with my objections to its passage.

Many of the appropriations in the bill are clearly for the general
welfare and most beneficent in their character. Two of the objects for
which provision is made were by me considered so important that I felt
it my duty to direct to them the attention of Congress. In my annual
message in December last I urged the vital importance of legislation for
the reclamation of the marshes and for the establishment of the harbor
lines along the Potomac front. In April last, by special message,
I recommended an appropriation for the improvement of the Mississippi
River. It is not necessary that I say that when my signature would make
the bill appropriating for these and other valuable national objects
a law it is with great reluctance and only under a sense of duty that
I withhold it.

My principal objection to the bill is that it contains appropriations
for purposes not for the common defense or general welfare, and which
do not promote commerce among the States. These provisions, on the
contrary, are entirely for the benefit of the particular localities
in which it is proposed to make the improvements. I regard such
appropriation of the public money as beyond the powers given by the
Constitution to Congress and the President.

I feel the more bound to withhold my signature from the bill because
of the peculiar evils which manifestly result from this infraction of
the Constitution. Appropriations of this nature, to be devoted purely
to local objects, tend to an increase in number and in amount. As the
citizens of one State find that money, to raise which they in common
with the whole country are taxed, is to be expended for local
improvements in another State, they demand similar benefits for
themselves, and it is not unnatural that they should seek to indemnify
themselves for such use of the public funds by securing appropriations
for similar improvements in their own neighborhood. Thus as the bill
becomes more objectionable it secures more support. This result is
invariable and necessarily follows a neglect to observe the
constitutional limi