In 1893, upon an examination of the records of the Treasury Department, it was found that the two unpaid bonds for $500 reported in 1892 as outstanding, from which no coupons had been paid since July 1, 1872, still remained unredeemed, but that one of the two one-hundred-dollar bonds which were in that condition in 1892 had been since that time paid and canceled.  I think it must be conceded that this late redemption of this bond greatly weakens any presumption that the other three will not be presented for payment.

It is perfectly clear that so far as this bill directs the payment to the persons therein named of two consols of 1867 of the denomination of $50 each on the ground that such bonds were destroyed by fire in July, 1872, it requires the payment of money to those not entitled to it, since it is shown that these consols could not have been destroyed at the time stated, because coupons due on all consols of that denomination unredeemed have been paid since that date.

While the objections to the payment of the amount of the other two bonds mentioned in the bill are less conclusive, there seem to be so much doubt and uncertainty concerning their description and character, and their identification as unredeemed consols of 1867 is so unsatisfactory, that, in my opinion, it is not safe to assume, as is done in this bill, that they are represented among those bonds of that class recorded as still outstanding whose coupons for some reason have not been presented for payment since July 1, 1872.

I do not believe that an indemnity bond could be drawn which, as against the strict rights of sureties, would protect the Government against double liability in case all the payments directed by this bill were made.  Even if the payments were confined to the two larger consols described, there would be great difficulty in framing a bond which would surely indemnify the Government.

There should always be a willingness to save the holders of Government securities from damage through their loss or destruction, but, in my judgment, a bad precedent would be established by paying obligations whose destruction and identification are not more satisfactorily established than in this case.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 19, 1895.

To the House of Representatives: 

I return herewith without approval House bill No. 6244, entitled “An act to remove the charge of desertion from the military record of Jacob Eckert.”

This bill directs the Secretary of War “to cause the records of the War Department to be so amended as to remove the charge of desertion from the service record of Jacob Eckert, of New Philadelphia, Ohio, late a private in Company B, Sixty-first Ohio Volunteer Infantry, and to grant an honorable discharge to said Jacob Eckert from the service of the United States Army as of date when said company was mustered out of service.”