but was the official organ deputed by the citizens to present them to him. He then remarked that in the memorial we deplored the passage of the original legal tender acts, and he did not like that; that the war could not have been successfully carried on without them, that the country had approved them, and he did not think it right that we should come to ask a favor of him and at the same time censure his administration. I replied that neither I nor the citizens of Boston asked any favor at his hands; that they desired the right thing to be done; that they had expressed their views of what the right was and presented them to him; that they did not claim infallibility, and that he would act on his own judgment. He then said that Massachusetts and Rhode Island had more than their share of bank circu lation. To which I replied: "Take the excess away from them, for I will not ask for Massachusetts anything which I would not ask for any State in the Union; I have a letter from one bank president in Boston expressing a willing ness to relinquish the circulation." The PRESIDENT said he should not have alluded to this subject had it not been for the criticisms on his administration contained in the paper. I then said to him that the matters on which we had thus far conversed were collateral, and had no bearing on the questions at issue, which were these two: Interview with New York Bankers. April 17-A committee of New York bankers, capitalists, and merchants presented to the PRESIDENT a petition signed by twenty-five hundred names, without distinction of party, asking him to veto the Senate bill. The following was the PRESIDENT's reply: the progress of this bill through Congress with Shall the public faith be preserved? Shall we have a fixed standard of value, or enter upon a sea of irredeemable paper money? That if the legal tender issues should be increased in a time of peace, with no public exiit would be a precedent for any and every gency, future Congress to enlarge them at will, and without limit. That I should like to ask him one question: Whether it would not meet his views to keep the limit of three hundred and fifty-six millions of legal tender notes as now established by law, to pass an act of indemnity for the existing over issue of twenty-six millions, and provide that as soon as the working balance in the Treasury should exceed ten or fifteen millions, the excess of twenty-six millions should be retired and canceled with the surplus. That, with the addition to this of proper provision for redemption, on demand, of bank circulation, that Correspondence_with_Senator Jones might be increased, and that the country be supplied with all the currency which it desired, and for which it could give security. He remarked that we were now coming toward an accord; that he was not in favor of expansion, and he wished to add that he did not intend to tell me what he should do with the bill. I replied that I had not asked him that question, nor did I intend to do so; that if I had done so I should have expected a reply which would have deterred me from asking another question. I then said: "I have executed my commission and will not detain you longer in the press of your occupations." I bade him good morning, and the interview closed by his saying, "I am glad to have seen you." Yours, respectfully, WILLIAM GRAY, Chairman. BOSTON, April 21, 1874. of Nevada. UNITED STATES SENATE CHAMBER, To the President: I was so deeply impressed by the clearness and wisdom of the financial views (some of which you had fortunately reduced to writing) recently expressed by you in a conversation in which I had the honor, with a few others, to be a participant, that I cannot dismiss them from my mind. The great diversity of ideas upon this subject, and the fact that public opinion concerning the same is still in process of formation lead me to believe that the publication of these views would be productive of great good. I venture therefore to request of you that I have a copy of the written memorandum to which I have alluded, with your permission, that it may be made public. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, JOHN P. JONES. THE PRESIDENT'S REPLY. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C., June 4, 1874. DEAR SIR: Your note of this date, requesting a copy of a memorandum which I had prepared, expressive of my views upon the financial question, and which you, with others, had heard read, is received, but at too late an hour to com. ply to-night. I will, however, take great pleaBure in furnishing you a copy in the morning as soon as I can have it copied. It is proper that I should state that these views were reduced to writing, because I had been consulted on this question, not only by some members of the conference committee, but by many other members of Congress. To avoid any and all possibility of misunderstanding, I deemed this course both justifiable and proper. With this explanation, I inclose you herewith the memorandum referred to. Very respectfully, U. S. GRANT. Hon. J. P. JONES, United States Senate. Memorandum of Views entertained on the subject of desirable Legislation on Finance. I believe it a high and plain duty to return to a specie basis at the earliest practical day, not only in compliance with legislative and party pledges, but as a step indispensable to national lasting prosperity. I believe further that the time has come when this can be done, or at least begun, with less embarrassment to every branch of industry than at any future time, after resort has been had to unstable and temporary expedients to stimulate unreal prosperity and speculation on basis other than coin, the recognized medium of exchange throughout the commercial world. The particular mode selected to bring about a restoration of the specie standard is not of so much consequence as that some adequate plan be devised, the time fixed when currency shall be exchanged for coin at par, and the plan adopted rigidly adhered to. It is not probable that any legislation suggested by me would prove acceptable to both branches of Congress, and indeed, full discussion might shake my own faith in the details of any plan I might propose. I will, however, venture to state the general features of the action which seems to me advisable in the financial platform on which I would stand, any departure from which would be in a spirit of concession and harmony in deference to conflicting opinions. First. I would like to see the legal tender clause," so-called, repealed, the repeal to take effect at a future time, say July 1, 1875. This would cause all contracts made after that date for wages, sale, &c., to be estimated in coin. It would correct our notions of values. The specie dollar would be the only dollar known as the measure of equivalents. When debts afterwards contracted were paid in currency, instead of calling the paper dollar a dollar, and quoting gold at so much premium, we should think and speak of paper as at so much discount. This alone would aid greatly in bringing the two currencies nearer together at par. Second. I would like to see a provision that at a fixed day, say July 1, 1876, the currency issued by the United States should be redeemed in coin on presentation to any assistant treasurer, and that all currency so redeemed should be canceled and never be reissued. To effect this it would be in gold, bearing such interest as would command necessary to authorize the issue of bonds payable in such sums as should from time to time be par in gold, to be put out by the treasury only needed for the purpose of redemption. Such cial principles in two years, and would, in my legislation would insure a return to sound finanjudgment, work less hardship to the debtor interest than is likely to come from putting off the day of final reckoning, interest had its day of disadvantage also, when It must be borne in mind, too, that the creditor the supreme needs of the nation at the time. I our present financial system was brought in by would further provide that from and after the date fixed for redemption, no bill, whether of national banks or of the United States, returned to the treasury to be exchanged for new bills, should be replaced by bills of less denomination than ten dollars; and that, in one year after resumption, all bills of less than five dollars should be withdrawn from circulation, and in two years all bills of less than ten dollars should be withdrawn. The advantage of this would be strength given to the country against time of depression resulting from war, failure of crops, or any other cause, by keeping always in the hands of the people a large supply of the precious metals. With all smaller transactions conducted in coin, many millions of it would be kept in constant use, and of course prevented from leaving the country. Undoubtedly a poorer currency will always drive the better out of circulation. With paper a legal tender, and at a discount, gold and silver become articles of merchandise as much as wheat or cotton. The surplus will find the best market it can. With small bills in circulation there is no use for coin except to keep it in the vaults of banks to redeem circulation. During periods of great speculation and apparent prosperity there is little demand for coin, and then it will flow out to a market when it can be made to earn something, which it cannot do while lying idle. Gold, like anything else, when not needed becomes a surplus, and, like every other surplus, it seeks a market where it can find one. By giving active employment to coin, however, its presence can, it seems to me, be secured, and the panics and depressions which have occurred periodically in times of nominal specie payments, if they cannot be wholly prevented, can at least be greatly mitigated. Indeed, I question whether it would have been found necessary to depart from the standard of specie in the trying day which gave birth to the first legal tender act had the country taken the ground of "no small bills' as early as 1850. Again, I would provide an excess of revenue over current expenditures. I would do this by rigid economy and by taxation where taxation can best be borne. Increased revenue would work a constant reduction of debt and interest, and would provide coin to meet demands on the Treasury for the redemption of its notes, thereby [From the National Republican, March 28, 1874.] THE PRESIDENT, in response, said that he very much deplored the condition of affairs in South Carolina, and that he had occasion in the past to speak with reference to a somewhat similar condition of affairs in Louisiana; but since the government of the State was complete, independent, and sovereign, he could not undertake to say that either the administrative or the legislative department of the General Government would avail in effecting any change. Much of the existing condition was, perhaps, due to a sentiment stimulated by the gentlemen present. They had, by their inaction, possibly stimulated the formation of the very party of which complaint was made. Still, the cause belonged to the results, the passions the natural offshoots of war, and he did not fail to recognize the cogency of the arguments submitted. It was not prudent, however, for him to take official action in the premises immediately, or to commit himself to any line of policy. In conclusion, the President said that, speaking from an individual standpoint, he had occa sion to feel much chagrin at one of the speeches that had been made in the tax-payers' convention of South Carolina, because it contained much that was false, and it had abstracted somewhat from the general sympathy which otherwise he might have freely expressed. Several members of the delegation here followed with statements that the speech referred to had not been made as represented on the floor of the convention, but had been garbled by the partisan press of the State, and made to subserve a purpose for which it was not designed. The disclaimers of the delegation, generally and generously made, apparently mollified the PRESIDENT, and the body left, if not with a promise for their future, at least with hopes that something may yet be done for their State. On "Civil Rights." 1872, DECEMBER 10-The Louisiana delegation to the National Civil Rights Convention visited PRESIDENT GRANT in a body, and were introduced by Senator West. In presenting the delegation the Senator remarked that its members embraced many of the intelligent working republicans in the State. He then introduced Colonel James Lewis, who proceeded to address the President, and said the delegation came to pay their respects and thank him on behalf of the colored people of Louislana for the care and protection they have received from him since his presidential term commenced. He hoped that he might long enjoy the blessing of good health, and that the colored men might continue to receive his kind consideration and care. The President responded by saying that he was glad to meet them. He had always endeavored to secure for the colored men all the rights which should accompany enfranchisement. Certain rights are still withheld, but he hoped that ere long they would find themselves in possession of all the privileges which belong to freemen. He said he did not know what Congress would do in the matter, but he thought it likely that that body would, at its present session, pass a civil rights bill, and that if such a bill is defeated it will probably be because an extreme measure is urged by some person who claims to be a particular friend of the colored man. On the Duties of "Decoration Day." EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C., May 19, 1874. DEAR CAPTAIN: I have your favor to me of the 10th inst., and have laid it before the PRESIDENT, as you requested. He approves of the resolution inviting the co-operation of those who were opposed to us during the late war in the decoration of the graves of those who heroically fell on both sides; and believes that the time has come when every evidence of such a feeling of fraternal interest should be encouraged, and advantage taken of every opportunity to bury deeper any animosity born of the late war that may yet be lingering. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, To Capt. W. C. SPENCER, Baltimore, Md. The unprecedented rise in the Mississippi, aided by violent local storms, has caused a most disastrous overflow. Six or seven of the largest parishes of the State are already under water, and thousands of people, white and black, are without food and shelter, and in danger of starvation. The emergency is so great that I feel constrained Government, if possible, to extend to these poor to appeal to you directly, asking the General scarcely more disastrous calamity at Chicago. people the same relief that was given to the W. P. KELLOGG, Governor of Louisiana. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C., April 17, 1874. Governor W. P. KELLOGG, New Orleans, La.: Your dispatch of this date asking aid for the sufferers by the disastrous overflow of the lower Mississippi is received. Congress being in session at this time, I do not feel authorized to order Government aid, as I did in the case of suffering from yellow fever at Shreveport and Memphis last summer, and in the case of the burning of Chicago two years ago, without authority of Congress. I will, however, send your dispatch to the Louisiana delegation, and if a resolution is passed by Congress authorizing it I will exert every authorized means to avert suffering from the disaster which has overtaken the citizens of Louisiana. U. S. GRANT. XI. PRESIDENT GRANT'S SPECIAL AND VETO MESSAGES. Vetoing the Bill for the Relief of the East Tennessee University, January 29, 1873. To the Senate of the United States: I have the honor to return herewith Senate bill number 490, entitled "An act for the relief of the East Tennessee University," without my approval. This claim, for which $18,500 are appropriated out of the moneys of the United States, arises in part for the destruction of property by troops in time of war, and therefore the same objections attach to it as were expressed in my message of June 1, 1872, returning the Senate bill awarding $25,000 to J. Milton Best. If the precedent is once established that the Government is liable for the ravages of war, the end of demands upon the public Treasury cannot be forecast. The loyalty of the people of the section in which the university is located, under circumstances of personal danger and trials, thus entitling them to the most favorable construction of the obligation of the Government toward them, is admitted; and nothing but regard for my duty to the whole people, in opposing a principle which, if allowed, will entail greater burdens upon the whole than the relief which will be afforded to a part, by allowing this bill to become a law, could induce me to return it with objections. Recognizing the claims of these citizens to sympathy, and the most favorable consideration of their claims by the Government, I would heartily favor a donation of the amount appropriated by this bill for their relief. U. S. GRANT. NOTE.-A bill (S. 110) passed both Houses of Congress at the late session, and became a law, appropriating eighteen thousand and five hundred dollars, in full compensation for aid given by and on behalf of said East Tennessee University to the army of the United States in the late war of the rebellion."-EDITOR. Vetoing the Bill for the Relief of Suf- To the Senate of the United States: I return herewith, without my approval, Senate bill No. 161, entitled "An act for the relief of those suffering from the destruction of salt works near Manchester, Kentucky, pursuant to the order of Major General Carlos Buell." All the objections made by me to the bill for the relief of J. Milton Best,* and also of the East Tennessee University, apply with equal force to this bill. According to the official report of Brigadier Politics for 1872, p. 32. General Craft, by whose immediate command the property in question was destroyed, there was a large rebel force in the neighborhood who were using the salt works, and had carried away a considerable quantity of salt, and were preparing to take more, as soon as the necessary transportation could be procured; and he further states that the leaders of the rebellion calculated upon their supply of salt to come from these works," and that in his opinion their destruction was a military necessity. I understand him to say, in effect, that the salt works were captured from the rebels, that it was impracticable to hold them, and that they were demolished, so as to be of no further use to the enemy. I cannot agree that the owners of property destroyed under such circumstances are entitled to compensation therefor from the United States. Whatever other view may be taken of the subject, it is incontrovertible that these salt works were destroyed by the Union army while engaged in regular military operations, and that the sole object of their destruction was to weaken, cripple, or defeat the armies of the so-called Southern Confederacy. I am greatly apprehensive that the allowance of this claim could and would be construed into the recognition of a principle binding the United States to pay for all property which their military forces destroyed in the late war for the Union. No liability by the Government to pay for property destroyed by the Union forces in conducting a battle or siege has yet been claimed; directly and strongly in that direction, for it is but the precedent proposed by this bill leads difficult, upon any ground of reason or justice, to distinguish between a case of that kind and the one under consideration. Had General Craft and his command destroyed the salt works by shelling out the enemy found in their actual occupancy, the case would not have been different in principle from the one presented in this bill. What possible difference can it make in the rights of owners or the obligations of the Government whether the destruction was in driving the enemy out or in keeping them out of the possession of the salt works? This bill does not present a case where private property is taken for public use in any sense of the Constitution. It was not taken from the owners, but from the enemy; and it was not then used by the Government, but destroyed. Its destruction was one of the casualties of war, and, though not happening in actual conflict, was perhaps as disastrous to the rebels as would have been a victory in battle. spread of a conflagration, as a general rule, are Owners of property destroyed to prevent the not entitled to compensation therefor; and for reasons equally strong the necessary destruction of property found in the hands of the public enemy, and constituting a part of their military supplies, does not entitle the owner to indemnity from the Government for damages to him in that way. I fully appreciate the hardship of the case, and would be glad if my convictions of duty allowed me to join in the proposed relief. But I cannot consent to the doctrine which is found in this bill, as it seems to me, by which the national Treasury is exposed to all claims for property injured or destroyed by the armies of the United States in the late protracted and destructive war in this country. U. S. GRANT. Calling the attention of Congress to the condition of affairs in Utah Territory, February 14, 1873. To the Senate and House of Representatives: the territorial Legislature with power which would enable it, by creating judicatures of its own, or increasing the jurisdiction of courts appointed by territorial authority, although recognized by Congress, to take the administration of the law out of the hands of the judges appointed by the President or to interfere with their action. Several years of unhappy experience make it apparent that, in both of these respects the Territory of Utah requires special legislation by Congress. Public opinion in that Territory, produced by circumstances too notorious to require further notice, makes it necessary, in my opinion, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws of the United States and of the Federal Government, to provide that the selection of grand and petit jurors for the district courts, if not put under the control of Federal officers, shall be placed in the hands of persons entirely independent of those who are determined not to enforce any act of Congress obnoxious to them, and also to pass some act which shall deprive the probate courts, No discussion is necessary in regard to the or any court created by the territorial Legisla general policy of Congress respecting the Terri-ture, of any power to interfere with or impede tories of the United States, and I only wish now the action of the courts held by the United States to refer to so much of that policy as concerns judges. their judicial affairs and the enforcement of law within their borders. I consider it my duty to call the attention of Congress to the condition of affairs in the Territory of Utah, and to the dangers likely to arise, if it continues during the coming recess, from a threatened conflict between the Federal and territorial authorities. I am convinced that, so long as Congress leaves the selection of jurors to the local authorities, it No material differences are found in respect to will be futile to make any effort to enforce laws these matters in the organic acts of the Territo- not acceptable to a majority of the people of the ries, but an examination of them will show that Territory, or which interferes with local prejuit has been the invariable policy of Congress to dices or provides for the punishment of polygplace and keep their civil and criminal jurisdic-amy, or any of its affiliated vices or crimes. tion, with certain limited exceptions, in the I presume that Congress, in passing upon this hands of persons nominated by the President subject, will provide all reasonable and proper and confirmed by the Senate, and that the gen- safeguards to secure honest and impartial jurors, eral administration of justice should be as pre whose verdicts will command confidence, and be scribed by congressional enactment. Sometimes a guarantee of equal protection to all good and the power given to the territorial Legislatures law-abiding citizens, and at the same time make has been somewhat larger and sometimes some-it understood that crime cannot be committed what smaller than the powers generally conferred. Never, however, have powers been given to a territorial Legislature inconsistent with the idea that the general judicature of the Territory was to be under the direct supervision of the National Government. Accordingly, the organic law creating the Territory of Utah, passed September 9, 1850, provided for the appointment of a supreme court, the judges of which are judges of the district courts, a clerk, a marshal, and an attorney, and to these Federal officers is confided jurisdiction in all important matters; but, as decided recently by the Supreme Court, the act requires jurors to serve in these courts to be selected in such manner as the territorial Legislature sees fit to prescribe. It has undoubtedly been the desire of Congress, so far as the same might be compatible with the supervisory control of the territorial government, to leave the minor details connected with the administration of law to regulation by local authority; but such a desire ought not to govern when the effect will be, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the case, to produce a conflict between the Federal and the territorial authorities, or to impede the enforcement of law, or in any way to endanger the peace and good order of the Territory. with impunity. I have before said that, while the laws creating the several Territories have generally contained uniform provisions in respect to the judiciary, yet Congress has occasionally varied these provisions in minor details, as the circumstances of the Territory affected seem to demand, and in creating the Territory of Utah Congress evidently thought that circumstances there might require judicial remedies not necessary in other Territories; for, by section nine of the act creating that Territory, it is provided that a writ of error may be brought from the decision of any judge of the Supreme or District Courts of the Territory to the Supreme Court of the United States upon any writ of habeas corpus, involving the question of personal freedom-a provision never inserted in any other territorial act except that creating the Territory of New Mexico. This extraordinary provision shows that Congress intended to mold the organic law to the peculiar necessities of the Territory, and the legislation which I now recommend is in full harmony with the precedent thus established. I am advised that United States courts in Utah have been greatly embarrassed by the action of the territorial Legislature in conferring criminal jurisdiction and the power to issue writs of habEvidently it was never intended to entrust leas corpus on probate courts in the Territory, |