lawfully contract. The general law fixes the limit of 4 per cent upon the last assessment for taxation; this bill extends the limit as to the city of Ogden to 8 per cent. The purposes for which this legislation is asked are not peculiar or exceptional. They relate to schools, street improvements, and to sewerage, and are common to every prosperous and growing town and city. If the argument by which this measure is supported is adopted, the conclusion should be a repeal or modification of the general law; but in my opinion the limitation imposed by the act of 1886 is wise and wholesome and should not be relaxed.

The report of the governor of Utah for 1889 states the population of Ogden to be 15,000, the valuation for taxation $7,000,000, and the existing indebtedness $100,000. It will be noticed that under the existing limit the city has power to increase its indebtedness $180,000, which would seem to be enough to make a good beginning in the construction of sewers, while the cost of street improvements is usually met in large part by direct assessment upon the property benefited.

It is assumed in the report of the House committee that any city in the States similarly situated "would have the making of the needed improvements within its own power," while the fact is that almost all of our States have either by their constitutions or statutes limited the power of municipal corporations to incur indebtedness, and the limit is generally lower than that fixed by the act regulating this matter in the Territories. A large city debt retards growth and in the end defeats the purpose of those who think by mortgaging the future to attract population and property. I do not doubt that the citizens of Ogden will ultimately realize that the creation of a municipal debt of over half a million dollars by a city of 15,000 population-being $37 per capita—is unwise.

To the House of Representatives:

BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 29, 1890.

I return without my approval the bill (H. R. 848) "to authorize the construction of an addition to the public building in Dallas, Tex.”

The bill authorizes the construction of a wing or addition to the present public building at a cost of $200,000. I find that the bill as originally introduced by the member representing the Congressional district in which Dallas is situated fixed $100,000 as the limit of the proposed expenditure, and it was so reported from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds after conferring with the Supervising Architect of the Treasury. A bill of the same tenor was introduced in the Senate by one of the Senators from that State, fixing the same limit of expenditure.

The public building at Dallas, for which a first appropriation of $75,000 was made in 1882, subsequently increased to $125,000, was only completed in 1889. It is probably inadequate now to the convenient transaction of

business, chiefly in that part assigned to the Post-Office Department. The material and architectural style of any addition are fixed by the present building and its ground area by the available unoccupied space, as no provision is made for buying additional ground. The present building is 85 by 56 feet, and Mr. John S. Witwer, the postmaster and the custodian of the building, writing to the Supervising Architect, advises that to meet the present and prospective needs of the Government an addition at least two-thirds as large as the present building should be provided. It will be seen from the following extract from a letter of the Supervising Architect to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, dated February 17, 1890, that a building larger than that suggested can be erected within the limit of $100,000. He says:

From computations made in this office based upon data received it is found that an extension or wing about 40 by 85 feet in dimensions, three stories high, with basement, giving 3,400 square feet, in addition to the 4,760 square feet of the first-floor area of the building, of fireproof construction, can be erected on the present site within the limit of cost proposed by said bill, namely, $100,000.

It may be possible that an expenditure of $325,000 for a public building at Dallas, if the questions of site, material, and architecture were all undetermined, could be defended, but under existing conditions I do not see how an appropriation of $200,000 can be justified when one-half that sum is plainly adequate to such relief as the present site allows.

The legislation for the erection of public buildings has not proceeded, so far as I can trace it, upon any general rules. Neither population nor the extent of the public business transacted has always indicated the points where public buildings should first be built or the cost of the structures. It can not be expected that, in the absence of some general law, the committees of Congress having charge of such matters will proceed in their recommendations upon strict or equal lines. The bills are individual, and if comparisons are attempted the necessary element of probable future growth is made to cover all apparent inequalities. It will be admitted, I am sure, that only a public need should suggest the expenditure of the public money, and that if all such needs can not be at once supplied the most general and urgent should have the preference.

I am not unfriendly to a liberal annual expenditure for the erection of public buildings where the safe and convenient transaction of the public business demands it and the state of the revenues will permit. It would be wiser, in my opinion, to build more and less costly houses and to fix by general law the amount of the annual expenditure for this purpose and some order of preference between the cities asking for public buildings.

But in view of the pending legislation looking to a very large reduction of our revenues and of the urgency and necessity of a large increase in our expenditures in certain directions, I am of the opinion that appropriations for the erection of public buildings and all kindred expenditures

should be kept at the minimum until the effect of other probable legislation can be accurately measured.

The erection of a public building is largely a matter of local interest and convenience, while expenditures for enlarged relief and recognition to the soldiers and sailors of the war for the preservation of the Union, for necessary coast defenses, and for the extension of our commerce with other American States are of universal interest and involve considerations, not of convenience, but of justice, honor, safety, and general prosperity. BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 4, 1890.

To the Senate of the United States:

I return without my approval the bill (S. 1306) "for the erection of a public building at Hudson, N. Y." Hudson, from the best information attainable, is a city of only a little more than 10,000 population. If the postal receipts are a fair indication of the growth of the city, it has not been rapid, as they only increased about $4,000 in ten years. The gross postal receipts for the year 1888 were but $14,809, and the office force consists of three clerks and five carriers. There are no other Government officers at Hudson entitled under the law to offices or to an allowance for rent, unless it be a deputy collector of internal revenue.

It appears from the bill and the correspondence with the Supervising Architect that it is proposed to erect a two-story building, with fireproof vaults, heating and ventilating apparatus, and elevators, 40 by 80 feet in dimensions. The ground-floor area of 3,200 feet, to be devoted to the post-office, would give 400 square feet to each of the present employees. The second story and the basement, each having the same area, will be absolutely tenantless, unless authority is given by law to the custodian to rent the rooms to unofficial tenants. It seems to me to be very clear that the public needs do not suggest or justify such an expenditure as is contemplated by this bill.

To the House of Representatives:

BENJ. HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 12, 1890.

I return without my approval the bill (H. R. 7175) to provide for the purchase of a site and the erection of a public building thereon at Tuscaloosa, in the State of Alabama.

Judged by its postal revenues and by the force employed in the office, the post-office at Tuscaloosa is not an important one. It has one clerk, at a salary of $450, and no carriers. The report of the Postmaster-General shows that the gross receipts for the year 1888 were $6,379 and the net revenue less than $4,000. The annual receipts have only increased about $3,000 in ten years. The rent now paid for a building affording 2,200 square feet of floor space is $275.

INDIAN FIGHTING BY TROOPS

Hearing that a depredation had occurred some place within his territory, the commanding officer would gather as many troops as could be spared from the garrisons along the route and would follow the trail of the guilty savages. Extending his front over as wide a space as practicable in order to concentrate the roving bands before him, he would march until some natural obstacle forced or encouraged the Indians to halt and give battle. Then the cavalry would deploy at a gallop and rush into the conflict, while Gatling guns and the supporting infantry poured lead into the hostiles. In one such engagement, Captain Adna R. Chaffee, who later led the American advance on Peking, shouted to his men: "Forward! If any man is killed, I'll make him a corporal." The Indians were no match for disciplined valor intelligently directed, and would usually disintegrate and flee, each man for himself.

See the twenty-three pages of interesting reading concerning the Indian tribes and our wars with them in the index (volume eleven), under the heading "Indian."