service could
not have amounted to much more than the indulgence of a boyish freak and
his being made a pet of the soldiers with whom he was associated. There
is a pleasant sentiment connected with this display of patriotism and
childish military ardor, and it is not a matter of surprise that he
should, as stated by the committee, have "received honorable mention by
name in the history of his regiment;" but when it is proposed twenty-two
years after his one year's experience with troops to pay him a sum
nearly if not quite equal to the pay of a soldier who fought and
suffered all the dangers and privations of a soldier's life, I am
constrained to dissent.

["An act for the relief of R.D. Beckley and Leon Howard."--Received July
28, 1886.]

These two men were employed by the Doorkeeper of the Forty-eighth
Congress as laborers at the rate of $720 per annum.

They claim that in both sessions of that Congress they not only
performed the duties appertaining to their positions as laborers, but
also performed the full duties of messengers. Having received their pay
as laborers, this bill proposes to appropriate for them the difference
between their compensation as laborers and $1,200, the pay allowed
messengers.

Congress, in appropriation bills covering the period in which these men
claim to have performed these dual duties, provided for a certain
specified number of messengers and a fixed number of laborers. They both
accepted the latter position. If they actually performed the duties of
both places, their ability to do so is evidence that the labor of either
place was very light. In any case they owed their time and services to
the Government, and while they were performing the duties of messengers
they were not engaged in the harder tasks which might have been required
of them as laborers. They ought not to complain if they have received
the amount for which they agreed to work, and which was allowed for as
the wages of a place which they were glad enough to secure. If they
really did the work of both places, I don't see why they should not be
paid both compensations. This proposition of course would not be
entertained for a moment.

I am of the opinion that claims for extra compensation such as these
should be firmly discountenanced, and I am sure no injustice will be
done by my declining to approve this bill.

["An act for the relief of Thomas P. Morgan, jr."--Received July 31,
1886.--Memorandum.]

Tho