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.