I transmit herewith a communication from the Secretary of the Navy, in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st instant, calling for a copy of a letter addressed by Richard M. Boynton and Harriet M. Fisher to the Secretary of the Navy in the month of February, 1863, together with the indorsement made thereon by the Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance.
I transmit herewith a report of the Attorney-General, additional to the one submitted by him December 13, 1866, in reply to the resolution of the House of Representatives of December 10, 1866, requesting "a list of names of all persons who have been engaged in the late rebellion against the United States Government who have been pardoned by the President from April 15, 1865, to this date; that said list shall also state the rank of each person who has been so pardoned, if he has been engaged in the military service of the so-called Confederate States, and the position if he shall have held any civil office under said so-called Confederate government; and shall also further state whether such person has at any time prior to April 14, 1861, held any office under the United States Government, and, if so, what office, together with the reasons for granting such pardons, and also the names of the person or persons at whose solicitation such pardon was granted."
The act entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes" contains provisions to which I must call attention. Those provisions are contained in the second section, which in certain cases virtually deprives the President of his constitutional functions as Commander in Chief of the Army, and in the sixth section, which denies to ten States of this Union their constitutional right to protect themselves in any emergency by means of their own militia. Those provisions are out of place in an appropriation act. I am compelled to defeat these necessary appropriations if I withhold my signature to the act. Pressed by these considerations, I feel constrained to return the bill with my signature, but to accompany it with my protest against the sections which I have indicated.
I have received and considered a bill entitled "An act to regulate the elective franchise in the District of Columbia," passed by the Senate on the 13th of December and by the House of Representatives on the succeeding day. It was presented for my approval on the 26th ultimo--six days after the adjournment of Congress--and is now returned with my objections to the Senate, in which House it originated.
