On the 10th of February (1866) it was sent to the President for his signature. In a Message, dated the 19th of February, the President put his veto upon this bill. The document was a strong and sound presentation of reasons for his dissent. He said he could not approve of a war measure, with an indefinite term, when the authority of the United States was not disputed in any part of the country, when the rebellion was at an end, and when the country had returned, or was returning, to the pursuits of peace. He referred to the fact that the law of March 3d, 1865, was still in operation, and claimed that it furnished him with all the extraordinary powers necessary to protect the freedmen. He called attention to the army of officials which this proposed law would create, and to the enormous expense which it would entail. And he denied the constitutional power of the Government of the United States to assume functions for negroes which it had never been authorized to assume for white men. There is little question now that the President was correct about this matter, and that the Congress was both reckless and aggressive, not to say vindictive. But it is questionable whether the President did not himself lessen unnecessarily his influence with his party in Congress, by his unqualified opposition to any strengthening of the measure of 1865. He might have returned the bill with the suggestion that it should have a definite limit as to the time it should run, and have {67} expressed his willingness to sign a bill which should be so limited. Johnson was blunt in his honesty. But Seward was his adviser, and Seward was, above everything, politic. It would seem that he either failed to advise with his usual sagacity in this case, or that his advice was unheeded. [Sidenote: The veto effective.] For this once the President's arguments convinced enough of the Senators to deprive the bill of the support of the necessary majority to carry it over his veto, even so stanch a Republican as ex-Governor Morgan of New York voting against the bill after its return. The Republican majority was deeply chagrined, not to say discouraged, and the President was injuriously encouraged to enter upon the struggle with Congress over the question of Reconstruction. [Sidenote: The President's 22d of February speech.]