← catalogue

State of the Union Addresses

by James K. Polk · English · Gutenberg #5019 · 448,009 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of State of the Union Addresses
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: State of the Union Addresses

Author: James K. Polk


        
Release date: February 1, 2004 [eBook #5019]
                Most recently updated: November 20, 2014

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5019

Credits: Produced by James Linden.  HTML version by Al Haines.


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESSES ***




Produced by James Linden.  HTML version by Al Haines.








State of the Union Addresses of James Polk



The addresses are separated by three asterisks: ***

Dates of addresses by James Polk in this eBook:

  December 2, 1845
  December 8, 1846
  December 7, 1847
  December 5, 1848



***

State of the Union Address
James Polk
December 2, 1845

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:

It is to me a source of unaffected satisfaction to meet the representatives
of the States and the people in Congress assembled, as it will be to
receive the aid of their combined wisdom in the administration of public
affairs. In performing for the first time the duty imposed on me by the
Constitution of giving to you information of the state of the Union and
recommending to your consideration such measures as in my judgment are
necessary and expedient, I am happy that I can congratulate you on the
continued prosperity of our country. Under the blessings of Divine
Providence and the benign influence of our free institutions, it stands
before the world a spectacle of national happiness.

With our unexampled advancement in all the elements of national greatness,
the affection of the people is confirmed for the Union of the States and
for the doctrines of popular liberty which lie at the foundation of our
Government.

It becomes us in humility to make our devout acknowledgments to the Supreme
Ruler of the Universe for the inestimable civil and religious blessings
with which we are favored.

In calling the attention of Congress to our relations with foreign powers,
I am gratified to be able to state that though with some of them there have
existed since your last session serious causes of irritation and
misunderstanding, yet no actual hostilities have taken place. Adopting the
maxim in the conduct of our foreign affairs "to ask nothing that is not
right and submit to nothing that is wrong," it has been my anxious desire
to preserve peace with all nations, but at the same time to be prepared to
resist aggression and maintain all our just rights.

In pursuance of the joint resolution of Congress "for annexing Texas to the
United States," my predecessor, on the 3d day of March, 1845, elected to
submit the first and second sections of that resolution to the Republic of
Texas as an overture on the part of the United States for her admission as
a State into our Union. This election I approved, and accordingly the
charge d'affaires of the United States in Texas, under instructions of the
10th of March, 1845, presented these sections of the resolution for the
acceptance of that Republic. The executive government, the Congress, and
the people of Texas in convention have successively complied with all the
terms and conditions of the joint resolution. A constitution for the
government of the State of Texas, formed by a convention of deputies, is
herewith laid before Congress. It is well known, also, that the people of
Texas at the polls have accepted the terms of annexation and ratified the
constitution. I communicate to Congress the correspondence between the
Secretary of State and our charge d'affaires in Texas, and also the
correspondence of the latter with the authorities of Texas, together with
the official documents transmitted by him to his own Government. The terms
of annexation which were offered by the United States having been accepted
by Texas, the public faith of both parties is solemnly pledged to the
compact of their union. Nothing remains to consummate the event but the
passage of an act by Congress to admit the State of Texas into the Union
upon an equal footing with the original States. Strong reasons exist why
this should be done at an early period of the session. It will be observed
that by the constitution of Texas the existing government is only continued
temporarily till Congress can act, and that the third Monday of the present
month is the day appointed for holding the first general election. On that
day a governor, a lieutenant-governor, and both branches of the legislature
will be chosen by the people. The President of Texas is required,
immediately after the receipt of official information that the new State
has been admitted into our Union by Congress, to convene the legislature,
and upon its meeting the existing government will be superseded and the
State government organized. Questions deeply interesting to Texas, in
common with the other States, the extension of our revenue laws and
judicial system over her people and territory, as well as measures of a
local character, will claim the early attention of Congress, and therefore
upon every principle of republican government she ought to be represented
in that body without unnecessary delay. I can not too earnestly recommend
prompt action on this important subject. As soon as the act to admit Texas
as a State shall be passed the union of the two Republics will be
consummated by their own voluntary consent.

This accession to our territory has been a bloodless achievement. No arm of
force has been raised to produce the result. The sword has had no part in
the victory. We have not sought to extend our territorial possessions by
conquest, or our republican institutions over a reluctant people. It was
the deliberate homage of each people to the great principle of our
federative union. If we consider the extent of territory involved in the
annexation, its prospective influence on America, the means by which it has
been accomplished, springing purely from the choice of the people
themselves to share the blessings of our union, the history of the world
may be challenged to furnish a parallel. The jurisdiction of the United
States, which at the formation of the Federal Constitution was bounded by
the St. Marys on the Atlantic, has passed the capes of Florida and been
peacefully extended to the Del Norte. In contemplating the grandeur of this
event it is not to be forgotten that the result was achieved in despite of
the diplomatic interference of European monarchies. Even France, the
country which had been our ancient ally, the country which has a common
interest with us in maintaining the freedom of the seas, the country which,
by the cession of Louisiana, first opened to us access to the Gulf of
Mexico, the country with which we have been every year drawing more and
more closely the bonds of successful commerce, most unexpectedly, and to
our unfeigned regret, took part in an effort to prevent annexation and to
impose on Texas, as a condition of the recognition of her independence by
Mexico, that she would never join herself to the United States. We may
rejoice that the tranquil and pervading influence of the American principle
of self-government was sufficient to defeat the purposes of British and
French interference, and that the almost unanimous voice of the people of
Texas has given to that interference a peaceful and effective rebuke. From
this example European Governments may learn how vain diplomatic arts and
intrigues must ever prove upon this continent against that system of
self-government which seems natural to our soil, and which will ever resist
foreign interference.

Toward Texas I do not doubt that a liberal and generous spirit will actuate
Congress in all that concerns her interests and prosperity, and that she
will never have cause to regret that she has united her "lone star" to our
glorious constellation.

I regret to inform you that our relations with Mexico since your last
session have not been of the amicable character which it is our desire to
cultivate with all foreign nations. On the 6th day of March last the
Mexican envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the United
States made a formal protest in the name of his Government against the
joint resolution passed by Congress "for the annexation of Texas to the
United States," which he chose to regard as a violation of the rights of
Mexico, and in consequence of it he demanded his passports. He was informed
that the Government of the United States did not consider this joint
resolution as a violation of any of the rights of Mexico, or that it
afforded any just cause of offense to his Government; that the Republic of
Texas was an independent power, owing no allegiance to Mexico and
constituting no part of her territory or rightful sovereignty and
jurisdiction. He was also assured that it was the sincere desire of this
Government to maintain with that of Mexico relations of peace and good
understanding. That functionary, however, notwithstanding these
representations and assurances, abruptly terminated his mission and shortly
afterwards left the country. Our envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary to Mexico was refused all official intercourse with that
Government, and, after remaining several months, by the permission of his
own Government he returned to the United States. Thus, by the acts of
Mexico, all diplomatic intercourse between the two countries was
suspended.

Since that time Mexico has until recently occupied an attitude of hostility
toward the United States--has been marshaling and organizing armies,
issuing proclamations, and avowing the intention to make war on the United
States, either by an open declaration or by invading Texas. Both the
Congress and convention of the people of Texas invited this Government to
send an army into that territory to protect and defend them against the
menaced attack. The moment the terms of annexation offered by the United
States were accepted by Texas the latter became so far a part of our own
country as to make it our duty to afford such protection and defense. I
therefore deemed it proper, as a precautionary measure, to order a strong
squadron to the coasts of Mexico and to concentrate an efficient military
force on the western frontier of Texas. Our Army was ordered to take
position in the country between the Nueces and the Del Norte, and to repel
any invasion of the Texan territory which might be attempted by the Mexican
forces. Our squadron in the Gulf was ordered to cooperate with the Army.
But though our Army and Navy were placed in a position to defend our own
and the rights of Texas, they were ordered to commit no act of hostility
against Mexico unless she declared war or was herself the aggressor by
striking the first blow. The result has been that Mexico has made no
aggressive movement, and our military and naval commanders have executed
their orders with such discretion that the peace of the two Republics has
not been disturbed. Texas had declared her independence and maintained it
by her arms for more than nine years. She has had an organized government
in successful operation during that period. Her separate existence as an
independent state had been recognized by the United States and the
principal powers of Europe. Treaties of commerce and navigation had been
concluded with her by different nations, and it had become manifest to the
whole world that any further attempt on the part of Mexico to conquer her
or overthrow her Government would be vain. Even Mexico herself had become
satisfied of this fact, and whilst the question of annexation was pending
before the people of Texas during the past summer the Government of Mexico,
by a formal act, agreed to recognize the independence of Texas on condition
that she would not annex herself to any other power. The agreement to
acknowledge the independence of Texas, whether with or without this
condition, is conclusive against Mexico. The independence of Texas is a
fact conceded by Mexico herself, and she had no right or authority to
prescribe restrictions as to the form of government which Texas might
afterwards choose to assume. But though Mexico can not complain of the
United States on account of the annexation of Texas, it is to be regretted
that serious causes of misunderstanding between the two countries continue
to exist, growing out of unredressed injuries inflicted by the Mexican
authorities and people on the persons and property of citizens of the
United States through a long series of years. Mexico has admitted these
injuries, but has neglected and refused to repair them. Such was the
character of the wrongs and such the insults repeatedly offered to American
citizens and the American flag by Mexico, in palpable violation of the laws
of nations and the treaty between the two countries of the 5th of April,
1831, that they have been repeatedly brought to the notice of Congress by
my predecessors. As early as the 6th of February, 1837, the President of
the United States declared in a message to Congress that--

The length of time since some of the injuries have been committed, the
repeated and unavailing applications for redress, the wanton character of
some of the outrages upon the property and persons of our citizens, upon
the officers and flag of the United States, independent of recent insults
to this Government and people by the late extraordinary Mexican minister,
would justify in the eyes of all nations immediate war.

He did not, however, recommend an immediate resort to this extreme measure,
which, he declared, "should not be used by just and generous nations,
confiding in their strength for injuries committed, if it can be honorably
avoided," but, in a spirit of forbearance, proposed that another demand be
made on Mexico for that redress which had been so long and unjustly
withheld. In these views committees of the two Houses of Congress, in
reports made to their respective bodies, concurred. Since these proceedings
more than eight years have elapsed, during which, in addition to the wrongs
then complained of, others of an aggravated character have been committed
on the persons and property of our citizens. A special agent was sent to
Mexico in the summer of 1838 with full authority to make another and final
demand for redress. The demand was made; the Mexican Government promised to
repair the wrongs of which we complained, and after much delay a treaty of
indemnity with that view was concluded between the two powers on the 11th
of April, 1839, and was duly ratified by both Governments. By this treaty a
joint commission was created to adjudicate and decide on the claims of
American citizens on the Government of Mexico. The commission was organized
at Washington on the 25th day of August, 1840. Their time was limited to
eighteen months, at the expiration of which they had adjudicated and
decided claims amounting to $2,026,139.68 in favor of citizens of the
United States against the Mexican Government, leaving a large amount of
claims undecided. Of the latter the American commissioners had decided in
favor of our citizens claims amounting to $928,627.88, which were left
unacted on by the umpire authorized by the treaty. Still further claims,
amounting to between three and four millions of dollars, were submitted to
the board too late to be considered, and were left undisposed of. The sum
of $2,026,139.68, decided by the board, was a liquidated and ascertained
debt due by Mexico to the claimants, and there was no justifiable reason
for delaying its payment according to the terms of the treaty. It was not,
however, paid. Mexico applied for further indulgence, and, in that spirit
of liberality and forbearance which has ever marked the policy of the
United States toward that Republic, the request was granted, and on the
30th of January, 1843, a new treaty was concluded. By this treaty it was
provided that the interest due on the awards in favor of claimants under
the convention of the 11th of April, 1839, should be paid out the 30th of
April, 1843, and that--

The principal of the said awards and the interest accruing thereon shall be
paid in five years, in equal installments every three months, the said term
of five years to commence on the 30th day of April, 1843, aforesaid.

The interest due on the 30th day of April, 1843, and the three first of the
twenty installments have been paid. Seventeen of these installments, remain
unpaid, seven of which are now due.

The claims which were left undecided by the joint commission, amounting to
more than $3,000,000, together with other claims for spoliations on the
property of our citizens, were subsequently presented to the Mexican
Government for payment, and were so far recognized that a treaty providing
for their examination and settlement by a joint commission was concluded
and signed at Mexico on the 20th day of November, 1843. This treaty was
ratified by the United States with certain amendments to which no just
exception could have been taken, but it has not yet received the
ratification of the Mexican Government. In the meantime our citizens, who
suffered great losses--and some of whom have been reduced from affluence to
bankruptcy--are without remedy unless their rights be enforced by their
Government. Such a continued and unprovoked series of wrongs could never
have been tolerated by the United States had they been committed by one of
the principal nations of Europe. Mexico was, however, a neighboring sister
republic, which, following our example, had achieved her independence, and
for whose success and prosperity all our sympathies were early enlisted.
The United States were the first to recognize her independence and to
receive her into the family of nations, and have ever been desirous of
cultivating with her a good understanding. We have therefore borne the
repeated wrongs she has committed with great patience, in the hope that a
returning sense of justice would ultimately guide her councils and that we
might, if possible, honorably avoid any hostile collision with her. Without
the previous authority of Congress the Executive possessed no power to
adopt or enforce adequate remedies for the injuries we had suffered, or to
do more than to be prepared to repel the threatened aggression on the part
of Mexico. After our Army and Navy had remained on the frontier and coasts
of Mexico for many weeks without any hostile movement on her part, though
her menaces were continued, I deemed it important to put an end, if
possible, to this state of things. With this view I caused steps to be
taken in the month of September last to ascertain distinctly and in an
authentic form what the designs of the Mexican Government were--whether it
was their intention to declare war, or invade Texas, or whether they were
disposed to adjust and settle in an amicable manner the pending differences
between the two countries. On the 9th of November an official answer was
received that the Mexican Government consented to renew the diplomatic
relations which had been suspended in March last, and for that purpose were
willing to accredit a minister from the United States. With a sincere
desire to preserve peace and restore relations of good understanding
between the two Republics, I waived all ceremony as to the manner of
renewing diplomatic intercourse between them, and, assuming the initiative,
on the 10th of November a distinguished citizen of Louisiana was appointed
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Mexico, clothed with
full powers to adjust and definitively settle all pending differences
between the two countries, including those of boundary between Mexico and
the State of Texas. The minister appointed has set out on his mission and
is probably by this time near the Mexican capital. He has been instructed
to bring the negotiation with which he is charged to a conclusion at the
earliest practicable period, which it is expected will be in time to enable
me to communicate the result to Congress during the present session. Until
that result is known I forbear to recommend to Congress such ulterior
measures of redress for the wrongs and injuries we have so long borne as it
would have been proper to make had no such negotiation been instituted.

Congress appropriated at the last session the sum of $275,000 for the
payment of the April and July installments of the Mexican indemnities for
the year 1844:

Provided it shall be ascertained to the satisfaction of the American
Government that said installments have been paid by the Mexican Government
to the agent appointed by the United States to receive the same in such
manner as to discharge all claim on the Mexican Government, and said agent
to be delinquent in remitting the money to the United States.

The unsettled state of our relations with Mexico has involved this subject
in much mystery. The first information in an authentic form from the agent
of the United States, appointed under the Administration of my predecessor,
was received at the State Department on the 9th of November last. This is
contained in a letter, dated the 17th of October, addressed by him to one
of our citizens then in Mexico with a view of having it communicated to
that Department. From this it appears that the agent on the 20th of
September, 1844, gave a receipt to the treasury of Mexico for the amount of
the April and July installments of the indemnity. In the same
communication, however, he asserts that he had not received a single dollar
in cash, but that he holds such securities as warranted him at the time in
giving the receipt, and entertains no doubt but that he will eventually
obtain the money. As these installments appear never to have been actually
paid by the Government of Mexico to the agent, and as that Government has
not, therefore, been released so as to discharge the claim, I do not feel
myself warranted in directing payment to be made to the claimants out of
the Treasury without further legislation. Their case is undoubtedly one of
much hardship, and it remains for Congress to decide whether any, and what,
relief ought to be granted to them. Our minister to Mexico has been
instructed to ascertain the facts of the case from the Mexican Government
in an authentic and official form and report the result with as little
delay as possible.

My attention was early directed to the negotiation which on the 4th of
March last I found pending at Washington between the United States and
Great Britain on the subject of the Oregon Territory. Three several
attempts had been previously made to settle the questions in dispute
between the two countries by negotiation upon the principle of compromise,
but each had proved unsuccessful. These negotiations took place at London
in the years 1818, 1824, and 1826--the two first under the Administration
of Mr. Monroe and the last under that of Mr. Adams. The negotiation of
1818, having failed to accomplish its object, resulted in the convention of
the 20th of October of that year.

By the third article of that convention it was--

Agreed that any country that may be claimed by either party on the
northwest coast of America westward of the Stony Mountains shall, together
with its harbors, bays, and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within
the same, be free and open for the term of ten years from the date of the
signature of the present convention to the vessels, citizens, and subjects
of the two powers; it being well understood that this agreement is not to
be construed to the prejudice of any claim which either of the two high
contracting parties may have to any part of the said country, nor shall it
be taken to affect the claims of any other power or state to any part of
the said country, the only object of the high contracting parties in that
respect being to prevent disputes and differences amongst themselves.

The negotiation of 1824 was productive of no result, and the convention of
1818 was left unchanged.

The negotiation of 1826, having also failed to effect an adjustment by
compromise, resulted in the convention of August 6, 1827, by which it was
agreed to continue in force for an indefinite period the provisions of the
third article of the convention of the 20th of October, 1818; and it was
further provided that--

It shall be competent, however, to either of the contracting parties, in
case either should think fit, at any time after the 20th of October, 1828,
on giving due notice of twelve months to the other contracting party, to
annul and abrogate this convention; and it shall in such case be
accordingly entirely annulled and abrogated after the expiration of the
said term of notice.

In these attempts to adjust the controversy the parallel of the forty-ninth
degree of north latitude had been offered by the United States to Great
Britain, and in those of 1818 and 1826, with a further concession of the
free navigation of the Columbia River south of that latitude. The parallel
of the forty-ninth degree from the Rocky Mountains to its intersection with
the northeasternmost branch of the Columbia, and thence down the channel of
that river to the sea, had been offered by Great Britain, with an addition
of a small detached territory north of the Columbia. Each of these
propositions had been rejected by the parties respectively. In October,
1843, the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United
States in London was authorized to make a similar offer to those made in
1818 and 1826. Thus stood the question when the negotiation was shortly
afterwards transferred to Washington, and on the 23d of August, 1844, was
formally opened under the direction of my immediate predecessor. Like all
the previous negotiations, it was based upon principles of "compromise,"
and the avowed purpose of the parties was "to treat of the respective
claims of the two countries to the Oregon Territory with the view to
establish a permanent boundary between them westward of the Rocky Mountains
to the Pacific Ocean."

Accordingly, on the 26th of August, 1844, the British plenipotentiary
offered to divide the Oregon Territory by the forty-ninth parallel of north
latitude from the Rocky Mountains to the point of its intersection with the
northeasternmost branch of the Columbia River, and thence down that river
to the sea, leaving the free navigation of the river to be enjoyed in
common by both parties, the country south of this line to belong to the
United States and that north of it to Great Britain. At the same time he
proposed in addition to yield to the United States a detached territory
north of the Columbia extending along the Pacific and the Straits of Fuca
from Bulfinchs Harbor, inclusive, to Hoods Canal, and to make free to the
United States any port or ports south of latitude 49° which they might
desire, either on the mainland or on Quadra and Vancouvers Island. With the
exception of the free ports, this was the same offer which had been made by
the British and rejected by the American Government in the negotiation of
1826. This proposition was properly rejected by the American
plenipotentiary on the day it was submitted. This was the only proposition
of compromise offered by the British plenipotentiary. The proposition on
the part of Great Britain having been rejected, the British plenipotentiary
requested that a proposal should be made by the United States for "an
equitable adjustment of the question." When I came into office I found this
to be the state of the negotiation. Though entertaining the settled
conviction that the British pretensions of title could not be maintained to
any portion of the Oregon Territory upon any principle of public law
recognized by nations, yet in deference to what had been done by my
predecessors, and especially in consideration that propositions of
compromise had been thrice made by two preceding Administrations to adjust
the question on the parallel of 49°, and in two of them yielding to
Great Britain the free navigation of the Columbia, and that the pending
negotiation had been commenced on the basis of compromise, I deemed it to
be my duty not abruptly to break it off. In consideration, too, that under
the conventions of 1818 and 1827 the citizens and subjects of the two
powers held a joint occupancy of the country, I was induced to make another
effort to settle this long-pending controversy in the spirit of moderation
which had given birth to the renewed discussion. A proposition was
accordingly made, which was rejected by the British plenipotentiary, who,
without submitting any other proposition, suffered the negotiation on his
part to drop, expressing his trust that the United States would offer what
he saw fit to call "some further proposal for the settlement of the Oregon
question more consistent with fairness and equity and with the reasonable
expectations of the British Government." The proposition thus offered and
rejected repeated the offer of the parallel of 49° of north latitude,
which had been made by two preceding Administrations, but without proposing
to surrender to Great Britain, as they had done, the free navigation of the
Columbia River. The right of any foreign power to the free navigation of
any of our rivers through the heart of our country was one which I was
unwilling to concede. It also embraced a provision to make free to Great
Britain any port or ports on the cap of Quadra and Vancouvers Island south
of this parallel. Had this been a new question, coming under discussion for
the first time, this proposition would not have been made. The
extraordinary and wholly inadmissible demands of the British Government and
the rejection of the proposition made in deference alone to what had been
done by my predecessors and the implied obligation which their acts seemed
to impose afford satisfactory evidence that no compromise which the United
States ought to accept can be effected. With this conviction the
proposition of compromise which had been made and rejected was by my
direction subsequently withdrawn and our title to the whole Oregon
Territory asserted, and, as is believed, maintained by irrefragable facts
and arguments.

The civilized world will see in these proceedings a spirit of liberal
concession on the part of the United States, and this Government will be
relieved from all responsibility which may follow the failure to settle the
controversy.

All attempts at compromise having failed, it becomes the duty of Congress
to consider what measures it may be proper to adopt for the security and
protection of our citizens now inhabiting or who may hereafter inhabit
Oregon, and for the maintenance of our just title to that Territory. In
adopting measures for this purpose care should be taken that nothing be
done to violate the stipulations of the convention of 1827, which is still
in force. The faith of treaties, in their letter and spirit, has ever been,
and, I trust, will ever be, scrupulously observed by the United States.
Under that convention a year's notice is required to be given by either
party to the other before the joint occupancy shall terminate and before
either can rightfully assert or exercise exclusive jurisdiction over any
portion of the territory. This notice it would, in my judgment, be proper
to give, and I recommend that provision be made by law for giving it
accordingly, and terminating in this manner the convention of the 6th of
August, 1827.

It will become proper for Congress to determine what legislation they can
in the meantime adopt without violating this convention. Beyond all
question the protection of our laws and our jurisdiction, civil and
criminal, ought to be immediately extended over our citizens in Oregon.
They have had just cause to complain of our long neglect in this
particular, and have in consequence been compelled for their own security
and protection to establish a provisional government for themselves. Strong
in their allegiance and ardent in their attachment to the United States,
they have been thus cast upon their own resources. They are anxious that
our laws should be extended over them, and I recommend that this be done by
Congress with as little delay as possible in the full extent to which the
British Parliament have proceeded in regard to British subjects in that
Territory by their act of July 2, 1821, "for regulating the fur trade and
establishing a criminal and civil jurisdiction within certain parts of
North America." By this act Great Britain extended her laws and
jurisdiction, civil and criminal, over her subjects engaged in the fur
trade in that Territory. By it the courts of the Province of Upper Canada
were empowered to take cognizance of causes civil and criminal. Justices of
the peace and other judicial officers were authorized to be appointed in
Oregon with power to execute all process issuing from the courts of that
Province, and to "sit and hold courts of record for the trial of criminal
offenses and misdemeanors" not made the subject of capital punishment, and
also of civil cases where the cause of action shall not "exceed in value
the amount or sum of lbs. 200."

Subsequent to the date of this act of Parliament a grant was made from the
"British Crown" to the Hudsons Bay Company of the exclusive trade with the
Indian tribes in the Oregon Territory, subject to a reservation that it
shall not operate to the exclusion "of the subjects of any foreign states
who, under or by force of any convention for the time being between us and
such foreign states, respectively, may be entitled to and shall be engaged
in the said trade." It is much to be regretted that while under this act
British subjects have enjoyed the protection of British laws and British
judicial tribunals throughout the whole of Oregon, American citizens in the
same Territory have enjoyed no such protection from their Government. At
the same time, the result illustrates the character of our people and their
institutions. In spite of this neglect they have multiplied, and their
number is rapidly increasing in that Territory. They have made no appeal to
arms, but have peacefully fortified themselves in their new homes by the
adoption of republican institutions for themselves, furnishing another
example of the truth that self-government is inherent in the American
breast and must prevail. It is due to them that they should be embraced and
protected by our laws. It is deemed important that our laws regulating
trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes east of the Rocky Mountains
should be extended to such tribes as dwell beyond them. The increasing
emigration to Oregon and the care and protection which is due from the
Government to its citizens in that distant region make it our duty, as it
is our interest, to cultivate amicable relations with the Indian tribes of
that Territory. For this purpose I recommend that provision be made for
establishing an Indian agency and such subagencies as may be deemed
necessary beyond the Rocky Mountains.

For the protection of emigrants whilst on their way to Oregon against the
attacks of the Indian tribes occupying the country through which they pass,
I recommend that a suitable number of stockades and blockhouse forts be
erected along the usual route between our frontier settlements on the
Missouri and the Rocky Mountains, and that an adequate force of mounted
riflemen be raised to guard and protect them on their journey. The
immediate adoption of these recommendations by Congress will not violate
the provisions of the existing treaty. It will be doing nothing more for
American citizens than British laws have long since done for British
subjects in the same territory.

It requires several months to perform the voyage by sea from the Atlantic
States to Oregon, and although we have a large number of whale ships in the
Pacific, but few of them afford an opportunity of interchanging
intelligence without great delay between our settlements in that distant
region and the United States. An overland mail is believed to be entirely
practicable, and the importance of establishing such a mail at least once a
month is submitted to the favorable consideration of Congress.

It is submitted to the wisdom of Congress to determine whether at their
present session, and until after the expiration of the year's notice, any
other measures may be adopted consistently with the convention of 1827 for
the security of our rights and the government and protection of our
citizens in Oregon. That it will ultimately be wise and proper to make
liberal grants of land to the patriotic pioneers who amidst privations and
dangers lead the way through savage tribes inhabiting the vast wilderness
intervening between our frontier settlements and Oregon, and who cultivate
and are ever ready to defend the soil, I am fully satisfied. To doubt
whether they will obtain such grants as soon as the convention between the
United States and Great Britain shall have ceased to exist would be to
doubt the justice of Congress; but, pending the year's notice, it is worthy
of consideration whether a stipulation to this effect may be made
consistently with the spirit of that convention.

The recommendations which I have made as to the best manner of securing our
rights in Oregon are submitted to Congress with great deference. Should
they in their wisdom devise any other mode better calculated to accomplish
the same object, it shall meet with my hearty concurrence.

At the end of the year's notice, should Congress think it proper to make
provision for giving that notice, we shall have reached a period when the
national rights in Oregon must either be abandoned or firmly maintained.
That they can not be abandoned without a sacrifice of both national honor
and interest is too clear to admit of doubt.

Oregon is a part of the North American continent, to which, it is
confidently affirmed, the title of the United States is the best now in
existence. For the grounds on which that title rests I refer you to the
correspondence of the late and present Secretary of State with the British
plenipotentiary during the negotiation. The British proposition of
compromise, which would make the Columbia the line south of 49°, with a
trifling addition of detached territory to the United States north of that
river, and would leave on the British side two-thirds of the whole Oregon
Territory, including the free navigation of the Columbia and all the
valuable harbors on the Pacific, can never for a moment be entertained by
the United States without an abandonment of their just and dear territorial
rights, their own self-respect, and the national honor. For the information
of Congress, I communicate herewith the correspondence which took place
between the two Governments during the late negotiation.

The rapid extension of our settlements over our territories heretofore
unoccupied, the addition of new States to our Confederacy, the expansion of
free principles, and our rising greatness as a nation are attracting the
attention of the powers of Europe, and lately the doctrine has been
broached in some of them of a "balance of power" on this continent to check
our advancement. The United States, sincerely desirous of preserving
relations of good understanding with all nations, can not in silence permit
any European interference on the North American continent, and should any
such interference be attempted will be ready to resist it at any and all
hazards.

It is well known to the American people and to all nations that this
Government has never interfered with the relations subsisting between other
governments. We have never made ourselves parties to their wars or their
alliances; we have not sought their territories by conquest; we have not
mingled with parties in their domestic struggles; and believing our own
form of government to be the best, we have never attempted to propagate it
by intrigues, by diplomacy, or by force. We may claim on this continent a
like exemption from European interference. The nations of America are
equally sovereign and independent with those of Europe. They possess the
same rights, independent of all foreign interposition, to make war, to
conclude peace, and to regulate their internal affairs. The people of the
United States can not, therefore, view with indifference attempts of
European powers to interfere with the independent action of the nations on
this continent. The American system of government is entirely different
from that of Europe. Jealousy among the different sovereigns of Europe,
lest any one of them might become too powerful for the rest, has caused
them anxiously to desire the establishment of what they term the "balance
of power." It can not be permitted to have any application on the North
American continent, and especially to the United States. We must ever
maintain the principle that the people of this continent alone have the
right to decide their own destiny. Should any portion of them, constituting
an independent state, propose to unite themselves with our Confederacy,
this will be a question for them and us to determine without any foreign
interposition. We can never consent that European powers shall interfere to
prevent such a union because it might disturb the "balance of power" which
they may desire to maintain upon this continent. Near a quarter of a
century ago the principle was distinctly announced to the world, in the
annual message of one of my predecessors, that--

The American continents, by the free and independent condition which they
have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects
for colonization by any European powers.

This principle will apply with greatly increased force should any European
power attempt to establish any new colony in North America. In the existing
circumstances of the world the present is deemed a proper occasion to
reiterate and reaffirm the principle avowed by Mr. Monroe and to state my
cordial concurrence in its wisdom and sound policy. The reassertion of this
principle, especially in reference to North America, is at this day but the
promulgation of a policy which no European power should cherish the
disposition to resist. Existing rights of every European nation should be
respected, but it is due alike to our safety and our interests that the
efficient protection of our laws should be extended over our whole
territorial limits, and that it should be distinctly announced to the world
as our settled policy that no future European colony or dominion shall with
our consent be planted or established on any part of the North American
continent.

A question has recently arisen under the tenth article of the subsisting
treaty between the United States and Prussia. By this article the consuls
of the two countries have the right to sit as judges and arbitrators "in
such differences as may arise between the captains and crews of the vessels
belonging to the nation whose interests are committed to their charge
without the interference of the local authorities, unless the conduct of
the crews or of the captain should disturb the order or tranquillity of the
country, or the said consuls should require their assistance to cause their
decisions to be carried into effect or supported."

The Prussian consul at New Bedford in June, 1844, applied to Mr. Justice
Story to carry into effect a decision made by him between the captain and
crew of the Prussian ship Borussia, but the request was refused on the
ground that without previous legislation by Congress the judiciary did not
possess the power to give effect to this article of the treaty. The
Prussian Government, through their minister here, have complained of this
violation of the treaty, and have asked the Government of the United States
to adopt the necessary measures to prevent similar violations hereafter.
Good faith to Prussia, as well as to other nations with whom we have
similar treaty stipulations, requires that these should be faithfully
observed. I have deemed it proper, therefore, to lay the subject before
Congress and to recommend such legislation as may be necessary to give
effect to these treaty obligations.

By virtue of an arrangement made between the Spanish Government and that of
the United States in December, 1831, American vessels, since the 29th of
April, 1832, have been admitted to entry in the ports of Spain, including
those of the Balearic and Canary islands, on payment of the same tonnage
duty of 5 cents per ton, as though they had been Spanish vessels; and this
whether our vessels arrive in Spain directly from the United States or
indirectly from any other country. When Congress, by the act of 13th July,
1832, gave effect to this arrangement between the two Governments, they
confined the reduction of tonnage duty merely to Spanish vessels "coming
from a port in Spain," leaving the former discriminating duty to remain
against such vessels coming from a port in any other country. It is
manifestly unjust that whilst American vessels arriving in the ports of
Spain from other countries pay no more duty than Spanish vessels, Spanish
vessels arriving in the ports of the United States from other countries
should be subjected to heavy discriminating tonnage duties. This is neither
equality nor reciprocity, and is in violation of the arrangement concluded
in December, 1831, between the two countries. The Spanish Government have
made repeated and earnest remonstrances against this inequality, and the
favorable attention of Congress has been several times invoked to the
subject by my predecessors. I recommend, as an act of justice to Spain,
that this inequality be removed by Congress and that the discriminating
duties which have been levied under the act of the 13th of July, 1832, on
Spanish vessels coming to the United States from any other foreign country
be refunded. This recommendation does not embrace Spanish vessels arriving
in the United States from Cuba and Porto Rico, which will still remain
subject to the provisions of the act of June 30, 1834, concerning tonnage
duty on such vessels. By the act of the 14th of July, 1832, coffee was
exempted from duty altogether. This exemption was universal, without
reference to the country where it was produced or the national character of
the vessel in which it was imported. By the tariff act of the 30th of
August, 1842, this exemption from duty was restricted to coffee imported in
American vessels from the place of its production, whilst coffee imported
under all other circumstances was subjected to a duty of 20 per cent ad
valorem. Under this act and our existing treaty with the King of the
Netherlands Java coffee imported from the European ports of that Kingdom
into the United States, whether in Dutch or American vessels, now pays this
rate of duty. The Government of the Netherlands complains that such a
discriminating duty should have been imposed on coffee the production of
one of its colonies, and which is chiefly brought from Java to the ports of
that Kingdom and exported from thence to foreign countries. Our trade with
the Netherlands is highly beneficial to both countries and our relations
with them have ever been of the most friendly character. Under all the
circumstances of the case, I recommend that this discrimination should be
abolished and that the coffee of Java imported from the Netherlands be
placed upon the same footing with that imported directly from Brazil and
other countries where it is produced.

Under the eighth section of the tariff act of the 30th of August, 1842, a
duty of 15 cents per gallon was imposed on port wine in casks, while on the
red wines of several other countries, when imported in casks, a duty of
only 6 cents per gallon was imposed. This discrimination, so far as
regarded the port wine of Portugal, was deemed a violation of our treaty
with that power, which provides that--

No higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the
United States of America of any article the growth, produce, or manufacture
of the Kingdom and possessions of Portugal than such as are or shall be
payable on the like article being the growth, produce, or manufacture of
any other foreign country.

Accordingly, to give effect to the treaty as well as to the intention of
Congress, expressed in a proviso to the tariff act itself, that nothing
therein contained should be so construed as to interfere with subsisting
treaties with foreign nations, a Treasury circular was issued on the 16th
of July, 1844, which, among other things, declared the duty on the port
wine of Portugal, in casks, under the existing laws and treaty to be 6
cents per gallon, and directed that the excess of duties which had been
collected on such wine should be refunded. By virtue of another clause in
the same section of the act it is provided that all imitations of port or
any other wines "shall be subject to the duty provided for the genuine
article." Imitations of port wine, the production of France, are imported
to some extent into the United States, and the Government of that country
now claims that under a correct construction of the act these imitations
ought not to pay a higher duty than that imposed upon the original port
wine of Portugal. It appears to me to be unequal and unjust that French
imitations of port wine should be subjected to a duty of 15 cents, while
the more valuable article from Portugal should pay a duty of 6 cents only
per gallon. I therefore recommend to Congress such legislation as may be
necessary to correct the inequality.

The late President, in his annual message of December last, recommended an
appropriation to satisfy the claims of the Texan Government against the
United States, which had been previously adjusted so far as the powers of
the Executive extend. These claims arose out of the act of disarming a body
of Texan troops under the command of Major Snively by an officer in the
service of the United States, acting under the orders of our Government,
and the forcible entry into the custom-house at Bryarlys Landing, on Red
River, by certain citizens of the United States and taking away therefrom
the goods seized by the collector of the customs as forfeited under the
laws of Texas. This was a liquidated debt ascertained to be due to Texas
when an independent state. Her acceptance of the terms of annexation
proposed by the United States does not discharge or invalidate the claim. I
recommend that provision be made for its payment.

The commissioner appointed to China during the special session of the
Senate in March last shortly afterwards set out on his mission in the
United States ship Columbus. On arriving at Rio de Janeiro on his passage
the state of his health had become so critical that by the advice of his
medical attendants he returned to the United States early in the month of
October last. Commodore Biddle, commanding the East India Squadron,
proceeded on his voyage in the Columbus, and was charged by the
commissioner with the duty of exchanging with the proper authorities the
ratifications of the treaty lately concluded with the Emperor of China.
Since the return of the commissioner to the United States his health has
been much improved, and he entertains the confident belief that he will
soon be able to proceed on his mission.

Unfortunately, differences continue to exist among some of the nations of
South America which, following our example, have established their
independence, while in others internal dissensions prevail. It is natural
that our sympathies should be warmly enlisted for their welfare; that we
should desire that all controversies between them should be amicably
adjusted and their Governments administered in a manner to protect the
rights and promote the prosperity of their people. It is contrary, however,
to our settled policy to interfere in their controversies, whether external
or internal.

I have thus adverted to all the subjects connected with our foreign
relations to which I deem it necessary to call your attention. Our policy
is not only peace with all, but good will toward all the powers of the
earth. While we are just to all, we require that all shall be just to us.
Excepting the differences with Mexico and Great Britain, our relations with
all civilized nations are of the most satisfactory character. It is hoped
that in this enlightened age these differences may be amicably adjusted.

The Secretary of the Treasury in his annual report to Congress will
communicate a full statement of the condition of our finances. The imports
for the fiscal year ending on the 30th of June last were of the value of
$117,254,564, of which the amount exported was $15,346,830, leaving a
balance of $101,907,734 for domestic consumption. The exports for the same
year were of the value of $114,646,606, of which the amount of domestic
articles was $99,299,776. The receipts into the Treasury during the same
year were $29,769,133.56, of which there were derived from customs
$27,528,122.70, from sales of public lands $2,077,022.30, and from
incidental and miscellaneous sources $163,998.56. The expenditures for the
same period were $29,968,206.98, of which $8,588,157.62 were applied to the
payment of the public debt. The balance in the Treasury on the 1st of July
last was $7,658,306.22. The amount of the public debt remaining unpaid on
the 1st of October last was $17,075,445.52. Further payments of the public
debt would have been made, in anticipation of the period of its
reimbursement under the authority conferred upon the Secretary of the
Treasury by the acts of July 21, 1841, and of April 15, 1842, and March 3,
1843, had not the unsettled state of our relations with Mexico menaced
hostile collision with that power. In view of such a contingency it was
deemed prudent to retain in the Treasury an amount unusually large for
ordinary purposes.

A few years ago our whole national debt growing out of the Revolution and
the War of 1812 with Great Britain was extinguished, and we presented to
the world the rare and noble spectacle of a great and growing people who
had fully discharged every obligation. Since that time the existing debt
has been contracted, and, small as it is in comparison with the similar
burdens of most other nations, it should be extinguished at the earliest
practicable period. Should the state of the country permit, and especially
if our foreign relations interpose no obstacle, it is contemplated to apply
all the moneys in the Treasury as they accrue, beyond what is required for
the appropriations by Congress, to its liquidation. I cherish the hope of
soon being able to congratulate the country on its recovering once more the
lofty position which it so recently occupied. Our country, which exhibits
to the world the benefits of self-government, in developing all the sources
of national prosperity owes to mankind the permanent example of a nation
free from the blighting influence of a public debt.

The attention of Congress is invited to the importance of making suitable
modifications and reductions of the rates of duty imposed by our present
tariff laws. The object of imposing duties on imports should be to raise
revenue to pay the necessary expenses of Government. Congress may
undoubtedly, in the exercise of a sound discretion, discriminate in
arranging the rates of duty on different articles, but the discriminations
should be within the revenue standard and be made with the view to raise
money for the support of Government.

It becomes important to understand distinctly what is meant by a revenue
standard the maximum of which should not be exceeded in the rates of duty
imposed. It is conceded, and experience proves, that duties may be laid so
high as to diminish or prohibit altogether the importation of any given
article, and thereby lessen or destroy the revenue which at lower rates
would be derived from its importation. Such duties exceed the revenue rates
and are not imposed to raise money for the support of Government. If
Congress levy a duty for revenue of 1 per cent on a given article, it will
produce a given amount of money to the Treasury and will incidentally and
necessarily afford protection or advantage to the amount of 1 per cent to
the home manufacturer of a similar or like article over the importer. If
the duty be raised to 10 per cent, it will produce a greater amount of
money and afford greater protection. If it be still raised to 20, 25, or 30
per cent, and if as it is raised the revenue derived from it is found to be
increased, the protection or advantage will also be increased; but if it be
raised to 31 per cent, and it is found that the revenue produced at that
rate is less than at 30 per cent, it ceases to be a revenue duty. The
precise point in the ascending scale of duties at which it is ascertained
from experience that the revenue is greatest is the maximum rate of duty
which can be laid for the bona fide purpose of collecting money for the
support of Government. To raise the duties higher than that point, and
thereby diminish the amount collected, is to levy them for protection
merely, and not for revenue. As long, then, as Congress may gradually
increase the rate of duty on a given article, and the revenue is increased
by such increase of duty, they are within the revenue standard. When they
go beyond that point, and as they increase the duties, the revenue is
diminished or destroyed; the act ceases to have for its object the raising
of money to support Government, but is for protection merely. It does not
follow that Congress should levy the highest duty on all articles of import
which they will bear within the revenue standard, for such rates would
probably produce a much larger amount than the economical administration of
the Government would require. Nor does it follow that the duties on all
articles should be at the same or a horizontal rate. Some articles will
bear a much higher revenue duty than others. Below the maximum of the
revenue standard Congress may and ought to discriminate in the rates
imposed, taking care so to adjust them on different articles as to produce
in the aggregate the amount which, when added to the proceeds of the sales
of public lands, may be needed to pay the economical expenses of the
Government.

In levying a tariff of duties Congress exercise the taxing power, and for
purposes of revenue may select the objects of taxation. They may exempt
certain articles altogether and permit their importation free of duty. On
others they may impose low duties. In these classes should be embraced such
articles of necessity as are in general use, and especially such as are
consumed by the laborer and poor as well as by the wealthy citizen. Care
should be taken that all the great interests of the country, including
manufactures, agriculture, commerce, navigation, and the mechanic arts,
should, as far as may be practicable, derive equal advantages from the
incidental protection which a just system of revenue duties may afford.
Taxation, direct or indirect, is a burden, and it should be so imposed as
to operate as equally as may be on all classes in the proportion of their
ability to bear it. To make the taxing power an actual benefit to one class
necessarily increases the burden of the others beyond their proportion, and
would be manifestly unjust. The terms "protection to domestic industry" are
of popular import, but they should apply under a just system to all the
various branches of industry in our country. The farmer or planter who
toils yearly in his fields is engaged in "domestic industry," and is as
much entitled to have his labor "protected" as the manufacturer, the man of
commerce, the navigator, or the mechanic, who are engaged also in "domestic
industry" in their different pursuits. The joint labors of all these
classes constitute the aggregate of the "domestic industry" of the nation,
and they are equally entitled to the nation's "protection." No one of them
can justly claim to be the exclusive recipient of "protection," which can
only be afforded by increasing burdens on the "domestic industry" of the
others.

If these views be correct, it remains to inquire how far the tariff act of
1842 is consistent with them. That many of the provisions of that act are
in violation of the cardinal principles here laid down all must concede.
The rates of duty imposed by it on some articles are prohibitory and on
others so high as greatly to diminish importations and to produce a less
amount of revenue than would be derived from lower rates. They operate as
"protection merely" to one branch of "domestic industry" by taxing other
branches.

By the introduction of minimums, or assumed and false values, and by the
imposition of specific duties the injustice and inequality of the act of
1842 in its practical operations on different classes and pursuits are seen
and felt. Many of the oppressive duties imposed by it under the operation
of these principles range from 1 per cent to more than 200 per cent. They
are prohibitory on some articles and partially so on others, and bear most
heavily on articles of common necessity and but lightly on articles of
luxury. It is so framed that much the greatest burden which it imposes is
thrown on labor and the poorer classes, who are least able to bear it,
while it protects capital and exempts the rich from paying their just
proportion of the taxation required for the support of Government. While it
protects the capital of the wealthy manufacturer and increases his profits,
it does not benefit the operatives or laborers in his employment, whose
wages have not been increased by it. Articles of prime necessity or of
coarse quality and low price, used by the masses of the people, are in many
instances subjected by it to heavy taxes, while articles of finer quality
and higher price, or of luxury, which can be used only by the opulent, are
lightly taxed. It imposes heavy and unjust burdens on the farmer, the
planter, the commercial man, and those of all other pursuits except the
capitalist who has made his investments in manufactures. All the great
interests of the country are not as nearly as may be practicable equally
protected by it.

The Government in theory knows no distinction of persons or classes, and
should not bestow upon some favors and privileges which all others may not
enjoy. It was the purpose of its illustrious founders to base the
institutions which they reared upon the great and unchanging principles of
justice and equity, conscious that if administered in the spirit in which
they were conceived they would be felt only by the benefits which they
diffused, and would secure for themselves a defense in the hearts of the
people more powerful than standing armies and all the means and appliances
invented to sustain governments founded in injustice and oppression.

The well-known fact that the tariff act of 1842 was passed by a majority of
one vote in the Senate and two in the House of Representatives, and that
some of those who felt themselves constrained, under the peculiar
circumstances existing at the time, to vote in its favor, proclaimed its
defects and expressed their determination to aid in its modification on the
first opportunity, affords strong and conclusive evidence that it was not
intended to be permanent, and of the expediency and necessity of its
thorough revision.

In recommending to Congress a reduction of the present rates of duty and a
revision and modification of the act of 1842, I am far from entertaining
opinions unfriendly to the manufacturers. On the contrary, I desire to see
them prosperous as far as they can be so without imposing unequal burdens
on other interests. The advantage under any system of indirect taxation,
even within the revenue standard, must be in favor of the manufacturing
interest, and of this no other interest will complain.

I recommend to Congress the abolition of the minimum principle, or assumed,
arbitrary, and false values, and of specific duties, and the substitution
in their place of ad valorem duties as the fairest and most equitable
indirect tax which can be imposed. By the ad valorem principle all articles
are taxed according to their cost or value, and those which are of inferior
quality or of small cost bear only the just proportion of the tax with
those which are of superior quality or greater cost. The articles consumed
by all are taxed at the same rate. A system of ad valorem revenue duties,
with proper discriminations and proper guards against frauds in collecting
them, it is not doubted will afford ample incidental advantages to the
manufacturers and enable them to derive as great profits as can be derived
from any other regular business. It is believed that such a system strictly
within the revenue standard will place the manufacturing interests on a
stable footing and inure to their permanent advantage, while it will as
nearly as may be practicable extend to all the great interests of the
country the incidental protection which can be afforded by our revenue
laws. Such a system, when once firmly established, would be permanent, and
not be subject to the constant complaints, agitations, and changes which
must ever occur when duties are not laid for revenue, but for the
"protection merely" of a favored interest.

In the deliberations of Congress on this subject it is hoped that a spirit
of mutual concession and compromise between conflicting interests may
prevail, and that the result of their labors may be crowned with the
happiest consequences.

By the Constitution of the United States it is provided that "no money
shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made
by law." A public treasury was undoubtedly contemplated and intended to be
created, in which the public money should be kept from the period of
collection until needed for public uses. In the collection and disbursement
of the public money no agencies have ever been employed by law except such
as were appointed by the Government, directly responsible to it and under
its control. The safe-keeping of the public money should be confided to a
public treasury created by law and under like responsibility and control.
It is not to be imagined that the framers of the Constitution could have
intended that a treasury should be created as a place of deposit and
safe-keeping of the public money which was irresponsible to the Government.
The first Congress under the Constitution, by the act of the 2d of
September, 1789, "to establish the Treasury Department," provided for the
appointment of a Treasurer, and made it his duty "to receive and keep the
moneys of the United States" and "at all times to submit to the Secretary
of the Treasury and the Comptroller, or either of them, the inspection of
the moneys in his hands."

That banks, national or State, could not have been intended to be used as a
substitute for the Treasury spoken of in the Constitution as keepers of the
public money is manifest from the fact that at that time there was no
national bank, and but three or four State banks, of limited Capital,
existed in the country. Their employment as depositories was at first
resorted to to a limited extent, but with no avowed intention of continuing
them permanently in place of the Treasury of the Constitution. When they
were afterwards from time to time employed, it was from motives of supposed
convenience. Our experience has shown that when banking corporations have
been the keepers of the public money, and been thereby made in effect the
Treasury, the Government can have no guaranty that it can command the use
of its own money for public purposes. The late Bank of the United States
proved to be faithless. The State banks which were afterwards employed were
faithless. But a few years ago, with millions of public money in their
keeping, the Government was brought almost to bankruptcy and the public
credit seriously impaired because of their inability or indisposition to
pay on demand to the public creditors in the only currency recognized by
the Constitution. Their failure occurred in a period of peace, and great
inconvenience and loss were suffered by the public from it. Had the country
been involved in a foreign war, that inconvenience and loss would have been
much greater, and might have resulted in extreme public calamity. The
public money should not be mingled with the private funds of banks or
individuals or be used for private purposes. When it is placed in banks for
safe-keeping, it is in effect loaned to them without interest, and is
loaned by them upon interest to the borrowers from them. The public money
is converted into banking capital, and is used and loaned out for the
private profit of bank stockholders, and when called for, as was the case
in 1837, it may be in the pockets of the borrowers from the banks instead
of being in the public Treasury contemplated by the Constitution. The
framers of the Constitution could never have intended that the money paid
into the Treasury should be thus converted to private use and placed beyond
the control of the Government.

Banks which hold the public money are often tempted by a desire of gain to
extend their loans, increase their circulation, and thus stimulate, if not
produce, a spirit of speculation and extravagance which sooner or later
must result in ruin to thousands. If the public money be not permitted to
be thus used, but be kept in the Treasure and paid out to the public
creditors in gold and silver, the temptation afforded by its deposit with
banks to an undue expansion of their business would be checked, while the
amount of the constitutional currency left in circulation would be enlarged
by its employment in the public collections and disbursements, and the
banks themselves would in consequence be found in a safer and sounder
condition. At present State banks are employed as depositories, but without
adequate regulation of law whereby the public money can be secured against
the casualties and excesses, revulsions, suspensions, and defalcations to
which from overissues, overtrading, an inordinate desire for gain, or other
causes they are constantly exposed. The Secretary of the Treasury has in
all cases when it was practicable taken collateral security for the amount
which they hold, by the pledge of stocks of the United States or such of
the States as were in good credit. Some of the deposit banks have given
this description of security and others have declined to do so.

Entertaining the opinion that "the separation of the moneys of the
Government from banking institutions is indispensable for the safety of the
funds of the Government and the rights of the people," I recommend to
Congress that provision be made by law for such separation, and that a
constitutional treasury be created for the safe-keeping of the public
money. The constitutional treasury recommended is designed as a secure
depository for the public money, without any power to make loans or
discounts or to issue any paper whatever as a currency or circulation. I
can not doubt that such a treasury as was contemplated by the Constitution
should be independent of all banking corporations. The money of the people
should be kept in the Treasury of the people created by law, and be in the
custody of agents of the people chosen by themselves according to the forms
of the Constitution--agents who are directly responsible to the Government,
who are under adequate bonds and oaths, and who are subject to severe
punishments for any embezzlement, private use, or misapplication of the
public funds, and for any failure in other respects to perform their
duties. To say that the people or their Government are incompetent or not
to be trusted with the custody of their own money in their own Treasury,
provided by themselves, but must rely on the presidents, cashiers, and
stockholders of banking corporations, not appointed by them nor responsible
to them, would be to concede that they are incompetent for
self-government.

In recommending the establishment of a constitutional treasury in which the
public money shall be kept, I desire that adequate provision be made by law
for its safety and that all Executive discretion or control over it shall
be removed, except such as may be necessary in directing its disbursement
in pursuance of appropriations made by law.

Under our present land system, limiting the minimum price at which the
public lands can be entered to $1.25 per acre, large quantities of lands of
inferior quality remain unsold because they will not command that price.
From the records of the General Land Office it appears that of the public
lands remaining unsold in the several States and Territories in which they
are situated, 39,105,577 acres have been in the market subject to entry
more than twenty years, 49,638,644 acres for more than fifteen years,
73,074,600 acres for more than ten years, and 106,176,961 acres for more
than five years. Much the largest portion of these lands will continue to
be unsalable at the minimum price at which they are permitted to be sold so
long as large territories of lands from which the more valuable portions
have not been selected are annually brought into market by the Government.
With the view to the sale and settlement of these inferior lands, I
recommend that the price be graduated and reduced below the present minimum
rate, confining the sales at the reduced prices to settlers and
cultivators, in limited quantities. If graduated and reduced in price for a
limited term to $1 per acre, and after the expiration of that period for a
second and third term to lower rates, a large portion of these lands would
be purchased, and many worthy citizens who are unable to pay higher rates
could purchase homes for themselves and their families. By adopting the
policy of graduation and reduction of price these inferior lands will be
sold for their real value, while the States in which they lie will be freed
from the inconvenience, if not injustice, to which they are subjected in
consequence of the United States continuing to own large quantities of the
public lands within their borders not liable to taxation for the support of
their local governments.

I recommend the continuance of the policy of granting preemptions in its
most liberal extent to all those who have settled or may hereafter settle
on the public lands, whether surveyed or unsurveyed, to which the Indian
title may have been extinguished at the time of settlement. It has been
found by experience that in consequence of combinations of purchasers and
other causes a very small quantity of the public lands, when sold at public
auction, commands a higher price than the minimum rates established by law.
The settlers on the public lands are, however, but rarely able to secure
their homes and improvements at the public sales at that rate, because
these combinations, by means of the capital they command and their superior
ability to purchase, render it impossible for the settler to compete with
them in the market. By putting down all competition these combinations of
capitalists and speculators are usually enabled to purchase the lands,
including the improvements of the settlers, at the minimum price of the
Government, and either turn them out of their homes or extort from them,
according to their ability to pay, double or quadruple the amount paid for
them to the Government. It is to the enterprise and perseverance of the
hardy pioneers of the West, who penetrate the wilderness with their
families, suffer the dangers, the privations, and hardships attending the
settlement of a new country, and prepare the way for the body of emigrants
who in the course of a few years usually follow them, that we are in a
great degree indebted for the rapid extension and aggrandizement of our
country.

Experience has proved that no portion of our population are more patriotic
than the hardy and brave men of the frontier, or more ready to obey the
call of their country and to defend her rights and her honor whenever and
by whatever enemy assailed. They should be protected from the grasping
speculator and secured, at the minimum price of the public lands, in the
humble homes which they have improved by their labor. With this end in
view, all vexatious or unnecessary restrictions imposed upon them by the
existing preemption laws should be repealed or modified. It is the true
policy of the Government to afford facilities to its citizens to become the
owners of small portions of our vast public domain at low and moderate
rates.

The present system of managing the mineral lands of the United States is
believed to be radically defective. More than 1,000,000 acres of the public
lands, supposed to contain lead and other minerals, have been reserved from
sale, and numerous leases upon them have been granted to individuals upon a
stipulated rent. The system of granting leases has proved to be not only
unprofitable to the Government, but unsatisfactory to the citizens who have
gone upon the lands, and must, if continued, lay the foundation of much
future difficulty between the Government and the lessees. According to the
official records, the amount of rents received by the Government for the
years 1841, 1842, 1843, and 1844 was $6,354.74, while the expenses of the
system during the same period, including salaries of superintendents,
agents, clerks, and incidental expenses, were $26,111.11, the income being
less than one-fourth of the expenses. To this pecuniary loss may be added
the injury sustained by the public in consequence of the destruction of
timber and the careless and wasteful manner of working the mines. The
system has given rise to much litigation between the United States and
individual citizens, producing irritation and excitement in the mineral
region, and involving the Government in heavy additional expenditures. It
is believed that similar losses and embarrassments will continue to occur
while the present System of leasing these lands remains unchanged. These
lands are now under the superintendence and care of the War Department,
with the ordinary duties of which they have no proper or natural
connection. I recommend the repeal of the present system, and that these
lands be placed under the superintendence and management of the General
Land Office, as other public lands, and be brought into market and sold
upon such terms as Congress in their wisdom may prescribe, reserving to the
Government an equitable percentage of the gross amount of mineral product,
and that the preemption principle be extended to resident miners and
settlers upon them at the minimum price which may be established by
Congress.

I refer you to the accompanying report of the Secretary of War for
information respecting the present situation of the Army and its operations
during the past year, the state of our defenses, the condition of the
public works, and our relations with the various Indian tribes within our
limits or upon our borders. I invite your attention to the suggestions
contained in that report in relation to these prominent objects of national
interest. When orders were given during the past summer for concentrating a
military force on the western frontier of Texas, our troops were widely
dispersed and in small detachments, occupying posts remote from each other.
The prompt and expeditious manner in which an army embracing more than half
our peace establishment was drawn together on an emergency so sudden
reflects great credit on the officers who were intrusted with the execution
of these orders, as well as upon the discipline of the Army itself. To be
in strength to protect and defend the people and territory of Texas in the
event Mexico should commence hostilities or invade her territories with a
large army, which she threatened, I authorized the general assigned to the
command of the army of occupation to make requisitions for additional
forces from several of the States nearest the Texan territory, and which
could most expeditiously furnish them, if in his opinion a larger force
than that under his command and the auxiliary aid which under like
circumstances he was authorized to receive from Texas should be required.
The contingency upon which the exercise of this authority depended has not
occurred. The circumstances under which two companies of State artillery
from the city of New Orleans were sent into Texas and mustered into the
service of the United States are fully stated in the report of the
Secretary of War. I recommend to Congress that provision be made for the
payment of these troops, as well as a small number of Texan volunteers whom
the commanding general thought it necessary to receive or muster into our
service.

During the last summer the First Regiment of Dragoons made extensive
excursions through the Indian country on our borders, a part of them
advancing nearly to the possessions of the Hudsons Bay Company in the
north, and a part as far as the South Pass of the Rocky Mountains and the
head waters of the tributary streams of the Colorado of the West. The
exhibition of this military force among the Indian tribes in those distant
regions and the councils held with them by the commanders of the
expeditions, it is believed, will have a salutary influence in restraining
them from hostilities among themselves and maintaining friendly relations
between them and the United States. An interesting account of one of these
excursions accompanies the report of the Secretary of War. Under the
directions of the War Department Brevet Captain Fremont, of the Corps of
Topographical Engineers, has been employed since 1842 in exploring the
country west of the Mississippi and beyond the Rocky Mountains. Two
expeditions have already been brought to a close, and the reports of that
scientific and enterprising officer have furnished much interesting and
valuable information. He is now engaged in a third expedition, but it is
not expected that this arduous service will be completed in season to
enable me to communicate the result to Congress at the present session.

Our relations with the Indian tribes are of a favorable character. The
policy of removing them to a country designed for their permanent residence
west of the Mississippi, and without the limits of the organized States and
Territories, is better appreciated by them than it was a few years ago,
while education is now attended to and the habits of civilized life are
gaining ground among them.

Serious difficulties of long standing continue to distract the several
parties into which the Cherokees are unhappily divided. The efforts of the
Government to adjust the difficulties between them have heretofore proved
unsuccessful, and there remains no probability that this desirable object
can be accomplished without the aid of further legislation by Congress. I
will at an early period of your session present the subject for your
consideration, accompanied with an exposition of the complaints and claims
of the several parties into which the nation is divided, with a view to the
adoption of such measures by Congress as may enable the Executive to do
justice to them, respectively, and to put an end, if possible, to the
dissensions which have long prevailed and still prevail among them.

I refer you to the report of the Secretary of the Navy for the present
condition of that branch of the national defense and for grave suggestions
having for their object the increase of its efficiency and a greater
economy in its management. During the past year the officers and men have
performed their duty in a satisfactory manner. The orders which have been
given have been executed with promptness and fidelity. A larger force than
has often formed one squadron under our flag was readily concentrated in
the Gulf of Mexico, and apparently without unusual effort. It is especially
to be observed that notwithstanding the union of so considerable a force,
no act was committed that even the jealousy of an irritated power could
construe as an act of aggression, and that the commander of the squadron
and his officers, in strict conformity with their instructions, holding
themselves ever ready for the most active duty, have achieved the still
purer glory of contributing to the preservation of peace. It is believed
that at all our foreign stations the honor of our flag has been maintained
and that generally our ships of war have been distinguished for their good
discipline and order. I am happy to add that the display of maritime force
which was required by the events of the summer has been made wholly within
the usual appropriations for the service of the year, so that no additional
appropriations are required.

The commerce of the United States, and with it the navigating interests,
have steadily and rapidly increased since the organization of our
Government, until, it is believed, we are now second to but one power in
the world, and at no distant day we shall probably be inferior to none.
Exposed as they must be, it has been a wise policy to afford to these
important interests protection with our ships of war distributed in the
great highways of trade throughout the world. For more than thirty years
appropriations have been made and annually expended for the gradual
increase of our naval forces. In peace our Navy performs the important duty
of protecting our commerce, and in the event of war will be, as it has
been, a most efficient means of defense.

The successful use of steam navigation on the ocean has been followed by
the introduction of war steamers in great and increasing numbers into the
navies of the principal maritime powers of the world. A due regard to our
own safety and to an efficient protection to our large and increasing
commerce demands a corresponding increase on our part. No country has
greater facilities for the construction of vessels of this description than
ours, or can promise itself greater advantages from their employment. They
are admirably adapted to the protection of our commerce, to the rapid
transmission of intelligence, and to the coast defense. In pursuance of the
wise policy of a gradual increase of our Navy, large supplies of live-oak
timber and other materials for shipbuilding have been collected and are now
under shelter and in a state of good preservation, while iron steamers can
be built with great facility in various parts of the Union. The use of iron
as a material, especially in the construction of steamers which can enter
with safety many of the harbors along our coast now inaccessible to vessels
of greater draft, and the practicability of constructing them in the
interior, strongly recommend that liberal appropriations should be made for
this important object. Whatever may have been our policy in the earlier
stages of the Government, when the nation was in its infancy, our shipping
interests and commerce comparatively small, our resources limited, our
population sparse and scarcely extending beyond the limits of the original
thirteen States, that policy must be essentially different now that we have
grown from three to more than twenty millions of people, that our commerce,
carried in our own ships, is found in every sea, and that our territorial
boundaries and settlements have been so greatly expanded. Neither our
commerce nor our long line of coast on the ocean and on the Lakes can be
successfully defended against foreign aggression by means of fortifications
alone. These are essential at important commercial and military points, but
our chief reliance for this object must be on a well-organized, efficient
navy. The benefits resulting from such a navy are not confined to the
Atlantic States. The productions of the interior which seek a market abroad
are directly dependent on the safety and freedom of our commerce. The
occupation of the Balize below New Orleans by a hostile force would
embarrass, if not stagnate, the whole export trade of the Mississippi and
affect the value of the agricultural products of the entire valley of that
mighty river and its tributaries.

It has never been our policy to maintain large standing armies in time of
peace. They are contrary to the genius of our free institutions, would
impose heavy burdens on the people and be dangerous to public liberty. Our
reliance for protection and defense on the land must be mainly on our
citizen soldiers, who will be ever ready, as they ever have been ready in
times past, to rush with alacrity, at the call of their country, to her
defense. This description of force, however, can not defend our coast,
harbors, and inland seas, nor protect our commerce on the ocean or the
Lakes. These must be protected by our Navy.

Considering an increased naval force, and especially of steam vessels,
corresponding with our growth and importance as a nation, and proportioned
to the increased and increasing naval power of other nations, of vast
importance as regards our safety, and the great and growing interests to be
protected by it, I recommend the subject to the favorable consideration of
Congress.

The report of the Postmaster-General herewith communicated contains a
detailed statement of the operations of his Department during the pass
year. It will be seen that the income from postages will fall short of the
expenditures for the year between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000. This
deficiency has been caused by the reduction of the rates of postage, which
was made by the act of the 3d of March last. No principle has been more
generally acquiesced in by the people than that this Department should
sustain itself by limiting its expenditures to its income. Congress has
never sought to make it a source of revenue for general purposes except for
a short period during the last war with Great Britain, nor should it ever
become a charge on the general Treasury. If Congress shall adhere to this
principle, as I think they ought, it will be necessary either to curtail
the present mail service so as to reduce the expenditures, or so to modify
the act of the 3d of March last as to improve its revenues. The extension
of the mail service and the additional facilities which will be demanded by
the rapid extension and increase of population on our western frontier will
not admit of such curtailment as will materially reduce the present
expenditures. In the adjustment of the tariff of postages the interests of
the people demand that the lowest rates be adopted which will produce the
necessary revenue to meet the expenditures of the Department. I invite the
attention of Congress to the suggestions of the Postmaster-General on this
subject, under the belief that such a modification of the late law may be
made as will yield sufficient revenue without further calls on the
Treasury, and with very little change in the present rates of postage.
Proper measures have been taken in pursuance of the act of the 3d of March
last for the establishment of lines of mail steamers between this and
foreign countries. The importance of this service commends itself strongly
to favorable consideration.

With the growth of our country the public business which devolves on the
heads of the several Executive Departments has greatly increased. In some
respects the distribution of duties among them seems to be incongruous, and
many of these might be transferred from one to another with advantage to
the public interests. A more auspicious time for the consideration of this
subject by Congress, with a view to system in the organization of the
several Departments and a more appropriate division of the public business,
will not probably occur.

The most important duties of the State Department relate to our foreign
affairs. By the great enlargement of the family of nations, the increase of
our commerce, and the corresponding extension of our consular system the
business of this Department has been greatly increased. In its present
organization many duties of a domestic nature and consisting of details are
devolved on the Secretary of State, which do not appropriately belong to
the foreign department of the Government and may properly be transferred to
some other Department. One of these grows out of the present state of the
law concerning the Patent Office, which a few years since was a subordinate
clerkship, but has become a distinct bureau of great importance. With an
excellent internal organization, it is still connected with the State
Department. In the transaction of its business questions of much importance
to inventors and to the community frequently arise, which by existing laws
are referred for decision to a board of which the Secretary of State is a
member. These questions are legal, and the connection which now exists
between the State Department and the Patent Office may with great propriety
and advantage be transferred to the Attorney-General.

In his last annual message to Congress Mr. Madison invited attention to a
proper provision for the Attorney-General as "an important improvement in
the executive establishment." This recommendation was repeated by some of
his successors. The official duties of the Attorney-General have been much
increased within a few years, and his office has become one of great
importance. His duties may be still further increased with advantage to the
public interests. As an executive officer his residence and constant
attention at the seat of Government are required. Legal questions involving
important principles and large amounts of public money are constantly
referred to him by the President and Executive Departments for his
examination and decision. The public business under his official management
before the judiciary has been so augmented by the extension of our
territory and the acts of Congress authorizing suits against the United
States for large bodies of valuable public lands as greatly to increase his
labors and responsibilities. I therefore recommend that the
Attorney-General be placed on the same footing with the heads of the other
Executive Departments, with such subordinate officers provided by law for
his Department as may be required to discharge the additional duties which
have been or may be devolved upon him.

Congress possess the power of exclusive legislation over the District of
Columbia, and I commend the interests of its inhabitants to your favorable
consideration. The people of this District have no legislative body of
their own, and must confide their local as well as their general interests
to representatives in whose election they have no voice and over whose
official conduct they have no control. Each member of the National
Legislature should consider himself as their immediate representative, and
should be the more ready to give attention to their interests and wants
because he is not responsible to them. I recommend that a liberal and
generous spirit may characterize your measures in relation to them. I shall
be ever disposed to show a proper regard for their wishes and, within
constitutional limits, shall at all times cheerfully cooperate with you for
the advancement of their welfare.

I trust it may not be deemed inappropriate to the occasion for me to dwell
for a moment on the memory of the most eminent citizen of our country who
during the summer that is gone by has descended to the tomb. The enjoyment
of contemplating, at the advanced age of near fourscore years, the happy
condition of his country cheered the last hours of Andrew Jackson, who
departed this life in the tranquil hope of a blessed immortality. His death
was happy, as his life had been eminently useful. He had an unfaltering
confidence in the virtue and capacity of the people and in the permanence
of that free Government which he had largely contributed to establish and
defend. His great deeds had secured to him the affections of his
fellow-citizens, and it was his happiness to witness the growth and glory
of his country, which he loved so well. He departed amidst the benedictions
of millions of free-men. The nation paid its tribute to his memory at his
tomb. Coming generations will learn from his example the love of country
and the rights of man. In his language on a similar occasion to the
present, "I now commend you, fellow-citizens, to the guidance of Almighty
God, with a full reliance on His merciful providence for the maintenance of
our free institutions, and with an earnest supplication that whatever
errors it may be my lot to commit in discharging the arduous duties which
have devolved on me will find a remedy in the harmony and wisdom of your
counsels."

JAMES K. POLK

***

State of the Union Address
James Polk
December 8, 1846

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:

In resuming your labors in the service of the people it is a subject of
congratulation that there has been no period in our past history when all
the elements of national prosperity have been so fully developed. Since
your last session no afflicting dispensation has visited our country.
General good health has prevailed, abundance has crowned the toil of the
husbandman, and labor in all its branches is receiving an ample reward,
while education, science, and the arts are rapidly enlarging the means of
social happiness. The progress of our country in her career of greatness,
not only in the vast extension of our territorial limits and the rapid
increase of our population, but in resources and wealth and in the happy
condition of our people, is without an example in the history of nations.

As the wisdom, strength, and beneficence of our free institutions are
unfolded, every day adds fresh motives to contentment and fresh incentives
to patriotism.

Our devout and sincere acknowledgments are due to the gracious Giver of All
Good for the numberless blessings which our beloved country enjoys.

It is a source of high satisfaction to know that the relations of the
United States with all other nations, with a single exception, are of the
most amicable character. Sincerely attached to the policy of peace early
adopted and steadily pursued by this Government, I have anxiously desired
to cultivate and cherish friendship and commerce with every foreign power.
The spirit and habits of the American people are favorable to the
maintenance of such international harmony. In adhering to this wise policy,
a preliminary and paramount duty obviously consists in the protection of
our national interests from encroachment or sacrifice and our national
honor from reproach. These must be maintained at any hazard. They admit of
no compromise or neglect, and must be scrupulously and constantly guarded.
In their vigilant vindication collision and conflict with foreign powers
may sometimes become unavoidable. Such has been our scrupulous adherence to
the dictates of justice in all our foreign intercourse that, though
steadily and rapidly advancing in prosperity and power, we have given no
just cause of complaint to any nation and have enjoyed the blessings of
peace for more than thirty years. From a policy so sacred to humanity and
so salutary in its effects upon our political system we should never be
induced voluntarily to depart.

The existing war with Mexico was neither desired nor provoked by the United
States. On the contrary, all honorable means were resorted to to avert it.
After years of endurance of aggravated and unredressed wrongs on our part,
Mexico, in violation of solemn treaty stipulations and of every principle
of justice recognized by civilized nations, commenced hostilities, and thus
by her own act forced the war upon us. Long before the advance of our Army
to the left bank of the Rio Grande we had ample cause of war against
Mexico, and had the United States resorted to this extremity we might have
appealed to the whole civilized world for the justice of our cause. I deem
it to be my duty to present to you on the present occasion a condensed
review of the injuries we had sustained, of the causes which led to the
war, and of its progress since its commencement. This is rendered the more
necessary because of the misapprehensions which have to some extent
prevailed as to its origin and true character. The war has been represented
as unjust and unnecessary and as one of aggression on our part upon a weak
and injured enemy. Such erroneous views, though entertained by but few,
have been widely and extensively circulated, not only at home, but have
been spread throughout Mexico and the whole world. A more effectual means
could not have been devised to encourage the enemy and protract the war
than to advocate and adhere to their cause, and thus give them "aid and
comfort." It is a source of national pride and exultation that the great
body of our people have thrown no such obstacles in the way of the
Government in prosecuting the war successfully, but have shown themselves
to be eminently patriotic and ready to vindicate their country's honor and
interests at any sacrifice. The alacrity and promptness with which our
volunteer forces rushed to the field on their country's call prove not only
their patriotism, but their deep conviction that our cause is just.

The wrongs which we have suffered from Mexico almost ever since she became
an independent power and the patient endurance with which we have borne
them are without a parallel in the history of modern civilized nations.
There is reason to believe that if these wrongs had been resented and
resisted in the first instance the present war might have been avoided. One
outrage, however, permitted to pass with impunity almost necessarily
encouraged the perpetration of another, until at last Mexico seemed to
attribute to weakness and indecision on our part a forbearance which was
the offspring of magnanimity and of a sincere desire to preserve friendly
relations with a sister republic.

Scarcely had Mexico achieved her independence, which the United States were
the first among the nations to acknowledge, when she commenced the system
of insult and spoliation which she has ever since pursued. Our citizens
engaged in lawful commerce were imprisoned, their vessels seized, and our
flag insulted in her ports. If money was wanted, the lawless seizure and
confiscation of our merchant vessels and their cargoes was a ready
resource, and if to accomplish their purposes it became necessary to
imprison the owners, captains, and crews, it was done. Rulers superseded
rulers in Mexico in rapid succession, but still there was no change in this
system of depredation. The Government of the United States made repeated
reclamations on behalf of its citizens, but these were answered by the
perpetration of new outrages. Promises of redress made by Mexico in the
most solemn forms were postponed or evaded. The files and records of the
Department of State contain conclusive proofs of numerous lawless acts
perpetrated upon the property and persons of our citizens by Mexico, and of
wanton insults to our national flag. The interposition of our Government to
obtain redress was again and again invoked under circumstances which no
nation ought to disregard. It was hoped that these outrages would cease and
that Mexico would be restrained by the laws which regulate the conduct of
civilized nations in their intercourse with each other after the treaty of
amity, commerce, and navigation of the 5th of April, 1831, was concluded
between the two Republics; but this hope soon proved to be vain. The course
of seizure and confiscation of the property of our citizens, the violation
of their persons, and the insults to our flag pursued by Mexico previous to
that time were scarcely suspended for even a brief period, although the
treaty so clearly defines the rights and duties of the respective parties
that it is impossible to misunderstand or mistake them. In less than seven
years after the conclusion of that treaty our grievances had become so
intolerable that in the opinion of President Jackson they should no longer
be endured. In his message to Congress in February, 1837, he presented them
to the consideration of that body, and declared that--

The length of time since some of the injuries have been committed, the
repeated and unavailing applications for redress, the wanton character of
some of the outrages upon the property and persons of our citizens, upon
the officers and flag of the United States, independent of recent insults
to this Government and people by the late extraordinary Mexican minister,
would justify in the eyes of all nations immediate war.

In a spirit of kindness and forbearance, however, he recommended reprisals
as a milder mode of redress. He declared that war should not be used as a
remedy "by just and generous nations, confiding in their strength for
injuries committed, if it can be honorably avoided," and added:

It has occurred to me that, considering the present embarrassed condition
of that country, we should act with both wisdom and moderation by giving to
Mexico one more opportunity to atone for the past before we take redress
into our Own hands. To avoid all misconception on the part of Mexico, as
well as to protect our own national character from reproach, this
opportunity should be given with the avowed design and full preparation to
take immediate satisfaction if it should not be obtained on a repetition of
the demand for it. To this end I recommend that an act be passed
authorizing reprisals, and the use of the naval force of the United States
by the Executive against Mexico to enforce them, in the event of a refusal
by the Mexican Government to come to an amicable adjustment of the matters
in controversy between us upon another demand thereof made from on board
out of our vessels of war on the coast of Mexico.

Committees of both Houses of Congress, to which this message of the
President was referred, fully sustained his views of the character of the
wrongs which we had suffered from Mexico, and recommended that another
demand for redress should be made before authorizing war or reprisals. The
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, in their report, say:

After such a demand, should prompt justice be refused by the Mexican
Government, we may appeal to all nations, not only for the equity and
moderation with which we shall have acted toward a sister republic, but for
the necessity which will then compel us to seek redress for our wrongs,
either by actual war or by reprisals. The subject will then be presented
before Congress, at the commencement of the next session, in a clear and
distinct form, and the committee can not doubt but that such measures will
be immediately adopted as may be necessary to vindicate the honor of the
country and insure ample reparation to our injured fellow-citizens.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives made a
similar recommendation. In their report they say that--

They fully concur with the President that ample cause exists for taking
redress into our own hands, and believe that we should be justified in the
opinion of other nations for taking such a step. But they are willing to
try the experiment of another demand, made in the most solemn form, upon
the justice of the Mexican Government before any further proceedings are
adopted.

No difference of opinion upon the subject is believed to have existed in
Congress at that time; the executive and legislative departments concurred;
and yet such has been our forbearance and desire to preserve peace with
Mexico that the wrongs of which we then complained, and which gave rise to
these solemn proceedings, not only remain unredressed to this day, but
additional causes of complaint of an aggravated character have ever since
been accumulating. Shortly after these proceedings a special messenger was
dispatched to Mexico to make a final demand for redress, and on the 20th of
July, 1837, the demand was made. The reply of the Mexican Government bears
date on the 29th of the same month, and contains assurances of the "anxious
wish" of the Mexican Government "not to delay the moment of that final and
equitable adjustment which is to terminate the existing difficulties
between the two Governments;" that "nothing should be left undone which may
contribute to the most speedy and equitable determination of the subjects
which have so seriously engaged the attention of the American Government;"
that the "Mexican Government would adopt as the only guides for its conduct
the plainest principles of public right, the sacred obligations imposed by
international law, and the religious faith of treaties," and that "whatever
reason and justice may dictate respecting each case will be done." The
assurance was further given that the decision of the Mexican Government
upon each cause of complaint for which redress had been demanded should be
communicated to the Government of the United States by the Mexican minister
at Washington.

These solemn assurances in answer to our demand for redress were
disregarded. By making them, however, Mexico obtained further delay.
President Van Buren, in his annual message to Congress of the 5th of
December, 1837, states that "although the larger number" of our demands for
redress, "and many of them aggravated cases of personal wrongs, have been
now for years before the Mexican Government, and some of the causes of
national complaint, and those of the most offensive character, admitted of
immediate, simple, and satisfactory replies, it is only within a few days
past that any specific communication in answer to our last demand, made
five months ago, has been received from the Mexican minister;" and that
"for not one of our public complaints has satisfaction been given or
offered, that but one of the cases of personal wrong has been favorably
considered, and that but four cases of both descriptions out of all those
formally presented and earnestly pressed have as yet been decided upon by
the Mexican Government." President Van Buren, believing that it would be
vain to make any further attempt to obtain redress by the ordinary means
within the power of the Executive, communicated this opinion to Congress in
the message referred to, in which he said:

On a careful and deliberate examination of their contents of the
correspondence with the Mexican Government, and considering the spirit
manifested by the Mexican Government, it has become my painful duty to
return the subject as it now stands to Congress, to whom it belongs to
decide upon the time, the mode, and the measure of redress.

Had the United States at that time adopted compulsory measures and taken
redress into their own hands, all our difficulties with Mexico would
probably have been long since adjusted and the existing war have been
averted. Magnanimity and moderation on our part only had the effect to
complicate these difficulties and render an amicable settlement of them the
more embarrassing. That such measures of redress under similar provocations
committed by any of the powerful nations of Europe would have been promptly
resorted to by the United States can not be doubted. The national honor and
the preservation of the national character throughout the world, as well as
our own self-respect and the protection due to our own citizens, would have
rendered such a resort indispensable. The history of no civilized nation in
modern times has presented within so brief a period so many wanton attacks
upon the honor of its flag and upon the property and persons of its
citizens as had at that time been borne by the United States from the
Mexican authorities and people. But Mexico was a sister republic on the
North American continent, occupying a territory contiguous to our own, and
was in a feeble and distracted condition, and these considerations, it is
presumed, induced Congress to forbear still longer.

Instead of taking redress into our own hands, a new negotiation was entered
upon with fair promises on the part of Mexico, but with the real purpose,
as the event has proved, of indefinitely postponing the reparation which we
demanded, and which was so justly due. This negotiation, after more than a
year's delay, resulted in the convention of the 11th of April, 1839, "for
the adjustment of claims of citizens of the United States of America upon
the Government of the Mexican Republic." The joint board of commissioners
created by this convention to examine and decide upon these claims was not
organized until the month of August, 1840, and under the terms of the
convention they were to terminate their duties within eighteen months from
that time. Four of the eighteen months were consumed in preliminary
discussions on frivolous and dilatory points raised by the Mexican
commissioners, and it was not until the month of December, 1840, that they
commenced the examination of the claims of our citizens upon Mexico.
Fourteen months only remained to examine and decide upon these numerous and
complicated cases. In the month of February, 1842, the term of the
commission expired, leaving many claims undisposed of for want of time. The
claims which were allowed by the board and by the umpire authorized by the
convention to decide in case of disagreement between the Mexican and
American commissioners amounted to $2,026,139.68. There were pending before
the umpire when the commission expired additional claims, which had been
examined and awarded by the American commissioners and had not been allowed
by the Mexican commissioners, amounting to $928,627.88, upon which he did
not decide, alleging that his authority had ceased with the termination of
the joint commission. Besides these claims, there were others of American
citizens amounting to $3,336,837.05, which had been submitted to the board,
and upon which they had not time to decide before their final adjournment.

The sum of $2,026,139.68, which had been awarded to the claimants, was a
liquidated and ascertained debt due by Mexico, about which there could be
no dispute, and which she was bound to pay according to the terms of the
convention. Soon after the final awards for this amount had been made the
Mexican Government asked for a postponement of the time of making payment,
alleging that it would be inconvenient to make the payment at the time
stipulated. In the spirit of forbearing kindness toward a sister republic,
which Mexico has so long abused, the United States promptly complied with
her request. A second convention was accordingly concluded between the two
Governments on the 30th of January, 1843, which upon its face declares that
"this new arrangement is entered into for the accommodation of Mexico." By
the terms of this convention all the interest due on the awards which had
been made in favor of the claimants under the convention of the 11th of
April, 1839, was to be paid to them on the 30th of April, 1843, and "the
principal of the said awards and the interest accruing thereon" was
stipulated to "be paid in five years, in equal installments every three
months." Notwithstanding this new convention was entered into at the
request of Mexico and for the purpose of relieving her from embarrassment,
the claimants have only received the interest due on the 30th of April,
1843, and three of the twenty installments. Although the payment of the sum
thus liquidated and confessedly due by Mexico to our citizens as indemnity
for acknowledged acts of outrage and wrong was secured by treaty, the
obligations of which are ever held sacred by all just nations, yet Mexico
has violated this solemn engagement by failing and refusing to make the
payment. The two installments due in April and July, 1844, under the
peculiar circumstances connected with them, have been assumed by the United
States and discharged to the claimants, but they are still due by Mexico.
But this is not all of which we have just cause of complaint. To provide a
remedy for the claimants whose cases were not decided by the joint
commission under the convention of April 11, 1839, it was expressly
stipulated by the sixth article of the convention of the 30th of January,
1843, that--

A new convention shall be entered into for the settlement of all claims of
the Government and citizens of the United States against the Republic of
Mexico which were not finally decided by the late commission which met in
the city of Washington, and of all claims of the Government and citizens of
Mexico against the United States.

In conformity with this stipulation, a third convention was concluded and
signed at the city of Mexico on the 20th of November, 1843, by the
plenipotentiaries of the two Governments, by which provision was made for
ascertaining and paying these claims. In January, 1844, this convention was
ratified by the Senate of the United States with two amendments, which were
manifestly reasonable in their character. Upon a reference of the
amendments proposed to the Government of Mexico, the same evasions,
difficulties, and delays were interposed which have so long marked the
policy of that Government toward the United States. It has not even yet
decided whether it would or would not accede to them, although the subject
has been repeatedly pressed upon its consideration. Mexico has thus
violated a second time the faith of treaties by failing or refusing to
carry into effect the sixth article of the convention of January, 1843.

Such is the history of the wrongs which we have suffered and patiently
endured from Mexico through a long series of years. So far from affording
reasonable satisfaction for the injuries and insults we had borne, a great
aggravation of them consists in the fact that while the United States,
anxious to preserve a good understanding with Mexico, have been constantly
but vainly employed in seeking redress for past wrongs, new outrages were
constantly occurring, which have continued to increase our causes of
complaint and to swell the amount of our demands. While the citizens of the
United States were conducting a lawful commerce with Mexico under the
guaranty of a treaty of "amity, commerce, and navigation," many of them
have suffered all the injuries which would have resulted from open war.
This treaty, instead of affording protection to our citizens, has been the
means of inviting them into the ports of Mexico that they might be, as they
have been in numerous instances, plundered of their property and deprived
of their personal liberty if they dared insist on their rights. Had the
unlawful seizures of American property and the violation of the personal
liberty of our citizens, to say nothing of the insults to our flag, which
have occurred in the ports of Mexico taken place on the high seas, they
would themselves long since have constituted a state of actual war between
the two countries. In so long suffering Mexico to violate her most solemn
treaty obligations, plunder our citizens of their property, and imprison
their persons without affording them any redress we have failed to perform
one of the first and highest duties which every government owes to its
citizens, and the consequence has been that many of them have been reduced
from a state of affluence to bankruptcy. The proud name of American
citizen, which ought to protect all who bear it from insult and injury
throughout the world, has afforded no such protection to our citizens in
Mexico. We had ample cause of war against Mexico long before the breaking
out of hostilities; but even then we forbore to take redress into our own
hands until Mexico herself became the aggressor by invading our soil in
hostile array and shedding the blood of our citizens.

Such are the grave causes of complaint on the part of the United States
against Mexico--causes which existed long before the annexation of Texas to
the American Union; and yet, animated by the love of peace and a
magnanimous moderation, we did not adopt those measures of redress which
under such circumstances are the justified resort of injured nations.

The annexation of Texas to the United States constituted no just cause of
offense to Mexico. The pretext that it did so is wholly inconsistent and
irreconcilable with well-authenticated facts connected with the revolution
by which Texas became independent of Mexico. That this may be the more
manifest, it may be proper to advert to the causes and to the history of
the principal events of that revolution.

Texas constituted a portion of the ancient Province of Louisiana, ceded to
the United States by France in the year 1803. In the year 1819 the United
States, by the Florida treaty, ceded to Spain all that part of Louisiana
within the present limits of Texas, and Mexico, by the revolution which
separated her from Spain and rendered her an independent nation, succeeded
to the rights of the mother country over this territory. In the year 1824
Mexico established a federal constitution, under which the Mexican Republic
was composed of a number of sovereign States confederated together in a
federal union similar to our own. Each of these States had its own
executive, legislature, and judiciary, and for all except federal purposes
was as independent of the General Government and that of the other States
as is Pennsylvania or Virginia under our Constitution. Texas and Coahuila
united and formed one of these Mexican States. The State constitution which
they adopted, and which was approved by the Mexican Confederacy, asserted
that they were "free and independent of the other Mexican United States and
of every other power and dominion whatsoever," and proclaimed the great
principle of human liberty that "the sovereignty of the state resides
originally and essentially in the general mass of the individuals who
compose it." To the Government under this constitution, as well as to that
under the federal constitution, the people of Texas owed allegiance.

Emigrants from foreign countries, including the United States, were invited
by the colonization laws of the State and of the Federal Government to
settle in Texas. Advantageous terms were offered to induce them to leave
their own country and become Mexican citizens. This invitation was accepted
by many of our citizens in the full faith that in their new home they would
be governed by laws enacted by representatives elected by themselves, and
that their lives, liberty, and property would be protected by
constitutional guaranties similar to those which existed in the Republic
they had left. Under a Government thus organized they continued until the
year 1835, when a military revolution broke out in the City of Mexico which
entirely subverted the federal and State constitutions and placed a
military dictator at the head of the Government. By a sweeping decree of a
Congress subservient to the will of the Dictator the several State
constitutions were abolished and the States themselves converted into mere
departments of the central Government. The people of Texas were unwilling
to submit to this usurpation. Resistance to such tyranny became a high
duty. Texas was fully absolved from all allegiance to the central
Government of Mexico from the moment that Government had abolished her
State constitution and in its place substituted an arbitrary and despotic
central government. Such were the principal causes of the Texan revolution.
The people of Texas at once determined upon resistance and flew to arms. In
the midst of these important and exciting events, however, they did not
omit to place their liberties upon a secure and permanent foundation. They
elected members to a convention, who in the month of March, 1836, issued a
formal declaration that their "political connection with the Mexican nation
has forever ended, and that the people of Texas do now constitute a free,
sovereign, and independent Republic, and are fully invested with all the
rights and attributes which properly belong to independent nations." They
also adopted for their government a liberal republican constitution. About
the same time Santa Anna, then the Dictator of Mexico, invaded Texas with a
numerous army for the purpose of subduing her people and enforcing
obedience to his arbitrary and despotic Government. On the 21st of April,
1836, he was met by the Texan citizen soldiers, and on that day was
achieved by them the memorable victory of San Jacinto, by which they
conquered their independence. Considering the numbers engaged on the
respective sides, history does not record a more brilliant achievement.
Santa Anna himself was among the captives.

In the month of May, 1836, Santa Anna acknowledged by a treaty with the
Texan authorities in the most solemn form "the full, entire, and perfect
independence of the Republic of Texas." It is true he was then a prisoner
of war, but it is equally true that he had failed to reconquer Texas, and
had met with signal defeat; that his authority had not been revoked, and
that by virtue of this treaty he obtained his personal release. By it
hostilities were suspended, and the army which had invaded Texas under his
command returned in pursuance of this arrangement unmolested to Mexico.

From the day that the battle of San Jacinto was fought until the present
hour Mexico has never possessed the power to reconquer Texas. In the
language of the Secretary of State of the United States in a dispatch to
our minister in Mexico under date of the 8th of July, 1842--

Mexico may have chosen to consider, and may still choose to consider, Texas
as having been at all times since 1835, and as still continuing, a
rebellious province; but the world has been obliged to take a very
different view of the matter. From the time of the battle of San Jacinto,
in April, 1836, to the present moment, Texas has exhibited the same
external signs of national independence as Mexico herself, and with quite
as much stability of government. Practically free and independent,
acknowledged as a political sovereignty by the principal powers of the
world, no hostile foot finding rest within her territory for six or seven
years, and Mexico herself refraining for all that period from any further
attempt to reestablish her own authority over that territory, it can not
but be surprising to find Mr. De Bocanegra the secretary of foreign affairs
of Mexico complaining that for that whole period citizens of the United
States or its Government have been favoring the rebels of Texas and
supplying them with vessels, ammunition, and money, as if the war for the
reduction of the Province of Texas had been constantly prosecuted by
Mexico, and her success prevented by these influences from abroad.

In the same dispatch the Secretary of State affirms that--

Since 1837 the United States have regarded Texas as an independent
sovereignty as much as Mexico, and that trade and commerce with citizens of
a government at war with Mexico can not on that account be regarded as an
intercourse by which assistance and succor are given to Mexican rebels. The
whole current of Mr. De Bocanegra's remarks runs in the same direction, as
if the independence of Texas had not been acknowledged. It has been
acknowledged; it was acknowledged in 1837 against the remonstrance and
protest of Mexico, and most of the acts of any importance of which Mr. De
Bocanegra complains flow necessarily from that recognition. He speaks of
Texas as still being "an integral part of the territory of the Mexican
Republic," but he can not but understand that the United States do not so
regard it. The real complaint of Mexico, therefore, is in substance neither
more nor less than a complaint against the recognition of Texan
independence. It may be thought rather late to repeat that complaint, and
not quite just to confine it to the United States to the exemption of
England, France, and Belgium, unless the United States, having been the
first to acknowledge the independence of Mexico herself, are to be blamed
for setting an example for the recognition of that of Texas.

And he added that--

The Constitution, public treaties, and the laws oblige the President to
regard Texas as an independent state, and its territory as no part of the
territory of Mexico.

Texas had been an independent state, with an organized government, defying
the power of Mexico to overthrow or reconquer her, for more than ten years
before Mexico commenced the present war against the United States. Texas
had given such evidence to the world of her ability to maintain her
separate existence as an independent nation that she had been formally
recognized as such not only by the United States, but by several of the
principal powers of Europe. These powers had entered into treaties of
amity, commerce, and navigation with her. They had received and accredited
her ministers and other diplomatic agents at their respective courts, and
they had commissioned ministers and diplomatic agents on their part to the
Government of Texas. If Mexico, notwithstanding all this and her utter
inability to subdue or reconquer Texas, still stubbornly refused to
recognize her as an independent nation, she was none the less so on that
account. Mexico herself had been recognized as an independent nation by the
United States and by other powers many years before Spain, of which before
her revolution she had been a colony, would agree to recognize her as such;
and yet Mexico was at that time in the estimation of the civilized world,
and in fact, none the less an independent power because Spain still claimed
her as a colony. If Spain had continued until the present period to assert
that Mexico was one of her colonies in rebellion against her, this would
not have made her so or changed the fact of her independent existence.
Texas at the period of her annexation to the United States bore the same
relation to Mexico that Mexico had borne to Spain for many years before
Spain acknowledged her independence, with this important difference, that
before the annexation of Texas to the United States was consummated Mexico
herself, by a formal act of her Government, had acknowledged the
independence of Texas as a nation. It is true that in the act of
recognition she prescribed a condition which she had no power or authority
to impose--that Texas should not annex herself to any other power--but this
could not detract in any degree from the recognition which Mexico then made
of her actual independence. Upon this plain statement of facts, it is
absurd for Mexico to allege as a pretext for commencing hostilities against
the United States that Texas is still a part of her territory.

But there are those who, conceding all this to be true, assume the ground
that the true western boundary of Texas is the Nueces instead of the Rio
Grande, and that therefore in marching our Army to the east bank of the
latter river we passed the Texan line and invaded the territory of Mexico.
A simple statement of facts known to exist will conclusively refute such an
assumption. Texas, as ceded to the United States by France in 1803, has
been always claimed as extending west to the Rio Grande or Rio Bravo. This
fact is established by the authority of our most eminent statesmen at a
period when the question was as well, if not better, understood than it is
at present. During Mr. Jefferson's Administration Messrs. Monroe and
Pinckney, who had been sent on a special mission to Madrid, charged among
other things with the adjustment of boundary between the two countries, in
a note addressed to the Spanish minister of foreign affairs under date of
the 28th of January, 1805, assert that the boundaries of Louisiana, as
ceded to the United States by France, "are the river Perdido on the east
and the river Bravo on the west," and they add that "the facts and
principles which justify this conclusion are so satisfactory to our
Government as to convince it that the United States have not a better right
to the island of New Orleans under the cession referred to than they have
to the whole district of territory which is above described." Down to the
conclusion of the Florida treaty, in February, 1819, by which this
territory was ceded to Spain, the United States asserted and maintained
their territorial rights to this extent. In the month of June, 1818, during
Mr. Monroe's Administration, information having been received that a number
of foreign adventurers had landed at Galveston with the avowed purpose of
forming a settlement in that vicinity, a special messenger was dispatched
by the Government of the United States with instructions from the Secretary
of State to warn them to desist, should they be found there, "or any other
place north of the Rio Bravo, and within the territory claimed by the
United States." He was instructed, should they be found in the country
north of that river, to make known to them "the surprise with which the
President has seen possession thus taken, without authority from the United
States, of a place within their territorial limits, and upon which no
lawful settlement can be made without their sanction." He was instructed to
call upon them to "avow under what national authority they profess to act,"
and to give them due warning "that the place is within the United States,
who will suffer no permanent settlement to be made there under any
authority other than their own." As late as the 8th of July, 1842, the
Secretary of State of the United States, in a note addressed to our
minister in Mexico, maintains that by the Florida treaty of 1819 the
territory as far west as the Rio Grande was confirmed to Spain. In that
note he states that--

By the treaty of the 22d of February, 1819, between the United States and
Spain, the Sabine was adopted as the line of boundary between the two
powers. Up to that period no considerable colonization had been effected in
Texas; but the territory between the Sabine and the Rio Grande being
confirmed to Spain by the treaty, applications were made to that power for
grants of land, and such grants or permissions of settlement were in fact
made by the Spanish authorities in favor of citizens of the United States
proposing to emigrate to Texas in numerous families before the declaration
of independence by Mexico.

The Texas which was ceded to Spain by the Florida treaty of 1819 embraced
all the country now claimed by the State of Texas between the Nueces and
the Rio Grande. The Republic of Texas always claimed this river as her
western boundary, and in her treaty made with Santa Anna in May, 1836, he
recognized it as such. By the constitution which Texas adopted in March,
1836, senatorial and representative districts were organized extending west
of the Nueces. The Congress of Texas on the 19th of December, 1836, passed
"An act to define the boundaries of the Republic of Texas," in which they
declared the Rio Grande from its mouth to its source to be their boundary,
and by the said act they extended their "civil and political jurisdiction"
over the country up to that boundary. During a period of more than nine
years which intervened between the adoption of her constitution and her
annexation as one of the States of our Union Texas asserted and exercised
many acts of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the territory and
inhabitants west of the Nueces. She organized and defined the limits of
counties extending to the Rio Grande; she established courts of justice and
extended her judicial system over the territory; she established a
custom-house and collected duties, and also post-offices and post-roads, in
it; she established a land office and issued numerous grants for land
within its limits; a senator and a representative residing in it were
elected to the Congress of the Republic and served as such before the act
of annexation took place. In both the Congress and convention of Texas
which gave their assent to the terms of annexation to the United States
proposed by our Congress were representatives residing west of the Nueces,
who took part in the act of annexation itself. This was the Texas which by
the act of our Congress of the 29th of December, 1845, was admitted as one
of the States of our Union. That the Congress of the United States
understood the State of Texas which they admitted into the Union to extend
beyond the Nueces is apparent from the fact that on the 31st of December,
1845, only two days after the act of admission, they passed a law "to
establish a collection district in the State of Texas," by which they
created a port of delivery at Corpus Christi, situated west of the Nueces,
and being the same point at which the Texas custom-house under the laws of
that Republic had been located, and directed that a surveyor to collect the
revenue should be appointed for that port by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. A surveyor was accordingly nominated, and
confirmed by the Senate, and has been ever since in the performance of his
duties. All these acts of the Republic of Texas and of our Congress
preceded the orders for the advance of our Army to the east bank of the Rio
Grande. Subsequently Congress passed an act "establishing certain post
routes" extending west of the Nueces. The country west of that river now
constitutes a part of one of the Congressional districts of Texas and is
represented in the House of Representatives. The Senators from that State
were chosen by a legislature in which the country west of that river was
represented. In view of all these facts it is difficult to conceive upon
what ground it can be maintained that in occupying the country west of the
Nueces with our Army, with a view solely to its security and defense, we
invaded the territory of Mexico. But it would have been still more
difficult to justify the Executive, whose duty it is to see that the laws
be faithfully executed, if in the face of all these proceedings, both of
the Congress of Texas and of the United States, he had assumed the
responsibility of yielding up the territory west of the Nueces to Mexico or
of refusing to protect and defend this territory and its inhabitants,
including Corpus Christi as well as the remainder of Texas, against the
threatened Mexican invasion.

But Mexico herself has never placed the war which she has waged upon the
ground that our Army occupied the intermediate territory between the Nueces
and the Rio Grande. Her refuted pretension that Texas was not in fact an
independent state, but a rebellious province, was obstinately persevered
in, and her avowed purpose in commencing a war with the United States was
to reconquer Texas and to restore Mexican authority over the whole
territory--not to the Nueces only, but to the Sabine. In view of the
proclaimed menaces of Mexico to this effect, I deemed it my duty, as a
measure of precaution and defense, to order our Army to occupy a position
on our frontier as a military post, from which our troops could best resist
and repel any attempted invasion which Mexico might make. Our Army had
occupied a position at Corpus Christi, west of the Nueces, as early as
August, 1845, without complaint from any quarter. Had the Nueces been
regarded as the true western boundary of Texas, that boundary had been
passed by our Army many months before it advanced to the eastern bank of
the Rio Grande. In my annual message of December last I informed Congress
that upon the invitation of both the Congress and convention of Texas I had
deemed it proper to order a strong squadron to the coasts of Mexico and to
concentrate an efficient military force on the western frontier of Texas to
protect and defend the inhabitants against the menaced invasion of Mexico.
In that message I informed Congress that the moment the terms of annexation
offered by the United States were accepted by Texas the latter became so
far a part of our own country as to make it our duty to afford such
protection and defense, and that for that purpose our squadron had been
ordered to the Gulf and our Army to take a "position between the Nueces and
the Del Norte" or Rio Grande and to "repel any invasion of the Texan
territory which might be attempted by the Mexican forces."

It was deemed proper to issue this order, because soon after the President
of Texas, in April, 1845, had issued his proclamation convening the
Congress of that Republic for the purpose of submitting to that body the
terms of annexation proposed by the United States the Government of Mexico
made serious threats of invading the Texan territory. These threats became
more imposing as it became more apparent in the progress of the question
that the people of Texas would decide in favor of accepting the terms of
annexation, and finally they had assumed such a formidable character as
induced both the Congress and convention of Texas to request that a
military force should be sent by the United States into her territory for
the purpose of protecting and defending her against the threatened
invasion. It would have been a violation of good faith toward the people of
Texas to have refused to afford the aid which they desired against a
threatened invasion to which they had been exposed by their free
determination to annex themselves to our Union in compliance with the
overture made to them by the joint resolution of our Congress. Accordingly,
a portion of the Army was ordered to advance into Texas. Corpus Christi was
the position selected by General Taylor. He encamped at that place in
August, 1845, and the Army remained in that position until the 11th of
March, 1846, when it moved westward, and on the 28th of that month reached
the east bank of the Rio Grande opposite to Matamoras. This movement was
made in pursuance of orders from the War Department, issued on the 13th of
January, 1846. Before these orders were issued the dispatch of our minister
in Mexico transmitting the decision of the council of government of Mexico
advising that he should not be received, and also the dispatch of our
consul residing in the City of Mexico, the former bearing date on the 17th
and the latter on the 18th of December, 1845, copies of both of which
accompanied my message to Congress of the 11th of May last, were received
at the Department of State. These communications rendered it highly
probable, if not absolutely certain, that our minister would not be
received by the Government of General Herrera. It was also well known that
but little hope could be entertained of a different result from General
Paredes in case the revolutionary movement which he was prosecuting should
prove successful, as was highly probable. The partisans of Paredes, as our
minister in the dispatch referred to states, breathed the fiercest
hostility against the United States, denounced the proposed negotiation as
treason, and openly called upon the troops and the people to put down the
Government of Herrera by force. The reconquest of Texas and war with the
United States were openly threatened. These were the circumstances existing
when it was deemed proper to order the Army under the command of General
Taylor to advance to the western frontier of Texas and occupy a position on
or near the Rio Grande.

The apprehensions of a contemplated Mexican invasion have been since fully
justified by the event. The determination of Mexico to rush into
hostilities with the United States was afterwards manifested from the whole
tenor of the note of the Mexican minister of foreign affairs to our
minister bearing date on the 12th of March, 1846. Paredes had then
revolutionized the Government, and his minister, after referring to the
resolution for the annexation of Texas which had been adopted by our
Congress in March, 1845, proceeds to declare that--

A fact such as this, or, to speak with greater exactness, so notable an act
of usurpation, created an imperious necessity that Mexico, for her own
honor, should repel it with proper firmness and dignity. The supreme
Government had beforehand declared that it would look upon such an act as a
casus belli, and as a consequence of this declaration negotiation was by
its very nature at an end, and war was the only recourse of the Mexican
Government.

It appears also that on the 4th of April following General Paredes, through
his minister of war, issued orders to the Mexican general in command on the
Texan frontier to "attack" our Army "by every means which war permits." To
this General Paredes had been pledged to the army and people of Mexico
during the military revolution which had brought him into power. On the
18th of April, 1846, General Paredes addressed a letter to the commander on
that frontier in which he stated to him: "At the present date I suppose
you, at the head of that valiant army, either fighting already or preparing
for the operations of a campaign;" and, "Supposing you already on the
theater of operations and with all the forces assembled, it is
indispensable that hostilities be commenced, yourself taking the initiative
against the enemy."

The movement of our Army to the Rio Grande was made by the commanding
general under positive orders to abstain from all aggressive acts toward
Mexico or Mexican citizens, and to regard the relations between the two
countries as peaceful unless Mexico should declare war or commit acts of
hostility indicative of a state of war, and these orders he faithfully
executed. Whilst occupying his position on the east bank of the Rio Grande,
within the limits of Texas, then recently admitted as one of the States of
our Union, the commanding general of the Mexican forces, who, in pursuance
of the orders of his Government, had collected a large army on the opposite
shore of the Rio Grande, crossed the river, invaded our territory, and
commenced hostilities by attacking our forces. Thus, after all the injuries
which we had received and borne from Mexico, and after she had insultingly
rejected a minister sent to her on a mission of peace, and whom she had
solemnly agreed to receive, she consummated her long course of outrage
against our country by commencing an offensive war and shedding the blood
of our citizens on our own soil.

The United States never attempted to acquire Texas by conquest. On the
contrary, at an early period after the people of Texas had achieved their
independence they sought to be annexed to the United States. At a general
election in September, 1836, they decided with great unanimity in favor of
"annexation," and in November following the Congress of the Republic
authorized the appointment of a minister to bear their request to this
Government. This Government, however, having remained neutral between Texas
and Mexico during the war between them, and considering it due to the honor
of our country and our fair fame among the nations of the earth that we
should not at this early period consent to annexation, nor until it should
be manifest to the whole world that the reconquest of Texas by Mexico was
impossible, refused to accede to the overtures made by Texas. On the 12th
of April, 1844, after more than seven years had elapsed since Texas had
established her independence, a treaty was concluded for the annexation of
that Republic to the United States, which was rejected by the Senate.
Finally, on the 1st of March, 1845, Congress passed a joint resolution for
annexing her to the United States upon certain preliminary conditions to
which her assent was required. The solemnities which characterized the
deliberations and conduct of the Government and people of Texas on the
deeply interesting questions presented by these resolutions are known to
the world. The Congress, the Executive, and the people of Texas, in a
convention elected for that purpose, accepted with great unanimity the
proposed terms of annexation, and thus consummated on her part the great
act of restoring to our Federal Union a vast territory which had been ceded
to Spain by the Florida treaty more than a quarter of a century before.

After the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas to the United States
had been passed by our Congress the Mexican minister at Washington
addressed a note to the Secretary of State, bearing date on the 6th of
March, 1845, protesting against it as "an act of aggression the most unjust
which can be found recorded in the annals of modern history, namely, that
of despoiling a friendly nation like Mexico of a considerable portion of
her territory," and protesting against the resolution of annexation as
being an act "whereby the Province of Texas, an integral portion of the
Mexican territory, is agreed and admitted into the American Union;" and he
announced that as a consequence his mission to the United States had
terminated, and demanded his passports, which were granted. It was upon the
absurd pretext, made by Mexico (herself indebted for her independence to a
successful revolution), that the Republic of Texas still continued to be,
notwithstanding all that had passed, a Province of Mexico that this step
was taken by the Mexican minister.

Every honorable effort has been used by me to avoid the war which followed,
but all have proved vain. All our attempts to preserve peace have been met
by insult and resistance on the part of Mexico. My efforts to this end
commenced in the note of the Secretary of State of the 10th of March, 1845,
in answer to that of the Mexican minister. Whilst declining to reopen a
discussion which had already been exhausted, and proving again what was
known to the whole world, that Texas had long since achieved her
independence, the Secretary of State expressed the regret of this
Government that Mexico should have taken offense at the resolution of
annexation passed by Congress, and gave assurance that our "most strenuous
efforts shall be devoted to the amicable adjustment of every cause of
complaint between the two Governments and to the cultivation of the kindest
and most friendly relations between the sister Republics." That I have
acted in the spirit of this assurance will appear from the events which
have since occurred. Notwithstanding Mexico had abruptly terminated all
diplomatic intercourse with the United States, and ought, therefore, to
have been the first to ask for its resumption, yet, waiving all ceremony, I
embraced the earliest favorable opportunity "to ascertain from the Mexican
Government whether they would receive an envoy from the United States
intrusted with full power to adjust all the questions in dispute between
the two Governments." In September, 1845, I believed the propitious moment
for such an overture had arrived. Texas, by the enthusiastic and almost
unanimous will of her people, had pronounced in favor of annexation. Mexico
herself had agreed to acknowledge the independence of Texas, subject to a
condition, it is true, which she had no right to impose and no power to
enforce. The last lingering hope of Mexico, if she still could have
retained any, that Texas would ever again become one of her Provinces, must
have been abandoned.

The consul of the United States at the City of Mexico was therefore
instructed by the Secretary of State on the 15th of September, 1845, to
make the inquiry of the Mexican Government. The inquiry was made, and on
the 15th of October, 1845, the minister of foreign affairs of the Mexican
Government, in a note addressed to our consul, gave a favorable response,
requesting at the same time that our naval force might be withdrawn from
Vera Cruz while negotiations should be pending. Upon the receipt of this
note our naval force was promptly withdrawn from Vera Cruz. A minister was
immediately appointed, and departed to Mexico. Everything bore a promising
aspect for a speedy and peaceful adjustment of all our difficulties. At the
date of my annual message to Congress in December last no doubt was
entertained but that he would be received by the Mexican Government, and
the hope was cherished that all cause of misunderstanding between the two
countries would be speedily removed. In the confident hope that such would
be the result of his mission, I informed Congress that I forbore at that
time to "recommend such ulterior measures of redress for the wrongs and
injuries we had so long borne as it would have been proper to make had no
such negotiation been instituted." To my surprise and regret the Mexican
Government, though solemnly pledged to do so, upon the arrival of our
minister in Mexico refused to receive and accredit him. When he reached
Vera Cruz, on the 30th of November, 1845, he found that the aspect of
affairs had undergone an unhappy change. The Government of General Herrera,
who was at that time President of the Republic, was tottering to its fall.
General Paredes, a military leader, had manifested his determination to
overthrow the Government of Herrera by a military revolution, and one of
the principal means which he employed to effect his purpose and render the
Government of Herrera odious to the army and people of Mexico was by loudly
condemning its determination to receive a minister of peace from the United
States, alleging that it was the intention of Herrera, by a treaty with the
United States, to dismember the territory of Mexico by ceding away the
department of Texas. The Government of Herrera is believed to have been
well disposed to a pacific adjustment of existing difficulties, but
probably alarmed for its own security, and in order to ward off the danger
of the revolution led by Paredes, violated its solemn agreement and refused
to receive or accredit our minister; and this although informed that he had
been invested with full power to adjust all questions in dispute between
the two Governments. Among the frivolous pretexts for this refusal, the
principal one was that our minister had not gone upon a special mission
confined to the question of Texas alone, leaving all the outrages upon our
flag and our citizens unredressed. The Mexican Government well knew that
both our national honor and the protection due to our citizens imperatively
required that the two questions of boundary and indemnity should be treated
of together, as naturally and inseparably blended, and they ought to have
seen that this course was best calculated to enable the United States to
extend to them the most liberal justice. On the 30th of December, 1845,
General Herrera resigned the Presidency and yielded up the Government to
General Paredes without a struggle. Thus a revolution was accomplished
solely by the army commanded by Paredes, and the supreme power in Mexico
passed into the hands of a military usurper who was known to be bitterly
hostile to the United States.

Although the prospect of a pacific adjustment with the new Government was
unpromising from the known hostility of its head to the United States, yet,
determined that nothing should be left undone on our part to restore
friendly relations between the two countries, our minister was instructed
to present his credentials to the new Government and ask to be accredited
by it in the diplomatic character in which he had been commissioned. These
instructions he executed by his note of the 1st of March, 1846, addressed
to the Mexican minister of foreign affairs, but his request was insultingly
refused by that minister in his answer of the 12th of the same month. No
alternative remained for our minister but to demand his passports and
return to the United States.

Thus was the extraordinary spectacle presented to the civilized world of a
Government, in violation of its own express agreement, having twice
rejected a minister of peace invested with full powers to adjust all the
existing differences between the two countries in a manner just and
honorable to both. I am not aware that modern history presents a parallel
case in which in time of peace one nation has refused even to hear
propositions from another for terminating existing difficulties between
them. Scarcely a hope of adjusting our difficulties, even at a remote day,
or of preserving peace with Mexico, could be cherished while Paredes
remained at the head of the Government. He had acquired the supreme power
by a military revolution and upon the most solemn pledges to wage war
against the United States and to reconquer Texas, which he claimed as a
revolted province of Mexico. He had denounced as guilty of treason all
those Mexicans who considered Texas as no longer constituting a part of the
territory of Mexico and who were friendly to the cause of peace. The
duration of the war which he waged against the United States was
indefinite, because the end which he proposed of the reconquest of Texas
was hopeless. Besides, there was good reason to believe from all his
conduct that it was his intention to convert the Republic of Mexico into a
monarchy and to call a foreign European prince to the throne. Preparatory
to this end, he had during his short rule destroyed the liberty of the
press, tolerating that portion of it only which openly advocated the
establishment of a monarchy. The better to secure the success of his
ultimate designs, he had by an arbitrary decree convoked a Congress, not to
be elected by the free voice of the people, but to be chosen in a manner to
make them subservient to his will and to give him absolute control over
their deliberations.

Under all these circumstances it was believed that any revolution in Mexico
founded upon opposition to the ambitious projects of Paredes would tend to
promote the cause of peace as well as prevent any attempted European
interference in the affairs of the North American continent, both objects
of deep interest to the United States. Any such foreign interference, if
attempted, must have been resisted by the United States. My views upon that
subject were fully communicated to Congress in my last annual message. In
any event, it was certain that no change whatever in the Government of
Mexico which would deprive Paredes of power could be for the worse so far
as the United States were concerned, while it was highly probable that any
change must be for the better. This was the state of affairs existing when
Congress, on the 13th of May last, recognized the existence of the war
which had been commenced by the Government of Paredes; and it became an
object of much importance, with a view to a speedy settlement of our
difficulties and the restoration of an honorable peace, that Paredes should
not retain power in Mexico.

Before that time there were symptoms of a revolution in Mexico, favored, as
it was understood to be, by the more liberal party, and especially by those
who were opposed to foreign interference and to the monarchical form of
government. Santa Anna was then in exile in Havana, having been expelled
from power and banished from his country by a revolution which occurred in
December, 1844; but it was known that he had still a considerable party in
his favor in Mexico. It was also equally well known that no vigilance which
could be exerted by our squadron would in all probability have prevented
him from effecting a landing somewhere on the extensive Gulf coast of
Mexico if he desired to return to his country. He had openly professed an
entire change of policy, had expressed his regret that he had subverted the
federal constitution of 1824, and avowed that he was now in favor of its
restoration. He had publicly declared his hostility, in strongest terms, to
the establishment of a monarchy and to European interference in the affairs
of his country. Information to this effect had been received, from sources
believed to be reliable, at the date of the recognition of the existence of
the war by Congress, and was afterwards fully confirmed by the receipt of
the dispatch of our consul in the City of Mexico, with the accompanying
documents, which are herewith transmitted. Besides, it was reasonable to
suppose that he must see the ruinous consequences to Mexico of a war with
the United States, and that it would be his interest to favor peace.

It was under these circumstances and upon these considerations that it was
deemed expedient not to obstruct his return to Mexico should he attempt to
do so. Our object was the restoration of peace, and, with that view, no
reason was perceived why we should take part with Paredes and aid him by
means of our blockade in preventing the return of his rival to Mexico. On
the contrary, it was believed that the intestine divisions which ordinary
sagacity could not but anticipate as the fruit of Santa Anna's return to
Mexico, and his contest with Paredes, might strongly tend to produce a
disposition with both parties to restore and preserve peace with the United
States. Paredes was a soldier by profession and a monarchist in principle.
He had but recently before been successful in a military revolution, by
which he had obtained power. He was the sworn enemy of the United States,
with which he had involved his country in the existing war. Santa Anna had
been expelled from power by the army, was known to be in open hostility to
Paredes, and publicly pledged against foreign intervention and the
restoration of monarchy in Mexico. In view of these facts and circumstances
it was that when orders were issued to the commander of our naval forces in
the Gulf, on the 13th day of May last, the same day on which the existence
of the war was recognized by Congress, to place the coasts of Mexico under
blockade, he was directed not to obstruct the passage of Santa Anna to
Mexico should he attempt to return.

A revolution took place in Mexico in the early part of August following, by
which the power of Paredes was overthrown, and he has since been banished
from the country, and is now in exile. Shortly afterwards Santa Anna
returned. It remains to be seen whether his return may not yet prove to be
favorable to a pacific adjustment of the existing difficulties, it being
manifestly his interest not to persevere in the prosecution of a war
commenced by Paredes to accomplish a purpose so absurd as the reconquest of
Texas to the Sabine. Had Paredes remained in power, it is morally certain
that any pacific adjustment would have been hopeless.

Upon the commencement of hostilities by Mexico against the United States
the indignant spirit of the nation was at once aroused. Congress promptly
responded to the expectations of the country, and by the act of the 13th of
May last recognized the fact that war existed, by the act of Mexico,
between the United States and that Republic, and granted the means
necessary for its vigorous prosecution. Being involved in a war thus
commenced by Mexico, and for the justice of which on our part we may
confidently appeal to the whole world, I resolved to prosecute it with the
utmost vigor. Accordingly the ports of Mexico on the Gulf and on the
Pacific have been placed under blockade and her territory invaded at
several important points. The reports from the Departments of War and of
the Navy will inform you more in detail of the measures adopted in the
emergency in which our country was placed and of the gratifying results
which have been accomplished.

The various columns of the Army have performed their duty under great
disadvantages with the most distinguished skill and courage. The victories
of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma and of Monterey, won against greatly
superior numbers and against most decided advantages in other respects on
the part of the enemy, were brilliant in their execution, and entitle our
brave officers and soldiers to the grateful thanks of their country. The
nation deplores the loss of the brave officers and men who have gallantly
fallen while vindicating and defending their country's rights and honor.

It is a subject of pride and satisfaction that our volunteer citizen
soldiers, who so promptly responded to their country's call, with an
experience of the discipline of a camp of only a few weeks, have borne
their part in the hard-fought battle of Monterey with a constancy and
courage equal to that of veteran troops and worthy of the highest
admiration. The privations of long marches through the enemy's country and
through a wilderness have been borne without a murmur. By rapid movements
the Province of New Mexico, with Santa Fe, its capital, has been captured
without bloodshed. The Navy has cooperated with the Army and rendered
important services; if not so brilliant, it is because the enemy had no
force to meet them on their own element and because of the defenses which
nature has interposed in the difficulties of the navigation on the Mexican
coast. Our squadron in the Pacific, with the cooperation of a gallant
officer of the Army and a small force hastily collected in that distant
country, has acquired bloodless possession of the Californias, and the
American flag has been raised at every important point in that Province.

I congratulate you on the success which has thus attended our military and
naval operations. In less than seven months after Mexico commenced
hostilities, at a time selected by herself, we have taken possession of
many of her principal ports, driven back and pursued her invading army, and
acquired military possession of the Mexican Provinces of New Mexico, New
Leon, Coahuila, Tamaulipas, and the Californias, a territory larger in
extent than that embraced in the original thirteen States of the Union,
inhabited by a considerable population, and much of it more than 1,000
miles from the points at which we had to collect our forces and commence
our movements. By the blockade the import and export trade of the enemy has
been cut off. Well may the American people be proud of the energy and
gallantry of our regular and volunteer officers and soldiers. The events of
these few months afford a gratifying proof that our country can under any
emergency confidently rely for the maintenance of her honor and the defense
of her rights on an effective force, ready at all times voluntarily to
relinquish the comforts of home for the perils and privations of the camp.
And though such a force may be for the time expensive, it is in the end
economical, as the ability to command it removes the necessity of employing
a large standing army in time of peace, and proves that our people love
their institutions and are ever ready to defend and protect them.

While the war was in a course of vigorous and successful prosecution, being
still anxious to arrest its evils, and considering that after the brilliant
victories of our arms on the 8th and 9th of May last the national honor
could not be compromitted by it, another overture was made to Mexico, by my
direction, on the 27th of July last to terminate hostilities by a peace
just and honorable to both countries. On the 31st of August following the
Mexican Government declined to accept this friendly overture, but referred
it to the decision of a Mexican Congress to be assembled in the early part
of the present month. I communicate to you herewith a copy of the letter of
the Secretary of State proposing to reopen negotiations, of the answer of
the Mexican Government, and of the reply thereto of the Secretary of
State,

The war will continue to be prosecuted with vigor as the best means of
securing peace. It is hoped that the decision of the Mexican Congress, to
which our last overture has been referred, may result in a speedy and
honorable peace. With our experience, however, of the unreasonable course
of the Mexican authorities, it is the part of wisdom not to relax in the
energy of our military operations until the result is made known. In this
view it is deemed important to hold military possession of all the
Provinces which have been taken until a definitive treaty of peace shall
have been concluded and ratified by the two countries.

The war has not been waged with a view to conquest, but, having been
commenced by Mexico, it has been carried into the enemy's country and will
be vigorously prosecuted there with a view to obtain an honorable peace,
and thereby secure ample indemnity for the expenses of the war, as well as
to our much-injured citizens, who hold large pecuniary demands against
Mexico.

By the laws of nations a conquered country is subject to be governed by the
conqueror during his military possession and until there is either a treaty
of peace or he shall voluntarily withdraw from it. The old civil government
being necessarily superseded, it is the right and duty of the conqueror to
secure his conquest and to provide for the maintenance of civil order and
the rights of the inhabitants. This right has been exercised and this duty
performed by our military and naval commanders by the establishment of
temporary governments in some of the conquered Provinces of Mexico,
assimilating them as far as practicable to the free institutions of our own
country. In the Provinces of New Mexico and of the Californias little, if
any, further resistance is apprehended from the inhabitants to the
temporary governments which have thus, from the necessity of the case and
according to the laws of war, been established. It may be proper to provide
for the security of these important conquests by making an adequate
appropriation for the purpose of erecting fortifications and defraying the
expenses necessarily incident to the maintenance of our possession and
authority over them.

Near the close of your last session, for reasons communicated to Congress,
I deemed it important as a measure for securing a speedy peace with Mexico,
that a sum of money should be appropriated and placed in the power of the
Executive, similar to that which had been made upon two former occasions
during the Administration of President Jefferson.

On the 26th of February, 1803, an appropriation of $2,000.000 was made and
placed at the disposal of the President. Its object is well known. It was
at that time in contemplation to acquire Louisiana from France, and it was
intended to be applied as a part of the consideration which might be paid
for that territory. On the 13th of February, 1806, the same sum was in like
manner appropriated, with a view to the purchase of the Floridas from
Spain. These appropriations were made to facilitate negotiations and as a
means to enable the President to accomplish the important objects in view.
Though it did not become necessary for the President to use these
appropriations, yet a state of things might have arisen in which it would
have been highly important for him to do so, and the wisdom of making them
can not be doubted. It is believed that the measure recommended at your
last session met with the approbation of decided majorities in both Houses
of Congress. Indeed, in different forms, a bill making an appropriation of
$2,000,000 passed each House, and it is much to be regretted that it did
not become a law. The reasons which induced me to recommend the measure at
that time still exist, and I again submit the subject for your
consideration and suggest the importance of early action upon it. Should
the appropriation be made and be not needed, it will remain in the
Treasury; should it be deemed proper to apply it in whole or in part, it
will be accounted for as other public expenditures.

Immediately after Congress had recognized the existence of the war with
Mexico my attention was directed to the danger that privateers might be
fitted out in the ports of Cuba and Porto Rico to prey upon the commerce of
the United States, and I invited the special attention of the Spanish
Government to the fourteenth article of our treaty with that power of the
27th of October, 1795, under which the citizens and subjects of either
nation who shall take commissions or letters of marque to act as privateers
against the other "shall be punished as pirates."

It affords me pleasure to inform you that I have received assurances from
the Spanish Government that this article of the treaty shall be faithfully
observed on its part. Orders for this purpose were immediately transmitted
from that Government to the authorities of Cuba and Porto Rico to exert
their utmost vigilance in preventing any attempts to fit out privateers in
those islands against the United States. From the good faith of Spain I am
fully satisfied that this treaty will be executed in its spirit as well as
its letter, whilst the United States will on their part faithfully perform
all the obligations which it imposes on them.

Information has been recently received at the Department of State that the
Mexican Government has sent to Havana blank commissions to privateers and
blank certificates of naturalization signed by General Salas, the present
head of the Mexican Government. There is also reason to apprehend that
similar documents have been transmitted to other parts of the world. Copies
of these papers, in translation, are herewith transmitted.

As the preliminaries required by the practice of civilized nations for
commissioning privateers and regulating their conduct appear not to have
been observed, and as these commissions are in blank, to be filled up with
the names of citizens and subjects of all nations who may be willing to
purchase them, the whole proceeding can only be construed as an invitation
to all the freebooters upon earth who are willing to pay for the privilege
to cruise against American commerce. It will be for our courts of justice
to decide whether under such circumstances these Mexican letters of marque
and reprisal shall protect those who accept them, and commit robberies upon
the high seas under their authority, from the pains and penalties of
piracy.

If the certificates of naturalization thus granted be intended by Mexico to
shield Spanish subjects from the guilt and punishment of pirates under our
treaty with Spain, they will certainly prove unavailing. Such a subterfuge
would be but a weak device to defeat the provisions of a solemn treaty.

I recommend that Congress should immediately provide by law for the trial
and punishment as pirates of Spanish subjects who, escaping the vigilance
of their Government, shall be found guilty of privateering against the
United States. I do not apprehend serious danger from these privateers. Our
Navy will be constantly on the alert to protect our commerce. Besides, in
case prizes should be made of American vessels, the utmost vigilance will
be exerted by our blockading squadron to prevent the captors from taking
them into Mexican ports, and it is not apprehended that any nation will
violate its neutrality by suffering such prizes to be condemned and sold
within its jurisdiction.

I recommend that Congress should immediately provide by law for granting
letters of marque and reprisal against vessels under the Mexican flag. It
is true that there are but few, if any, commercial vessels of Mexico upon
the high seas, and it is therefore not probable that many American
privateers would be fitted out in case a law should pass authorizing this
mode of warfare. It is, notwithstanding, certain that such privateers may
render good service to the commercial interests of the country by
recapturing our merchant ships should any be taken by armed vessels under
the Mexican flag, as well as by capturing these vessels themselves. Every
means within our power should be rendered available for the protection of
our commerce.

The annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury will exhibit a detailed
statement of the condition of the finances. The imports for the fiscal year
ending on the 30th of June last were of the value of $121,691,797, of which
the amount exported was $11,346,623, leaving the amount retained in the
country for domestic consumption $110,345,174. The value of the exports for
the same period was $113,488,516, of which $102,141,893 consisted of
domestic productions and $11,346,623 of foreign articles.

The receipts into the Treasury for the same year were $29,499,247.06, of
which there was derived from customs $26,712,667.87, from the sales of
public lands $2,694,452.48, and from incidental and miscellaneous sources
$92,126.71. The expenditures for the same period were $28,031,114.20, and
the balance in the Treasury on the 1st day of July last was $9,126,439.
08.

The amount of the public debt, including Treasury notes, on the 1st of the
present month was $24,256,494.60, of which the sum of $17,788,799.62 was
outstanding on the 4th of March, 1845, leaving the amount incurred since
that time $6,467,694.98.

In order to prosecute the war with Mexico with vigor and energy, as the
best means of bringing it to a speedy and honorable termination, a further
loan will be necessary to meet the expenditures for the present and the
next fiscal year. If the war should be continued until the 30th of June,
1848, being the end of the next fiscal year, it is estimated that an
additional loan of $23,000,000 will be required. This estimate is made upon
the assumption that it will be necessary to retain constantly in the
Treasury $4,000,000 to guard against contingencies. If such surplus were
not required to be retained, then a loan of $19,000,000 would be
sufficient. If, however, Congress should at the present session impose a
revenue duty on the principal articles now embraced in the free list, it is
estimated that an additional annual revenue of about two millions and a
half, amounting, it is estimated, on the 30th of June, 1848, to $4,000,000,
would be derived from that source, and the loan required would be reduced
by that amount. It is estimated also that should Congress graduate and
reduce the price of such of the public lands as have been long in the
market the additional revenue derived from that source would be annually,
for several years to come, between half a million and a million dollars;
and the loan required may be reduced by that amount also. Should these
measures be adopted, the loan required would not probably exceed
$18,000,000 or $19,000,000, leaving in the Treasury a constant surplus of
$4,000,000. The loan proposed, it is estimated, will be sufficient to cover
the necessary expenditures both for the war and for all other purposes up
to the 30th of June, 1848, and an amount of this loan not exceeding
one-half may be required during the present fiscal year, and the greater
part of the remainder during the first half of the fiscal year succeeding.

In order that timely notice may be given and proper measures taken to
effect the loan, or such portion of it as may be required, it is important
that the authority of Congress to make it be given at an early period of
your present session. It is suggested that the loan should be contracted
for a period of twenty years, with authority to purchase the stock and pay
it off at an earlier period at its market value out of any surplus which
may at any time be in the Treasury applicable to that purpose. After the
establishment of peace with Mexico, it is supposed that a considerable
surplus will exist, and that the debt may be extinguished in a much shorter
period than that for which it may be contracted. The period of twenty
years, as that for which the proposed loan may be contracted, in preference
to a shorter period, is suggested, because all experience, both at home and
abroad, has shown that loans are effected upon much better terms upon long
time than when they are reimbursable at short dates.

Necessary as this measure is to sustain the honor and the interests of the
country engaged in a foreign war, it is not doubted but that Congress will
promptly authorize it.

The balance in the Treasury on the 1st July last exceeded $9,000,000,
notwithstanding considerable expenditures had been made for the war during
the months of May and June preceding. But for the war the whole public debt
could and would have been extinguished within a short period; and it was a
part of my settled policy to do so, and thus relieve the people from its
burden and place the Government in a position which would enable it to
reduce the public expenditures to that economical standard which is most
consistent with the general welfare and the pure and wholesome progress of
our institutions.

Among our just causes of complaint against Mexico arising out of her
refusal to treat for peace, as well before as since the war so unjustly
commenced on her part, are the extraordinary expenditures in which we have
been involved. Justice to our own people will make it proper that Mexico
should be held responsible for these expenditures.

Economy in the public expenditures is at all times a high duty which all
public functionaries of the Government owe to the people. This duty becomes
the more imperative in a period of war, when large and extraordinary
expenditures become unavoidable. During the existence of the war with
Mexico all our resources should be husbanded, and no appropriations made
except such as are absolutely necessary for its vigorous prosecution and
the due administration of the Government. Objects of appropriation which in
peace may be deemed useful or proper, but which are not indispensable for
the public service, may when the country is engaged in a foreign war be
well postponed to a future period. By the observance of this policy at your
present session large amounts may be saved to the Treasury and be applied
to objects of pressing and urgent necessity, and thus the creation of a
corresponding amount of public debt may be avoided.

It is not meant to recommend that the ordinary and necessary appropriations
for the support of Government should be withheld; but it is well known that
at every session of Congress appropriations are proposed for numerous
objects which may or may not be made without materially affecting the
public interests, and these it is recommended should not be granted.

The act passed at your last session "reducing the duties on imports" not
having gone into operation until the 1st of the present month, there has
not been time for its practical effect upon the revenue and the business of
the country to be developed. It is not doubted, however, that the just
policy which it adopts will add largely to our foreign trade and promote
the general prosperity. Although it can not be certainly foreseen what
amount of revenue it will yield, it is estimated that it will exceed that
produced by the act of 1842, which it superseded. The leading principles
established by it are to levy the taxes with a view to raise revenue and to
impose them upon the articles imported according to their actual value.

The act of 1842, by the excessive rates of duty which it imposed on many
articles, either totally excluded them from importation or greatly reduced
the amount imported, and thus diminished instead of producing revenue. By
it the taxes were imposed not for the legitimate purpose of raising
revenue, but to afford advantages to favored classes at the expense of a
large majority of their fellow-citizens. Those employed in agriculture,
mechanical pursuits, commerce, and navigation were compelled to contribute
from their substance to swell the profits and overgrown wealth of the
comparatively few who had invested their capital in manufactures. The taxes
were not levied in proportion to the value of the articles upon which they
were imposed, but, widely departing from this just rule, the lighter taxes
were in many cases levied upon articles of luxury and high price and the
heavier taxes on those of necessity and low price, consumed by the great
mass of the people. It was a system the inevitable effect of which was to
relieve favored classes and the wealthy few from contributing their just
proportion for the support of Government, and to lay the burden on the
labor of the many engaged in other pursuits than manufactures.

A system so unequal and unjust has been superseded by the existing law,
which imposes duties not for the benefit or injury of classes or pursuits,
but distributes and, as far as practicable, equalizes the public burdens
among all classes and occupations. The favored classes who under the
unequal and unjust system which has been repealed have heretofore realized
large profits, and many of them amassed large fortunes at the expense of
the many who have been made tributary to them, will have no reason to
complain if they shall be required to bear their just proportion of the
taxes necessary for the support of Government. So far from it, it will be
perceived by an examination of the existing law that discriminations in the
rates of duty imposed within the revenue principle have been retained in
their favor. The incidental aid against foreign competition which they
still enjoy gives them an advantage which no other pursuits possess, but of
this none others will complain, because the duties levied are necessary for
revenue. These revenue duties, including freights and charges, which the
importer must pay before he can come in competition with the home
manufacturer in our markets, amount on nearly all our leading branches of
manufacture to more than one-third of the value of the imported article,
and in some cases to almost one-half its value. With such advantages it is
not doubted that our domestic manufacturers will continue to prosper,
realizing in well-conducted establishments even greater profits than can be
derived from any other regular business. Indeed, so far from requiring the
protection of even incidental revenue duties, our manufacturers in several
leading branches are extending their business, giving evidence of great
ingenuity and skill and of their ability to compete, with increased
prospect of success, for the open market of the world. Domestic
manufactures to the value of several millions of dollars, which can not
find a market at home, are annually exported to foreign countries. With
such rates of duty as those established by the existing law the system will
probably be permanent, and capitalists who are made or shall hereafter make
their investments in manufactures will know upon what to rely. The country
will be satisfied with these rates, because the advantages which the
manufacturers still enjoy result necessarily from the collection of revenue
for the support of Government. High protective duties, from their unjust
operation upon the masses of the people, can not fail to give rise to
extensive dissatisfaction and complaint and to constant efforts to change
or repeal them, rendering all investments in manufactures uncertain and
precarious. Lower and more permanent rates of duty, at the same time that
they will yield to the manufacturer fair and remunerating profits, will
secure him against the danger of frequent changes in the system, which can
not fail to ruinously affect his interests.

Simultaneously with the relaxation of the restrictive policy by the United
States, Great Britain, from whose example we derived the system, has
relaxed hers. She has modified her corn laws and reduced many other duties
to moderate revenue rates. After ages of experience the statesmen of that
country have been constrained by a stern necessity and by a public opinion
having its deep foundation in the sufferings and wants of impoverished
millions to abandon a system the effect of which was to build up immense
fortunes in the hands of the few and to reduce the laboring millions to
pauperism and misery. Nearly in the same ratio that labor was depressed
capital was increased and concentrated by the British protective policy.

The evils of the system in Great Britain were at length rendered
intolerable, and it has been abandoned, but not without a severe struggle
on the part of the protected and favored classes to retain the unjust
advantages which they have so long enjoyed. It was to be expected that a
similar struggle would be made by the same classes in the United States
whenever an attempt was made to modify or abolish the same unjust system
here. The protective policy had been in operation in the United States for
a much shorter period, and its pernicious effects were not, therefore, so
clearly perceived and felt. Enough, however, was known of these effects to
induce its repeal.

It would be strange if in the face of the example of Great Britain, our
principal foreign customer, and of the evils of a system rendered manifest
in that country by long and painful experience, and in the face of the
immense advantages which under a more liberal commercial policy we are
already deriving, and must continue to derive, by supplying her starving
population with food, the United States should restore a policy which she
has been compelled to abandon, and thus diminish her ability to purchase
from us the food and other articles which she so much needs and we so much
desire to sell. By the simultaneous abandonment of the protective policy by
Great Britain and the United States new and important markets have already
been opened for our agricultural and other products, commerce and
navigation have received a new impulse, labor and trade have been released
from the artificial trammels which have so long fettered them, and to a
great extent reciprocity in the exchange of commodities has been introduced
at the same time by both countries, and greatly for the benefit of both.
Great Britain has been forced by the pressure of circumstances at home to
abandon a policy which has been upheld for ages, and to open her markets
for our immense surplus of breadstuffs, and it is confidently believed that
other powers of Europe will ultimately see the wisdom, if they be not
compelled by the pauperism and sufferings of their crowded population, to
pursue a similar policy.

Our farmers are more deeply interested in maintaining the just and liberal
policy of the existing law than any other class of our citizens. They
constitute a large majority of our population, and it is well known that
when they prosper all other pursuits prosper also. They have heretofore not
only received none of the bounties or favors of Government, but by the
unequal operations of the protective policy have been made by the burdens
of taxation which it imposed to contribute to the bounties which have
enriched others.

When a foreign as well as a home market is opened to them, they must
receive, as they are now receiving, increased prices for their products.
They will find a readier sale, and at better prices, for their wheat,
flour, rice, Indian corn, beef, pork, lard, butter, cheese, and other
articles which they produce. The home market alone is inadequate to enable
them to dispose of the immense surplus of food and other articles which
they are capable of producing, even at the most reduced prices, for the
manifest reason that they can not be consumed in the country. The United
States can from their immense surplus supply not only the home demand, but
the deficiencies of food required by the whole world.

That the reduced production of some of the chief articles of food in Great
Britain and other parts of Europe may have contributed to increase the
demand for our breadstuffs and provisions is not doubted, but that the
great and efficient cause of this increased demand and of increased prices
consists in the removal of artificial restrictions heretofore imposed is
deemed to be equally certain. That our exports of food, already increased
and increasing beyond former example under the more liberal policy which
has been adopted, will be still vastly enlarged unless they be checked or
prevented by a restoration of the protective policy can not be doubted.
That our commercial and navigating interests will be enlarged in a
corresponding ratio with the increase of our trade is equally certain,
while our manufacturing interests will still be the favored interests of
the country and receive the incidental protection afforded them by revenue
duties; and more than this they can not justly demand.

In my annual message of December last a tariff of revenue duties based upon
the principles of the existing law was recommended, and I have seen no
reason to change the opinions then expressed. In view of the probable
beneficial effects of that law, I recommend that the policy established by
it be maintained. It has but just commenced to operate, and to abandon or
modify it without giving it a fair trial would be inexpedient and unwise.
Should defects in any of its details be ascertained by actual experience to
exist, these may be hereafter corrected; but until such defects shall
become manifest the act should be fairly tested.

It is submitted for your consideration whether it may not be proper, as a
war measure, to impose revenue duties on some of the articles now embraced
in the free list. Should it be deemed proper to impose such duties with a
view to raise revenue to meet the expenses of the war with Mexico or to
avoid to that extent the creation of a public debt, they may be repealed
when the emergency which gave rise to them shall cease to exist, and
constitute no part of the permanent policy of the country.

The act of the 6th of August last, "to provide for the better organization
of the Treasury and for the collection, safe-keeping, transfer, and
disbursement of the public revenue," has been carried into execution as
rapidly as the delay necessarily arising out of the appointment of new
officers, taking and approving their bonds, and preparing and securing
proper places for the safe-keeping of the public money would permit. It is
not proposed to depart in any respect from the principles or policy on
which this great measure is rounded. There are, however, defects in the
details of the measure, developed by its practical operation, which are
fully set forth in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, to which
the attention of Congress is invited. These defects would impair to some
extent the successful operation of the law at all times, but are especially
embarrassing when the country is engaged in a war, when the expenditures
are greatly increased, when loans are to be effected and the disbursements
are to be made at points many hundred miles distant, in some cases, from
any depository, and a large portion of them in a foreign country. The
modifications suggested in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury are
recommended to your favorable consideration.

In connection with this subject I invite your attention to the importance
of establishing a branch of the Mint of the United States at New York.
Two-thirds of the revenue derived from customs being collected at that
point, the demand for specie to pay the duties will be large, and a branch
mint where foreign coin and bullion could be immediately converted into
American coin would greatly facilitate the transaction of the public
business, enlarge the circulation of gold and silver, and be at the same
time a safe depository of the public money.

The importance of graduating and reducing the price of such of the public
lands as have been long offered in the market at the minimum rate
authorized by existing laws, and remain unsold, induces me again to
recommend the subject to your favorable consideration. Many millions of
acres of these lands have been offered in the market for more than thirty
years and larger quantities for more than ten or twenty years, and, being
of an inferior quality, they must remain unsalable for an indefinite period
unless the price at which they may be purchased shall be reduced. To place
a price upon them above their real value is not only to prevent their sale,
and thereby deprive the Treasury of any income from that source, but is
unjust to the States in which they lie, because it retards their growth and
increase of population, and because they have no power to levy a tax upon
them as upon other lands within their limits, held by other proprietors
than the United States, for the support of their local governments.

The beneficial effects of the graduation principle have been realized by
some of the States owning the lands within their limits in which it has
been adopted. They have been demonstrated also by the United States acting
as the trustee of the Chickasaw tribe of Indians in the sale of their lands
lying within the States of Mississippi and Alabama. The Chickasaw lands,
which would not command in the market the minimum price established by the
laws of the United States for the sale of their lands, were, in pursuance
of the treaty of 1834 with that tribe, subsequently offered for sale at
graduated and reduced rates for limited periods. The result was that large
quantities of these lands were purchased which would otherwise have
remained unsold. The lands were disposed of at their real value, and many
persons of limited means were enabled to purchase small tracts, upon which
they have settled with their families. That similar results would be
produced by the adoption of the graduation policy by the United States in
all the States in which they are the owners of large bodies of lands which
have been long in the market can not be doubted. It can not be a sound
policy to withhold large quantities of the public lands from the use and
occupation of our citizens by fixing upon them prices which experience has
shown they will not command. On the contrary, it is a wise policy to afford
facilities to our citizens to become the owners at low and moderate rates
of freeholds of their own instead of being the tenants and dependents of
others. If it be apprehended that these lands if reduced in price would be
secured in large quantities by speculators or capitalists, the sales may be
restricted in limited quantities to actual settlers or persons purchasing
for purposes of cultivation.

In my last annual message I submitted for the consideration of Congress the
present system of managing the mineral lands of the United States, and
recommended that they should be brought into market and sold upon such
terms and under such restrictions as Congress might prescribe. By the act
of the 11th of July last "the reserved lead mines and contiguous lands in
the States of Illinois and Arkansas and Territories of Wisconsin and Iowa"
were authorized to be sold. The act is confined in its operation to "lead
mines and contiguous lands." A large portion of the public lands,
containing copper and other ores, is represented to be very valuable, and I
recommend that provision be made authorizing the sale of these lands upon
such terms and conditions as from their supposed value may in the judgment
of Congress be deemed advisable, having due regard to the interests of such
of our citizens as may be located upon them.

It will be important during your present session to establish a Territorial
government and to extend the jurisdiction and laws of the United States
over the Territory of Oregon. Our laws regulating trade and intercourse
with the Indian tribes east of the Rocky Mountains should be extended to
the Pacific Ocean; and for the purpose of executing them and preserving
friendly relations with the Indian tribes within our limits, an additional
number of Indian agencies will be required, and should be authorized by
law. The establishment of custom-houses and of post-offices and post-roads
and provision for the transportation of the mail on such routes as the
public convenience will suggest require legislative authority. It will be
proper also to establish a surveyor-general's office in that Territory and
to make the necessary provision for surveying the public lands and bringing
them into market. As our citizens who now reside in that distant region
have been subjected to many hardships, privations, and sacrifices in their
emigration, and by their improvements have enhanced the value of the public
lands in the neighborhood of their settlements, it is recommended that
liberal grants be made to them of such portions of these lands as they

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/5019