President should be unanimous in opposition to it, whereas the veto of the President may be overruled by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress or by the people at the polls.
It is obvious that to preserve the system established by the Constitution each of the coordinate branches of the Government–the executive, legislative, and judicial–must be left in the exercise of its appropriate powers. If the executive or the judicial branch be deprived of powers conferred upon either as checks on the legislative, the preponderance of the latter will become disproportionate and absorbing and the others impotent for the accomplishment of the great objects for which they were established. Organized, as they are, by the Constitution, they work together harmoniously for the public good. If the Executive and the judiciary shall be deprived of the constitutional powers invested in them, and of their due proportions, the equilibrium of the system must be destroyed, and consolidation, with the most pernicious results, must ensue–a consolidation of unchecked, despotic power, exercised by majorities of the legislative branch.
The executive, legislative, and judicial each constitutes a separate coordinate department of the Government, and each is independent of the others. In the performance of their respective duties under the Constitution neither can in its legitimate action control the others. They each act upon their several responsibilities in their respective spheres. But if the doctrines now maintained be correct, the executive must become practically subordinate to the legislative, and the judiciary must become subordinate to both the legislative and the executive; and thus the whole power of the Government would be merged in a single department. Whenever, if ever, this shall occur, our glorious system of well-regulated self-government will crumble into ruins, to be succeeded, first by anarchy, and finally by monarchy or despotism. I am far from believing that this doctrine is the sentiment of the American people; and during the short period which remains in which it will be my duty to administer the executive department it will be my aim to maintain its independence and discharge its duties without infringing upon the powers or duties of either of the other departments of the Government.
The power of the Executive veto was exercised by the first and most illustrious of my predecessors and by four of his successors who preceded me in the administration of the Government, and it is believed in no instance prejudicially to the public interests. It has never been and there is but little danger that it ever can be abused. No President will ever desire unnecessarily to place his opinion in opposition to that of Congress. He must always exercise the power reluctantly, and only in cases where his convictions make it a matter of stern duty, which he can not escape. Indeed, there is more danger that the President, from the repugnance he must always feel to come in collision with Congress, may fail to exercise it in cases where the preservation of the Constitution from infraction, or the public good, may demand it than that he will ever exercise it unnecessarily or wantonly.
During the period I have administered the executive department of the Government great and important questions of public policy, foreign and domestic, have arisen, upon which it was my duty to act. It may, indeed, be truly said that my Administration has fallen upon eventful times. I have felt most sensibly the weight of the high responsibilities devolved upon me. With no other object than the public good, the enduring fame, and permanent prosperity of my country, I have pursued the convictions of my own best judgment. The impartial arbitrament of enlightened public opinion, present and future, will determine how far the public policy I have maintained and the measures I have from time to time recommended may have tended to advance or retard the public prosperity at home and to elevate or depress the estimate of our national character abroad.
Invoking the blessings of the Almighty upon your deliberations at your present important session, my ardent hope is that in a spirit of harmony and concord you may be guided to wise results, and such as may redound to the happiness, the honor, and the glory of our beloved country.
JAMES K. POLK.
SPECIAL MESSAGES.
WASHINGTON, _December 12, 1848_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I nominate Second Lieutenant Ulysses S. Grant (since promoted first lieutenant), of the Fourth Regiment of Infantry, to be first lieutenant by brevet for gallant and meritorious services in the battle of Chapultepec, September 13, 1847, as proposed in the accompanying communication from the Secretary of War.
JAMES K. POLK.
WAR DEPARTMENT, _December_ 11, _1848_.
The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
SIR: The brevet of captain conferred on Second Lieutenant Ulysses S. Grant (since promoted first lieutenant), of the Fourth Regiment of Infantry, and confirmed by the Senate on the 13th of July, 1848, “for gallant and meritorious conduct in the battle of Chapultepec, September 13, 1847,” being the result of a misapprehension as to the grade held by that officer on the 13th of September, 1847 (he being then a second lieutenant), I have to propose that the brevet of captain be canceled and that the brevet of first lieutenant “for gallant and meritorious services in the battle of Chapultepec, September 13, 1847,” be conferred in lieu thereof.
I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant,
W.L. MARCY.
WASHINGTON, _December 12, 1848_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I transmit herewith, for the consideration and advice of the Senate with regard to its ratification, a treaty concluded on the 6th of August, 1848, by L.E. Powell, on the part of the United States, and the chiefs and headmen of the confederated bands of the Pawnee Indians, together with a report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and other papers explanatory of the same.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _December 12, 1848_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I transmit herewith, for the consideration and advice of the Senate with regard to its ratification, a treaty concluded on the 18th of October, 1848, by William Medill, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, on the part of the United States, and the chiefs and headmen of the Menomonee Indians, together with a report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and other papers explanatory of the same.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _December 27, 1848_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
In compliance with the resolution of the House of the 11th instant, requesting the President to inform that body “whether he has received any information that American citizens have been imprisoned or arrested by British authorities in Ireland, and, if so, what have been the causes thereof and what steps have been taken for their release, and if not, in his opinion, inconsistent with public interest to furnish this House with copies of all correspondence in relation thereto,” I communicate herewith a report of the Secretary of State, together with the accompanying correspondence upon the subject.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _December 27, 1848_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I communicate herewith, in compliance with the request contained in the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, a report of the Secretary of the Treasury, with the accompanying statement, prepared by the Register of the Treasury, which exhibits the annual amount appropriated on account of the Coast Survey from the commencement of said Survey.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _January 2, 1849_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 18th of December, 1848, requesting information “under what law or provision of the Constitution, or by what other authority,” the Secretary of the Treasury, with the “sanction and approval” of the President, established “a tariff of duties in the ports of the Mexican Republic during the war with Mexico,” and “by what legal, constitutional, or other authority” the “revenue thus derived” was appropriated to “the support of the Army in Mexico,” I refer the House to my annual message of the 7th of December, 1847, to my message to the Senate of the 10th of February, 1848, responding to a call of that body, a copy of which is herewith communicated, and to my message to the House of Representatives of the 24th of July, 1848, responding to a call of that House. The resolution assumes that the Secretary of the Treasury “established a tariff of duties in the ports of the Mexican Republic.” The contributions collected in this mode were not established by the Secretary of the Treasury, but by a military order issued by the President through the War and Navy Departments. For his information the President directed the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare and report to him a scale of duties. That report was made, and the President’s military order of the 31st of March, 1847, was based upon it. The documents communicated to Congress with my annual message of December, 1847, show the true character of that order.
The authority under which military contributions were exacted and collected from the enemy and applied to the support of our Army during the war with Mexico was stated in the several messages referred to. In the first of these messages I informed Congress that–
On the 31st of March last I caused an order to be issued to our military and naval commanders to levy and collect a military contribution upon all vessels and merchandise which might enter any of the ports of Mexico in our military occupation, and to apply such contributions toward defraying the expenses of the war. By virtue of the right of conquest and the laws of war, the conqueror, consulting his own safety or convenience, may either exclude foreign commerce altogether from all such ports or permit it upon such terms and conditions as he may prescribe. Before the principal ports of Mexico were blockaded by our Navy the revenue derived from import duties under the laws of Mexico was paid into the Mexican treasury. After these ports had fallen into our military possession the blockade was raised and commerce with them permitted upon prescribed terms and conditions. They were opened to the trade of all nations upon the payment of duties more moderate in their amount than those which had been previously levied by Mexico, and the revenue, which was formerly paid into the Mexican treasury, was directed to be collected by our military and naval officers and applied to the use of our Army and Navy. Care was taken that the officers, soldiers, and sailors of our Army and Navy should be exempted from the operations of the order, and, as the merchandise imported upon which the order operated must be consumed by Mexican citizens, the contributions exacted were in effect the seizure of the public revenues of Mexico and the application of them to our own use. In directing this measure the object was to compel the enemy to contribute as far as practicable toward the expenses of the war.
It was also stated in that message that–
Measures have recently been adopted by which the internal as well as the external revenues of Mexico in all places in our military occupation will be seized and appropriated to the use of our Army and Navy.
The policy of levying upon the enemy contributions in every form consistently with the laws of nations, which it may be practicable for our military commanders to adopt, should, in my judgment, be rigidly enforced, and orders to this effect have accordingly been given. By such a policy, at the same time that our own Treasury will be relieved from a heavy drain, the Mexican people will be made to feel the burdens of the war, and, consulting their own interests, may be induced the more readily to requite their rulers to accede to a just peace.
In the same message I informed Congress that the amount of the “loan” which would be required for the further prosecution of the war might be “reduced by whatever amount of expenditures can be saved by military contributions collected in Mexico,” and that “the most rigorous measures for the augmentation of these contributions have been directed, and a very considerable sum is expected from that source.” The Secretary of the Treasury, in his annual report of that year, in making his estimate of the amount of loan which would probably be required, reduced the sum in consideration of the amount which would probably be derived from these contributions, and Congress authorized the loan upon this reduced estimate.
In the message of the 10th of February, 1848, to the Senate, it was stated that–
No principle is better established than that a nation at war has the right of shifting the burden off itself and imposing it on the enemy by exacting military contributions. The mode of making such exactions must be left to the discretion of the conqueror, but it should be exercised in a manner conformable to the rules of civilized warfare.
The right to levy these contributions is essential to the successful prosecution of war in an enemy’s country, and the practice of nations has been in accordance with this principle. It is as clearly necessary as the right to fight battles, and its exercise is often essential to the subsistence of the army.
Entertaining no doubt that the military right to exclude commerce altogether from the ports of the enemy in our military occupation included the minor right of admitting it under prescribed conditions, it became an important question at the date of the order whether there should be a discrimination between vessels and cargoes belonging to citizens of the United States and vessels and cargoes belonging to neutral nations.
In the message to the House of Representatives of the 24th of July, 1848, it was stated that–
It is from the same source of authority that we derive the unquestioned right, after the war has been declared by Congress, to blockade the ports and coasts of the enemy, to capture his towns, cities, and provinces, and to levy contributions upon him for the support of our Army. Of the same character with these is the right to subject to our temporary military government the conquered territories of our enemy. They are all belligerent rights, and their exercise is as essential to the successful prosecution of a foreign war as the right to fight battles.
By the Constitution the power to “declare war” is vested in Congress, and by the same instrument it is provided that “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States” and that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
When Congress have exerted their power by declaring war against a foreign nation, it is the duty of the President to prosecute it. The Constitution has prescribed no particular mode in which he shall perform this duty. The manner of conducting the war is not defined by the Constitution. The term _war_ used in that instrument has a well-understood meaning among nations. That meaning is derived from the laws of nations, a code which is recognized by all civilized powers as being obligatory in a state of war. The power is derived from the Constitution and the manner of exercising it is regulated by the laws of nations. When Congress have declared war, they in effect make it the duty of the President in prosecuting it, by land and sea, to resort to all the modes and to exercise all the powers and rights which other nations at war possess. He is invested with the same power in this respect as if he were personally present commanding our fleets by sea or our armies by land. He may conduct the war by issuing orders for fighting battles, besieging and capturing cities, conquering and holding the provinces of the enemy, or by capturing his vessels and other property on the high seas. But these are not the only modes of prosecuting war which are recognized by the laws of nations and to which he is authorized to resort. The levy of contributions on the enemy is a right of war well established and universally acknowledged among nations, and one which every belligerent possessing the ability may properly exercise. The most approved writers on public law admit and vindicate this right as consonant with reason, justice, and humanity.
No principle is better established than that–
We have a right to deprive our enemy of his possessions, of everything which may augment his strength and enable him to make war. This everyone endeavors to accomplish in the manner most suitable to him. Whenever we have an opportunity we seize on the enemy’s property and convert it to our own use, and thus, besides diminishing the enemy’s power, we augment our own and obtain at least a partial indemnification or equivalent, either for what constitutes the subject of the war or for the expenses and losses incurred in its prosecution. In a word, we do ourselves justice.
“Instead of the custom of pillaging the open country and defenseless places,” the levy of contributions has been “substituted.”
Whoever carries on a just war has a right to make the enemy’s country contribute to the support of his army and toward defraying all the charges of the war. Thus he obtains a part of what is due to him, and the enemy’s subjects, by consenting to pay the sum demanded, have their property secured from pillage and the country is preserved.
These principles, it is believed, are uncontroverted by any civilized nation in modern times. The public law of nations, by which they are recognized, has been held by our highest judicial tribunal as a code which is applicable to our “situation” in a state of war and binding on the United States, while in admiralty and maritime cases it is often the governing rule. It is in a just war that a nation has the “right to make the enemy’s country contribute to the support of his army.” Not doubting that our late war with Mexico was just on the part of the United States, I did not hesitate when charged by the Constitution with its prosecution to exercise a power common to all other nations, and Congress was duly informed of the mode and extent to which that power had been and would be exercised at the commencement of their first session thereafter.
Upon the declaration of war against Mexico by Congress the United States were entitled to all the rights which any other nation at war would have possessed. These rights could only be demanded and enforced by the President, whose duty it was, as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,” to execute the law of Congress which declared the war. In the act declaring war Congress provided for raising men and money to enable the President “to prosecute it to a speedy and successful termination.” Congress prescribed no mode of conducting it, but left the President to prosecute it according to the laws of nations as his guide. Indeed, it would have been impracticable for Congress to have provided for all the details of a campaign.
The mode of levying contributions must necessarily be left to the discretion of the conqueror, subject to be exercised, however, in conformity with the laws of nations. It may be exercised by requiring a given sum or a given amount of provisions to be furnished by the authorities of a captured city or province; it may be exercised by imposing an internal tax or a tax on the enemy’s commerce, whereby he may be deprived of his revenues, and these may be appropriated to the use of the conqueror. The latter mode was adopted by the collection of duties in the ports of Mexico in our military occupation during the late war with that Republic.
So well established is the military right to do this under the laws of nations that our military and naval officers commanding our forces on the theater of war adopted the same mode of levying contributions from the enemy before the order of the President of the 31st of March, 1847, was issued. The general in command of the Army at Vera Cruz, upon his own view of his powers and duties, and without specific instructions to that effect, immediately after the capture of that city adopted this mode. By his order of the 28th of March, 1847, heretofore communicated to the House of Representatives, he directed a “temporary and moderate tariff of duties to be established.” Such a tariff was established, and contributions were collected under it and applied to the uses of our Army. At a still earlier period the same power was exercised by the naval officers in command of our squadron on the Pacific coast. … Not doubting the authority to resort to this mode, the order of the 31st of March, 1847, was issued, and was in effect but a modification of the previous orders of these officers, by making the rates of contribution uniform and directing their collection in all the ports of the enemy in our military occupation and under our temporary military government.
The right to levy contributions upon the enemy in the form of import and export duties in his ports was sanctioned by the treaty of peace with Mexico. By that treaty both Governments recognized … and confirmed the exercise of that right. By its provisions “the customhouses at all the ports occupied by the forces of the United States” were, upon the exchange of ratifications, to be delivered up to the Mexican authorities, “together with all bonds and evidences of debt for duties on importations and exportations _not yet fallen due_;” and “all duties on imports and on exports collected at such custom-houses or elsewhere in Mexico by authority of the United States” before the ratification of the treaty by the Mexican Government were to be retained by the United States, and only the net amount of the duties collected after this period was to be “delivered to the Mexican Government.” By its provisions also all merchandise “imported previously to the restoration of the custom-houses to the Mexican authorities” or “exported from any Mexican port whilst in the occupation of the forces of the United States” was protected from confiscation and from the payment of any import or export duties to the Mexican Government, even although the importation of such merchandise “be prohibited by the Mexican tariff.” The treaty also provides that should the custom-houses be surrendered to the Mexican authorities in less than sixty days from the date of its signature, the rates of duty on merchandise imposed by the United States were in that event to survive the war until the end of this period; and in the meantime Mexican custom-house officers were bound to levy no other duties thereon “than the duties established by the tariff found in force at such custom-houses at the time of the restoration of the same.” The “tariff found in force at such custom-houses,” which is recognized and sustained by this stipulation, was that established by the military order of the 31st of March, 1847, as a mode of levying and collecting military contributions from the enemy.
The right to blockade the ports and coasts of the enemy in war is no more provided for or prescribed by the Constitution than the right to levy and collect contributions from him in the form of duties or otherwise, and yet it has not been questioned that the President had the power after war had been declared by Congress to order our Navy to blockade the ports and coasts of Mexico. The right in both cases exists under the laws of nations. If the President can not order military contributions to be collected without an act of Congress, for the same reason he can not order a blockade; nor can he direct the enemy’s vessels to be captured on the high seas; nor can he order our military and naval officers to invade the enemy’s country, conquer, hold, and subject to our military government his cities and provinces; nor can he give to our military and naval commanders orders to perform many other acts essential to success in war.
If when the City of Mexico was captured the commander of our forces had found in the Mexican treasury public money which the enemy had provided to support his army, can it be doubted that he possessed the right to seize and appropriate it for the use of our own Army? If the money captured from the enemy could have been thus lawfully seized and appropriated, it would have been by virtue of the laws of war, recognized by all civilized nations; and by the same authority the sources of revenue and of supply of the enemy may be cut off from him, whereby he may be weakened and crippled in his means of continuing or waging the war. If the commanders of our forces, while acting under the orders of the President, in the heart of the enemy’s country and surrounded by a hostile population, possess none of these essential and indispensable powers of war, but must halt the Army at every step of its progress and wait for an act of Congress to be passed to authorize them to do that which every other nation has the right to do by virtue of the laws of nations, then, indeed, is the Government of the United States in a condition of imbecility and weakness, which must in all future time render it impossible to prosecute a foreign war in an enemy’s country successfully or to vindicate the national rights and the national honor by war.
The contributions levied were collected in the enemy’s country, and were ordered to be “applied” in the enemy’s country “toward defraying the expenses of the war,” and the appropriations made by Congress for that purpose were thus relieved, and considerable balances remained undrawn from the Treasury. The amount of contributions remaining unexpended at the close of the war, as far as the accounts of collecting and disbursing officers have been settled, have been paid into the Treasury in pursuance of an order for that purpose, except the sum “applied toward the payment of the first installment due under the treaty with Mexico,” as stated in my last annual message, for which an appropriation had been made by Congress. The accounts of some of these officers, as stated in the report of the Secretary of War accompanying that message, will require legislation before they can be finally settled.
In the late war with Mexico it is confidently believed that the levy of contributions and the seizure of the sources of public revenue upon which the enemy relied to enable him to continue the war essentially contributed to hasten peace. By those means the Government and people of Mexico were made to feel the pressure of the war and to realize that if it were protracted its burdens and inconveniences must be borne by themselves. Notwithstanding the great success of our arms, it may well be doubted whether an honorable peace would yet have been obtained but for the very contributions which were exacted.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _January 4, 1849_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I transmit to the Senate, for their consideration and advice with regard to its ratification, a convention between the United States of America and the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, for the improvement of the communication by post between their respective territories, concluded and signed at London on the 15th December last, together with an explanatory dispatch from our minister at that Court.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _January 29, 1849_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I communicate herewith a report of the Secretary of State, with the accompanying documents, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 21st December, 1848, requesting the President “to communicate to the Senate (if, in his opinion, not incompatible with the public service) a copy of the dispatches transmitted to the Secretary of State in August last by the resident minister at Rio de Janeiro in reference to the service and general conduct of Commodore G.W. Storer, commander in chief of the United States naval forces on the coast of Brazil.”
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _January 29, 1849_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
I communicate herewith reports from the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy, together with the accompanying documents, in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of December 20, 1848, requesting the President “to communicate to the House the amount of moneys and property received during the late war with the Republic of Mexico at the different ports of entry, or in any other way within her limits, and in what manner the same has been expended or appropriated.”
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _February 1, 1849_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I communicate herewith reports from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the Navy, together with the accompanying documents, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 15th January, 1849, “that the petition and papers of John B. Emerson be referred to the President of the United States, and that he be requested to cause a report thereon to be made to the Senate, wherein the public officer making such report shall state in what cases, if any, the United States have used or employed the invention of said Emerson contrary to law, and, further, whether any compensation therefor is justly due to said Emerson, and, if so, to what amount in each case.”
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _February 5, 1849_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I transmit herewith, for the consideration and advice of the Senate with regard to its ratification, a treaty concluded on the 24th day of November, 1848, by Morgan L. Martin and Albert G. Ellis, commissioners on the part of the United States, and the sachem, councilors, and headmen of the Stockbridge tribe of Indians, together with a report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and other papers explanatory of the same.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _February 8, 1849_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
In reply to the resolutions of the House of Representatives of the 5th instant, I communicate herewith a report from the Secretary of State, accompanied with all the documents and correspondence relating to the treaty of peace concluded between the United States and Mexico at Guadalupe Hidalgo on the 2d February, 1848, and to the amendments of the Senate thereto, as requested by the House in the said resolutions.
Amongst the documents transmitted will be found a copy of the instructions given to the commissioners of the United States who took to Mexico the treaty as amended by the Senate and ratified by the President of the United States. In my message to the House of Representatives of the 29th of July, 1848, I gave as my reason for declining to furnish these instructions in compliance with a resolution of the House that “in my opinion it would be inconsistent with the public interests to give publicity to them at the present time.” Although it may still be doubted whether giving them publicity in our own country, and, as a necessary consequence, in Mexico, may not have a prejudicial influence on our public interests, yet, as they have been again called for by the House, and called for in connection with other documents, to the correct understanding of which they are indispensable, I have deemed it my duty to transmit them.
I still entertain the opinion expressed in the message referred to, that–
As a general rule applicable to all our important negotiations with foreign powers, it could not fail to be prejudicial to the public interests to publish the instructions to our ministers until some time had elapsed after the conclusion of such negotiations.
In these instructions of the 18th of March, 1848, it will be perceived that–
The task was assigned to the commissioners of the United States of consummating the treaty of peace, which was signed at Guadalupe Hidalgo on the 2d day of February last, between the United States and the Mexican Republic, and which on the 10th of March last was ratified by the Senate with amendments.
They were informed that–
This brief statement will indicate to you clearly the line of your duty. You are not sent to Mexico for the purpose of negotiating any new treaty, or of changing in any particular the ratified treaty which you will bear with you. None of the amendments adopted by the Senate can be rejected or modified except by the authority of that body. Your whole duty will, then, consist in using every honorable effort to obtain from the Mexican Government a ratification of the treaty in the form in which it has been ratified by the Senate, and this with the least practicable delay. … For this purpose it may, and most probably will, become necessary that you should explain to the Mexican minister for foreign affairs, or to the authorized agents of the Mexican Government, the reasons which have influenced the Senate in adopting these several amendments to the treaty. This duty you will perform as much as possible by personal conferences. Diplomatic notes are to be avoided unless in case of necessity. These might lead to endless discussions and indefinite delay. Besides, they could not have any practical result, as your mission is confined to procuring a ratification from the Mexican Government of the treaty as it came from the Senate, and does not extend to the slightest modification in any of its provisions.
The commissioners were sent to Mexico to procure the ratification of the treaty _as amended by the Senate_. Their instructions confined them to this point. It was proper that the amendments to the treaty adopted by the United States should be explained to the Mexican Government, and explanations were made by the Secretary of State in his letter of the 18th of March, 1848, to the Mexican minister for foreign affairs, under my direction. This dispatch was communicated to Congress with my message of the 6th of July last, communicating the treaty of peace, and published by their order. This dispatch was transmitted by our commissioners from the City of Mexico to the Mexican Government, then at Queretaro, on the 17th of April, 1848, and its receipt acknowledged on the 19th of the same month. During the whole time that the treaty, as amended, was before the Congress of Mexico these explanations of the Secretary of State, and these alone, were before them.
The President of Mexico, on these explanations, on the 8th day of May, 1848, submitted the amended treaty to the Mexican Congress, and on the 25th of May that Congress approved the treaty as amended, without modification or alteration. The final action of the Mexican Congress had taken place before the commissioners of the United States had been officially received by the Mexican authorities, or held any conference with them, or had any other communication on the subject of the treaty except to transmit the letter of the Secretary of State.
In their dispatch transmitted to Congress with my message of the 6th of July last, communicating the treaty of peace, dated “City of Queretaro, May 25, 1848, 9 o’clock p.m.,” the commissioners say:
We have the satisfaction to inform you that we reached this city this afternoon at about 5 o’clock, and that the treaty, as amended by the Senate of the United States, passed the Mexican Senate about the hour of our arrival by a vote of 33 to 5. It having previously passed the House of Deputies, nothing now remains but to exchange the ratifications of the treaty.
On the next day (the 26th of May) the commissioners were for the first time presented to the President of the Republic and their credentials placed in his hands. On this occasion the commissioners delivered an address to the President of Mexico, and he replied. In their dispatch of the 30th of May the commissioners say:
We inclose a copy of our address to the President, and also a copy of his reply. Several conferences afterwards took place between Messrs. Rosa, Cuevas, Conto, and ourselves, which it is not thought necessary to recapitulate, as we inclose a copy of the protocol, which contains the substance of the conversations. We have now the satisfaction to announce that the exchange of ratifications was effected to-day.
This dispatch was communicated with my message of the 6th of July last, and published by order of Congress.
The treaty, as amended by the Senate of the United States, with the accompanying papers and the evidence that in that form it had been ratified by Mexico, was received at Washington on the 4th day of July, 1848, and immediately proclaimed as the supreme law of the land. On the 6th of July I communicated to Congress the ratified treaty, with such accompanying documents as were deemed material to a full understanding of the subject, to the end that Congress might adopt the legislation necessary and proper to carry the treaty into effect. Neither the address of the commissioners, nor the reply of the President of Mexico on the occasion of their presentation, nor the memorandum of conversations embraced in the paper called a protocol, nor the correspondence now sent, were communicated, because they were not regarded as in any way material; and in this I conformed to the practice of our Government. It rarely, if ever, happens that all the correspondence, and especially the instructions to our ministers, is communicated. Copies of these papers are now transmitted, as being within the resolutions of the House calling for all such “correspondence as appertains to said treaty.”
When these papers were received at Washington, peace had been restored, the first installment of three millions paid to Mexico, the blockades were raised, the City of Mexico evacuated, and our troops on their return home. The war was at an end, and the treaty, as ratified by the United States, was binding on both parties, and already executed in a great degree. In this condition of things it was not competent for the President alone, or for the President and Senate, or for the President, Senate, and House of Representatives combined, to abrogate the treaty, to annul the peace and restore a state of war, except by a solemn declaration of war.
Had the protocol varied the treaty as amended by the Senate of the United States, it would have had no binding effect.
It was obvious that the commissioners of the United States did not regard the protocol as in any degree a part of the treaty, nor as modifying or altering the treaty as amended by the Senate. They communicated it as the substance of conversations held after the Mexican Congress had ratified the treaty, and they knew that the approval of the Mexican Congress was as essential to the validity of a treaty in all its parts as the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States. They knew, too, that they had no authority to alter or modify the treaty in the form in which it had been ratified by the United States, but that, if failing to procure the ratification of the Mexican Government otherwise than with amendments, their duty, imposed by express instructions, was to ask of Mexico to send without delay a commissioner to Washington to exchange ratifications here if the amendments of the treaty proposed by Mexico, on being submitted, should be adopted by the Senate of the United States.
I was equally well satisfied that the Government of Mexico had agreed to the treaty as amended by the Senate of the United States, and did not regard the protocol as modifying, enlarging, or diminishing its terms or effect. The President of that Republic, in submitting the amended treaty to the Mexican Congress, in his message on the 8th day of May, 1848, said:
If the treaty could have been submitted to your deliberation precisely as it came from the hands of the plenipotentiaries, my satisfaction at seeing the war at last brought to an end would not have been lessened as it this day is in consequence of the modifications introduced into it by the Senate of the United States, and which have received the sanction of the President. … At present it is sufficient for us to say to you that if in the opinion of the Government justice had not been evinced on the part of the Senate and Government of the United States in introducing such modifications, it is presumed, on the other hand, that they are not of such importance that they should set aside the treaty. I believe, on the contrary, that it ought to be ratified upon the same terms in which it has already received the sanction of the American Government. My opinion is also greatly strengthened by the fact that a new negotiation is neither expected nor considered, possible. Much less could another be brought forward upon a basis more favorable for the Republic.
The deliberations of the Mexican Congress, with no explanation before that body from the United States except the letter of the Secretary of State, resulted in the ratification of the treaty, as recommended by the President of that Republic, in the form in which it had been amended and ratified by the United States. The conversations embodied in the paper called a protocol took place after the action of the Mexican Congress was complete, and there is no reason to suppose that the Government of Mexico ever submitted the protocol to the Congress, or ever treated or regarded it as in any sense a new negotiation, or as operating any modification or change of the amended treaty. If such had been its effect, it was a nullity until approved by the Mexican Congress; and such approval was never made or intimated to the United States. In the final consummation of the ratification of the treaty by the President of Mexico no reference is made to it. On the contrary, this ratification, which was delivered to the commissioners of the United States, and is now in the State Department, contains a full and explicit recognition of the amendments of the Senate just as they had been communicated to that Government by the Secretary of State and been afterwards approved by the Mexican Congress. It declares that–
Having seen and examined the said treaty and the modifications made by the Senate of the United States of America, and having given an account thereof to the General Congress, conformably to the requirement in the fourteenth paragraph of the one hundred and tenth article of the federal constitution of these United States, that body has thought proper to approve of the said treaty, with the modifications thereto, in all their parts; and in consequence thereof, exerting the power granted to me by the constitution, I accept, ratify, and confirm the said treaty with its modifications, and promise, in the name of the Mexican Republic, to fulfill and observe it, and to cause it to be fulfilled and observed.
Upon an examination of this protocol, when it was received with the ratified treaty, I did not regard it as material or as in any way attempting to modify or change the treaty as it had been amended by the Senate of the United States.
The first explanation which it contains is:
That the American Government, by suppressing the ninth article of the treaty of Guadalupe and substituting the third article of the treaty of Louisiana, did not intend to diminish in any way what was agreed upon by the aforesaid article (ninth) in favor of the inhabitants of the territories ceded by Mexico. Its understanding is that all of that agreement is contained in the third article of the treaty of Louisiana. In consequence, all the privileges and guaranties–civil, political, and religious–which would have been possessed by the inhabitants of the ceded territories if the ninth article of the treaty had been retained will be enjoyed by them without any difference under the article which has been substituted.
The ninth article of the original treaty stipulated for the incorporation of the Mexican inhabitants of the ceded territories and their admission into the Union “as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States.” It provided also that in the meantime they should be maintained in the enjoyment of their liberty, their property, and their civil rights now vested in them according to the Mexican laws. It secured to them similar political rights with the inhabitants of the other Territories of the United States, and at least equal to the inhabitants of Louisiana and Florida when they were in a Territorial condition. It then proceeded to guarantee that ecclesiastics and religious corporations should be protected in the discharge of the offices of their ministry and the enjoyment of their property of every kind, whether individual or corporate, and, finally, that there should be a free communication between the Catholics of the ceded territories and their ecclesiastical authorities “even although such authority should reside within the limits of the Mexican Republic as defined by this treaty.”
The ninth article of the treaty, as adopted by the Senate, is much more comprehensive in its terms and explicit in its meaning, and it clearly embraces in comparatively few words all the guaranties inserted in the original article. It is as follows:
Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution, and in the meantime shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction.
This article, which was substantially copied from the Louisiana treaty, provides equally with the original article for the admission of these inhabitants into the Union, and in the meantime, whilst they shall remain in a Territorial state, by one sweeping provision declares that they “shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction.”
This guaranty embraces every kind of property, whether held by ecclesiastics or laymen, whether belonging to corporations or individuals. It secures to these inhabitants the free exercise of their religion without restriction, whether they choose to place themselves under the spiritual authority of pastors resident within the Mexican Republic or the ceded territories. It was, it is presumed, to place this construction beyond all question that the Senate superadded the words “without restriction” to the religious guaranty contained in the corresponding article of the Louisiana treaty. Congress itself does not possess the power under the Constitution to make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
If the ninth article of the treaty, whether in its original or amended form, had been entirely omitted in the treaty, all the rights and privileges which either of them confers would have been secured to the inhabitants of the ceded territories by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
The protocol asserts that “the American Government, by suppressing the tenth article of the treaty of Guadalupe, did not in any way intend to annul the grants of lands made by Mexico in the ceded territories;” that “these grants, notwithstanding the suppression of the article of the treaty, preserve the legal value which they may possess; and the grantees may cause their legitimate titles to be acknowledged before the American tribunals;” and then proceeds to state that, “conformably to the law of the United States, legitimate titles to every description of property, personal and real, existing in the ceded territories are those which were legitimate titles under the Mexican law in California and New Mexico up to the 13th of May, 1846, and in Texas up to the 2d of March, 1836.” The former was the date of the declaration of war against Mexico and the latter that of the declaration of independence by Texas.
The objection to the tenth article of the original treaty was not that it protected legitimate titles, which our laws would have equally protected without it, but that it most unjustly attempted to resuscitate grants which had become a mere nullity by allowing the grantees the same period after the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty to which they had been originally entitled after the date of their grants for the purpose of performing the conditions on which they had been made. In submitting the treaty to the Senate I had recommended the rejection of this article. That portion of it in regard to lands in Texas did not receive a single vote in the Senate. This information was communicated by the letter of the Secretary of State to the minister for foreign affairs of Mexico, and was in possession of the Mexican Government during the whole period the treaty was before the Mexican Congress; and the article itself was reprobated in that letter in the strongest terms. Besides, our commissioners to Mexico had been instructed that–
Neither the President nor the Senate of the United States can ever consent to ratify any treaty containing the tenth article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in favor of grantees of land in Texas or elsewhere.
And again:
Should the Mexican Government persist in retaining this article, then all prospect of immediate peace is ended; and of this you may give them an absolute assurance.
On this point the language of the protocol is free from ambiguity, but if it were otherwise is there any individual American or Mexican who would place such a construction upon it as to convert it into a vain attempt to revive this article, which had been so often and so solemnly condemned? Surely no person could for one moment suppose that either the commissioners of the United States or the Mexican minister for foreign affairs ever entertained the purpose of thus setting at naught the deliberate decision of the President and Senate, which had been communicated to the Mexican Government with the assurance that their abandonment of this obnoxious article was essential to the restoration of peace.
But the meaning of the protocol is plain. It is simply that the nullification of this article was not intended to destroy valid, legitimate titles to land which existed and were in full force independently of the provisions and without the aid of this article. Notwithstanding it has been expunged from the treaty, these grants were to “preserve the legal value which they may possess.” The refusal to revive grants which had become extinct was not to invalidate those which were in full force and vigor. That such was the clear understanding of the Senate of the United States, and this in perfect accordance with the protocol, is manifest from the fact that whilst they struck from the treaty this unjust article, they at the same time sanctioned and ratified the last paragraph of the eighth article of the treaty, which declares that–
In the said territories property of every kind now belonging to Mexicans not established there shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract shall enjoy with respect to it guaranties equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States.
Without any stipulation in the treaty to this effect, all such valid titles under the Mexican Government would have been protected under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
The third and last explanation contained in the protocol is that–
The Government of the United States, by suppressing the concluding paragraph of article 12 of the treaty, did not intend to deprive the Mexican Republic of the free and unrestrained faculty of ceding, conveying, or transferring at any time (as it may judge best) the sum of the $12,000,000 which the same Government of the United States is to deliver in the places designated by the amended article.
The concluding paragraph of the original twelfth article, thus suppressed by the Senate, is in the following language:
Certificates in proper form for the said installments, respectively, in such sums as shall be desired by the Mexican Government, and transferable by it, shall be delivered to the said Government by that of the United States.
From this bare statement, of facts the meaning of the protocol is obvious. Although the Senate had declined to create a Government stock for the $12,000,000, and issue transferable certificates for the amount in such sums as the Mexican Government might desire, yet they could not have intended thereby to deprive that Government of the faculty which every creditor possesses of transferring for his own benefit the obligation of his debtor, whatever this may be worth, according to his will and pleasure.
It can not be doubted that the twelfth article of the treaty as it now stands contains a positive obligation, “in consideration of the extension acquired by the boundaries of the United States,” to pay to the Mexican Republic $12,000,000 in four equal annual installments of three millions each. This obligation may be assigned by the Mexican Government to any person whatever, but the assignee in such case would stand in no better condition than the Government. The amendment of the Senate prohibiting the issue of a Government transferable stock for the amount produces this effect and no more.
The protocol contains nothing from which it can be inferred that the assignee could rightfully demand the payment of the money in case the consideration should fail which is stated on the face of the obligation.
With this view of the whole protocol, and considering that the explanations which it contained were in accordance with the treaty, I did not deem it necessary to take any action upon the subject. Had it varied from the terms of the treaty as amended by the Senate, although it would even then have been a nullity in itself, yet duty might have required that I should make this fact known to the Mexican Government, This not being the case, I treated it in the same manner I would have done had these explanations been made verbally by the commissioners to the Mexican minister for foreign affairs and communicated in a dispatch to the State Department.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _February 9, 1849_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 6th instant, requesting the President to cause to be laid before that body, in “executive or open session, in his discretion, any instructions given to Ambrose H. Sevier and Nathan Clifford, commissioned as ministers plenipotentiary on the part of the United States to the Government of Mexico, or to either of said ministers, prior to the ratification by the Government of Mexico of the treaty of peace between the United States and that Republic,” and certain correspondence and other papers specified in the said resolution, I communicate herewith a report from the Secretary of State, together with copies of the documents called for.
Having on the 8th instant, in compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives in its terms more comprehensive than that of the Senate, communicated these and all other papers appertaining to the same subject, with a message to that House, this communication is made to the Senate in “open” and not in “executive” session.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _February 12, 1849_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I communicate herewith a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, with the accompanying documents, in answer to the resolution of the Senate of December 28, 1848, requesting “to be informed of the number of vessels annually employed in the Coast Survey, and the annual cost thereof, and out of what fund they were paid; also the number of persons annually employed in said Survey who were not of the Army and Navy of the United States; also the amount of money received by the United States for maps and charts made under such Survey and sold under the act of 1844.”
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _February 14, 1849_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of War, together with the accompanying papers, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 12th instant, requesting the President to communicate to that body the proceedings under the act of Congress of the last session to compensate R.M. Johnson for the erection of certain buildings for the use of the Choctaw academy; also the evidence of the cost of said buildings.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _February 23, 1849_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I communicate herewith a report of the Secretary of State, together with the accompanying documents, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 23d ultimo, requesting the President “to transmit to the Senate, so far as is consistent with the public service, any correspondence between the Department of State and the Spanish authorities in the island of Cuba relating to the imprisonment in said island of William Henry Rush, a citizen of the United States.”
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _February 27, 1849_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I communicate herewith a report from the Secretary of State, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 3d ultimo, requesting the President to communicate to the Senate a list of all the treaties of commerce and navigation between the United States and foreign nations conferring upon the vessels of such nations the right of trading between the United States and the rest of the world in the productions of every country upon the same terms with American vessels, with the date of the proclamation of such treaties; also a list of the proclamations conferring similar rights upon the vessels of foreign nations issued by the President of the United States under the provisions of the first section of the act entitled “An act in addition to an act entitled ‘An act concerning discriminating duties on tonnage and impost and to equalize the duties on Prussian vessels and their cargoes,'” approved May 24, 1828.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _March 2, 1849_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
I communicate herewith a report of the Secretary of State, together with the accompanying papers, in compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 23d of December, 1848, requesting the President “to cause to be transmitted to the House, if compatible with the public interest, the correspondence of George W. Gordon, late, and Gorham Parks, the present, consul of the United States at Rio de Janeiro, with the Department of State on the subject of the African slave trade; also any unpublished correspondence on the same subject by the Hon. Henry A. Wise, our late minister to Brazil.”
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _March 2, 1849_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States:_
I communicate herewith a report of the Secretary of State, together with the accompanying papers, in compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 20th ultimo, requesting the President to communicate to that House a list of all consuls, vice-consuls, and commercial agents now in the service of the United States, their residence, distinguishing such as are citizens of the United States from such as are not, and to inform the said House whether regular returns of their fees and perquisites and the tonnage and commerce of the United States within their respective consulates or agencies have been regularly made by each, and to communicate the amount of such fees and perquisites for certain years therein specified, together with the number of vessels and amount of tonnage which entered and cleared within each of the consulates and agencies for the same period; also the number of seamen of the United States who have been provided for and sent home from each of the said consulates for the time aforesaid.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _March 2, 1849_.
_To the Senate of the United States:_
I herewith transmit a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, accompanying a report from the Solicitor of the Treasury presenting a view of the operations of that office since its organization.
JAMES K. POLK.
PROCLAMATIONS.
[From Senate Journal, Thirtieth Congress, second session, p. 349.]
WASHINGTON, _January 2, 1849_.
_To the Senators of the United States, respectively_.
SIR: Objects interesting to the United States requiring that the Senate should be in session on Monday, the 5th of March next, to receive and act upon such communications as may be made to it on the part of the Executive, your attention in the Senate Chamber, in this city, on that day at 10 o’clock in the forenoon is accordingly requested.
JAMES K. POLK.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas by an act of the Congress of the United States of the 10th January, 1849, entitled “An act to extend certain privileges to the town of Whitehall, in the State of New York,” the President of the United States, on the recommendation of the Secretary of the Treasury, is authorized to extend to the town of Whitehall the same privileges as are conferred on certain ports named in the seventh section of an act entitled “An act allowing drawback upon foreign merchandise exported in the original packages to Chihuahua and Santa Fe, in Mexico, and to the British North American Provinces adjoining the United States,” passed 3d March, 1845, in the manner prescribed by the proviso contained in said section; and
Whereas the Secretary of the Treasury has duly recommended to me the extension of the privileges of the law aforesaid to the port of Whitehall, in the collection district of Champlain, in the State of New York:
Now, therefore, I, James K. Polk, President of the United States of America, do hereby declare and proclaim that the port of Whitehall, in the collection district of Champlain, in the State of New York, is and shall be entitled to all the privileges extended to the other ports enumerated in the seventh section of the act aforesaid from and after the date of this proclamation.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
[SEAL.]
Done at the city of Washington, this 2d day of March, A.D. 1849, and of the Independence of the United States of America the seventy-third.
JAMES K. POLK.
By the President:
JAMES BUCHANAN,
_Secretary of State_.