The consequence was that the payment of the debt was postponed for more than twenty years, and even then it was only accomplished by the stern will and unbending policy of President Jackson, who made its payment a leading measure of his Administration. He resisted the attempts which were made to divert the public money from that great object and apply it in wasteful and extravagant expenditures for other objects, some of them of more than doubtful constitutional authority and expediency.
If the Government of the United States shall observe a proper economy in its expenditures, and be confined in its action to the conduct of our foreign relations and to the few general objects of its care enumerated in the Constitution, leaving all municipal and local legislation to the States, our greatness as a nation, in moral and physical power and in wealth and resources, can not be calculated.
By pursuing this policy oppressive measures, operating unequally and unjustly upon sections and classes, will be avoided, and the people, having no cause of complaint, will pursue their own interests under the blessings of equal laws and the protection of a just and paternal Government. By abstaining from the exercise of all powers not clearly conferred, the current of our glorious Union, now numbering thirty States, will be strengthened as we grow in age and increase in population, and our future destiny will be without a parallel or example in the history of nations.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _July 7, 1848_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying letter of the Secretary of War, I ask that the date in the promotion of Captain W.J. Hardee, Second Dragoons, to be major by brevet for gallant and meritorious conduct in the affair at Madellin, Mexico, be changed to the 25th of March, 1847, the day on which the action occurred.
JAMES K. POLK.
WAR DEPARTMENT,
_Washington, July 7, 1848_.
The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
SIR: Captain W.J. Hardee, Second Dragoons, has been promoted to be major by brevet for gallant and meritorious conduct in the affair at Madellin, Mexico, to date from the 26th of March, 1847. As this affair took place on the 25th of that month, I respectfully recommend that the Senate be asked to change the date of Captain Hardee’s brevet rank so as to correspond with the date of the action, to wit, the 25th of March, 1847. Brevets which have been conferred upon other officers in the same affair take the latter date.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
W.L. MARCY,
_Secretary of War_.
WASHINGTON, _July 12, 1848_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
In compliance with a resolution of the Senate, of the 21st June, 1848, I herewith communicate to the Senate a report of the Secretary of War, with the accompanying documents, containing the proceedings of a court of inquiry which convened at Saltillo, Mexico, January 12, 1848, and which was instituted for the purpose of obtaining full information relative to an alleged mutiny in the camp of Buena Vista, Mexico, on or about the 15th of August, 1847.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _July 14, 1848_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of July 13, 1848, I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of War and accompanying documents, containing all the proceedings of the two courts of inquiry in the case of Major-General Pillow, the one commenced and terminated in Mexico, the other commenced in Mexico and terminated in the United States.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _July 24, 1848_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
In answer to the resolutions of the House of Representatives of the 10th instant, requesting information in relation to New Mexico and California, I communicate herewith reports from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the Navy, with the documents which accompany the same. These reports and documents contain information upon the several points of inquiry embraced by the resolutions. “The proper limits and boundaries of New Mexico and California” are delineated on the map referred to in the late treaty with Mexico, an authentic copy of which is herewith transmitted; and all the additional information upon that subject, and also the most reliable information in respect to the population of these respective Provinces, which is in the possession of the Executive will be found in the accompanying report of the Secretary of State.
The resolutions request information in regard to the existence of civil governments in New Mexico and California, their “form and character,” by “whom instituted,” by “what authority,” and how they are “maintained and supported.”
In my message of December 22, 1846, in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives calling for information “in relation to the establishment or organization of civil government in any portion of the territory of Mexico which has or might be taken possession of by the Army or Navy of the United States,” I communicated the orders which had been given to the officers of our Army and Navy, and stated the general authority upon which temporary military governments had been established over the conquered portion of Mexico then in our military occupation.
The temporary governments authorized were instituted by virtue of the rights of war. The power to declare war against a foreign country, and to prosecute it according to the general laws of war, as sanctioned by civilized nations, it will not be questioned, exists under our Constitution. When Congress has declared that war exists with a foreign nation, “the general laws of war apply to our situation,” and it becomes the duty of the President, as the constitutional “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,” to prosecute it.
In prosecuting a foreign war thus duly declared by Congress, we have the right, by “conquest and military occupation,” to acquire possession of the territories of the enemy, and, during the war, to “exercise the fullest rights of sovereignty over it.” The sovereignty of the enemy is in such case “suspended,” and his laws can “no longer be rightfully enforced” over the conquered territory “or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remain and submit to the conqueror. By the surrender the inhabitants pass under a temporary allegiance” to the conqueror, and are “bound by such laws, and such only, as” he may choose to recognize and impose. “From the nature of the case, no other laws could be obligatory upon them, for where there is no protection or allegiance or sovereignty there can be no claim to obedience.” These are well-established principles of the laws of war, as recognized and practiced by civilized nations, and they have been sanctioned by the highest judicial tribunal of our own country.
The orders and instructions issued to the officers of our Army and Navy, applicable to such portions of the Mexican territory as had been or might be conquered by our arms, were in strict conformity to these principles. They were, indeed, ameliorations of the rigors of war upon which we might have insisted. They substituted for the harshness of military rule something of the mildness of civil government, and were not only the exercise of no excess of power, but were a relaxation in favor of the peaceable inhabitants of the conquered territory who had submitted to our authority, and were alike politic and humane.
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.
New Mexico and Upper California were among the territories conquered and occupied by our forces, and such temporary governments were established over them. They were established by the officers of our Army and Navy in command, in pursuance of the orders and instructions accompanying my message to the House of Representatives of December 22, 1846. In their form and detail, as at first established, they exceeded in some respects, as was stated in that message, the authority which had been given, and instructions for the correction of the error were issued in dispatches from the War and Navy Departments of the 11th of January, 1847, copies of which are herewith transmitted. They have been maintained and supported out of the military exactions and contributions levied upon the enemy, and no part of the expense has been paid out of the Treasury of the United States.
In the routine of duty some of the officers of the Army and Navy who first established temporary governments in California and New Mexico have been succeeded in command by other officers, upon whom light duties devolved; and the agents employed or designated by them to conduct the temporary governments have also, in some instances, been superseded by others. Such appointments for temporary civil duty during our military occupation were made by the officers in command in the conquered territories, respectively.
On the conclusion and exchange of ratifications of a treaty of peace with Mexico, which was proclaimed on the 4th instant, these temporary governments necessarily ceased to exist. In the instructions to establish a temporary government over New Mexico, no distinction was made between that and the other Provinces of Mexico which might be conquered and held in our military occupation.
The Province of New Mexico, according to its ancient boundaries, as claimed by Mexico, lies on both sides of the Rio Grande. That part of it on the east of that river was in dispute when the war between the United States and Mexico commenced. Texas, by a successful revolution in April, 1836, achieved, and subsequently maintained, her independence. By an act of the Congress of Texas passed in December, 1836, her western boundary was declared to be the Rio Grande from its mouth to its source, and thence due north to the forty-second degree of north latitude. Though the Republic of Texas, by many acts of sovereignty which she asserted and exercised, some of which were stated in my annual message of December, 1846, had established her clear title to the country west of the Nueces, and bordering upon that part of the Rio Grande which lies below the Province of New Mexico, she had never conquered or reduced to actual possession and brought under her Government and laws that part of New Mexico lying east of the Rio Grande, which she claimed to be within her limits. On the breaking out of the war we found Mexico in possession of this disputed territory. As our Army approached Sante Fe (the capital of New Mexico) it was found to be held by a governor under Mexican authority, with an armed force collected to resist our advance. The inhabitants were Mexicans, acknowledging allegiance to Mexico. The boundary in dispute was the line between the two countries engaged in actual war, and the settlement of it of necessity depended on a treaty of peace. Finding the Mexican authorities and people in possession, our forces conquered them, and extended military rule over them and the territory which they actually occupied, in lieu of the sovereignty which was displaced. It was not possible to disturb or change the practical boundary line in the midst of the war, when no negotiation for its adjustment could be opened, and when Texas was not present, by her constituted authorities, to establish and maintain government over a hostile Mexican population who acknowledged no allegiance to her. There was, therefore, no alternative left but to establish and maintain military rule during the war over the conquered people in the disputed territory who had submitted to our arms, or to forbear the exercise of our belligerent rights and leave them in a state of anarchy and without control.
Whether the country in dispute rightfully belonged to Mexico or to Texas, it was our right in the first case, and our duty as well as our right in the latter, to conquer and hold it. Whilst this territory was in our possession as conquerors, with a population hostile to the United States, which more than once broke out in open insurrection, it was our unquestionable duty to continue our military occupation of it until the conclusion of the war, and to establish over it a military government, necessary for our own security as well as for the protection of the conquered people.
By the joint resolution of Congress of March 1, 1845, “for annexing Texas to the United States,” the “adjustment of all questions of boundary which may arise with other governments” was reserved to this Government. When the conquest of New Mexico was consummated by our arms, the question of boundary remained still unadjusted. Until the exchange of the ratifications of the late treaty, New Mexico never became an undisputed portion of the United States, and it would therefore have been premature to deliver over to Texas that portion of it on the east side of the Rio Grande, to which she asserted a claim. However just the right of Texas may have been to it, that right had never been reduced into her possession, and it was contested by Mexico.
By the cession of the whole of New Mexico, on both sides of the Rio Grande, to the United States, the question of disputed boundary, so far as Mexico is concerned, has been settled, leaving the question as to the true limits of Texas in New Mexico to be adjusted between that State and the United States.
Under the circumstances existing during the pendency of the war, and while the whole of New Mexico, as claimed by our enemy, was in our military occupation, I was not unmindful of the rights of Texas to that portion of it which she claimed to be within her limits. In answer to a letter from the governor of Texas dated on the 4th of January, 1847, the Secretary of State, by my direction, informed him in a letter of the 12th of February, 1847, that in the President’s annual message of December, 1846–
You have already perceived that New Mexico is at present in the temporary occupation of the troops of the United States, and the government over it is military in its character. It is merely such a government as must exist under the laws of nations and of war to preserve order and protect the rights of the inhabitants, and will cease on the conclusion of a treaty of peace with Mexico. Nothing, therefore, can be more certain than that this temporary government, resulting from necessity, can never injuriously affect the right which the President believes to be justly asserted by Texas to the whole territory on this side of the Rio Grande whenever the Mexican claim to it shall have been extinguished by treaty. But this is a subject which more properly belongs to the legislative than the executive branch of the Government.
The result of the whole is that Texas had asserted a right to that part of New Mexico east of the Rio Grande, which is believed, under the acts of Congress for the annexation and admission of Texas into the Union as a State, and under the constitution and laws of Texas, to be well founded; but this right had never been reduced to her actual possession and occupancy. The General Government, possessing exclusively the war-making power, had the right to take military possession of this disputed territory, and until the title to it was perfected by a treaty of peace it was their duty to hold it and to establish a temporary military government over it for the preservation of the conquest itself, the safety of our Army, and the security of the conquered inhabitants.
The resolutions further request information whether any persons have been tried and condemned for “treason against the United States in that part of New Mexico lying east of the Rio Grande since the same has been in the occupancy of our Army,” and, if so, before “what tribunal” and “by what authority of law such tribunal was established.” It appears that after the territory in question was “in the occupancy of our Army” some of the conquered Mexican inhabitants, who had at first submitted to our authority, broke out in open insurrection, murdering our soldiers and citizens and committing other atrocious crimes. Some of the principal offenders who were apprehended were tried and condemned by a tribunal invested with civil and criminal jurisdiction, which had been established in the conquered country by the military officer in command. That the offenders deserved the punishment inflicted upon them there is no reason to doubt, and the error in the proceedings against them consisted in designating and describing their crimes as “treason against the United States.” This error was pointed out, and its recurrence thereby prevented, by the Secretary of War in a dispatch to the officer in command in New Mexico dated on the 26th of June, 1847, a copy of which, together with copies of all communications relating to the subject which have been received at the War Department, is herewith transmitted.
The resolutions call for information in relation to the quantity of the public lands acquired within the ceded territory, and “how much of the same is within the boundaries of Texas as defined by the act of the Congress of the Republic of Texas of the 19th day of December, 1836.” No means of making an accurate estimate on the subject is in the possession of the executive department. The information which is possessed will be found in the accompanying report of the Secretary of the Treasury.
The country ceded to the United States lying west of the Rio Grande, and to which Texas has no title, is estimated by the commissioner of the General Land Office to contain 526,078 square miles, or 336,689,920 acres.
The period since the exchange of ratifications of the treaty has been too short to enable the Government to have access to or to procure abstracts or copies of the land titles issued by Spain or by the Republic of Mexico. Steps will be taken to procure this information at the earliest practicable period. It is estimated, as appears from the accompanying report of the Secretary of the Treasury, that much the larger portion of the land within the territories ceded remains vacant and unappropriated, and will be subject to be disposed of by the United States. Indeed, a very inconsiderable portion of the land embraced in the cession, it is believed, has been disposed of or granted either by Spain or Mexico.
What amount of money the United States may be able to realize from the sales of these vacant lands must be uncertain, but it is confidently believed that with prudent management, after making liberal grants to emigrants and settlers, it will exceed the cost of the war and all the expenses to which we have been subjected in acquiring it.
The resolutions also call for “the evidence, or any part thereof, that the ‘extensive and valuable territories ceded by Mexico to the United States constitute indemnity for the past.'”
The immense value of the ceded country does not consist alone in the amount of money for which the public lands may be sold. If not a dollar could be realized from the sale of these lands, the cession of the jurisdiction over the country and the fact that it has become a part of our Union and call not be made subject to any European power constitute ample “indemnity for the past” in the immense value and advantages which its acquisition must give to the commercial, navigating, manufacturing, and agricultural interests of our country.
The value of the public lands embraced within the limits of the ceded territory, great as that value may be, is far less important to the people of the United States than the sovereignty over the country. Most of our States contain no public lands owned by the United States, and yet the sovereignty and jurisdiction over them is of incalculable importance to the nation. In the State of New York the United States is the owner of no public lands, and yet two-thirds of our whole revenue is collected at the great port of that State, and within her limits is found about one-seventh of our entire population. Although none of the future cities on our coast of California may ever rival the city of New York in wealth, population, and business, yet that important cities will grow up on the magnificent harbors of that coast, with a rapidly increasing commerce and population, and yielding a large revenue, would seem to be certain. By the possession of the safe and capacious harbors on the Californian coast we shall have great advantages in securing the rich commerce of the East, and shall thus obtain for our products new and increased markets and greatly enlarge our coasting and foreign trade, as well as augment our tonnage and revenue.
These great advantages, far more than the simple value of the public lands in the ceded territory, “constitute our indemnity for the past.”
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _July 28, 1848_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I have received from the Senate the “convention for the mutual delivery of criminals, fugitives from justice, in certain cases, concluded on the 29th of January, 1845, between the United States on the one part and Prussia and other States of the German Confederation on the other part,” with a copy of their resolution of the 21st of June last, advising and consenting to its ratification, with an amendment extending the period for the exchange of ratifications until the 28th of September, 1848.
I have taken this subject into serious and deliberate consideration, and regret that I can not ratify this convention, in conformity with the advice of the Senate, without violating my convictions of duty. Having arrived at this conclusion, I deem it proper and respectful, considering the peculiar circumstances of the present case and the intimate relations which the Constitution has established between the President and Senate, to make known to you the reasons which influence me to come to this determination.
On the 16th of December, 1845, I communicated this convention to the Senate for its consideration, at the same time stating my objections to the third article. I deemed this to be a more proper and respectful course toward the Senate, as well as toward Prussia and the other parties to it, than if I had withheld it and disapproved it altogether. Had the Senate concurred with me in opinion and rejected the third article, then the convention thus amended would have conformed to our treaties of extradition with Great Britain and France.
But the Senate did not act upon it within the period limited for the exchange of ratifications. From this I concluded that they had concurred with me in opinion in regard to the third article, and had for this and other reasons deemed it proper to take no proceedings upon the convention. After this date, therefore, I considered the affair as terminated.
Upon the presumption that this was the fact, new negotiations upon the subject were commenced, and several conferences were held between the Secretary of State and the Prussian minister. These resulted in a protocol signed at the Department of State on the 27th of April, 1847, in which the Secretary proposed either that the two Governments might agree to extend the time for the exchange of ratifications, and thus revive the convention, provided the Prussian Government would previously intimate its consent to the omission of the third article, or he “expressed his willingness immediately to conclude with Mr. Gerolt a new convention, if he possessed the requisite powers from his Government, embracing all the provisions contained in that of the 29th January, 1845, with the exception of the third article. To this Mr. Gerolt observed that he had no powers to conclude such a convention, but would submit the propositions of Mr. Buchanan to the Prussian Government for further instructions.”
Mr. Gerolt has never yet communicated in writing to the Department of State the answer of his Government to these propositions, but the Secretary of State, a few months after the date of the protocol, learned from him in conversation that they insisted upon the third article of the convention as a _sine qua non_. Thus the second negotiation had finally terminated by a disagreement between the parties, when, more than a year afterwards, on the 21st June, 1848, the Senate took the original convention into consideration and ratified it, retaining the third article.
After the second negotiation with the Prussian Government, in which the objections to the third article were stated, as they had been previously in my message of the 16th December, 1845, a strong additional difficulty was interposed to the ratification of the convention; but I might overcome this difficulty if my objections to the third article had not grown stronger by further reflection. For a statement of them in detail I refer you to the accompanying memorandum, prepared by the Secretary of State by my direction.
I can not believe that the sovereign States of this Union, whose administration of justice would be almost exclusively affected by such a convention, will ever be satisfied with a treaty of extradition under which if a German subject should commit murder or any other high crime in New York or New Orleans, and could succeed in escaping to his own country, he would thereby be protected from trial and punishment under the jurisdiction of our State laws which he had violated. It is true, as has been stated, that the German States, acting upon a principle springing from the doctrine of perpetual allegiance, still assert the jurisdiction of trying and punishing their subjects for crimes committed in the United States or any other portion of the world. It must, however, be manifest that individuals throughout our extended country would rarely, if ever, follow criminals to Germany with the necessary testimony for the purpose of prosecuting them to conviction before German courts for crimes committed in the United States.
On the other hand, the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as of the several States, would render it impossible that crimes committed by our citizens in Germany could be tried and punished in any portion of this Union.
But if no other reason existed for withholding my ratification from this treaty, the great change which has recently occurred in the organization of the Government of the German States would be sufficient. By the last advices we learn that the German Parliament, at Frankfort, have already established a federal provisional Executive for all the States of Germany, and have elected the Archduke John of Austria to be “Administrator of the Empire.” One of the attributes of this Executive is “to represent the Confederation in its relations with foreign nations and to appoint diplomatic agents, ministers, and consuls.” Indeed, our minister at Berlin has already suggested the propriety of his transfer to Frankfort. In case this convention with nineteen of the thirty-nine German States should be ratified, this could amount to nothing more than a proposition on the part of the Senate and President to these nineteen States who were originally parties to the convention to negotiate anew on the subject of extradition. In the meantime a central German Government has been provisionally established, which extinguishes the right of these separate parties to enter into negotiations with foreign Governments on subjects of several interest to the whole.
Admitting such a treaty as that which has been ratified by the Senate to be desirable, the obvious course would now be to negotiate with the General Government of Germany. A treaty concluded with it would embrace all the thirty-nine States of Germany, and its authority, being coextensive with the Empire, fugitives from justice found in any of these States would be surrendered up on the requisition of our minister at Frankfort. This would be more convenient and effectual than to address such separate requisitions to each of the nineteen German States with which the convention was concluded.
I communicate herewith, for the information of the Senate, copies of a dispatch from our minister at Berlin and a communication from our consul at Darmstadt.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _July 29, 1848_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 17th instant, requesting the President “to communicate, if not inconsistent with the public interests, copies of all instructions given to the Hon. Ambrose H. Sevier and Nathan Clifford, commissioners appointed to conduct negotiations for the ratification of the treaty lately concluded between the United States and the Republic of Mexico,” I have to state that in my opinion it would be “inconsistent with the public interests” to give publicity to these instructions at the present time.
I avail myself of this occasion to observe that, as a general rule applicable to all our important negotiations with foreign powers, it could not fail to be prejudicial to the public interest to publish the instructions to our ministers until some time had elapsed after the conclusion of such negotiations.
In the present case the object of the mission of our commissioners to Mexico has been accomplished. The treaty, as amended by the Senate of the United States, has been ratified. The ratifications have been exchanged and the treaty has been proclaimed as the supreme law of the land. No contingency occurred which made it either necessary or proper for our commissioners to enter upon any negotiations with the Mexican Government further than to urge upon that Government the ratification of the treaty in its amended form.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _July 31, 1848_
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I communicate herewith a report from the Secretary of State, containing the information called for by the resolution of the Senate of the 24th of April, 1848, in relation “to the claim of the owners of the ship _Miles_, of Warren, in the State of Rhode Island, upon the Government of Portugal for the payment of a cargo of oil taken by the officers and applied to the uses of that Government.”
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _July 31, 1848_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 28th instant, requesting the President to communicate to that body, “in confidence, if not inconsistent with the public interest, what steps, if any, have been taken by the Executive to extinguish the rights of the Hudsons Bay and Puget Sound Land Company within the Territory of Oregon, and such communications, if any, which may have been received from the British Government in relation to this subject,” I communicate herewith a report from the Secretary of State, with the accompanying documents.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _August 1, 1848_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
I communicate herewith a report from the Secretary of War, containing the information called for by the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 17th July, 1848, in relation to the number of Indians in Oregon, California, and New Mexico, the number of military posts, the number of troops which will be required in each, and “the whole military force which should constitute the peace establishment.”
I have seen no rfeason to change the opinion expressed in my message to Congress of the 6th July, 1848, transmitting the treaty of peace with Mexico, that “the old Army, as it existed before the commencement of the war with Mexico, especially if authority be given to fill up the rank and file of the several corps to the maximum number authorized during the war, will be a sufficient force to be retained in service during a period of peace.”
The old Army consists of fifteen regiments. By the act of the 13th of May, 1846, the President was authorized, by “voluntary enlistments, to increase the number of privates in each or any of the companies of the existing regiments of dragoons, artillery, and infantry to any number not exceeding 100,” and to “reduce the same to 64 when the exigencies requiring the present increase shall cease.” Should this act remain in force, the maximum number of the rank and file of the Army authorized by it would be over 16,000 men, exclusive of officers. Should the authority conferred by this act be continued, it would depend on the exigencies of the service whether the number of the rank and file should be increased, and, if so, to what amount beyond the minimum number of 64 privates to a company.
Allowing 64 privates to a company, the Army would be over 10,000 men, exclusive of commissioned and noncommissioned officers, a number which, it is believed, will be sufficient; but, as a precautionary measure, it is deemed expedient that the Executive should possess the power of increasing the strength of the respective corps should the exigencies of the service be such as to require it. Should these exigencies not call for such increase, the discretionary power given by the act to the President will not be exercised.
It will be seen from the report of the Secretary of War that a portion of the forces will be employed in Oregon, New Mexico, and Upper California; a portion for the protection of the Texas frontier adjoining the Mexican possessions, and bordering on the territory occupied by the Indian tribes within her limits. After detailing the force necessary for these objects, it is believed a sufficient number of troops will remain to afford security and protection to our Indian frontiers in the West and Northwest and to occupy with sufficient garrisons the posts on our northern and Atlantic borders.
I have no reason at present to believe that any increase of the number of regiments or corps will be required during a period of peace.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _August 3, 1848_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I communicate herewith a report from the Secretary of War, together with the accompanying documents, in compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 24th July, 1848, requesting the President “to transmit to the Senate the proceedings of the two courts of inquiry in the case of Major-General Pillow, the one commenced and terminated in Mexico, and the other commenced in Mexico and terminated in the United States.”
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _August 5, 1848_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I nominate Andrew J. Donelson, of Tennessee, to be envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to the Federal Government of Germany.
In submitting this nomination I transmit, for the information of the Senate, an official dispatch received from the consul of the United States at Darmstadt, dated July 10, 1848. I deem it proper also to state that no such diplomatic agent as that referred to by the consul has been appointed by me. Mr. Deverre, the person alluded to, is unknown to me and has no authority to represent this Government in any capacity whatever.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _August 5, 1848_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
I communicate herewith a report from the Secretary of War, together with the accompanying documents, in compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 17th of July, 1848, requesting the President to communicate to the House of Representatives “a copy of the proceedings of the court of inquiry in Mexico touching the matter which led to the dismissal from the public service of Lieutenants Joseph S. Pendee and George E.B. Singletary, of the North Carolina regiment of volunteers, and all the correspondence between the War Department and Generals Taylor and Wool in relation to the same.”
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _August 8, 1848_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
In reply to the resolution of the Senate of the 7th instant, requesting the President to inform that body “whether he has any information that any citizen or citizens of the United States is or are now preparing or intending to prepare within the United States an expedition to revolutionize by force any part of the Republic of Mexico, or to assist in so doing, and, if he has, what is the extent of such preparation, and whether he has or is about to take any steps to arrest the same,” I have to state that the Executive is not in possession of any information of the character called for by the resolution.
The late treaty of peace with Mexico has been and will be faithfully observed on our part.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _August 8, 1848_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:
It affords me satisfaction to communicate herewith, for the information of Congress, copies of a decree adopted by the National Assembly of France in response to the resolution of the Congress of the United States passed on the 13th of April last, “tendering the congratulations of the American to the French people upon the success of their recent efforts to consolidate the principles of liberty in a republican form of government.”
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _August 10, 1848_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I communicate herewith a report of the Secretary of the Navy, together with the accompanying documents, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 18th July, 1848, requesting the President to communicate to that body “any information which may be in the possession of the Executive relating to the seizure or capture of the American ship _Admittance_ on the coast of California by a vessel of war of the United States, and whether any, and what, proceedings have occurred in regard to said vessel or her cargo, and to furnish the Senate with copies of all documents, papers, and communications in the possession of the Executive relating to the same.”
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _August 10, 1848_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
I communicate herewith reports from the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of War, together with the accompanying documents, in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 17th of July, 1848, requesting the President to inform that body what amount of public moneys had been respectively paid to Lewis Cass and Zachary Taylor from the time of their first entrance into the public service up to this time, distinguishing between regular and extra compensation; that he also state what amount of extra compensation has been claimed by either; the items composing the same; when filed; when and by whom allowed; if disallowed, when and by whom; the reasons for such disallowance; and whether or not any items so disallowed were subsequently presented for payment, and, if allowed, when and by whom.
JAMES K. POLK.
WASHINGTON, _August 14, 1848_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
When the President has given his official sanction to a bill which has passed Congress, usage requires that he shall notify the House in which it originated of that fact. The mode of giving this notification has been by an oral message delivered by his private secretary.
Having this day approved and signed an act entitled “An act to establish the Territorial government of Oregon,” I deem it proper, under the existing circumstances, to communicate the fact in a more solemn form. The deeply interesting and protracted discussions which have taken place in both Houses of Congress and the absorbing interest which the subject has excited throughout the country justify, in my judgment, this departure from the form of notice observed in other cases. In this communication with a coordinate branch of the Government, made proper by the considerations referred to, I shall frankly and without reserve express the reasons which have constrained me not to withhold my signature from the bill to establish a government over Oregon, even though the two territories of New Mexico and California are to be left for the present without governments. None doubt that it is proper to establish a government in Oregon. Indeed, it has been too long delayed. I have made repeated recommendations to Congress to this effect. The petitions of the people of that distant region have been presented to the Government, and ought not to be disregarded. To give to them a regularly organized government and the protection of our laws, which, as citizens of the United States, they claim, is a high duty on our part, and one which we are bound to perform, unless there be controlling reasons to prevent it.
In the progress of all governments questions of such transcendent importance occasionally arise as to cast in the shade all those of a mere party character. But one such question can now be agitated in this country, and this may endanger our glorious Union, the source of our greatness and all our political blessings. This question is slavery. With the slaveholding States this does not embrace merely the rights of property, however valuable, but it ascends far higher, and involves the domestic peace and security of every family.
The fathers of the Constitution, the wise and patriotic men who laid the foundation of our institutions, foreseeing the danger from this quarter, acted in a spirit of compromise and mutual concession on this dangerous and delicate subject, and their wisdom ought to be the guide of their successors. Whilst they left to the States exclusively the question of domestic slavery within their respective limits, they provided that slaves who might escape into other States not recognizing the institution of slavery shall be “delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
Upon this foundation the matter rested until the Missouri question arose.
In December, 1819, application was made to Congress by the people of the Missouri Territory for admission into the Union as a State. The discussion upon the subject in Congress involved the question of slavery, and was prosecuted with such violence as to produce excitements alarming to every patriot in the Union. But the good genius of conciliation, which presided at the birth of our institutions, finally prevailed, and the Missouri compromise was adopted. The eighth section of the act of Congress of the 6th of March, 1820, “to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a constitution and State government,” etc., provides:
That in all that territory ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana which lies north of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited: _Provided always_, That any person escaping into the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.
This compromise had the effect of calming the troubled waves and restoring peace and good will throughout the States of the Union.
The Missouri question had excited intense agitation of the public mind, and threatened to divide the country into geographical parties, alienating the feelings of attachment which each portion of our Union should bear to every other. The compromise allayed the excitement, tranquilized the popular mind, and restored confidence and fraternal feelings. Its authors were hailed as public benefactors.
I do not doubt that a similar adjustment of the questions which now agitate the public mind would produce the same happy results. If the legislation of Congress on the subject of the other Territories shall not be adopted in a spirit of conciliation and compromise, it is impossible that the country can be satisfied or that the most disastrous consequences shall fail to ensue.
When Texas was admitted into the Union, the same spirit of compromise which guided our predecessors in the admission of Missouri a quarter of a century before prevailed without any serious opposition. The joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, approved March 1, 1845, provides that–
Such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of the Missouri compromise line slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.
The Territory of Oregon lies far north of 36 degrees 30 minutes, the Missouri and Texas compromise line. Its southern boundary is the parallel of 42 degrees, leaving the intermediate distance to be 330 geographical miles. And it is because the provisions of this bill are not inconsistent with the laws of the Missouri compromise, if extended from the Rio Grande to the Pacific Ocean, that I have not felt at liberty to withhold my sanction. Had it embraced territories south of that compromise, the question presented for my consideration would have been of a far different character, and my action upon it must have corresponded with my convictions.
Ought we now to disturb the Missouri and Texas compromises? Ought we at this late day, in attempting to annul what has been so long established and acquiesced in, to excite sectional divisions and jealousies, to alienate the people of different portions of the Union from each other, and to endanger the existence of the Union itself?
From the adoption of the Federal Constitution, during a period of sixty years, our progress as a nation has been without example in the annals of history. Under the protection of a bountiful Providence, we have advanced with giant strides in the career of wealth and prosperity. We have enjoyed the blessings of freedom to a greater extent than any other people, ancient or modern, under a Government which has preserved order and secured to every citizen life, liberty, and property. We have now become an example for imitation to the whole world. The friends of freedom in every clime point with admiration to our institutions. Shall we, then, at the moment when the people of Europe are devoting all their energies in the attempt to assimilate their institutions to our own, peril all our blessings by despising the lessons of experience and refusing to tread in the footsteps which our fathers have trodden? And for what cause would we endanger our glorious Union? The Missouri compromise contains a prohibition of slavery throughout all that vast region extending twelve and a half degrees along the Pacific, from the parallel of 36 degrees 30 minutes to that of 49 degrees, and east from that ocean to and beyond the summit of the Rocky Mountains. Why, then, should our institutions be endangered because it is proposed to submit to the people of the remainder of our newly acquired territory lying south of 36 degrees 30 minutes, embracing less than four degrees of latitude, the question whether, in the language of the Texas compromise, they “shall be admitted [as a State] into the Union with or without slavery.” Is this a question to be pushed to such extremities by excited partisans on the one side or the other, in regard to our newly acquired distant possessions on the Pacific, as to endanger the Union of thirty glorious States, which constitute our Confederacy? I have an abiding confidence that the sober reflection and sound patriotism of the people of all the States will bring them to the conclusion that the dictate of wisdom is to follow the example of those who have gone before us, and settle this dangerous question on the Missouri compromise, or some other equitable compromise which would respect the rights of all and prove satisfactory to the different portions of the Union.
Holding as a sacred trust the Executive authority for the whole Union, and bound to guard the rights of all, I should be constrained by a sense of duty to withhold my official sanction from any measure which would conflict with these important objects.
I can not more appropriately close this message than by quoting from the Farewell Address of the Father of his Country. His warning voice can never be heard in vain by the American people. If the spirit of prophecy had distinctly presented to his view more than a half century ago the present distracted condition of his country, the language which he then employed could not have been more appropriate than it is to the present occasion. He declared:
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
* * * * *
With such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our union it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by _geographical_ discriminations–_Northern_ and _Southern_, _Atlantic_ and _Western_–whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.
JAMES K. POLK.
VETO MESSAGE.[20]
[Footnote 20: Pocket veto.]
WASHINGTON, _December 15, 1847_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
On the last day of the last session of Congress a bill entitled “An act to provide for continuing certain works in the Territory of Wisconsin, and for other purposes,” which had passed both Houses, was presented to me for my approval. I entertained insuperable objections to its becoming a law, but the short period of the session which remained afforded me no sufficient opportunity to prepare my objections and communicate them with the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated. For this reason the bill was retained, and I deem it proper now to state my objections to it.
Although from the title of the bill it would seem that its main object was to make provision for continuing certain works already commenced in the Territory of Wisconsin, it appears on examination of its provisions that it contains only a single appropriation of $6,000 to be applied within that Territory, while it appropriates more than half a million of dollars for the improvement of numerous harbors and rivers lying within, the limits and jurisdiction of several of the States of the Union.
At the preceding session of Congress it became my duty to return with my objections to the House in which it originated a bill making similar appropriations and involving like principles, and the views then expressed remain unchanged.
The circumstances under which this heavy expenditure of public money was proposed were of imposing weight in determining upon its expediency. Congress had recognized the existence of war with Mexico, and to prosecute it to “a speedy and successful termination” had made appropriations exceeding our ordinary revenues. To meet the emergency and provide for the expenses of the Government, a loan of $23,000,000 was authorized at the same session, which has since been negotiated. The practical effect of this bill, had it become a law, would have been to add the whole amount appropriated by it to the national debt. It would, in fact, have made necessary an additional loan to that amount as effectually as if in terms it had required the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow the money therein appropriated. The main question in that aspect is whether it is wise, while all the means and credit of the Government are needed to bring the existing war to an honorable close, to impair the one and endanger the other by borrowing money to be expended in a system of internal improvements capable of an expansion sufficient to swallow up the revenues not only of our own country, but of the civilized world? It is to be apprehended that by entering upon such a career at this moment confidence at home and abroad in the wisdom and prudence of the Government would be so far impaired as to make it difficult, without an immediate resort to heavy taxation, to maintain the public credit and to preserve the honor of the nation and the glory of our arms in prosecuting the existing war to a successful conclusion. Had this bill become a law, it is easy to foresee that largely increased demands upon the Treasury would have been made at each succeeding session of Congress for the improvements of numerous other harbors, bays, inlets, and rivers of equal importance with those embraced by its provisions. Many millions would probably have been added to the necessary amount of the war debt, the annual interest on which must also have been borrowed, and finally a permanent national debt been fastened on the country and entailed on posterity.
The policy of embarking the Federal Government in a general system of internal improvements had its origin but little more than twenty years ago. In a very few years the applications to Congress for appropriations in furtherance of such objects exceeded $200,000,000. In this alarming crisis President Jackson refused to approve and sign the Maysville road bill, the Wabash River bill, and other bills of similar character. His interposition put a check upon the new policy of throwing the cost of local improvements upon the National Treasury, preserved the revenues of the nation for their legitimate objects, by which he was enabled to extinguish the then existing public debt and to present to an admiring world the unprecedented spectacle in modern times of a nation free from debt and advancing to greatness with unequaled strides under a Government which was content to act within its appropriate sphere in protecting the States and individuals in their own chosen career of improvement and of enterprise. Although the bill under consideration proposes no appropriation ior a road or canal, it is not easy to perceive the difference in principle or mischievous tendency between appropriations for making roads and digging canals and appropriations to deepen rivers and improve harbors. All are alike within the limits and jurisdiction of the States, and rivers and harbors alone open an abyss of expenditure sufficient to swallow up the wealth of the nation and load it with a debt which may fetter its energies and tax its industry for ages to come.
The experience of several of the States, as well as that of the United States, during the period that Congress exercised the power of appropriating the public money for internal improvements is full of eloquent warnings. It seems impossible, in the nature of the subject, as connected with local representation, that the several objects presented for improvement shall be weighed according to their respective merits and appropriations confined to those whose importance would justify a tax on the whole community to effect their accomplishment.
In some of the States systems of internal improvements have been projected, consisting of roads and canals, many of which, taken separately, were not of sufficient public importance to justify a tax on the entire population of the State to effect their construction, and yet by a combination of local interests, operating on a majority of the legislature, the whole have been authorized and the States plunged into heavy debts. To an extent so ruinous has this system of legislation been carried in some portions of the Union that the people have found it necessary to their own safety and prosperity to forbid their legislatures, by constitutional restrictions, to contract public debts for such purposes without their immediate consent.
If the abuse of power has been so fatal in the States, where the systems of taxation are direct and the representatives responsible at short periods to small masses of constituents, how much greater danger of abuse is to be apprehended in the General Government, whose revenues are raised by indirect taxation and whose functionaries are responsible to the people in larger masses and for longer terms.
Regarding only objects of improvement of the nature of those embraced in this bill, how inexhaustible we shall find them. Let the imagination run along our coast from the river St. Croix to the Rio Grande and trace every river emptying into the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico to its source; let it coast along our lakes and ascend all their tributaries; let it pass to Oregon and explore all its bays, inlets, and streams; and then let it raise the curtain of the future and contemplate the extent of this Republic and the objects of improvement it will embrace as it advances to its high destiny, and the mind will be startled at the immensity and danger of the power which the principle of this bill involves.
Already our Confederacy consists of twenty-nine States. Other States may at no distant period be expected to be formed on the west of our present settlements. We own an extensive country in Oregon, stretching many hundreds of miles from east to west and seven degrees of latitude from south to north. By the admission of Texas into the Union we have recently added many hundreds of miles to our seacoast. In all this vast country, bordering on the Atlantic and Pacific, there are many thousands of bays, inlets, and rivers equally entitled to appropriations for their improvement with the objects embraced in this bill.
We have seen in our States that the interests of individuals or neighborhoods, combining against the general interest, have involved their governments in debts and bankruptcy; and when the system prevailed in the General Government, and was checked by President Jackson, it had begun to be considered the highest merit in a member of Congress to be able to procure appropriations of public money to be expended within his district or State, whatever might be the object. We should be blind to the experience of the past if we did not see abundant evidences that if this system of expenditure is to be indulged in combinations of individual and local interests will be found strong enough to control legislation, absorb the revenues of the country, and plunge the Government into a hopeless indebtedness.
What is denominated a harbor by this system does not necessarily mean a bay, inlet, or arm of the sea on the ocean or on our lake shores, on the margin of which may exist a commercial city or town engaged in foreign or domestic trade, but is made to embrace waters, where there is not only no such city or town, but no commerce of any kind. By it a bay or sheet of shoal water is called a _harbor_, and appropriations demanded from Congress to deepen it with a View to draw commerce to it or to enable individuals to build up a town or city on its margin upon speculation and for their own private advantage.
What is denominated a river which may be improved in the system is equally undefined in its meaning. It may be the Mississippi or it may be the smallest and most obscure and unimportant stream bearing the name of river which is to be found in any State in the Union.
Such a system is subject, moreover, to be perverted to the accomplishment of the worst of political purposes. During the few years it was in full operation, and which immediately preceded the veto of President Jackson of the Maysville road bill, instances were numerous of public men seeking to gain popular favor by holding out to the people interested in particular localities the promise of large disbursements of public money. Numerous reconnoissances and surveys were made during that period for roads and canals through many parts of the Union, and the people in the vicinity of each were led to believe that their property would be enhanced in value and they themselves be enriched by the large expenditures which they were promised by the advocates of the system should be made from the Federal Treasury in their neighborhood. Whole sections of the country were thus sought to be influenced, and the system was fast becoming one not only of profuse and wasteful expenditure, but a potent political engine.
If the power to improve a harbor be admitted, it is not easy to perceive how the power to deepen every inlet on the ocean or the lakes and make harbors where there are none can be denied. If the power to clear out or deepen the channel of rivers near their mouths be admitted, it is not easy to perceive how the power to improve them to their fountain head and make them navigable to their sources can be denied. Where shall the exercise of the power, if it be assumed, stop? Has Congress the power when an inlet is deep enough to admit a schooner to deepen it still more, so that it will admit ships of heavy burden, and has it not the power when an inlet will admit a boat to make it deep enough to admit a schooner? May it improve rivers deep enough already to float ships and steamboats, and has it no power to improve those which are navigable only for flatboats and barges? May the General Government exercise power and jurisdiction over the soil of a State consisting of rocks and sand bars in the beds of its rivers, and may it not excavate a canal around its waterfalls or across its lands for precisely the same object?
Giving to the subject the most serious and candid consideration of which my mind is capable, I can not perceive any intermediate grounds. The power to improve harbors and rivers for purposes of navigation, by deepening or clearing out, by dams and sluices, by locking or canalling, must be admitted without any other limitation than the discretion of Congress, or it must be denied altogether. If it be admitted, how broad and how susceptible of enormous abuses is the power thus vested in the General Government! There is not an inlet of the ocean or the Lakes, not a river, creek, or streamlet within the States, which is not brought for this purpose within the power and jurisdiction of the General Government.
Speculation, disguised under the cloak of public good, will call on Congress to deepen shallow inlets, that it may build up new cities on their shores, or to make streams navigable which nature has closed by bars and rapids, that it may sell at a profit its lands upon their banks. To enrich neighborhoods by spending within them the moneys of the nation will be the aim and boast of those who prize their local interests above the good of the nation, and millions upon millions will be abstracted by tariffs and taxes from the earnings of the whole people to foster speculation and subserve the objects of private ambition.
Such a system could not be administered with any approach to equality among the several States and sections of the Union. There is no equality among them in the objects of expenditure, and if the funds were distributed according to the merits of those objects some would be enriched at the expense of their neighbors. But a greater practical evil would be found in the art and industry by which appropriations would be sought and obtained. The most artful and industrious would be the most successful. The true interests of the country would be lost sight of in an annual scramble for the contents of the Treasury, and the Member of Congress who could procure the largest appropriations to be expended in his district would claim the reward of victory from his enriched constituents. The necessary consequence would be sectional discontents and heartburnings, increased taxation, and a national debt never to be extinguished.
In view of these portentous consequences, I can not but think that this course of legislation should be arrested, even were there nothing to forbid it in the fundamental laws of our Union. This conclusion is fortified by the fact that the Constitution itself indicates a process by which harbors and rivers within the States may be improved–a process not susceptible of the abuses necessarily to flow from the assumption of the power to improve them by the General Government, just in its operation, and actually practiced upon, without complaint or interruption, during more than thirty years from the organization of the present Government.
The Constitution provides that “no State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage.” With the “consent” of Congress, such duties may be levied, collected, and expended by the States. We are not left in the dark as to the objects of this reservation of power to the States. The subject was fully considered by the Convention that framed the Constitution. It appears in Mr. Madison’s report of the proceedings of that body that one object of the reservation was that the States should not be restrained from laying duties of tonnage for the purpose of clearing harbors. Other objects were named in the debates, and among them the support of seamen. Mr. Madison, treating on this subject in the Federalist, declares that–
The restraint on the power of the States over imports and exports is enforced by all the arguments which prove the necessity of submitting the regulation of trade to the Federal councils. It is needless, therefore, to remark further on this head than that the manner in which the restraint is qualified seems well calculated at once to secure to the States a reasonable discretion in providing for the conveniency of their imports and exports, and to the United States a reasonable check against the abuse of this discretion.
The States may lay tonnage duties for clearing harbors, improving rivers, or for other purposes, but are restrained from abusing the power, because before such duties can take effect the “consent” of Congress must be obtained. Here is a safe provision for the improvement of harbors and rivers in the reserved powers of the States and in the aid they may derive from duties of tonnage levied with the consent of Congress. Its safeguards are, that both the State legislatures and Congress have to concur in the act of raising the funds; that they are in every instance to be levied upon the commerce of those ports which are to profit by the proposed improvement; that no question of conflicting power or jurisdiction is involved; that the expenditure, being in the hands of those who are to pay the money and be immediately benefited, will be more carefully managed and more productive of good than if the funds were drawn from the National Treasury and disbursed by the officers of the General Government; that such a system will carry with it no enlargement of Federal power and patronage, and leave the States to be the sole judges of their own wants and interests, with only a conservative negative in Congress upon any abuse of the power which the States may attempt.
Under this wise system the improvement of harbors and rivers was commenced, or rather continued, from the organization of the Government under the present Constitution. Many acts were passed by the several States levying duties of tonnage, and many were passed by Congress giving their consent to those acts. Such acts have been passed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and have been sanctioned by the consent of Congress. Without enumerating them all, it may be instructive to refer to some of them, as illustrative of the mode of improving harbors and rivers in the early periods of our Government, as to the constitutionality of which there can be no doubt.
In January, 1790, the State of Rhode Island passed a law levying a tonnage duty on vessels arriving in the port of Providence, “for the purpose of clearing and deepening the channel of Providence River and making the same more navigable.”
On the 2d of February, 1798, the State of Massachusetts passed a law levying a tonnage duty on all vessels, whether employed in the foreign or coasting trade, which might enter into the Kennebunk River, for the improvement of the same by “rendering the passage in and out of said river less difficult and dangerous.”
On the 1st of April, 1805, the State of Pennsylvania passed a law levying a tonnage duty on vessels, “to remove the obstructions to the navigation of the river Delaware below the city of Philadelphia.”
On the 23d of January, 1804, the State of Virginia passed a law levying a tonnage duty on vessels, “for improving the navigation of James River.”
On the 22d of February, 1826, the State of Virginia passed a law levying a tonnage duty on vessels, “for improving the navigation of James River from Warwick to Rocketts landing.”
On the 8th of December, 1824, the State of Virginia passed a law levying a tonnage duty on vessels, “for improving the navigation of Appomattox River from Pocahontas Bridge to Broadway.”
In November, 1821, the State of North Carolina passed a law levying a tonnage duty on vessels, “for the purpose of opening an inlet at the lower end of Albemarle Sound, near a place called Nags Head, and improving the navigation of said sound, with its branches;” and in November, 1828, an amendatory law was passed.
On the 21st of December, 1804, the State of South Carolina passed a law levying a tonnage duty, for the purpose of “building a marine hospital in the vicinity of Charleston,” and on the 17th of December, 1816, another law was passed by the legislature of that State for the “maintenance of a marine hospital.”
On the 10th of February, 1787, the State of Georgia passed a law levying a tonnage duty on all vessels entering into the port of Savannah, for the purpose of “clearing” the Savannah River of “wrecks and other obstructions” to the navigation.
On the 12th of December, 1804, the State of Georgia passed a law levying a tonnage duty on vessels, “to be applied to the payment of the fees of the harbor master and health officer of the ports of Savannah and St. Marys.”
In April, 1783, the State of Maryland passed a law laying a tonnage duty on vessels, for the improvement of the “basin” and “harbor” of Baltimore and the “river Patapsco.”
On the 26th of December, 1791, the State of Maryland passed a law levying a tonnage duty on vessels, for the improvement of the “harbor and port of Baltimore.”
On the 28th of December, 1793, the State of Maryland passed a law authorizing the appointment of a health officer for the port of Baltimore, and laying a tonnage duty on vessels to defray the expenses.
Congress has passed many acts giving its “consent” to these and other State laws, the first of which is dated in 1790 and the last in 1843. By the latter act the “consent” of Congress was given to the law of the legislature of the State of Maryland laying a tonnage duty on vessels for the improvement of the harbor of Baltimore, and continuing it in force until the 1st day of June, 1850. I transmit herewith copies of such of the acts of the legislatures of the States on the subject, and also the acts of Congress giving its “consent” thereto, as have been collated.
That the power was constitutionally and rightfully exercised in these cases does not admit of a doubt.
The injustice and inequality resulting from conceding the power to both Governments is illustrated by several of the acts enumerated. Take that for the improvement of the harbor of Baltimore. That improvement is paid for exclusively by a tax on the commerce of that city, but if an appropriation be made from the National Treasury for the improvement of the harbor of Boston it must be paid in part out of taxes levied on the commerce of Baltimore. The result is that the commerce of Baltimore pays the full cost of the harbor improvement designed for its own benefit, and in addition contributes to the cost of all other harbor and river improvements in the Union. The facts need but be stated to prove the inequality and injustice which can not but flow from the practice embodied in this bill. Either the subject should be left as it was during the first third of a century, or the practice of levying tonnage duties by the States should be abandoned altogether and all harbor and river improvements made under the authority of the United States, and by means of direct appropriations. In view not only of the constitutional difficulty, but as a question of policy, I am clearly of opinion that the whole subject should be left to the States, aided by such tonnage duties on vessels navigating their waters as their respective legislatures may think proper to propose and Congress see fit to sanction. This “consent” of Congress would never be refused in any case where the duty proposed to be levied by the State was reasonable and where the object of improvement was one of importance. The funds required for the improvement of harbors and rivers may be raised in this mode, as was done in the earlier periods of the Government, and thus avoid a resort to a strained construction of the Constitution not warranted by its letter. If direct appropriations be made of the money in the Federal Treasury for such purposes, the expenditures will be unequal and unjust. The money in the Federal Treasury is paid by a tax on the whole people of the United States, and if applied to the purposes of improving harbors and rivers it will be partially distributed and be expended for the advantage of particular States, sections, or localities at the expense of others.
By returning to the early and approved construction of the Constitution and to the practice under it this inequality and injustice will be avoided and at the same time all the really important improvements be made, and, as our experience has proved, be better made and at less cost than they would be by the agency of officers of the United States. The interests benefited by these improvements, too, would bear the cost of making them, upon the same principle that the expenses of the Post-Office establishment have always been defrayed by those who derive benefits from it. The power of appropriating money from the Treasury for such improvements was not claimed or exercised for more than thirty years after the organization of the Government in 1789, when a more latitudinous construction was indicated, though it was not broadly asserted and exercised until 1825. Small appropriations were first made in 1820 and 1821 for surveys. An act was passed on the 3d of March, 1823, authorizing the President to “cause an examination and survey to be made of the obstructions between the harbor of Gloucester and the harbor of Squam, in the State of Massachusetts,” and of “the entrance of the harbor of the port of Presque Isle, in Pennsylvania,” with a view to their removal, and a small appropriation was made to pay the necessary expenses. This appears to have been the commencement of harbor improvements by Congress, thirty-four years after the Government went into operation under the present Constitution. On the 30th of April, 1824, an act was passed making an appropriation of $30,000, and directing “surveys and estimates to be made of the routes of such roads and canals” as the President “may deem of national importance in a commercial or military point of view or necessary for the transportation of the mails.” This act evidently looked to the adoption of a general system of internal improvements, to embrace roads and canals as well as harbors and rivers. On the 26th May, 1824, an act was passed making appropriations for “deepening the channel leading into the harbor of Presque Isle, in the State of Pennsylvania,” and to “repair Plymouth Beach, in the State of Massachusetts, and thereby prevent the harbor at that place from being destroyed.”
President Monroe yielded his approval to these measures, though he entertained, and had, in a message to the House of Representatives on the 4th of May, 1822, expressed, the opinion that the Constitution had not conferred upon Congress the power to “adopt and execute a system of internal improvements.” He placed his approval upon the ground, not that Congress possessed the power to “adopt and execute” such a system by virtue of any or all of the enumerated grants of power in the Constitution, but upon the assumption that the power to make appropriations of the public money was limited and restrained only by the discretion of Congress. In coming to this conclusion he avowed that “in the more early stage of the Government” he had entertained a different opinion. He avowed that his first opinion had been that “as the National Government is a Government of limited powers, it has no right to expend money except in the performance of acts authorized by the other specific grants, according to a strict construction of their powers,” and that the power to make appropriations gave to Congress no discretionary authority to apply the public money to any other purposes or objects except to “carry into effect the powers contained in the other grants.” These sound views, which Mr. Monroe entertained “in the early stage of the Government,” he gave up in 1822, and declared that–
The right of appropriation is nothing more than a right to apply the public money to this or that purpose. It has no incidental power, nor does it draw after it any consequences of that kind. All that Congress could do under it in the case of internal improvements would be to appropriate the money necessary to make them. For every act requiring legislative sanction or support the State authority must be relied on. The condemnation of the land, if the proprietors should refuse to sell it, the establishment of tumpikes and tolls, and the protection of the work when finished must be done by the State. To these purposes the powers of the General Government are believed to be utterly incompetent.
But it is impossible to conceive on what principle the power of appropriating public money when in the Treasury can be construed to extend to objects for which the Constitution does not authorize Congress to levy taxes or imposts to raise money. The power of appropriation is but the consequence of the power to raise money; and the true inquiry is whether Congress has the right to levy taxes for the object over which power is claimed.
During the four succeeding years embraced by the Administration of President Adams the power not only to appropriate money, but to apply it, under the direction and authority of the General Government, as well to the construction of roads as to the improvement of harbors and rivers, was fully asserted and exercised.
Among other acts assuming the power was one passed on the 20th of May, 1826, entitled “An act for improving certain harbors and the navigation of certain rivers and creeks, and for authorizing surveys to be made of certain bays, sounds, and rivers therein mentioned.” By that act large appropriations were made, which were to be “applied, under the direction of the President of the United States,” to numerous improvements in ten of the States. This act, passed thirty-seven years after the organisation of the present Government, contained the first appropriation ever made for the improvement of a navigable river, unless it be small appropriations for examinations and surveys in 1820. During the residue of that Administration many other appropriations of a similar character were made, embracing roads, rivers, harbors, and canals, and objects claiming the aid of Congress multiplied without number.
This was the first breach effected in the barrier which the universal opinion of the framers of the Constitution had for more than thirty years thrown in the way of the assumption of this power by Congress. The general mind of Congress and the country did not appreciate the distinction taken by President Monroe between the right to appropriate money for an object and the right to apply and expend it without the embarrassment and delay of applications to the State governments. Probably no instance occurred in which such an application was made, and the flood gates being thus hoisted the principle laid down by him was disregarded, and applications for aid from the Treasury, virtually to make harbors as well as improve them, clear out rivers, cut canals, and construct roads, poured into Congress in torrents until arrested by the veto of President Jackson. His veto of the Maysville road bill was followed up by his refusal to sign the “Act making appropriations for building light-houses, light-boats, beacons, and monuments, placing buoys, improving harbors, and directing surveys;” “An act authorizing subscriptions for stock in the Louisville and Portland Canal Company;” “An act for the improvement of certain harbors and the navigation of certain rivers;” and, finally, “An act to improve the navigation of the Wabash River.” In his objections to the act last named he says:
The desire to embark the Federal Government in works of internal improvement prevailed in the highest degree during the first session of the first Congress that I had the honor to meet in my present situation. When the bill authorizing a subscription on the part of the United States for stock in the Maysville and Lexington Tumpike Company passed the two Houses, there had been reported by the Committees of Internal Improvements bills containing appropriations for such objects, inclusive of those for the Cumberland road and for harbors and light-houses, to the amount of $106,000,000. In this amount was included authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to subscribe for the stock of different companies to a great extent, and the residue was principally for the direct construction of roads by this Government, in addition to these projects, which had been presented to the two Houses under the sanction and recommendation of their respective Committees on Internal Improvements, there were then still pending before the committees and in memorials to Congress presented but not referred different projects for works of a similar character, the expense of which can not be estimated with certainty, but must have exceeded $100,000,000.
Thus, within the brief period of less than ten years after the commencement of internal improvements by the General Government the sum asked for from the Treasury for various projects amounted to more than $200,000,000. President Jackson’s powerful and disinterested appeals to his country appear to have put down forever the assumption of power to make roads and cut canals, and to have checked the prevalent disposition to bring all rivers in any degree navigable within the control of the General Government. But an immense field for expending the public money and increasing the power and patronage of this Government was left open in the concession of even a limited power of Congress to improve harbors and rivers–a field which millions will not fertilize to the satisfaction of those local and speculating interests by which these projects are in general gotten up. There can not be a just and equal distribution of public burdens and benefits under such a system, nor can the States be relieved from the danger of fatal encroachment, nor the United States from the equal danger of consolidation, otherwise than by an arrest of the system and a return to the doctrines and practices which prevailed during the first thirty years of the Government.
How forcibly does the history of this subject illustrate the tendency of power to concentration in the hands of the General Government. The power to improve their own harbors and rivers was clearly reserved to the States, who were to be aided by tonnage duties levied and collected by themselves, with the consent of Congress. For thirty-four years improvements were carried on under that system, and so careful was Congress not to interfere, under any implied power, with the soil or jurisdiction of the States that they did not even assume the power to erect lighthouses or build piers without first purchasing the ground, with the consent of the States, and obtaining jurisdiction over it. At length, after the lapse of thirty-three years, an act is passed providing for the examination of certain obstructions at the mouth of one or two harbors almost unknown. It is followed by acts making small appropriations for the removal of those obstructions. The obstacles interposed by President Monroe, after conceding the power to appropriate, were soon swept away. Congress virtually assumed jurisdiction of the soil and waters of the States, without their consent, for the purposes of internal improvement, and the eyes of eager millions were turned from the State governments to Congress as the fountain whose golden streams were to deepen their harbors and rivers, level their mountains, and fill their valleys with canals. To what consequences this assumption of power was rapidly leading is shown by the veto messages of President Jackson, and to what end it is again tending is witnessed by the provisions of this bill and bills of similar character.
In the proceedings and debates of the General Convention which formed the Constitution and of the State conventions which adopted it nothing is found to countenance the idea that the one intended to propose or the others to concede such a grant of power to the General Government as the building up and maintaining of a system of internal improvements within the States necessarily implies. Whatever the General Government may constitutionally create, it may lawfully protect. If it may make a road upon the soil of the States, it may protect it from destruction or injury by penal laws. So of canals, rivers, and harbors. If it may put a dam in a river, it may protect that dam from removal or injury, in direct opposition to the laws, authorities, and people of the State in which it is situated. If it may deepen a harbor, it may by its own laws protect its agents, and contractors from being driven from their work even by the laws and authorities of the State. The power to make a road or canal or to dig up the bottom of a harbor or river implies a right in the soil of the State and a jurisdiction over it, for which it would be impossible to find any warrant.
The States were particularly jealous of conceding to the General Government any right of jurisdiction over their soil, and in the Constitution restricted the exclusive legislation of Congress to such places as might be “purchased with the consent of the States in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” That the United States should be prohibited from purchasing lands within the States without their consent, even for the most essential purposes of national defense, while left at liberty to purchase or seize them for roads, canals, and other improvements of immeasurably less importance, is not to be conceived.
A proposition was made in the Convention to provide for the appointment of a “Secretary of Domestic Affairs,” and make it his duty, among other things, “to attend to the opening of roads and navigation and the facilitating communications through the United States.” It was referred to a committee, and that appears to have been the last of it. On a subsequent occasion a proposition was made to confer on Congress the power to “provide for the cutting of canals when deemed necessary,” which was rejected by the strong majority of eight States to three. Among the reasons given for the rejection of this proposition, it was urged that “the expense in such cases will fall on the United States and the benefits accrue to the places where the canals may be cut.”
During the consideration of this proposition a motion was made to enlarge the proposed power for “cutting canals” into a power “to grant charters of incorporation when the interest of the United States might require and the legislative provisions of the individual States may be incompetent;” and the reason assigned by Mr. Madison for the proposed enlargement of the power was that it would “secure an easy communication between the States, which the free intercourse now to be opened seemed to call for. The political obstacles being removed, a removal of the natural ones, as far as possible, ought to follow.”
The original proposition and all the amendments were rejected, after deliberate discussion, not on the ground, as so much of that discussion as has been preserved indicates, that no direct grant was necessary, but because it was deemed inexpedient to grant it at all. When it is considered that some of the members of the Convention, who afterwards participated in the organization and administration of the Government, advocated and practiced upon a very liberal construction of the Constitution, grasping at many high powers as implied in its various provisions, not one of them, it is believed, at that day claimed the power to make roads and canals, or improve rivers and harbors, or appropriate money for that purpose. Among our early statesmen of the strict-construction class the opinion was universal, when the subject was first broached, that Congress did not possess the power, although some of them thought it desirable.
President Jefferson, in his message to Congress in 1806, recommended an amendment of the Constitution, with a view to apply an anticipated surplus in the Treasury “to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of Federal powers.” And he adds:
I suppose an amendment to the Constitution, by consent of the States, necessary, because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the Constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied.
In 1825 he repeated, in his published letters, the opinion that no such power has been conferred upon Congress.
President Madison, in a message to the House of Representatives of the 3d of March, 1817, assigning his objections to a bill entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” declares that–
“The power to regulate commerce among the several States” can not include a power to construct roads and canals and to _improve the navigation of water courses_ in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such a commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms, strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.
President Monroe, in a message to the House of Representatives of the 4th of May, 1822, containing his objections to a bill entitled “An act for the preservation and repair of the Cumberland road,” declares:
Commerce between independent powers or communities is universally regulated by duties and imposts. It was so regulated by the States before the adoption of this Constitution, equally in respect to each other and to foreign powers. The goods and vessels employed in the trade are the only subjects of regulation. It can act on none other. A power, then, to impose such duties and imposts in regard to foreign nations and to prevent any on the trade between the States was the only power granted.
If we recur to the causes which produced the adoption of this Constitution, we shall find that injuries resulting from the regulation of trade by the States respectively and the advantages anticipated from the transfer of the power to Congress were among those which had the most weight. Instead of acting as a nation in regard to foreign powers, the States individually had commenced a system of restraint on each other whereby the interests of foreign powers were promoted at their expense. If one State imposed high duties on the goods or vessels of a foreign power to countervail the regulations of such power, the next adjoining States imposed lighter duties to invite those articles into their ports, that they might be transferred thence into the other States, securing the duties to themselves. This contracted policy in some of the States was soon counteracted by others. Restraints were immediately laid on such commerce by the suffering States; and thus had grown up a state of affairs disorderly and unnatural, the tendency of which was to destroy the Union itself and with it all hope of realizing those blessings which we had anticipated from the glorious Revolution which had been so recently achieved. From this deplorable dilemma, or, rather, certain ruin, we were happily rescued by the adoption of the Constitution.
Among the first and most important effects of this great Revolution was the complete abolition of this pernicious policy. The States were brought together by the Constitution, as to commerce, into one community, equally in regard to foreign nations and each other. The regulations that were adopted regarded us in both respects as one people. The duties and imposts that were laid on the vessels and merchandise of foreign nations were all uniform throughout the United States, and in the intercourse between the States themselves no duties of any kind were imposed other than between different ports and counties within the same State.
This view is supported by a series of measures, all of a marked character, preceding the adoption of the Constitution. As early as the year 1781 Congress recommended it to the States to vest in the United States a power to levy a duty of 5 per cent on all goods imported from foreign countries into the United States for the term of fifteen years. In 1783 this recommendation, with alterations as to the kind of duties and an extension of this term to twenty-five years, was repeated and more earnestly urged. In 1784 it was recommended to the States to authorize Congress to prohibit, under certain modifications, the importation of goods from foreign powers into the United States for fifteen years. In 1785 the consideration of the subject was resumed, and a proposition presented in a new form, with an address to the States explaining fully the principles on which a grant of the power to regulate trade was deemed indispensable. In 1786 a meeting took place at Annapolis of delegates from several of the States on this subject, and on their report a convention was formed at Philadelphia the ensuing year from all the States, to whose deliberations we are indebted for the present Constitution.
In none of these measures was the subject of internal improvement mentioned or even glanced at. Those of 1784, 1785, 1786, and 1787, leading step by step to the adoption of the Constitution, had in view only the obtaining of a power to enable Congress to regulate trade with foreign powers. It is manifest that the regulation of trade with the several States was altogether a secondary object, suggested by and adopted in connection with the other. If the power necessary to this system of improvement is included under either branch of this grant, I should suppose that it was the first rather than the second. The pretension to it, however, under that branch has never been set up. In support of the claim under the second no reason has been assigned which appears to have the least weight.
Such is a brief history of the origin, progress, and consequences of a system which for more than thirty years after the adoption of the Constitution was unknown. The greatest embarrassment upon the subject consists in the departure which has taken place from the early construction of the Constitution and the precedents which are found in the legislation of Congress in later years. President Jackson, in his veto of the Wabash River bill, declares that “to inherent embarrassments have been added others resulting from the course of our legislation concerning it.” In his vetoes on the Maysville road bill, the Rockville road bill, the Wabash River bill, and other bills of like character he reversed the precedents which existed prior to that time on the subject of internal improvements. When our experience, observation, and reflection have convinced us that a legislative precedent is either unwise or unconstitutional, it should not be followed.
No express grant of this power is found in the Constitution. Its advocates have differed among themselves as to the source from which it is derived as an incident. In the progress of the discussions upon this subject the power to regulate commerce seems now to be chiefly relied upon, especially in reference to the improvement of harbors and rivers.
In relation to the regulation of commerce, the language of the grant in the Constitution is:
Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.
That to “regulate commerce” does not mean to make a road, or dig a canal, or clear out a river, or deepen a harbor would seem to be obvious to the common understanding. To “regulate” admits or affirms the preexistence of the thing to be regulated. In this case it presupposes the existence of commerce, and, of course, the means by which and the channels through which commerce is carried on. It confers no creative power; it only assumes control over that which may have been brought into existence through other agencies, such as State legislation and the industry and enterprise of individuals. If the definition of the word “regulate” is to include the provision of means to carry on commerce, then have Congress not only power to deepen harbors, clear out rivers, dig canals, and make roads, but also to build ships, railroad cars, and other vehicles, all of which are necessary to commerce. There is no middle ground. If the power to regulate can be legitimately construed into a power to create or facilitate, then not only the bays and harbors, but the roads and canals and all the means of transporting merchandise among the several States, are put at the disposition of Congress. This power to regulate commerce was construed and exercised immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, and has been exercised to the present day, by prescribing general rules by which commerce should be conducted. With foreign nations it has been regulated by treaties defining the rights of citizens and subjects, as well as by acts of Congress imposing duties and restrictions embracing vessels, seamen, cargoes, and passengers. It has been regulated among the States by acts of Congress relating to the coasting trade and the vessels employed therein, and for the better security of passengers in vessels propelled by steam, and by the removal of all restrictions upon internal trade. It has been regulated, with the Indian tribes by our intercourse laws, prescribing the manner in which it shall be carried on. Thus each branch of this grant of power was exercised soon after the adoption of the Constitution, and has continued to be exercised to the present day. If a more extended construction be adopted, it is impossible for the human mind to fix on a limit to the exercise of the power other than the will and discretion of Congress. It sweeps into the vortex of national power and jurisdiction not only harbors and inlets, rivers and little streams, but canals, turnpikes, and railroads–every species of improvement which can facilitate or create trade and intercourse “with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”
Should any great object of improvement exist in our widely extended country which can not be effected by means of tonnage duties levied by the States with the concurrence of Congress, it is safer and wiser to apply to the States in the mode prescribed by the Constitution for an amendment of that instrument whereby the powers of the General Government may be enlarged, with such limitations and restrictions as experience has shown to be proper, than to assume and exercise a power which has not been granted, or which may be regarded as doubtful in the opinion of a large portion of our constituents. This course has been recommended successively by Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson, and I fully concur with them in opinion. If an enlargement of power should be deemed proper, it will unquestionably be granted by the States; if otherwise, it will be withheld; and in either case their decision should be final. In the meantime I deem it proper to add that the investigation of this subject has impressed me more strongly than ever with the solemn conviction that the usefulness and permanency of this Government and the happiness of the millions over whom it spreads its protection will be best promoted by carefully abstaining from the exercise of all powers not clearly granted by the Constitution.
JAMES K. POLK.
PROCLAMATION.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas a treaty of peace, friendship, limits, and settlement between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic was concluded and signed at the city of Guadalupe Hidalgo on the 2d day of February, 1848, which treaty, as amended by the Senate of the United States, and being in the English and Spanish languages, is word for word as follows:
[Here follows the treaty.]
And whereas the said treaty, as amended, has been duly ratified on both parts, and the respective ratifications of the same were exchanged at Queretaro on the 30th day of May last by Ambrose H. Sevier and Nathan Clifford, commissioners on the part of the Government of the United States, and by Senor Don Luis de la Rosa, minister of relations of the Mexican Republic, on the part of that Government:
Now, therefore, be it known that I, James K. Polk, President of the United States of America, have caused the said treaty to be made public, to the end that the same and every clause and article thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof.
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 4th day of July, 1848, and of the Independence of the United States the seventy-third.
JAMES K. POLK.
By the President:
JAMES BUCHANAN,
_Secretary of State_.
EXECUTIVE ORDER.
GENERAL ORDERS, No. 9.
WAR DEPARTMENT, Adjutant-General’s Office,
_Washington, February 24, 1848_.
I. The following orders of the President of the United States and Secretary of War announce to the Army the death of the illustrious ex-President John Quincy Adams:
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
WASHINGTON, _February 24, 1848_.
It has pleased Divine Providence to call hence a great and patriotic citizen. John Quincy Adams is no more. At the advanced age of more than fourscore years, he was suddenly stricken from his seat in the House of Representatives by the hand of disease on the 21st, and expired in the Capitol a few minutes after 7 o’clock on the evening of the 23d of February, 1848.
He had for more than half a century filled the most important public stations, and among them that of President of the United States. The two Houses of Congress, of one of which he was a venerable and most distinguished member, will doubtless prescribe appropriate ceremonies to be observed as a mark of respect for the memory of this eminent citizen.
The nation mourns his loss; and as a further testimony of respect for his memory I direct that all the executive offices at Washington be placed in mourning and that all business be suspended during this day and to-morrow.
JAMES K. POLK.
WAR DEPARTMENT, _February 24, 1848_.
The President of the United States with deep regret announces to the Army the death of John Quincy Adams, our eminent and venerated fellow-citizen.
While occupying his seat as a member of the House of Representatives, on the 21st instant he was suddenly prostrated by disease, and on the 23d expired, without having been removed from the Capitol. He had filled many honorable and responsible stations in the service of his country, and among them that of President of the United States; and he closed his long and eventful life in the actual discharge of his duties as one of the Representatives of the people.
From sympathy with his relatives and the American people for his loss and from respect for his distinguished public services, the President orders that funeral honors shall be paid to his memory at each of the military stations.
The Adjutant-General will give the necessary instructions for carrying into effect the foregoing orders.
W.L. MARCY,
_Secretary of War_.
II. On the day succeeding the arrival of this general order at each military post the troops will be paraded at 10 o’clock a.m. and the order read to them, after which all labors for the day will cease.
The national flag will be displayed at half-staff.
At dawn of day thirteen guns will be fired, and afterwards, at intervals of thirty minutes between the rising and setting sun, a single gun, and at the close of the day a national salute of twenty-nine guns.
The officers of the Army will wear crape on the left arm and on their swords and the colors of the several regiments will be put in mourning for the period of six months.
By order:
R. JONES,
_Adjutant-General._
FOURTH ANNUAL MESSAGE.
WASHINGTON, _December 5, 1848_.
_Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives_: